Homophobia: The New Racism

Look To The Cookie

Kraft recently released a rainbow cookie in support of Gay Pride and it had a few people up in arms about it. If you don't know http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/kraft-makes-waves-with-pride-rainbow-oreo/article4374318/?cmpid=rss1 ...now you know.


The following is what I think about the issue, (the issue being gay rights, not the diabetes-inducing cookie):

Homophobia: The New Racism

            Would a person of sound mind choose to face daily, unrelenting discrimination, the constant threat of being beaten to death, or severe emotional trauma due to ridicule by his or her peers? One need not have felt the brutal sting of racism and discrimination first hand to recognize the absurdity of willfully choosing such a life and yet, “46% of straight people believe that homosexuals choose to be gay or lesbian” (The Lesbian Almanac 101).  The ignorance of nearly half of the heterosexual population is but a fraction of the constituents that have contributed to the fact that homophobia is now the new racism. Regardless of the fact that society recognizes that similar conduct toward a group of people was wrong in the past, repeating said conduct toward a different group is somehow permissible. Homophobia is a relatively new development in the history of mankind; homosexuality, however, is not merely a modern concept. Because of humanity’s deficient capacity for empathy, authors such as Jeffrey Nickel must appeal to the reader’s sense of fear in order to create an avenue of understanding rather than appealing to the reader’s sense of reason.

            The strongest argument for the anti-homosexual movement is that homosexual conduct is unnatural and therefore perverse; however, there is ample scientific information that demonstrates same-sex behaviour in non-humans. In fact, “Homosexuality has been recorded in some 1,500 species so far, and been well documented in about a third of these cases” (“All Creatures” 92). In terms of the Bonobo Chimpanzee, for example, “50 per cent of all sexual interactions [occur] between same-sex individuals” (Macfarlane 52). More importantly, this same-sex behaviour occurs in creatures that lack the capacity for freewill. Words commonly used to describe homosexual behaviour such as evil, immoral and perverse are words used to define the nature of choices. Therefore, because this behaviour occurs in animals that are physically unable to make choices, the behaviour cannot logically be evil, immoral or perverse. According to the argument that homosexuality is a choice, it would appear that the discrimination that homosexuals experience as a result of that choice is not only permissible but also imminent.

            The attitude that those discriminated against are somehow deserving of discrimination is a common ideology concerning minority groups that have experienced overt racism throughout history. Indigenous people worldwide, for example, were seen as inferior to those that oppressed them because fallacious propaganda twisted their cultural differences into subhuman deviations. This Aryan-like systematic dehumanization of undesirables is a crucial component in the justification of atrocities; it is as though the oppressors are given by birthright the authority to mete and dole the punishment of unsavoury and uncontrollable characteristics. The general consensus in the aftermath of the some of the most terrible, racially motivated deeds is that Western society in general has experienced the warm glow of enlightenment and discovered that racism is wrong; however, discrimination against homosexuals is prevalent and the negative effects of this discrimination are downplayed in modern society and mainstream media.

            In the article, “Everybody’s Threatened by Homophobia,” Nickel clearly demonstrates the extent to which homophobic behaviour and the repercussions thereof occur in Western society. He describes a mock trial conducted by a teacher in response to a young boy who was deemed to have inappropriate feelings toward another boy. The trial “was held in the classroom, with all members of the class present [and] this boy had to ‘defend’ his feelings toward the other boy” (630). Regardless of the teacher’s feelings of homosexuality, her actions caused incalculable emotional damage to a mere child. Although Nickel’s comments on the stigma and dangers of merely being suspected as a homosexual are a fundamental step in understanding the plight of these forgotten citizens, articles such as this are habitually confined to homosexual media and thus a homosexual audience.

            Although part of solving the problem of homophobia, assuming that human beings in general are capable of recognizing equality in other human beings, is in identifying the scope of homophobic behaviour as Nickel has done; the remainder of the solution is in determining the nature and origins of homophobia. In order to further analyze the validity of the “anti-gay” argument, it is important to determine the time period at which homophobic behaviour became as popular as it is irrational. “The word homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869” (Mondimore 3), not because homosexuality did not exist, but because “in some cultures, same-sex eroticism was an expected part of the sexual experience of every member of society” (Mondimore 4), particularly in male ancient Greek culture. Even such well-respected scholars as Socrates and other ancient Greek philosophers are references of the normality of same-sex behaviour, notably in such works as Plato’s Symposium. “It was not until several hundred years after the birth of Christ [that] Christian theologians in Europe started to … develop concepts of what was moral and what was immoral … in sexual behaviours” (Mondimore 21). This development converted a formerly private act of love into an aberration subject to government regulation and severe punishment.

            Over time, government persecution morphed into vigilantism. At present, homosexuals face the constant threat of being tyrannized and lynched by members of society who feel the need to preserve their morality. One need only be suspected of being a homosexual to fear this cruelty. In “Everybody’s Threatened by Homophobia,” Nickel describes a married man, bludgeoned to death, because the teenagers who murdered him thought he was gay. Nickel states, “heterosexuals have actually died because of homophobia” (631). This is an unfortunate but necessary sentence that depicts the most hideous aspects of human nature, specifically that most individuals will do nothing to aid other individuals unless they feel that their own well-being is threatened.

            Homophobia is as irrational and atrocious as racism, yet rampant discrimination against gays is still customary even though it is proven that same-sex behaviour occurs in nature. The fact that bigotry such as homophobia develops at a greater rate than essential attributes such as compassion is deplorable and undeniable. The ultimate hypocrisy of human nature is that prejudice and injustice exist because of mankind’s need to persecute and feel superior to other human beings as a result of a skewed sense of civility. In fact, it is not the abused but the abusers in historical and modern society that embody the epitome of intellectual primitivism.

Works Cited

“All Creatures Great and Small”. The Economist 381.8501 (2006) : 92.

The Lesbian Almanac. New York: Berkley Books, 1996.

MacFarlane, Geof and Kevin Markwell. “Homosexuals, Naturally”. Nature Australia 27.12 (2004) ; 52-59.

Mondimore, Francis Mark. A Natural History of Homosexuality. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Nickel, Jeffrey. “Everybody’s Threatened by Homophobia”. Reasoning and Writing Well: A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader and Handbook. Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2006. 629-632.