The following is an essay I wrote recently for a Psychology101 class. I know it sort of only really amounts to an Argumentum ad misicordium, but still, I spent about 2 days straight writing it, so I figured I'd share it all with you (It was written in MS word, and so the formating here is kind of messed up, but I'm too lazy to fix it):
Psychological Issues Regarding Homosexuals as a Disliked Minority
Prepared
For
Professor blah
By
blah
At
University of blah
In
PSY101
Submitted: April 22, 2003
In contemporary American Society, there is a problematic blend of growing acceptance, and at the same time, ardent opposition toward homosexuals, and homosexual rights. American society today, it seems, is still in the process of deciding just where homosexuals fit. The issue of homosexuality is, at least, a thing currently open to debate, and acknowledged as a valid topic, however no real social consensus yet exists. At the same time in this nation, one can see very strong examples both in favor of, and against homosexuals, respectively. Examples of this duality can be observed quite easily to anyone who pays attention to contemporary media. Many television programs, such as MTV¡¦s The Real World, with its consistent single homosexual cast member (despite a new cast with each season), and the sitcom Will and Grace, with its gimmicky focus on the topic, feature homosexual characters freely without attempting to be terribly edgy or offensive, appealing instead to large mainstream demographics, showing that homosexuality is not quite the taboo issue that it may have been just a few decades ago. On the other hand, acceptance of homosexuality is, as previously stated, and issue, meaning there is another side contesting this growing atmosphere of acceptance. This can be seen in many layers of society, from the fact that young children¡¦s vocabulary of insults in recent years rely heavily on the terms ¡§faggot, queer, and gay¡¨ even to the point where exclaiming that something is ¡§gay¡¨ is unambiguously negative, and used to describe just about anything of which the user does not approve, even when no direct derision or disapproval of homosexuals is intended. Using ¡§gay¡¨ in this way, is such an ingrained part of modern slang that many people who have no ill feelings toward homosexuals, and even some younger homosexuals themselves use it without thinking of the implied connotations. It is clear evidence of a deep-rooted societal climate of disapproval toward homosexuality. There are many other instances which show the disapproval of homosexuality in American society, including the fact that, as any openly homosexual individual can surely attest, they are still commonly victims of verbal abuse, and if one follows the news closely one can also see that homosexuals are still a popular target for violence. The largest factor that shows that there is still a large social support for anti-homosexual sentiments, is the fact that discriminatory laws that exist in America today, and despite common misconceptions, are still enforced. In such a strange dual atmosphere such as this, where both tolerance and discrimination are freely preached, a homosexual will likely feel more tempted to be ¡§open¡¨ about his sexual orientation, due to the promising appeal of growing acceptance, and as such is much more likely to come in direct confrontation with those are against them. This can make for a climate, in which far more conflict regarding this present issue, then there would be in a society with more unipolarization of public opinion. Homosexuals are a minority group that is discriminated against, and contested on the grounds of their very right to exist. As such, Homosexuals are subject to certain pressures and certain circumstances that can effect their general mental well being, which heterosexuals, and even other minority groups would not otherwise be subjected to.
A common problem facing homosexuals is that of negative stereotypes and misconceptions. This is a problem most commonly applied to ethnic groups, rather than being based on any actual behavior in a person, which makes the idea of stereotypes for homosexuals qualitatively unique in its own right. For the most part these stereotypes are not very different from those that may be applied to any of various ethnic groups. For instance, everyone knows that all Italians have mob connections, and likewise all gay men talk with a lisp; All black women are sassy and vocal, and all lesbians like to cut their hair short, and act ¡§butch¡¨, All Englishmen have bad teeth, and all bisexuals are just slutty. One slight difference between stereotypes assigned to ethnic groups, and those assigned to homosexuals, is that there has been a large push to try to denounce the idea of ethnic stereotypes, In America. It is considered socially conscientious, and morally right to point out that everyone is an individual, and may not conform to preconceived notions which one may have about them, and to some degree it is reasonable to assume that this idea applies to stereotypes associated with homosexuals. However, unlike ethnic groups, the idea of what makes someone a homosexual seems for some reason, to be obscured in American society, be it from the fact that heterosexuals do not enjoy thinking at length about the idea of partners of the same sex being together, and as such the defining factor of what makes someone a homosexual losing its lucidity, or some other factor, some stereotypes regarding homosexuals are often seen as simply being part of what defines a homosexual. As such a homosexual may be likely to wish to avoid taking any action which may consequently let others around him, be they co-workers, or friendly acquaintances, know that he is gay. As the homosexual internet radio personality ¡§2¡¨ puts it, ¡§I¡¦m afraid to tell people I¡¦m gay because I don¡¦t want them to think I¡¦m going to whip out a dress and start dragging Celien Dion right there in front of everybody¡¨ (¡§2¡¨ [2@ranting-gryphon.com], his personal web page, http://www.werewolves.org/~two/index2.htm ). 2¡¦s statements on this topic are, characteristically, and intentionally exaggerated to seem more entertaining and humorous, however the message is still clear: He has reservations about allowing people to know that he is a homosexual because he understands that the general societal view of homosexuals carries along with it certain very unwanted and bizarre stereotypes, which he would not like others to believe about him. Aside from these comparatively beginning stereotypes, there are some misconceptions about homosexuals, which, excluding the ridiculous and hateful idea of an evil Jewish world banking conspiracy, have almost no comparable counterparts in the world of ethnic prejudice. These ideas include, though are not limited to, the idea that all homosexuals are hedonists, promiscuous, hate members of the opposite sex, hate heterosexuals, wish to ¡§convert¡¨ heterosexuals to homosexuality, diseased, prone to drug addiction, and that they are more likely to commit sex crimes such as rape or child molestation. These misconceptions have very little if any basis in reality. A rather extreme example of these stereotypes in action can be seen in the writings of Pastor Fred Phelps, on the web site maintained by his Westboro Baptist Church, in Topeka Kansas. According to his doctrine, ¡§Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy, and in many cases, violent lives.¡¨ (Unclear author affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church, http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fagfacts.html). Admittedly, the opinion of a extremist fringe Baptist Church can not be said to be a major contributing factor to the climate in American society at large. However, these views are quite indicative of the opinions of America¡¦s Religious right wing, which does have a significant role in creating public opinion of morality, and even persuading America¡¦s governmental bodies. Quite often, these ideas are used as rhetoric for those arguing why homosexuals are inherently immoral. Religious motives aside, many people still believe that anal sex causes illness (as opposed to simply providing conditions for a disease to be transmitted, in much the same way any form of unprotected sexual intercourse would). Many people believe that homosexuals are not capable of maintaining a stable healthy relationship, or that if they are, they are somehow unfit to raise a child. In short, there are many people who have some very strange, or flat out incorrect ideas about what makes a person homosexual, and what connotations are associated with homosexuality. It is not difficult to see how this could cause one a good deal of undue stress and anguish, which could impact one¡¦s mental wellbeing.
