Homosexual Issues Essay, Research Paper

How America should react to homosexuals? How America should react to homosexuals

Many experts agree that homosexuality has existed as long as human beings

themselves, although the attitude towards them has undergone dramatic changes in

some countries. Accepted by many societies during Greek and Roman era, most of

the time homosexuals were considered to be sinners against nature and even

criminals. In Medieval and modern periods homosexuals were prosecuted.

Enlightenment brought some liberation, substituting death penalty by

imprisonment. In Nazi Germany so-called "doctors" tried to

"cure" gays by the ways of castration and extreme intimidation. Until

1973 attempts to find a cure against homosexuality, what by majority was viewed

as a disease, were continued. Today, when research on twins suggests that sexual

orientation is not a choice, but our genetic predisposition, homosexual acts are

still considered to be immoral and even illegal in majority of countries and in

the eyes of most religious groups homosexuals, probably, always will be the

subjects of anathema. As much as the future may look gloomy for many gays and

lesbians all over the world, there are remarkable changes in public opinion and

officials? attitudes toward homosexuals in some countries. For example, in

1989 Denmark was the first to allow the same-sex marriage. In the United States

the subject of homosexuality remains controversial. For example, In Hawaii three

homosexual couples asked the court to recognize their right to get married and

the court did. However, the state government refused to legalize this marriage.

Consequently, a new amendment was introduced to the state Constitution. At the

same time, majority of the states are not even considering this option and

homosexuality itself is still illegal there. Still, not only authorities try to

determine the position they should take towards homosexuals, many common

Americans also have no clear understanding of how to react to homosexuality. Why

should we bother to find the answer to the questions: who are the homosexuals

and where do they belong in our society? First of all, it is important to

realize that homosexuals are an integral part of our society. Your neighbor,

your co-worker, your hairdresser, your child and even your spouse can be one of

them. According to Richard D. Mohr "[t]wo out of five men one passes on the

street have had orgasmic sex with men. Every second family in the country has a

member who is essentially homosexual and many more people regularly have

homosexual experiences"(186). Should we avoid them, ignore, express our

anger and disgust? Unfortunately, many people feel that way because they have a

remote idea about people of different sexual orientation. For them homosexuality

is perversion, abnormality or decease. The ignorance may foster fear, which in

its turn leads to hostility. Homophobia is dangerous, because it affects all

groups of people ? heterosexuals and homosexuals, grown-ups and children, men

and women. It may lead to violence and even death. There are numerous cases when

people were actually killed because of homophobia. To name few of them ?

Matthew Shepard(homosexual), John Braun (heterosexual), Steve Kennedy

(homosexual) and the list can be continued. Prejudice against homosexuality

sharply limits how all men and women may acceptably behave, among themselves and

with each other. It is obvious that we can no longer pretend that the homosexual

issue is none of our concern. In attempt to evaluate our attitude towards people

of different sexual orientation we will be able to understand them better. What

is more important, we may overcome our prejudice, which often results in

discrimination of one group against another. To acknowledge that there are

people who are different and learn to tolerate them means to live in a safer

world. The next question is: Do we have the right to discriminate against

homosexuals? Until recently homosexuals were invisible minority. Therefore, many

Americans were unaware that gays and lesbians were discriminated against. But

homosexuals were and still are treated unfairly on the basis that they undermine

our morality, that they present danger to our children and that they are

transmitters of AIDS far more than heterosexuals. Today many gays and lesbians

come out of "the closet" and demand the same rights that heterosexual

take for granted. We have to admit that some steps have been made to protect

homosexuals. However, many government and public institutions and individuals

still discriminate against homosexuals denying them employment, housing,

insurance, marriage, child?s custody and so on. Why is it allowed to

discriminate against people who have different sexual orientation? Some may put

forward arguments that being gay is immoral, that it is illegal, that it is a

sin against nature and violation of God?s law and, some people consider

homosexual variety [as a] proof of existence of Satan . Some homophobics qualify

homosexual behavior akin to lying and stealing and, therefore, support the idea

that gays and lesbians deserve to suffer. As Pete Hamill points out

,"?gay-bashing is real; homosexuals are routinely injured or murdered

every day, all over the world, by people who fear or hate their version of human

sexuality"(532). But as was mentioned above, the medical studies confirm

that being gay is not a matter of choice or preference, but a deviation from

normal sexuality, which lays in genes and hardly can be changed. Given a choice

many would have preferred not to be homosexual. It is hard to imagine the

somebody would voluntary give up all the privileges of being straight and

subject himself to harassment, discrimination, assaults and scorn. Some argue

that the homosexual act is unnatural since it is not procreative. Then why

don?t we discriminate against sterile couples or those of over childbearing

age? Others express their concern that by granting homosexuals rights we will

give our blessing to other forms of sexual perversions such polygamy and

pedophillia, for example. Here it is important to notice, that for one,

pedophillia is not necessary a homosexual act. Secondly, it is immoral and

unlawful because one of the partners in this case is a child or a teenager who

more often than not has no other choice than to yield to the power of the adult.

