Jason Kuznicki has a fascinating exchange with a blogger by the name of Chris Byrne. Along the way, he points out the often irrational nature of anti-gay bigotry with examples from his own life. I think Jason misinterprets Byrne to some degree. He was not arguing that homophobia does not exist, only that not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality or considers it wrong is motivated by homophobia. On that question, I would agree with Byrne, but I think there is more detail required to get to the root of that question. The first thing that needs to be said is that there are many different degrees of homophobia, and I think it's important to separate what we might term "background homophobia" from real, virulent and destructive homophobia. Let me give some more detail on that...
I think most people, particularly those older than 40 or so, have a sort of ingrained disdain for homosexuality that was just sort of the norm for their generation. They were raised in a time when there just wasn't much talk about gay people, the vast majority of whom stayed firmly in the closet. It was, by default, something only they did, you know, those people. That automatically breeds the notion that there must be something wrong with those people. They were sort of generically homophobic by default. Now, when faced with gay people in everyday life as they often have to do today, they can fairly easily be separated into those who really do just despise gay people and those who just assumed there was something wrong because they'd never really known someone who was gay. You can see the difference by looking at Jason's father and my father.
My father, who turns 70 this year, was sort of generically homophobic. It was never really an issue, he didn't know any gay people (or at least didn't know that he knew any), so he never really had to think about the vague sense that he had that gay people were "them". And then in 1986, he found out that his brother had AIDS. All of a sudden, he stood face to face with this vague feeling, and under circumstances none of us should have to deal with. His brother was gay, but like many men of that generation he hid that fact behind a marriage (3 of them, actually, two to the same woman) and a family (he had 3 boys, one of whom was my age and we were close). After a week of thinking about it, my father asked my uncle to move in with him. He knew that he would at some point need someone to take care of him as AIDS took its toll (this was at a time when AIDS patients didn't typically last more than a couple years; he lived 10 more, most of them very healthy, which was rare then). My father overcame his sort of generic, automatic homophobia when faced with a real person he loved who was gay and who needed him. He then spent the better part of the next ten years working with his brother to build an organization that would help other AIDS patients live a better life. He devoted an enormous amount of money, time and energy to helping these people that he had once just assumed were a bunch of weirdos. As you can probably tell, I am incredibly proud of him for that.
Contrast that to Jason's father and his reaction to his relationship with Scott. His father is homophobic in the very real and virulent sense. He will not allow Scott to be a part of their family, or even allow his name to be mentioned in his home. I suppose it could be even worse in that he at least hasn't disowned Jason himself as so many other parents of gays do. But it's pretty bad. And I think it's important to distinguish between these two groups. Jason recognizes this as well when he says, "homophobia is an intellectually distinct phenomenon from anti-gay sentiment, which may also be the result of misinformation, religious belief, or negative personal experiences."
I frankly think that most people tend to fall more into the group with my father than with Jason's. They may still be uncomfortable about homosexuality, as my father still is, but when they know real gay people in their lives, they tend to overcome it. As more and more gays come out of the closet and live "normal" lives with a partner, those stereotypes will break down and people will come to see gays as no different from them in all the ways that really matter. I think we see this reflected in the starkly different attitudes toward gay marriage between the generations, where young people tend to be far more supportive of it than older people, primarily because they're much more likely to actually know gay people, or know that they know them, so they don't see them as "them", but just as their friends.
I think we also see this in the general polls on gay marriage. While the hardcore anti-gay folks love to crow about the results of the 11 states who banned gay marriage, I think they're missing something important in that vote. While about 2/3 of the public currently opposed gay marriage, at least in some states, poll after poll has also shown that about 2/3 of the public supports civil unions of one sort or another. That tells me that 2/3 of the public isn't motivated to oppose gay marriage because they hate gay people because they do recognize that gay couples deserve legal protections just like straight people have. It also tells me that gay marriage in one form or another is inevitable.
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
That's one of the things I wanted to talk about. I'm glad you shared your personal example.