Another concern that could have adverse effects on the wellbeing of a homosexual is choosing to remain ¡§in the closet¡¨ (that being the decision to hide, and actively deny one¡¦s own sexual orientation). When being openly gay exposes one to so many bizarre stereotypes, and what amounts to hateful lies, the urge to simply hide one¡¦s sexuality can often be overwhelming. Despite the fact that there is growing tolerance and acceptance in American society, there are still a lot of very disheartening, and frightening things which await an openly homosexual person (some of which have been touched on already in this essay, with a few more yet to come), such that the idea of remaining closeted seems more appealing. Some may contest, that hiding one¡¦s homosexuality is not such a difficult or painful thing to accomplish. After all, as a common argument goes, so long as one isn¡¦t doing it in public, or marching in some kind of pride parade, who¡¦s to know weather or not someone is a homosexual, right? The truth is that it is a lot more complicated than that. Regarding just anyone on the street knowing, it is not such an issue. Admittedly, though no gratuitous physical display of affection is necessary for people around a homosexual couple to realize that they are together in more than just a platonic sense. From mild displays of affection, such as holding hands, sitting closely together on a park bench, or in a movie theater which has more than enough seating to allow for the pair involved to sit apart (this being especially true among gay men, who will often find themselves in violation of the unwritten social tenant which states that two straight men must leave at least one seat, or a reasonable space between each other for the expressed purpose of showing that they may be friends, but are not boyfriends), to instances, where two members of the same sex are quite clearly on a date, such as when they are sitting together at a restaurant, and their body language can clearly show that they are not merely passively enjoying the company of a friend„h, it does not always take so much as a graphic display of some sexual act in public to alert people that a pair are romantically involved with one another. It is worth noting however, that it is most often not the major concern of a homosexual weather or not a large group of strangers whom he or she will likely never see again catches on to the idea that he or she is a homosexual. Though it can cause some discomfort if someone in the crowd happens to be the sort to be bold and vocal enough to take issue directly with that person, but for the most part the point of staying closeted is to hide one¡¦s sexual orientation from friends and loved ones who may not approve. Although this issue affects homosexuals of all ages, the urge to remain closeted for fear of repercussions from friends and loved ones is a problem that effects younger homosexuals in the most adverse way. This can easily and directly be attributed to the fact that the opinion of a young person¡¦s family, especially the parents, is far more crucial in his or her life, than in that of an adult, and to throw an issue at them so large as their own child¡¦s homosexuality can have devastating consequences. For a young person to admit his or her homosexuality to his or her parents potentially leaves them wide open for an unwelcome range of related issues which may spring from their parents own prejudices, preconceptions, or simple lack of understanding regarding the issue of homosexuality. After the initial confrontation there will almost always be a period of initial shock to get over, where emotional tension is high. After this there could be denial, or refusal of the parents to accept the situation. It is also common for a parent in this situation to refuse to accept that their child is a homosexual, and punish them in some way, or possibly send them to counseling. Perhaps the most extreme and unfortunate issue which may arise, is the youth¡¦s parents turning their back on him or her, and throwing them out/disowning them. LAMBDA, a non-profit organization dedicated to education about homosexuality, and promoting tolerance and acceptance regarding homosexual issues, reports that, ¡§An estimated 40% of street kids are lesbian or gay. These youth have either run away or been thrown out of their homes. Many get involved with prostitution and other abusive behaviors as a way of surviving¡¨ (LAMBDA Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered community services, http://www.lambda.org/youth.htm). The problem of parents abandoning gay children is certainly one that would drive young homosexuals to remain closeted at all costs. Though it may be better than the possibility of that alternative, being closeted certainly has its own negative issues. Keeping a secret that deals with a significant and important aspect of one¡¦s life and personality, and which will require one to flat out lie, on a regular basis to the ones he or she loves the most, carries with it many obvious negative repercussions. There¡¦s a certain lack of dignity and self esteem which one can develop, when one feels forced to look, day after day, into the eyes of one¡¦s loved ones, and suddenly realize that oneself is just too weak to be able to handle what it could mean to finally tell the truth and risk everything that goes along with it. Naturally, this state can lead to self-loathing, and even paranoia. One will likely distance oneself more and more from one¡¦s loved ones, becoming ever more aware of the feeling that they are now the enemy, and the ones which they must guard against. Remaining closeted will almost always result in one becoming more and more reclusive, when it comes to dealing with family members and friends. Despite being an alluring prospect, when taking into consideration the ordeals an openly gay person must endure, remaining closeted certainly has its own damaging aspects, and if the past few sentences regarding that fact have seemed a bit more poetic, or emotional than the tone of the majority of this paper, then one may be correct in the assertion that this is because the author¡¦s own personal experience in this matter is too compelling to him to allow him to write a clearer or more unbiased assessment of the problem.
