The Social Inequality of Homosexuals and Bisexuals
Author's Note: This essay was a take-home assignment that my former Sociology instructor, Leonard, had us begin two weeks prior to our final exam near the end of the Fall Semester of 1999 at WWTC. Leonard had assigned our class an essay on the topic of any social problem of our choice. To receive full credit, we needed to:
1.) Identify a significant problem that exists in our society
2.) Analyze what factors have caused the problem to exist
3.) Explain what we would personally do if we had the power to implement solutions to remedy the problem
��� "Orientationism" is prejudice or discrimination based on intolerance of a person�s natural sexual orientation. Currently, many Americans display a common attitude that it is "sinful," "wrong," or "immoral" for a person to be homosexual or bisexual. Not only are couples of the same sex denied the legal right to marry, but are deprived of joint insurance and health coverage, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and federal protection based on sexual orientation. Legally, individuals can be fired by employers or discharged from the military merely due to the fact that they are gay or bisexual. Non-heterosexuals are often the victims of threats, verbal abuse, physical assault, and even murder, simply because other people have a personal problem with homosexuality or bisexuality. The recent brutal homicide of Matthew Shepard, an openly-gay Wyoming college student, serves as a severe reminder of this problem.
��� There are many reasons why orientationism strongly rages throughout our society. One catalyst is the common assumption that homosexuality or bisexuality is a "lifestyle choice." This is an unfair assessment for orientationists to make. Any homosexual or bisexual person will tell you they did not "choose" their sexuality, and cannot control the sexual urges and instincts that they experience. Homosexual behavior has also been scientifically observed within the animal kingdom. The accusation that homosexuality and bisexuality are "unnatural" is unfounded when the accuser cannot claim to have lived the actual life of a non-heterosexual person. Therefore, it stands to reason that homosexuality and bisexuality are as biologically natural as heterosexuality.
��� For this reason, we must not confuse the true purpose of the homosexual "agenda." Orientationists will assert that homosexual activists are seeking out "special rights." On the contrary, non-heterosexuals simply desire the same equality that is currently presented to heterosexuals - - such as protection of civil rights and legal equity in marriage. The conclusion that homosexuals and bisexuals "decide" to reject heterosexuality is simply trite. There is a major difference between voluntarily identifying with the gay stereotype projected by the media, and realizing that one�s hormones cause a natural sexual attraction to other members of one�s same gender.
��� Another entity which triggers orientationism is the failure of some religious leaders and followers to recognize the logic behind the separation of church and state. This constitutional principle was established so that citizens� rights would not be violated due to the guidelines and standards of certain religions. Yet, several religions have actively contributed to the existent oppression of homosexuals and bisexuals. Many Christian fundamentalists turn to the Bible for sexual guidance, and consequently misinterpret some Bible phrases to deem that homosexuality is a "sin." However, we have no way of knowing for certain how much, if any, of the Bible was altered during its thousands of years of manual transcription. For this reason, biblical passages cannot be relied upon for scientific accuracy.
��� Giving biblical references the benefit of the doubt, perhaps hypothetically Paul and Moses did indeed state anti-gay rhetoric in their contributions to the Bible�s composition. But just because those may have been the personal beliefs of Paul and Moses does not mean such condemnation was shared by Jesus Christ and the Christian God. Additionally, the passages in the Bible allegedly declaring homosexuality as an abomination could have been intended exclusively to refer to the specific issue of incest. In the Old Testament it is written that it is wrong for a man to lie with another man. But the Old Testament also states that if a man wants to marry a woman all he has to do is rape her, pay her father 50 dollars, and she�s his wife. So why accept one as true but not the other? At any rate, I don�t see how orientationism is very open-minded or worldly for Christians. I thought Christianity was supposed to be about love and acceptance, and celebrating who we are as human beings?
��� Finally, there is a "heterosexual ideal" in our society which prevents full and humane acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality. Parents, either intentionally or unintentionally, will "groom" or "train" their children to lead a heterosexual lifestyle as adults. When non-heterosexual children are raised with the expectation that they must be heterosexual in our society, it only hurts those children in the long run. Teens who realize they are gay or bisexual may stress themselves with emotions of shame and self-hatred, or they may be driven to ponder, attempt, or even succeed at suicide.
