Handling Homophobia:
Gay Rights or Children’s Needs?
By Joe Kort, MSW
Copyright © 2004
When people think about children, rarely is their focus on how homophobia can hurt them. Usually it is raised when talking about a gay parent and how they may “impact” their offspring, or how the behavior of gay and lesbian adults will influence them. But even more rarely do people concentrate on how homophobia impacts children, gay and straight alike—which is far worse than anything a child might be exposed to in a gay pride parade or in observing gay relationships.
Studies show, in fact, that gay and lesbian adolescents can handle their developing romantic and sexual orientation. What they can’t cope with is the homophobic acts and verbal statements they encounter in the media or in their schools, homes or communities. A heterosexual adolescent can no more handle acts of homophobia upon him or her as well.
In this article, I’ll first define homophobia and talk about words related to it, then address how we all, straight and gay alike, pay a price for it.
In his 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, George Weinberg coined the term homophobia and wrote about how it related to gays and lesbians. Since then, the word has been examined with a discriminating eye. People claim that it does not apply to them, inasmuch as they aren’t afraid, or “phobic,” of gays.
Reparative therapists and ex-gays often say they do not “hate homosexuals” they simply believe it is behavioral only and that it is a choice and with proper psychological treatment and religious input they can “change” back to their “original innate heterosexual selves”. This is heterosexist at best given the belief that heterosexuality is superior and all other sexual and romantic orientations are inferior. It also implies that the sexual behavior is all that is what homosexuality is about. It neglects the spiritual, romantic, affectional, emotional aspects of being gay or lesbian.
If a heterosexual person never engages in heterosexual sex for the rest of their lives they would still be considered heterosexual and not be challenged. The same holds true for gays and lesbians. Just because someone with a homosexual orientation stops being sexual does not speak to their homo-emotional state inside. Thus, homosexuality is much more than a sexual behavior as is heterosexuality. To believe otherwise is simply homo-ignorant if not homophobia. Let’s explore these terms.
Phobia
Phobia is a persistent, abnormal or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.
Homophobia
Homophobia is the feeling(s) of fear, hatred, disgust about attraction or love for members of one’s own sex. It is prejudice, based on the belief that lesbians, and gays are immoral, sick, sinful or somehow inferior to heterosexuals. It results in fear of associating with lesbians and gays in close proximity—physically, mentally and/or emotionally—lest one be perceived as lesbian or gay, and fear of venturing beyond “accepted” gender role behavior. (This can be true of gay men as well, though straight men are typically more homophobic.)
When a heterosexual asks if I’m married, I tell him that I am. When he asks my wife’s name, I educate him that I am gay and that my male partner’s name is Mike. Usually he takes a step back and says in a manly voice, “Dude, I am not gay.” I respond, “Dude, I didn’t think you were. I was just responding to your thinking I was straight.”
A young heterosexual man of high-school age once asked me if gay men are attracted to straight men too. I told him, “Yes, just as straight men are attracted to all women, lesbian or straight.” He gave me a frightened look and said, “No more questions!”
I tried to educate him that this attraction wouldn’t always be acted on, but he rapidly walked away from me with the parting line, “You and your kind are sick!” This is a prime example of homophobia!
Dr. Gregory Herek, a gay psychologist, published a paper entitled, Beyond “Homophobia”: Thinking about Sexual Preference and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century, which discussed the need to further expand on the term homophobia as he believes it is too limited term today in its scope. Herek states that the term homophobia is too closely linked to fear and psychopathology and suggests other terms.
Homonegative
Homonegative is the term for those who hold negative beliefs and feelings, but aren’t afraid about being perceived as gay to the point that they’ll avoid gays and lesbians. These people say things like, “I have gays and lesbians as friends. I just don’t agree with their lifestyle.” These people are friendly toward gays and lesbians. They can be co-workers, family members and even be gay or lesbian themselves—but still hold negative views about gays and lesbians!
A client recently told me that his mother is “against my being gay, but loves me anyway.” This is a good example of homonegativity.
Homoprejudice
The word homoprejudice means discrimination against gays and lesbians. At a recent talk I gave, a woman told me that she thought I was “promoting the homosexual lifestyle” and telling her to “accept” gays and lesbians. I smiled back nicely and said, “No ma’am, I am asking you not to accept discrimination toward gays and lesbians.”
That people would pass laws to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, making them lose their jobs and/or their housing, are examples of homoprejudice. Most people don’t even know that no federal laws prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace—and that you can be fired for simply being gay!