Setting aside minor external problems, such as negative stereotypes and misconceptions perpetuated for hateful agendas, as well as internal conflicts, such as closeting; both previously discussed, there still more, and even larger problems facing homosexuals in contemporary American Society. Most notably these problems are anti-homosexual organizations. Given, there are very few, if any real or notable organizations who¡¦s existence is purely to discriminate or show hatred toward homosexuals. However many large and influential bodies do have this as a part of their internal policy or doctrine. One of the most notable instances of such groups is the radical religious right. It is they who keep the term ¡§Sodomite¡¨ in common parlance, and though their focus certainly isn¡¦t purely on homosexuals, most diehard conservative Christians agree that homosexuals are immoral, and take their sexual orientation as some sort of personal insult to their religious beliefs. It is people, with beliefs like these, which portray homosexuality as somehow, indefinably and mysteriously immoral, who are responsible for a large portion of the violent assaults against homosexuals. It should be noted that not every Christian, even those who are of particularly devout faith, have a hatred, or even a dislike of homosexuals, however, it is undeniable that there is a large number of Americans who would use their faith as their justification for bigotry. Even if the radical religious right is not a majority in America, they certainly shout loud enough to cause distress among homosexuals, and perhaps even to upset those distant from, and without opinion on the issue. Some groups, such as the previously quoted Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka Kansas, go so far as to travel the nation protesting homosexual weddings, displaying signs which read, ¡§Aids cures fags¡¨ and ¡§Fags die, God laughs¡¨, and even picketing outside of the funerals of homosexuals, all of which can be seen in their photo archives at http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photoarchive.html. There is an element of violent and reasonless hatred against homosexuality still present in America. Small, though it may be, it makes a lot of unwanted noise, and is quite enough to put some people on edge. In a climate such as this, it is no wonder that organizations such as the Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org/) exist. The Pink Pistol¡¦s aim is, as stated on their home page,
"In those states [which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons], homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. " (Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000, as reported at http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2.html).
The Pink Pistols are an organization which, spurred on by a perceived climate of hostility, and possible threat of violence against homosexuals, urges them to legally obtain, and learn the proper use of fire arms for self defense, and to be as vocal about it as possible. Further more, they seem to be hoping to add a new clause to what most Americans think of when the stereotypical homosexual, that being that they are armed and able to defend themselves. The fact that such a group exists is a clear indicator that at least some homosexuals feel threatened, to the point where they fear for their physical well being, by the climate of American society today. Another group that holds biases against, and seeks to discriminate against homosexuals may surprise some readers. The Governing bodies of the United States itself, both state and federal, are perhaps the most active flagrant, and certainly the most effective discriminatory group working against homosexuals. For example, a homosexual living in the state of Arizona is subject to several homosexual specific laws. Firstly, there are limits on what can be taught in Arizona schools regarding homosexuality:
¡§C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style LIFESTYLE.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style LIFESTYLE.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.¡¨
(SB 1142, REFERENCE TITLE: schools; sex education, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.htm).
This piece of legislation essentially prohibits teaching homosexuality in any way that would suggest that it could be healthy and fulfilling for some people, or that it is one of several recognized valid sexual orientations. In fact the wording, which goes to great pains to call homosexuality a ¡§Lifestyle¡¨, to the point where it was actually revised to make the phrase one word, shows the mindset of the legislators. The term ¡§Lifestyle¡¨ as it applies to the issue of homosexuality is used to depict homosexuality as a ¡§Lifestyle choice¡¨ in order to create the illusion that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. This, however is something which many people, homosexuals and a great deal of other people as well agree simply is not true. On the issue of ¡§Lifestyle Choice¡¨ versus natural sexual orientation, previously quoted homosexual internet radio personality, 2, has this to say,
¡§If being gay is a choice that you can blame people for making, then it must be a choice that everyone has the ability to make, so you do it! That¡¦s right, I dare you to try this. You sit down for five minuets, just for five minuets, and you decide to be attracted to the same sex.¡¨ (2).