��� This type of orientationist upbringing can also negatively affect heterosexual children. If children are raised with the concept that it is "wrong" to be gay/bi, anti-gay sentiment is instilled in them by parents and they consequently direct it toward peers at school and later on in life. In schools, when students who have been brought up with anti-gay "values" discover or merely even suspect their peers might be gay, they will display open hostility and disdain leading to verbal abuse, shunning, assault, or in extreme cases, murder. Heterosexual students who bear non-traditional gender characteristics (effeminacy and feminity in boys, masculinity in girls) may also fall victim to orientationist harassment from peers. A social myth exists that homosexuals and bisexuals try to "convert" heterosexuals to non-heterosexual lifestyles. But for the most part, this is a delusion. The vast majority of non-heterosexuals simply wish to live their lives with the exact same civil rights as heterosexuals.
��� If I had the omnipotent power to make societal changes to remedy this problem, I would do a couple of things. First, I would make same-sex marriages legal and constitutionally binding in all 50 states of America. Same-sex marriages would include all of the same entities contained in opposite-sex marriages, such as joint insurance and health coverage, company benefits equitable to those of opposite-sex marriages, and inheritance protection. In addition, divorce proceedings for same-sex couples would be subject to proportional guidelines as for opposite-sex couples. To be specific, I would change the definition of marriage to allow for, "the legal joining or union in wedlock of any two individuals regardless of gender."
��� Secondly, I would add "sexual orientation" as a non-discrimination component by amending the constitution. This would place sexuality on the same plane as race, gender, creed or religion, disability, age, and national origin. Sexual orientation is a genuine, intrinsic trait of human beings, and discrimination based on sexuality cannot be tolerated in order to maintain a truly equal society. Although sexism and racism possess different details from orientationism, the EXACT SAME CONCEPT is still being applied within each of these prejudicial forms - - discrimination against people based on biological traits that we are unable to control.
��� The purpose behind legalizing same-sex marriages is to send the message to today�s society as well as future generations that there is nothing wrong with being a different sexual orientation from someone else, as long as you do not violate the safety, liberty, and rights of others. As generations pass, society may gradually gain a healthier, more rational view of homosexuality through the achieved normalcy of same-sex marriages. Hopefully, social persecution of gays and bisexuals will begin to decline, similarly to the civil rights and acceptance which women, blacks, and other groups have historically gained.
��� "Domestic partnership" benefits implemented nationally would be progress for homosexuals and bisexuals, but not full, true legal equality. Although granting "domestic partnerships" to same-sex couples might be a step in the right direction toward full equality, orientationists would inevitably charge the gay community with demanding and receiving "special rights." So even with "domestic partnership" allowances, homosexuals and bisexuals would still essentially be "second-class citizens" as "domestic partnerships" are legally unequal to marriage. On the other hand, if same-sex couples could only be offered that obligatory formality of a legal marriage certificate, the argument of gays attaining "special rights" would ultimately for all legal purposes become a non-issue. Therefore, "domestic partner" benefits could be eliminated completely, thus eliminating "special rights."
��� Furthermore, such restrictive measures, for example, the Knight Initiative (http://www.noonknight.org) to be voted on (March 7, 2000) in California, are still specifically targeting the gay/bisexual communities. People need to realize that marriage is not solely about producing children. It is about love . . . or at least, it should be. And homosexual love is just as sincere and genuine as heterosexual love. I am not proposing that heterosexuality be abolished, degraded, or condemned in any way. Simply put, the same rights that heterosexual couples are currently entitled to would additionally be extended to homosexual couples. Above all, I do not see how legalizing same-sex marriages for homosexuals would be infringing upon or violating the human rights of heterosexuals.
��� Ulitmately, as human beings we each have to trust that we know ourselves well enough to determine our own individual sexuality by analyzing our own hormonal instincts and inner-selves. No one else can determine what another person�s sexuality is . . . we can only do so for ourselves as individuals. Why is it so easily accepted that different races, genders, religions, age groups, people who are mentally disabled, handicapped, or have dissimilar hair or eye colors inhabit this planet . . . but not people of various sexual orientations? Why should someone be legally denied the right to marry someone else of the same gender simply because certain people of some religions have a personal problem with it? That goes against everything this nation was built upon. America was founded as a place for people to escape persecution - - but the oppressive cycle never seems to end. Homosexuals and bisexuals are fighting for the same basic equality heterosexuals have, NOT "superiority"! As with any example of social inequality, until homosexuals and bisexuals have the same legal privileges as heterosexuals, the United States can never truly be a "Land of Equality." We may not be able to change all individuals� attitudes, and we can�t legislate how parents raise their children, but we can change and enforce the law!
My Favorite Links
Dude Power Lexicon
Photo Gallery
My Gallery of Writings
Discussion Board
Take My Polls/Surveys
Sign My Guestbook
View My Guestbook
View My Old Guestbook
Get your own Free Home Page