As Joseph Geraci and Donald H. Mader point out "the power imbalance between

the adult and the younger partner in a pedophille relationship is so great that

it inevitably leads to coercion and exploitation" (969). Unlike pedophillia,

a homosexual act is consent between two adults, no harm to others is done and

with our bodies we are free to do whatever we please. Therefore, there is no

point to call it illegal. Moreover, discrimination against people of different

sexual orientation will be a violation of the constitution, which guarantees

common rights for everybody. Thus, despite our own preference we have neither

moral nor legal right to discriminate against them. As for disapproval of

different religions of homosexuality, everyone should have the "freedom to

go to hell as one wants", as Udo Schuklenk and Tony Riley put it quoting

Enlgelhardt (602). The last question that is important to discuss: Should

homosexuals be a protected minority? Like any other minority homosexuals deserve

the protection by any government and public institution. An absence of

protection against discrimination will result in more violence and injustice.

For a example, a gay who was beaten and harassed may not seek justice in court

because by doing so he puts himself and his loved one in the open position for

further discrimination. Most homosexuals prefer not to engage themselves in such

procedures for fear of losing more. Therefore, while heterosexuals feel free

victimize them in different ways, homosexuals can not even exercise the rights

given them by law. Some may argue that homosexuals themselves often cause

trouble. "Gay activists harass doctors, disrupt public meetings, and scream

self-righteously about their "rage""(Hamill 534). It is hard to

dismiss this point, but by denying homosexuals their rights one can not stop

violence. Only by accepting them into the society on the same terms as we accept

heterosexuals will give us a chance to stop the escalating rage from both sides.

Other opponents of homosexuality argue that granting gays and lesbians the same

protection under law that is granted to other minorities is to give them

"special privileges". But homosexuals do not ask for "special

privileges". They want the same rights as heterosexuals ? the right to

have a job they want and be treated according to their skills and performance at

work, but not by the fact that they share their bedrooms with the same-sex

partners. They want to live in the house they like and be judged according to

their action, but not for who they are. They want the same benefits from their

employers and insurance companies as heterosexuals have. Finally, they want to

get married and have children, but those basic human choices cause the main

disagreement among heterosexuals. As was mentioned above, there are many

families with homosexual members. Some parents are disappointed that their child

will never be married and they will never have grandchildren, but most of those

parents still want to see their children happy and hope that they will find

somebody to love and share their life. Why should not society find it possible

to share the same maturity. Moreover, in the wake of AIDS encouraging gay

monogamy is simply rational public policy. However, according to Washington Post

poll 70 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, yet only 53 percent

oppose homosexual relationship between consenting adults (Francoure 246). Some

will argue that one of the family?s function is it conceive and raise

children. But today sex is not the only way to have a child. It can be conceived

in vitro through sperm and eggs donors or by surrogate mother, and there is

always such option as adoption. In addition, the wide spread opinion that

homosexuals will raise children who also will be homosexuals has no scientific

evidence. To the contrary, some studies show that the sexuality of a child is

determined very early, perhaps at conception and it is very unlikely that

parents can have influence on his or her sexual orientation. As one can see,

there is no justification to deny homosexuals their rights. In addition, if

there is no other way we can provide gays and lesbians with those rights without

making them a privileged group this is not their fault. Since homosexuals often

are the subject of harassment, violence, mistreatment, discrimination, or

illness for no fault of their own we should chose the position which will allow

them to have the same rights as heterosexuals do. As science and technology

moves forward, we easily accept changes in the outside world, and yet we are

reluctant to leave our beliefs and prejudices behind. I hope that people are

becoming smarter not only in developing sophisticated methods, producing and

operating complex devices, but also in understanding other human beings. It is

time to abandon our ancient prejudice about homosexuality and start think

reasonably. We have to acknowledge the scientific fact that being gay is not a

decease, not a curse, not an immoral act, not a preference, but just another

type of sexuality. Gays are a permanent minority and aren?t likely to go away.

So, instead of burdening ourselves with unnecessary tension by rejecting them,

we have to adjust our apprehension, accept them for who there are and treat them

fairly. By doing so we will reduce violence, hate crime and stress. Is it not a

good reason to overcome the last of our prejudices?

1. Francoeur, Robert T. "Should Society Recognize Gay Marriages?"

Taking sides: Clashing Views on controversial Issues. 2. Issues in Human

Sexuality. 4th Ed. Stephen Satris: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc,

Guilford,1994:246-247. 3. Geraci, Joseph and Donald H. Mader. "Pedophillia."

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality Ed. 4. Wayne R Dynes. Garland Publishing, Inc ,

New York, 1990: v2, 964-970. 5. Hamill, Pete. "Confessions of a

Heterosexual." The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric and Reader. 2nd Ed. Timothy

W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View,

California,1998: 531-536. 6. Mohr, Richard D. "Gay Basics: Some Questions,

Facts, and Values." Taking sides: Clashing Views on controversial Issues.

Moral Issues. 4th Ed. Stephen Satris: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc,

Guilford,1994:186-194. 7. Nickel, Jeffrey. "Everybody?s Threatened by

Homophobia." The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric and Reader.2nd Ed. Timothy W.

Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, California,

1998:527-530. 8. Schuklenk,Udo and Tony Riley. "Homosexuality, Social

Attitudes Toward." Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in -Chief Ruth

Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2, 597-603. 9. Ulanowsky, Carole.

"The Family." Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in-Chief Ruth

Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2,