The point which 2 is attempting to make, is that homosexuality is not something which one can turn on or off. If it were so simple a matter as that of a ¡§Lifestyle choice¡¨ then perhaps those who are against homosexuals should try being a homosexual for even just a short period of time in the comfort of their own homes, just to get a new perspective on what exactly it is that they are against. Also on the books in Arizona, there is the fairly standard anti-homosexual marriage law, ¡§C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.¡¨ (25-101. Void and prohibited marriages, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/25/00101.htm). This statute clearly discriminates against homosexuals by not legally allowing them to marry, hence denying them literally hundreds of statuses and legal considerations which they should be entitled to. Such benefits range from health care benefits which their employers are willing to provide to spouses of employees, to custody rights in the event of a divorce (the divorce of a marriage which legally never existed), to credibility and a rightful image of trustworthiness when it comes to adopting a child. This sort of law is extremely common in the United States. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, ¡§Currently, 35 states have laws that limit recognition of marriage to straight couples¡¨ (ACLU Press release, May 22, 2002 http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n052202b.html). That, however is perhaps a moot point, as homosexual marriages are already outlawed on a federal level, meaning that no homosexual couple in any state or province of the United States can obtain a legally binding marriage license. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, proposed by supporters of the radical religious right, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, eager to win over last minuet support from more voters on the conservative end of the political spectrum on this election year, this bill both set forth federal standards for what a marriage is (that being a union between one man and one woman), and allowed states which do not recognize homosexual marriages as being valid institutions, to ignore those marriages which were performed in states that do (completely ignoring the constitution¡¦s full faith and credit clause, which should make this impossible). A similar injustice is the fact that some states still have, and enforce anti-sodomy laws, some of which apply specifically to homosexuals, but not to heterosexuals. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, one such law is being contested. In this particular instance, police were called to the home of the defendant, by a neighbor on unrelated allegations, where the defendant was apparently caught in violation of a very old Texas law which prohibits homosexual sodomy even in the privacy of one¡¦s own bedroom. The ACLU claims that, ¡§Approximately 20 states still have laws which criminalize some forms of private sexual intimacy, some only between members of the same sex¡¨ (ACLU Lesbian & Gay rights page http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm). The negative social and psychological connotations that are inherent with criminalizing physical intimacy are obvious. If a state makes the act of physically intimacy illegal for homosexuals, and certainly if such laws are enforced, the message is clear: The government does not like homosexuals, and to be one is a criminal offense. Aside from these formal laws which discriminate against homosexuals, the United States Military, one of the largest employers in the nation, not only has anti-homosexual policies, but is allowed to discharge, or fire, any of its employees found to be of homosexual orientation, with impunity. Suppression of education, denial of marriage, criminalizing intimacy, and random firings may not seem, to some thick skinned individuals, to be a terribly large crisis, however there are some things to keep in mind when it comes to a government actively discriminating against its people. Whereas certain other hostilities and prejudices, such as the ranting of Fred Phelps and his flock are easily dismissable, on the grounds that there simply isn¡¦t much to back them up, nothing but hateful ideologies, and flawed theology, when the government (especially this American Democracy) makes a decision it is supposed to be with the best interest and the will of the people in mind. When the government¡¦s decision discriminates against groups of its people, it means that the government is no longer working for these people, nor does it have their best interests in mind. If the legal rational authority granted by actions genuinely in the favor of the governed, is not what backs up the decisions and mandates of a government, then what is backing it up? In this instance, the answer is as simple as it is shocking, these discriminatory laws and statutes are backed up by nothing more than the barrel of the gun. The only reason that a homosexual must adhere to them is because the government has the men and weapons to enforce them. These laws are not in the best interest of homosexuals, nor do they provide the rest of the heterosexual constituency with any protection or security that they are in need of, or entitled to. In simpler terms, homosexuals face some very significant opposition from vocal extremist groups who would contest their very right to live, and from the government itself, the supreme sanctioning body in American society. The simple truth is that allowance of due civil rights promotes mental wellbeing, and the denial of them is detrimental to it.
By this point one should easily be able to see that being a homosexual in contemporary American Society means dealing with the conflicting nature of the duality of its conflicting camps on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuals are stereotyped and misinformation is spread about them as readily as any ethnic group that has ever been discriminated against in this nation. Conflicts within a homosexual¡¦s life coming from friends, family who can not accept the idea of his or her sexual orientation or even internally are still bad enough that parents sometimes end up disowning their children. Meanwhile, the religious right attacks homosexuals on a fundamental level, contesting their very right to live. All while the government imposes and continues to enforce discriminatory legislation against them. When these factors are looked at together, it is not terrible difficult to imagine why homosexuals insist on holding enormous pride marches, and other such events. It is no wonder that they form organizations and band together, and are routinely taking homosexual issues to court to sue on grounds of discrimination, or to challenge the government in the laws which it has set down. The condition of the homosexual in America today is not unlike that of the African-American in the 50s-60s. When a minority is oppressed so unjustly, and so unabashedly; when rational reasonable people are denied their rights based upon arbitrary differences, and are denied the civil liberties, which in a free and just nation should rightly be theirs, it is only natural that they should fight back. In closing, one should be able to see quite clearly, now, that homosexuals in modern America still have quite a long ways to go before their rights are theirs, and society has finally laid the ¡§issue¡¨ of homosexuality to rest in the inevitable, and only moral way in which it can: acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation. Until then, there will be a number of circumstances which homosexuals will have to face, which no person who lives in a nation which is otherwise so fundamentally against infringing on the rights and harmless practices of it¡¦s people, should have to go through.