The exchange is deinfitely fun. My whole goal in writing the piece was to get people talking openly and honestly, and most importantly, not in code.
Chris-
You don't say what "that" means when you say "that's one of the things I wanted to talk about", so I don't know what you're referring to. I tend to agree with Jason in that I think your post was poorly reasoned and not terribly coherent. But to some extent, I think you were talking past one another. I don't think you believe that there is no such thing as homophobia, and I don't think Jason believes that everyone who has any anti-gay sentiments hates gays or has an irrational fear of them. But you left a lot of room for that misinterpretation with a lot of loosely stated things that don't seem to hang well together.
I also strongly disagree that the term "homophobia" is useless code. I think probably 1/3 of the nation can accurately be described as homophobic in the real and virulent sense that I described in my post. And I think you spent a good part of your post beating up a straw man. When you say:
You are erecting a straw man. You are drastically oversimplifying the issue here, and conflating an irrational belief with an irrational person. Those who are genuinely homophobic are holding an irrational belief; that doesn't make them irrational people. For those who are "casually homophobic", as I defined it above in my post, it IS caused almost entirely by fear and ignorance.
You also fail to make the distinction between those who just think that homosexuality is morally wrong and those who actively seek to impose that as a matter of law. I don't have a problem with those who say that, as a matter of faith, they believe that homosexuality is a sin. They have every right to believe that, and while I obviously disagree with it, I wouldn't be too concerned to change their minds. But those who finish that with "....and therefore, they don't deserve equal rights and we should discriminate against them or throw them in jail" are the ones I am actively and strongly against. There are lots of things I consider morally wrong that people engage in every day in this country, but I don't try to use the law to punish them because that isn't the purpose of law. I don't think it's reasonable to call someone of the first type homophobic, at least not in the real sense. But those of the second type, those who actively seek to have their moral judgements imposed on people whose behavior does not involve them in any way, I think can fairly be called homophobic.
So while perhaps there is a kernel of truth hiding inside your essay, that sometimes the word homophobic is overused, you go entirely too far when you declare that it's just a code word to make gay people feel better about themselves. There are genuine homophobes in this country, lots and lots and lots of them, and they have done enormous damage to the cause of equal rights. They have earned that title, regardless of the fact that the title is sometimes wrongly applied to others.
I think a lot of the problem is the word "homophobia," because what we are really talking about is bigotry and prejudice, and those can NEVER be rational.
A true "phobia" is an irrational fear. I am phobic about birds (aviaphobia?), and it is all Alfred Hitchcock's fault (okay, maybe Tippie Hendren bears some responsibility as well). I don't like being around them, avoid them when at all possible, and fear (irrationally, I admit) an attack when more than a couple birds are around me.
Most of what is described as "homophobia" does not follow the same characteristics. I have a visceral reaction (fight or flight, I presume) to birds - I don't think people have that reaction to gay people or to the concept of homosexuality. The reaction of "homophobes" is really the reaction of racists, and it is all about assuming that members of any group (define it how you wish) can all be categorized negatively, BECAUSE they belong in a certain group.
Think about some of Mr. Byrne's comments - homosexuality is a "riskier lifestyle" than heterosexuality. That statement assumes that a homosexual "lifestyle" can be defined. When you dig deeper into the statement, and look at the rationale behind it, you find that what they are really talking about is anal intercourse. While it is true that unprotected anal intercourse is riskier than unprotected vaginal intercourse, when it comes to STDs, one cannot assume that all gay men (and ANY gay women) practice that specific sexual act.
However, I also think that some of what has been described, e.g., Jason's father's reaction, is not really about bigotry and prejudice, but about changing social mores. The biggest taboo, as Jason points out, in this society is a man being too feminine (masculine women come a close second). But the belief that gay men are more feminine than straight men is NOT irrational - it happens to be the truth (at least as I understand the androgynization of the gay brain during fetal development). It is the wish not to violate those social mores, particularly in public, that is behind this type of reaction.