Another example is when Governor Mitt Romney dusted off an old 1913 law making any marriage in Massachusetts void, if that marriage would not be legal in the couple’s home state and encouraged his attorney general to enforce it. This prejudicial statute was the same one used to prevent inter-racial marriages. Think of using this same law against other minorities, and it’s hard not to see the homoprejudice on Governor Romney’s part.
Homo-ignorant
Most people fall into the homo-ignorant category. If you’re never exposed to gays and lesbians and have no interaction in the gay community or with gay and lesbian traditions and customs, then you’re just not familiar with the culture.
I recall going to college as a freshman and discovering how many people were not familiar with Jews personally, much less Jewish customs. I had to teach my friends what being Jewish was all about—which seemed odd, since I came from the predominately Jewish city of Oak Park, Michigan.
Most gays and lesbians, of course, are not hetero-ignorant. We are forced to interact with both the gay and the straight world. As children, we are forced into playing the heterosexual role and conforming to what’s expected of our gender. Later in life we come out and then, as adults, learn to create a seamless flow back and forth, between gay life and straight life.
Warren J. Blumenfeld edited an excellent book called, Homophobia: How We All Pay The Price, in which he writes about how not only gays and lesbians, but heterosexuals suffer from acts of homophobia. Specifically:
1. First, homophobic conditioning compromises people’s integrity by pressuring them to treat others badly—actions contrary to their basic humanity.
This is where bullying begins, particularly against young boys who might be gay or effeminate ones who don’t conform to male stereotypes. Calling other boys “faggot” and “queer” takes the focus off of the bullies.
2. It inhibits the ability to form close, intimate relationships with members of one’s own sex, generally restricts communication with a significant portion of the population and, more specifically, limits family relationships.
Limited communication contributes to the alarmingly high 30% suicide rate among adolescents who are either gay or lesbian and/or worry they might be. Some minimize this number by saying it’s inflated or applies only to gay and lesbian teens, but they should consider numerous teenagers who are sexually abused or do not conform to socially accepted gender roles. These teens worry that they might be gay and in their confusion, also make suicide attempts—and are often successful.
3. Homophobia is used to stigmatize, silence and, on occasion, target people whom OTHERS perceive or define as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but who are actually heterosexual. It locks all people into rigid gender-based roles, which inhibit creativity and self expression.
Many parents are preoccupied with ensuring that their children play with gender-appropriate toys, denying them the right to develop their own interests.
I think the best example of this is our expectation and desire for men to be good fathers. Yet we don’t allow little boys to play with dolls, so they do not get practice in nurturing. Later, when they become fathers, we scorn them for not knowing what to do. Meanwhile, girls get permission for lots of practice in handling their doll “babies”—a mixed message that is very hurtful to men.
4. Homophobia is one cause of premature sexual involvement, increasing the chances of teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (or STDs). Young people of ALL sexual identities are often pressured to become HETEROSEXUALLY active to prove—to themselves and others—that they are “normal.”
5. Societal homophobia keeps some LGBT people from developing an authentic self-identity, adding to the pressure to marry. This in turn places undue stress and often trauma on them, as well as on their children and heterosexual spouses.
This reminds me of the joke, quoted in my book, by gay comedian Jason Stuart: “I wish you straight people would stop trying to prevent us from marrying each other. If you let us marry each other, then we’ll stop marrying you!”
People never stop to think of the children who suffer as a result of mixed marriages between a heterosexual and a gay man or lesbian. Society tells us not to live an out and openly gay and then, when we finally can no longer live in the closet, questions them and asks, “Well, why did you get married in the first place?” This is crazy making!
6. Homophobia, combined with fear and revulsion of sex, eliminates discussions about the lives and sexuality of LGBT people as part of school-based sex education, keeping vital information from all students. Such a lack of information can kill people in the age of AIDS. And homophobia (along with racism, sexism, classism, sexphobia) inhibits a unified and effective governmental and societal response to the AIDS pandemic.
As Blumenfeld goes on to say, “The meaning is quite clear. When any group of people is scapegoated, it is ultimately everyone’s concern. For today, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are targeted. Tomorrow, they may come for you. Everyone, therefore, has a self interest in actively working to dismantle all the many forms of bigotry, including homophobia.”
Blumenfeld believes “that all of us are born into an environment polluted by homophobia (one among many forms of oppression), which falls upon us like acid rain. Some people’s spirits are tarnished to the core, others are marred on the surface, but no one is completely protected. Therefore, we all have an opportunity—indeed, the responsibility—to join together to construct protective shelters from bigotry’s corrosive effects, while working as allies to clean up the homophobic environment we live in.