Sources
2, http://www.werewolves.org/~two/index2.htm
Westboro Baptist Church ¡§Fag facts¡¨, http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fagfacts.html
Westboro Baptist Church Photo Archive, http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photoarchive.html
Lambda GLBT community service, youth OUTreach, http://www.lambda.org/youth.htm
Pink Pistols home page, http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2.html
Arizona State Legislature, SB 1142, REFERENCE TITLE: schools; sex education, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.htm
Arizona State Legislature, 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/25/00101.htm
ACLU Press release, May 22, 2002, http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n052202b.html
ACLU Lesbian & Gay rights page, http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm
(Just a reminder to all plagiarists out there, I maintain the exclusive copyright to this essay, and you are only allowed to redistribute it if you get express permission from me)
Psychological Issues Regarding Homosexuals as a Disliked Minority
Prepared
For
Professor blah
By
blah
At
University of blah
In
PSY101
Submitted: April 22, 2003
In contemporary American Society, there is a problematic blend of growing acceptance, and at the same time, ardent opposition toward homosexuals, and homosexual rights. American society today, it seems, is still in the process of deciding just where homosexuals fit. The issue of homosexuality is, at least, a thing currently open to debate, and acknowledged as a valid topic, however no real social consensus yet exists. At the same time in this nation, one can see very strong examples both in favor of, and against homosexuals, respectively. Examples of this duality can be observed quite easily to anyone who pays attention to contemporary media. Many television programs, such as MTV¡¦s The Real World, with its consistent single homosexual cast member (despite a new cast with each season), and the sitcom Will and Grace, with its gimmicky focus on the topic, feature homosexual characters freely without attempting to be terribly edgy or offensive, appealing instead to large mainstream demographics, showing that homosexuality is not quite the taboo issue that it may have been just a few decades ago. On the other hand, acceptance of homosexuality is, as previously stated, and issue, meaning there is another side contesting this growing atmosphere of acceptance. This can be seen in many layers of society, from the fact that young children¡¦s vocabulary of insults in recent years rely heavily on the terms ¡§faggot, queer, and gay¡¨ even to the point where exclaiming that something is ¡§gay¡¨ is unambiguously negative, and used to describe just about anything of which the user does not approve, even when no direct derision or disapproval of homosexuals is intended. Using ¡§gay¡¨ in this way, is such an ingrained part of modern slang that many people who have no ill feelings toward homosexuals, and even some younger homosexuals themselves use it without thinking of the implied connotations. It is clear evidence of a deep-rooted societal climate of disapproval toward homosexuality. There are many other instances which show the disapproval of homosexuality in American society, including the fact that, as any openly homosexual individual can surely attest, they are still commonly victims of verbal abuse, and if one follows the news closely one can also see that homosexuals are still a popular target for violence. The largest factor that shows that there is still a large social support for anti-homosexual sentiments, is the fact that discriminatory laws that exist in America today, and despite common misconceptions, are still enforced. In such a strange dual atmosphere such as this, where both tolerance and discrimination are freely preached, a homosexual will likely feel more tempted to be ¡§open¡¨ about his sexual orientation, due to the promising appeal of growing acceptance, and as such is much more likely to come in direct confrontation with those are against them. This can make for a climate, in which far more conflict regarding this present issue, then there would be in a society with more unipolarization of public opinion. Homosexuals are a minority group that is discriminated against, and contested on the grounds of their very right to exist. As such, Homosexuals are subject to certain pressures and certain circumstances that can effect their general mental well being, which heterosexuals, and even other minority groups would not otherwise be subjected to.
A common problem facing homosexuals is that of negative stereotypes and misconceptions. This is a problem most commonly applied to ethnic groups, rather than being based on any actual behavior in a person, which makes the idea of stereotypes for homosexuals qualitatively unique in its own right. For the most part these stereotypes are not very different from those that may be applied to any of various ethnic groups. For instance, everyone knows that all Italians have mob connections, and likewise all gay men talk with a lisp; All black women are sassy and vocal, and all lesbians like to cut their hair short, and act ¡§butch¡¨, All Englishmen have bad teeth, and all bisexuals are just slutty. One slight difference between stereotypes assigned to ethnic groups, and those assigned to homosexuals, is that there has been a large push to try to denounce the idea of ethnic stereotypes, In America. It is considered socially conscientious, and morally right to point out that everyone is an individual, and may not conform to preconceived notions which one may have about them, and to some degree it is reasonable to assume that this idea applies to stereotypes associated with homosexuals. However, unlike ethnic groups, the idea of what makes someone a homosexual seems for some reason, to be obscured in American society, be it from the fact that heterosexuals do not enjoy thinking at length about the idea of partners of the same sex being together, and as such the defining factor of what makes someone a homosexual losing its lucidity, or some other factor, some stereotypes regarding homosexuals are often seen as simply being part of what defines a homosexual. As such a homosexual may be likely to wish to avoid taking any action which may consequently let others around him, be they co-workers, or friendly acquaintances, know that he is gay. As the homosexual internet radio personality ¡§2¡¨ puts it, ¡§I¡¦m afraid to tell people I¡¦m gay because I don¡¦t want them to think I¡¦m going to whip out a dress and start dragging Celien Dion right there in front of everybody¡¨ (¡§2¡¨ [2@ranting-gryphon.com], his personal web page, http://www.werewolves.org/~two/index2.htm ). 2¡¦s statements on this topic are, characteristically, and intentionally exaggerated to seem more entertaining and humorous, however the message is still clear: He has reservations about allowing people to know that he is a homosexual because he understands that the general societal view of homosexuals carries along with it certain very unwanted and bizarre stereotypes, which he would not like others to believe about him. Aside from these comparatively beginning stereotypes, there are some misconceptions about homosexuals, which, excluding the ridiculous and hateful idea of an evil Jewish world banking conspiracy, have almost no comparable counterparts in the world of ethnic prejudice. These ideas include, though are not limited to, the idea that all homosexuals are hedonists, promiscuous, hate members of the opposite sex, hate heterosexuals, wish to ¡§convert¡¨ heterosexuals to homosexuality, diseased, prone to drug addiction, and that they are more likely to commit sex crimes such as rape or child molestation. These misconceptions have very little if any basis in reality. A rather extreme example of these stereotypes in action can be seen in the writings of Pastor Fred Phelps, on the web site maintained by his Westboro Baptist Church, in Topeka Kansas. According to his doctrine, ¡§Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy, and in many cases, violent lives.¡¨ (Unclear author affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church, http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fagfacts.html). Admittedly, the opinion of a extremist fringe Baptist Church can not be said to be a major contributing factor to the climate in American society at large. However, these views are quite indicative of the opinions of America¡¦s Religious right wing, which does have a significant role in creating public opinion of morality, and even persuading America¡¦s governmental bodies. Quite often, these ideas are used as rhetoric for those arguing why homosexuals are inherently immoral. Religious motives aside, many people still believe that anal sex causes illness (as opposed to simply providing conditions for a disease to be transmitted, in much the same way any form of unprotected sexual intercourse would). Many people believe that homosexuals are not capable of maintaining a stable healthy relationship, or that if they are, they are somehow unfit to raise a child. In short, there are many people who have some very strange, or flat out incorrect ideas about what makes a person homosexual, and what connotations are associated with homosexuality. It is not difficult to see how this could cause one a good deal of undue stress and anguish, which could impact one¡¦s mental wellbeing.
