Women Studies Reflection: Homophobia
I was incredibly impressed with Suzanne Pharr's piece on homophobia. Her arguments were so detailed and solid, expertly pointing out the fallacies in the irrational and bigoted views that fuel homophobia. The connections she made between homophobia, sexism, and economics was genius.

The idea of "homosexuality" is indeed a recent one, considering homo sapiens have inhabited the earth for 200,000 years (and "modern" human civilizations are at least 8,000 years old), and yet the language to explain sexual behavior in terms of a lifelong pattern was just invented in the late nineteenth century. Not only that, but the label of "heterosexual" or "homosexual" as a noun to define a person according to their sexual behavior is also a modern-day convention. Same- and other-gender sexual interaction has occurred in all civilizations throughout history but sexuality was never used to place a person into a category as a master status in which personality or moral character were assumed or implied.

Sexual behavior is not simply biologically driven or expressed. As with anything else, one's cultural plays a significant role in shaping one's expression of sexuality, what one considers sexually "normal" or "abnormal," what one is sexually attracted to (necks versus breasts versus feet, for example), and one's conception of sexuality in general. Therefore, "homosexual" practices as we define them today were considered normal or optimal at other times in history, and it is due mainly to modern Christianity led by men like Thomas Aquinas that sex between people of the same gender was stigmatized and branded as sinful. The current obsession with the "immorality" of "homosexuality" is a waste of time because any argument over the rightness or wrongness of one's sexual orientation is simply an invention and projection of our specific culture's social and historical context onto something that is an abstract construction anyway. To argue about the morality of sexual orientation is meaningless and useless, much like arguing over the morality of what foods to eat or shoes to wear.

However, since most Americans are either uneducated in human history, or have been taught a biased version of it, or simply distort the facts, and because most also have an incredibly ethnocentric and religiocentric disposition, the focus is on modern day moral standards -- which are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition -- and not universal, timeless accounts of human behavior. If people were aware that the Bible was written by a few select men, during a time period that is much different than our own, for their own specific agenda, and that passages and whole chapters have been left out, edited, and translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to every other language in existence over the past 2,000 years, then perhaps they would realize the immense complexity and difficulty that is inherent in reading any single verse from the Bible. Something as simple as "Do not kill people" may mean one thing at one time according to social standards and language interpretation but through translation and changes in word meanings, may come to mean something very different at a different time. Not only that, but as Pharr points out, there was no such thing as "homosexuality" as we know it during the time that the Bible was written. Just as Jesus and his followers had no idea what refrigerators or televisions are, they also did not conceive of "homosexuality." Our society has the tendency to project our cultural values, standards, and experiences onto past situations in which such a projection is inaccurate and does not make historical sense.

Beyond that, the specific passages used to justify homophobia and hate/violence toward gays and lesbians are random and do not hold much weight compared with the rest of the Bible. Pharr makes an excellent point that "The eight Biblical references (and not a single one by Jesus) to alleged homosexuality are very small indeed when compared to the several hundred references (and many by Jesus) to money and the necessity for justly distributing wealth. Yet few people go on a rampage about the issue of a just economic system, using the Bible as a base." If one gets into the details of each of these eight passages about supposed "homosexual acts," the reality is that the passages can be interpreted in a number of ways and do not clearly single out sex between people of the same gender to be "unnatural" or "wrong." So, even if people must fall back on the Bible as some kind of end-all be-all book of rules and laws for everyone, the argument is weak and unconvincing.

Now let us pretend that "homosexuality" as it exists today also existed in the same manifestation during the time of Christ and thereafter when the Bible was written. Let us further assume that the Bible did distinguish homosexuality as evil and wrong. What does that lend to the argument that non-Christians and atheists should not engage in homosexual acts? Do Christians follow the rules of the Qu'ran? Do they expect our government to enact legislation that incorporates religious rules from Native American practices, Hinduism, or Buddhism? Christianity is so deeply entrenched in our culture that most people are completely oblivious to its unwavering influence on every aspect of our lives. If zealous Christians want to spend their energy debating over eight passages from a book as large as the Bible and condemn and ostracize each other based on who they make orgasm, they have every right. But they need to keep their beliefs out of other people's lives. Simply to uphold the separation of church and state, a principle value in western democracy, the question of homosexuality shouldn't even be a question, and the Bible should never be implicated in the making of political and legal decisions. The radical right needs to decide if they value pluralism and freedom over religion and if they want to live in a democracy or a theocracy. If they want the Bible to rule society, they might as well move to Israel.

Just as Christian values have a subtle but powerful influence on our culture, so too does homophobia. The effects of homophobia are decidedly underestimated, and I don't think most people realize the part that homophobia plays in the oppression of all people, for they cause in-fighting and competition among those who could otherwise band together against the oppressor. Homophobia, like sexism and racism, causes people to hate a group of people based on fabricated stereotypes to incite fear of "otherness." Is it any coincidence that Christianity, one of the most oppressive, corrupted, and brutal institutions in history, provided the framework for racism, sexism, and homophobia via its construction of the Bible? It's an ingenious plan, quite frankly. Simply tell people that "God" sanctions oppression and they will follow your every command.

Since homophobia plays a role in the economic stability of men and women, as clearly demonstrated in "A Time of Change" (the lesbian mothers would not come out at work for fear of losing their jobs), three things are vital to fight against the universal oppression of all people: 1) Feminists need to confront their own internalized homophobia and include people of all sexual orientations in the movement in order to gain insight into GLBT-specific issues, 2) GLBT-identified people need to come out, as encouraged in the film on Proposal 9 in Oregon, in order to demonstrate just how many "normal" and productive citizens are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and 3) Education on sexuality, gender, and the origins of the "homosexual" label and stigma must be available (and in my opinion, mandatory) for everyone in this country. I think it is a fair assumption that the less educated one is, the more likely he/she is to be fooled by media and stereotypes set to instill hate and fear about those who are supposedly "different." As a closing thought, I often wonder: is it more unnatural for a human being with sexual desires to suppress and deny them for his/her entire life and be made to feel guilty about something biologically natural, normal, and healthy or for someone to have sex with someone of the same gender?

3 comments | what do you think?