Once enough steps are taken to reduce this pollution, we can all breathe a lot easier.”
what a cool article. Thanks for posting it.
This is a nice article. Just wondering–was it written to be published elsewhere? If so where? It would be a shame to limit it to here.
BTW, one thing that might be helpful is to examine some of the roots of homophobia. Having chatted with some of the more virulent homophobes on FreeRepublic.com, I tend to discount religion as the basis–although religion does reinforce it. I suspect homophobia–particularly in males–has more to do with sexism than anything else.
I would love to submit this to be published elsewhere however I do not know where else to send it. If anyone has thoughts about that I would be open to them.
Warmly, Joe
Joe: Family Therapy Networker?
From reviewing your collection of articles on your Web site, I assumed you were already being published.
There are psychology/counseling type journals, new age and modern living style magazines, or even plenty of gay/gay-friendly periodicals with intelligent articles read by younger gay crowds. Wouldn’t hurt to get your name known in several of them (like a regular column?). Your writing is clear and easily understood without sounding too ‘clinical’ nor pandering to the lowest crotchal denominator. Depends on your intended audience: helping straights in Smalltown Middle America understand their own kneejerk feelings toward the gay folks who just moved into their neighborhood? helping gays understand what is ‘really’ being said against them by the politicos and religiously rigid folk? helping gays and their families find a point of reconciliation within their family circles? There are loads of possible target audiences, and thus many perspectives from which to write. Get a copy of Writer’s Handbook 2004 to find contacts for most major periodicals, get their editorial slants, their publication needs, how they want submissions, etc.
Another vehicle would be publishing your own monthly e-newsletter, but there are several caveats in that regard (“been there, done that”), so while it may disseminate information widely, it isn’t a way to supplement an income. 🙂 It all depends on your motivation and expected results. (we can discuss it privately if you want more info on this avenue.)
You have something to say (like we all do), you have an effective way of saying it (not everyone can write well), and you have professional credentials (which, again, not all of us do) with a professional practice to back up what you say.
Go for it.
Just do it.
‘cuz I said so, that’s why! 🙂
(well, okay, you can take last part with a grain of salt.)
Can a person who disapproves of homosexual behavior say anything at all without a psychotherapist assigning them a stigmatizing label?
I suppose it depends on why you think you have authority to approve or disapprove someone else’s private behavior. Nobody can take issue with your choice to allow or disallow a particular behavior in your own life, or while under the cover of your home. If you go out pretending you can approve or disapprove other people’s behavior in places where it has no bearing on your life, you are crossing the line and meddling where you have no business, and there are many appropriate labels for such arrogance. (And when you say ‘homosexual behavior’ I can only infer you are talking about the sex act itself, which is intimate and private and thus has no bearing on your life unless you are personally engaged in it.) Nobody needs your approval to live their lives on their own terms, so when you try to impose your approval or disapproval, you’re going to get labeled.
Marty,
If you came out and said that being Christian is more valuable than being Jewish or that being white is more normal than black you would be called a racist and an anti-semite. There is not permission to publicly talk against these minorities. We understand today that this is prejudice.
Would you not understand that this is the same as talking about gays and lesbians? And I agree with the other postings that if as a gay man I never practice gay sex again for the rest of my entire life I will still be a gay man just as is true about heterosexuals who never engage in heterosexual sex for the rest of their lives. They will still be straight. We understand that heterosexuality is more than a sexual behavior. That is true for gays and lesbians as well.
Warmly, Joe
>Can a person who disapproves of homosexual behavior say anything at all without a psychotherapist assigning them a stigmatizing label?
People can approve or disapprove of whatever they wish. On the other hand, people can assign that approval or disapproval a “stigmatizing label” as they see fit. Having chatted with more than a few ‘phobes, they seem to wear the label as a badge of honor, rather than a stigma.
Oh, one more thing to Marty–I find it odd that you seem to be neglecting advertising your blog here. You used to. Is there a reason why you stopped?
If a heterosexual person never engages in heterosexual sex for the rest of their lives they would still be considered heterosexual and not be challenged. The same holds true for gays and lesbians.
This is what i reject most of all.
A homosexual who never engages in homosexual behavior will be assumed to be HETEROsexual — the same as a heterosexual who never has sex is still considered “heterosexual by nature”.