Another concern that could have adverse effects on the wellbeing of a homosexual is choosing to remain ¡§in the closet¡¨ (that being the decision to hide, and actively deny one¡¦s own sexual orientation). When being openly gay exposes one to so many bizarre stereotypes, and what amounts to hateful lies, the urge to simply hide one¡¦s sexuality can often be overwhelming. Despite the fact that there is growing tolerance and acceptance in American society, there are still a lot of very disheartening, and frightening things which await an openly homosexual person (some of which have been touched on already in this essay, with a few more yet to come), such that the idea of remaining closeted seems more appealing. Some may contest, that hiding one¡¦s homosexuality is not such a difficult or painful thing to accomplish. After all, as a common argument goes, so long as one isn¡¦t doing it in public, or marching in some kind of pride parade, who¡¦s to know weather or not someone is a homosexual, right? The truth is that it is a lot more complicated than that. Regarding just anyone on the street knowing, it is not such an issue. Admittedly, though no gratuitous physical display of affection is necessary for people around a homosexual couple to realize that they are together in more than just a platonic sense. From mild displays of affection, such as holding hands, sitting closely together on a park bench, or in a movie theater which has more than enough seating to allow for the pair involved to sit apart (this being especially true among gay men, who will often find themselves in violation of the unwritten social tenant which states that two straight men must leave at least one seat, or a reasonable space between each other for the expressed purpose of showing that they may be friends, but are not boyfriends), to instances, where two members of the same sex are quite clearly on a date, such as when they are sitting together at a restaurant, and their body language can clearly show that they are not merely passively enjoying the company of a friend„h, it does not always take so much as a graphic display of some sexual act in public to alert people that a pair are romantically involved with one another. It is worth noting however, that it is most often not the major concern of a homosexual weather or not a large group of strangers whom he or she will likely never see again catches on to the idea that he or she is a homosexual. Though it can cause some discomfort if someone in the crowd happens to be the sort to be bold and vocal enough to take issue directly with that person, but for the most part the point of staying closeted is to hide one¡¦s sexual orientation from friends and loved ones who may not approve. Although this issue affects homosexuals of all ages, the urge to remain closeted for fear of repercussions from friends and loved ones is a problem that effects younger homosexuals in the most adverse way. This can easily and directly be attributed to the fact that the opinion of a young person¡¦s family, especially the parents, is far more crucial in his or her life, than in that of an adult, and to throw an issue at them so large as their own child¡¦s homosexuality can have devastating consequences. For a young person to admit his or her homosexuality to his or her parents potentially leaves them wide open for an unwelcome range of related issues which may spring from their parents own prejudices, preconceptions, or simple lack of understanding regarding the issue of homosexuality. After the initial confrontation there will almost always be a period of initial shock to get over, where emotional tension is high. After this there could be denial, or refusal of the parents to accept the situation. It is also common for a parent in this situation to refuse to accept that their child is a homosexual, and punish them in some way, or possibly send them to counseling. Perhaps the most extreme and unfortunate issue which may arise, is the youth¡¦s parents turning their back on him or her, and throwing them out/disowning them. LAMBDA, a non-profit organization dedicated to education about homosexuality, and promoting tolerance and acceptance regarding homosexual issues, reports that, ¡§An estimated 40% of street kids are lesbian or gay. These youth have either run away or been thrown out of their homes. Many get involved with prostitution and other abusive behaviors as a way of surviving¡¨ (LAMBDA Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered community services, http://www.lambda.org/youth.htm). The problem of parents abandoning gay children is certainly one that would drive young homosexuals to remain closeted at all costs. Though it may be better than the possibility of that alternative, being closeted certainly has its own negative issues. Keeping a secret that deals with a significant and important aspect of one¡¦s life and personality, and which will require one to flat out lie, on a regular basis to the ones he or she loves the most, carries with it many obvious negative repercussions. There¡¦s a certain lack of dignity and self esteem which one can develop, when one feels forced to look, day after day, into the eyes of one¡¦s loved ones, and suddenly realize that oneself is just too weak to be able to handle what it could mean to finally tell the truth and risk everything that goes along with it. Naturally, this state can lead to self-loathing, and even paranoia. One will likely distance oneself more and more from one¡¦s loved ones, becoming ever more aware of the feeling that they are now the enemy, and the ones which they must guard against. Remaining closeted will almost always result in one becoming more and more reclusive, when it comes to dealing with family members and friends. Despite being an alluring prospect, when taking into consideration the ordeals an openly gay person must endure, remaining closeted certainly has its own damaging aspects, and if the past few sentences regarding that fact have seemed a bit more poetic, or emotional than the tone of the majority of this paper, then one may be correct in the assertion that this is because the author¡¦s own personal experience in this matter is too compelling to him to allow him to write a clearer or more unbiased assessment of the problem.
Setting aside minor external problems, such as negative stereotypes and misconceptions perpetuated for hateful agendas, as well as internal conflicts, such as closeting; both previously discussed, there still more, and even larger problems facing homosexuals in contemporary American Society. Most notably these problems are anti-homosexual organizations. Given, there are very few, if any real or notable organizations who¡¦s existence is purely to discriminate or show hatred toward homosexuals. However many large and influential bodies do have this as a part of their internal policy or doctrine. One of the most notable instances of such groups is the radical religious right. It is they who keep the term ¡§Sodomite¡¨ in common parlance, and though their focus certainly isn¡¦t purely on homosexuals, most diehard conservative Christians agree that homosexuals are immoral, and take their sexual orientation as some sort of personal insult to their religious beliefs. It is people, with beliefs like these, which portray homosexuality as somehow, indefinably and mysteriously immoral, who are responsible for a large portion of the violent assaults against homosexuals. It should be noted that not every Christian, even those who are of particularly devout faith, have a hatred, or even a dislike of homosexuals, however, it is undeniable that there is a large number of Americans who would use their faith as their justification for bigotry. Even if the radical religious right is not a majority in America, they certainly shout loud enough to cause distress among homosexuals, and perhaps even to upset those distant from, and without opinion on the issue. Some groups, such as the previously quoted Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka Kansas, go so far as to travel the nation protesting homosexual weddings, displaying signs which read, ¡§Aids cures fags¡¨ and ¡§Fags die, God laughs¡¨, and even picketing outside of the funerals of homosexuals, all of which can be seen in their photo archives at http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photoarchive.html. There is an element of violent and reasonless hatred against homosexuality still present in America. Small, though it may be, it makes a lot of unwanted noise, and is quite enough to put some people on edge. In a climate such as this, it is no wonder that organizations such as the Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org/) exist. The Pink Pistol¡¦s aim is, as stated on their home page,
"In those states [which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons], homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. " (Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000, as reported at http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2.html).
The Pink Pistols are an organization which, spurred on by a perceived climate of hostility, and possible threat of violence against homosexuals, urges them to legally obtain, and learn the proper use of fire arms for self defense, and to be as vocal about it as possible. Further more, they seem to be hoping to add a new clause to what most Americans think of when the stereotypical homosexual, that being that they are armed and able to defend themselves. The fact that such a group exists is a clear indicator that at least some homosexuals feel threatened, to the point where they fear for their physical well being, by the climate of American society today. Another group that holds biases against, and seeks to discriminate against homosexuals may surprise some readers. The Governing bodies of the United States itself, both state and federal, are perhaps the most active flagrant, and certainly the most effective discriminatory group working against homosexuals. For example, a homosexual living in the state of Arizona is subject to several homosexual specific laws. Firstly, there are limits on what can be taught in Arizona schools regarding homosexuality:
¡§C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style LIFESTYLE.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style LIFESTYLE.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.¡¨
(SB 1142, REFERENCE TITLE: schools; sex education, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.htm).
This piece of legislation essentially prohibits teaching homosexuality in any way that would suggest that it could be healthy and fulfilling for some people, or that it is one of several recognized valid sexual orientations. In fact the wording, which goes to great pains to call homosexuality a ¡§Lifestyle¡¨, to the point where it was actually revised to make the phrase one word, shows the mindset of the legislators. The term ¡§Lifestyle¡¨ as it applies to the issue of homosexuality is used to depict homosexuality as a ¡§Lifestyle choice¡¨ in order to create the illusion that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. This, however is something which many people, homosexuals and a great deal of other people as well agree simply is not true. On the issue of ¡§Lifestyle Choice¡¨ versus natural sexual orientation, previously quoted homosexual internet radio personality, 2, has this to say,
¡§If being gay is a choice that you can blame people for making, then it must be a choice that everyone has the ability to make, so you do it! That¡¦s right, I dare you to try this. You sit down for five minuets, just for five minuets, and you decide to be attracted to the same sex.¡¨ (2).