This is not because of any double standard of “orientation”, but because no one — not one singe person — has ever come into being by anything other than an explicitly heterosexual act. That is why it is assumed to be the natural state of man.
Joe is comparing apples to oranges here.
A person is assumed to be heterosexual simply because they exist. A homosexual is assumed to be gay because of their behavior.
(raj, thanks for the plug)
bull. A homosexual is assumed to be gay because of their orientation, whether they have sex or not. (not everyone who engages in same-sex behavior is gay) I’m as gay as gay can be, but I’ve not had sex with anyone else in over 6.5 years. If I ever have sex again, it will likely be with another man. That’s who I am. Having sex with men doesn’t make me gay. I’m already gay, with or without sex, and because I am gay, my sex partners would naturally be other men, not women.
bull. A homosexual is assumed to be gay because of their orientation, whether they have sex or not.
Bull indeed. Joe refutes this himself with this one:
When a heterosexual asks if I’m married, I tell him that I am. When he asks my wife’s name, I educate him that I am gay and that my male partner’s name is Mike.
“Dude” clearly assumed that Joe was heterosexual — and only when he pointed out that his “wife” was a man, did Dude learn anything about Joe’s “orientation”.
Ahhhh… you’re talking about making assumptions about a stranger. I also figure most guys I pass on the street are straight (unless, of course, I get “the look” or some other indication otherwise), simply because that is the majority status and most men are straight. That’s just the numbers, but it isn’t the default status for every single individual. My default is gay, regardless what others might assume. I’ve had to “educate” people, as well, just like Joe, when people discover that I have children and grandchildren and they say something uninformed like “Oh… for a while I thought you might be gay.” Many people have assumed I am straight when I talk about my kids/grandkids, but nobody who actually knows me would assume I’m straight, even though most of them know I’m currently not actively involved with anyone. When I knit on the bus to and from work, I can honestly say when asked what I’m making, that I’m making something for one of my kids or grandkids, and there’s not been any overt questions about gay-or-straight at all (what other people think of me, without saying anything, is none of my concern — I don’t go out of my way to “educate” people who don’t ask for the information.)
“Dude” clearly assumed that Joe was heterosexual — and only when he pointed out that his “wife” was a man, did Dude learn anything about Joe’s “orientation”.
And substitute “Australian,” for heterosexual, “English” for “wife” and “nationality” for orientation and you can see how ridiculous your point is. Joe would be “English” whether he opened his mouth or not — he most likely was born that way.
Sexual Orientation Marty, for the 98237852749057394530322 time, describes the focus of a person’s amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and feelings…to feelings and self-concept.
Just because you don’t like that fact doesn’t make it any less true.
My point Jody, is not that it isn’t true — it’s that it’s totally irrelevant. You can “feel” as gay as you want, and it won’t make the slightest difference to anyone else until you start behaving gay — by having same-sex relations.
what??? I was gay for as far back as I can remember into childhood. I was gay when I joined the Air Force, I was gay when I was ordained, I was gay when I got married and had four children, and I was gay when I got divorced. That’s how I identified within myself and there was no question about it. I conformed to church expectations, but that didn’t make me any less gay. It wasn’t until 4 months AFTER the divorce that I was with another guy, but I had been gay my whole life before then. You seem to be still confusing behavior with orientation. Having same-sex sex doesn’t make you gay, or even homosexual. (Prisoners and military folk in isolated situations come to mind — they aren’t gay or homosexual, but act out their emotional/sexual needs with whomever is available, only to go back to being straight when the opportunity is again open to them.)
And, just for curiousity, why does any of this matter to you anyway? If you aren’t gay, or if you aren’t “struggling with homosexual feelings”, what is your stake in all of this? Most folks hanging around gay people just to talk about the sexual aspect of being gay (while apparently ignoring every other aspect of their being) are either there for the harrassment jollies, or are trying to figure out if they themselves might be gay after all. My straight friends don’t obsess about my sexuality or the intricacies of being gay in American in 2004, the way you seem to be doing. If they did, they wouldn’t
be my friends very long because my sexual orientation is none of their concern or business, and it doesn’t affect their lives one iota.
Marty, you have never presented any kind of compelling case as to why “behaving gay” is a bad thing — outside of the fact that you find it “icky.”
Ray has accurately pointed out that his “orientation” caused him no particular discrimination from being married, from serving in the military, or from being an ordained minister. It is the behavior that he adheres to today that might cause problems in those areas. Further proof that orientation has nothing to do with it.
And to all of you who wonder why i care so much?
It is because gay activists are rewriting the bible, rewriting marriage law, and rewriting school textbooks. So don’t pretend this stuff doesn’t affect me or my children and their children.
And feel free to label me or call me ugly names — i have plenty of tolerance for that.
The bible has been updated and revised by evolving scholarship since forever ago. Nearly every generation has modified the text or its interpretation in some way. And you are free to keep any version of the bible you wish, anyway. Why would newer, more accurate translations or versions of the Bible have a negative impact on your beliefs? If you’re going to build your beliefs on the Bible, wouldn’t you want to most accurate rendition of the original meanings so you can be sure you’re believing the right way? Amending marriage laws to allow all people to marry the person of their choice does not negate your marriage at all. In what way is your marriage any less valuable or any less valid if gay people are allowed to marry and enjoy the legal benefits of a committed relationship just like you have? Likewise, school textbooks are revised almost annually to keep up with changing social values and evolving science on whatever topics the textbook treats. You might have a philosophical or religious reason for disagreeing, but if you can’t provide adequate science to support your bias, that’s tough. Can’t fault the educational system for keeping up with the times. As for your children’s children, it’s not your place to set policy. It’s up to your children to decide what is best for their children.
Basically, you still have no personal reason to be meddling in any of this. None of the things you mentioned actually affects you, except in your own mind. Keep the version of the Bible you want, nobody is taking it from you or removing all previous Bibles from the shelves. Keep your spouse and the benefits of your relationship, same as always, nobody is invalidating your marriage. Teach your children the values and principles you want, but you will find that your children will be exposed to new ideas and philosophies far beyond your control no matter how much your pitch a fit about it. EVERY thinking parent (including me) in every age has had this concern, wanting to protect their children and control what their kids think and how they react to the world. You can’t do it. You can teach them HOW to think, but not what to think. Give them the tools for clear thinking and you will be much more trusting of them as they grow up and face the world. It will be their world, not yours.
>Ray has accurately pointed out that his “orientation” caused him no particular discrimination from being married, from serving in the military, or from being an ordained minister.
In point of fact, as far as I’m concerned he was straight, with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Just like McGreevey was until he “came out” a few weeks ago.
>It is the behavior that he adheres to today that might cause problems in those areas. Further proof that orientation has nothing to do with it.
This is terribly naive. If, for example, a male were never married and was not seen in the presence of a woman, as he gets older others would likely to consider him homosexual regardless of whether he had homo-sex and discriminate against him on that basis.
Indeed the “bachelor uncle” has always been suspect; I’m not saying this stereotype is any more accurate than any other, but after a certain age (which nobody can quite define), if a guy hasn’t taken a wife, or kept frequent company with one or more women …. well, he’s often assumed to be gay regardless what his inclinations.
“A homosexual who never engages in homosexual behavior will be assumed to be HETEROsexual — the same as a heterosexual who never has sex is still considered “heterosexual by nature”.
This is not because of any double standard of “orientation”, but because no one — not one singe person — has ever come into being by anything other than an explicitly heterosexual act. That is why it is assumed to be the natural state of man.
Joe is comparing apples to oranges here.
A person is assumed to be heterosexual simply because they exist. A homosexual is assumed to be gay because of their behavior.”
Marty, I did not have any sexual relations with anyone until I was 17 (and then it was with a man). Yet I was attacked, verbally and physically, for being “gay” and a “faggot” as young as 12 years old. “Acting gay” is not simply about sex, or even desire, it is also about not acting according to the stereotypical gender behaviors.
The differences between gay and straight adults can be seen as young as 3 years old (I was 5 when my parents first suspected). Even though I learned to hide those gender-non-conforming behaviors, I was still gay.
People are assumed to be heterosexual because most people are heterosexual. People are assumed to be right-handed because most people are right-handed. Until they put their left hand out to take something from you, of course – until they exhibit left-handed behavior, you don’t know their orientation, but you don’t freak out when you find out about it, either.
CPT said: “…until they exhibit left-handed behavior, you don’t know their orientation, but you don’t freak out when you find out about it, either.”
Not any more, but there was a time when left-handedness was a “sure sign” the child was demon-possessed, and extreme measures were used to force the child to become right-hand-dependent …. although inside they were usually still left-hand-dominant. 🙂 I don’t think anyone these days even thinks about it much or cares. And someday, the same will be said about same-sex oriented folks, that it just doesn’t matter (because, of course, it really doesn’t matter).