The point which 2 is attempting to make, is that homosexuality is not something which one can turn on or off. If it were so simple a matter as that of a ¡§Lifestyle choice¡¨ then perhaps those who are against homosexuals should try being a homosexual for even just a short period of time in the comfort of their own homes, just to get a new perspective on what exactly it is that they are against. Also on the books in Arizona, there is the fairly standard anti-homosexual marriage law, ¡§C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.¡¨ (25-101. Void and prohibited marriages, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/25/00101.htm). This statute clearly discriminates against homosexuals by not legally allowing them to marry, hence denying them literally hundreds of statuses and legal considerations which they should be entitled to. Such benefits range from health care benefits which their employers are willing to provide to spouses of employees, to custody rights in the event of a divorce (the divorce of a marriage which legally never existed), to credibility and a rightful image of trustworthiness when it comes to adopting a child. This sort of law is extremely common in the United States. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, ¡§Currently, 35 states have laws that limit recognition of marriage to straight couples¡¨ (ACLU Press release, May 22, 2002 http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n052202b.html). That, however is perhaps a moot point, as homosexual marriages are already outlawed on a federal level, meaning that no homosexual couple in any state or province of the United States can obtain a legally binding marriage license. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, proposed by supporters of the radical religious right, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, eager to win over last minuet support from more voters on the conservative end of the political spectrum on this election year, this bill both set forth federal standards for what a marriage is (that being a union between one man and one woman), and allowed states which do not recognize homosexual marriages as being valid institutions, to ignore those marriages which were performed in states that do (completely ignoring the constitution¡¦s full faith and credit clause, which should make this impossible). A similar injustice is the fact that some states still have, and enforce anti-sodomy laws, some of which apply specifically to homosexuals, but not to heterosexuals. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, one such law is being contested. In this particular instance, police were called to the home of the defendant, by a neighbor on unrelated allegations, where the defendant was apparently caught in violation of a very old Texas law which prohibits homosexual sodomy even in the privacy of one¡¦s own bedroom. The ACLU claims that, ¡§Approximately 20 states still have laws which criminalize some forms of private sexual intimacy, some only between members of the same sex¡¨ (ACLU Lesbian & Gay rights page http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm). The negative social and psychological connotations that are inherent with criminalizing physical intimacy are obvious. If a state makes the act of physically intimacy illegal for homosexuals, and certainly if such laws are enforced, the message is clear: The government does not like homosexuals, and to be one is a criminal offense. Aside from these formal laws which discriminate against homosexuals, the United States Military, one of the largest employers in the nation, not only has anti-homosexual policies, but is allowed to discharge, or fire, any of its employees found to be of homosexual orientation, with impunity. Suppression of education, denial of marriage, criminalizing intimacy, and random firings may not seem, to some thick skinned individuals, to be a terribly large crisis, however there are some things to keep in mind when it comes to a government actively discriminating against its people. Whereas certain other hostilities and prejudices, such as the ranting of Fred Phelps and his flock are easily dismissable, on the grounds that there simply isn¡¦t much to back them up, nothing but hateful ideologies, and flawed theology, when the government (especially this American Democracy) makes a decision it is supposed to be with the best interest and the will of the people in mind. When the government¡¦s decision discriminates against groups of its people, it means that the government is no longer working for these people, nor does it have their best interests in mind. If the legal rational authority granted by actions genuinely in the favor of the governed, is not what backs up the decisions and mandates of a government, then what is backing it up? In this instance, the answer is as simple as it is shocking, these discriminatory laws and statutes are backed up by nothing more than the barrel of the gun. The only reason that a homosexual must adhere to them is because the government has the men and weapons to enforce them. These laws are not in the best interest of homosexuals, nor do they provide the rest of the heterosexual constituency with any protection or security that they are in need of, or entitled to. In simpler terms, homosexuals face some very significant opposition from vocal extremist groups who would contest their very right to live, and from the government itself, the supreme sanctioning body in American society. The simple truth is that allowance of due civil rights promotes mental wellbeing, and the denial of them is detrimental to it.
By this point one should easily be able to see that being a homosexual in contemporary American Society means dealing with the conflicting nature of the duality of its conflicting camps on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuals are stereotyped and misinformation is spread about them as readily as any ethnic group that has ever been discriminated against in this nation. Conflicts within a homosexual¡¦s life coming from friends, family who can not accept the idea of his or her sexual orientation or even internally are still bad enough that parents sometimes end up disowning their children. Meanwhile, the religious right attacks homosexuals on a fundamental level, contesting their very right to live. All while the government imposes and continues to enforce discriminatory legislation against them. When these factors are looked at together, it is not terrible difficult to imagine why homosexuals insist on holding enormous pride marches, and other such events. It is no wonder that they form organizations and band together, and are routinely taking homosexual issues to court to sue on grounds of discrimination, or to challenge the government in the laws which it has set down. The condition of the homosexual in America today is not unlike that of the African-American in the 50s-60s. When a minority is oppressed so unjustly, and so unabashedly; when rational reasonable people are denied their rights based upon arbitrary differences, and are denied the civil liberties, which in a free and just nation should rightly be theirs, it is only natural that they should fight back. In closing, one should be able to see quite clearly, now, that homosexuals in modern America still have quite a long ways to go before their rights are theirs, and society has finally laid the ¡§issue¡¨ of homosexuality to rest in the inevitable, and only moral way in which it can: acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation. Until then, there will be a number of circumstances which homosexuals will have to face, which no person who lives in a nation which is otherwise so fundamentally against infringing on the rights and harmless practices of it¡¦s people, should have to go through.
Sources
2, http://www.werewolves.org/~two/index2.htm
Westboro Baptist Church ¡§Fag facts¡¨, http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fagfacts.html
Westboro Baptist Church Photo Archive, http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photoarchive.html
Lambda GLBT community service, youth OUTreach, http://www.lambda.org/youth.htm
Pink Pistols home page, http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2.html
Arizona State Legislature, SB 1142, REFERENCE TITLE: schools; sex education, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.htm
Arizona State Legislature, 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages, http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/25/00101.htm
ACLU Press release, May 22, 2002, http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n052202b.html
ACLU Lesbian & Gay rights page, http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm
(Just a reminder to all plagiarists out there, I maintain the exclusive copyright to this essay, and you are only allowed to redistribute it if you get express permission from me)
My bad..............