FREE ESSAY ON HOW AMERICA SHOULD REACT TO HOMOSEXUALS

HOW AMERICA SHOULD REACT TO HOMOSEXUALS

How America should react to homosexuals
Many experts agree that homosexuality has existed as long as human beings themselves,
although the attitude towards them has undergone dramatic changes in some countries.
Accepted by many societies during Greek and Roman era, most of the time homosexuals were
considered to be sinners against nature and even criminals. In Medieval and modern
periods homosexuals were prosecuted. Enlightenment brought some liberation, substituting
death penalty by imprisonment. In Nazi Germany so-called doctors tried to cure gays by
the ways of castration and extreme intimidation. Until 1973 attempts to find a cure
against homosexuality, what by majority was viewed as a disease, were continued. Today,
when research on twins suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice, but our genetic
predisposition, homosexual acts are still considered to be immoral and even illegal in
majority of countries and in the eyes of most religious groups homosexuals, probably,
always will be the subjects of anathema. As much as the future may look gloomy for many
gays and lesbians all over the world, there are remarkable changes in public opinion and
officials' attitudes toward homosexuals in some countries. For example, in 1989 Denmark
was the first to allow the same-sex marriage. In the United States the subject of
homosexuality remains controversial. For example, In Hawaii three homosexual couples
asked the court to recognize their right to get married and the court did. However, the
state government refused to legalize this marriage. Consequently, a new amendment was
introduced to the state Constitution. At the same time, majority of the states are not
even considering this option and homosexuality itself is still illegal there. Still, not
only authorities try to determine the position they should take towards homosexuals, many
common Americans also have no clear understanding of how to react to homosexuality.
Why should we bother to find the answer to the questions: who are the homosexuals and
where do they belong in our society? First of all, it is important to realize that
homosexuals are an integral part of our society. Your neighbor, your co-worker, your
hairdresser, your child and even your spouse can be one of them. According to Richard D.
Mohr [t]wo out of five men one passes on the street have had orgasmic sex with men. Every
second family in the country has a member who is essentially homosexual and many more
people regularly have homosexual experiences(186). Should we avoid them, ignore, express
our anger and disgust? Unfortunately, many people feel that way because they have a
remote idea about people of different sexual orientation. For them homosexuality is
perversion, abnormality or decease. The ignorance may foster fear, which in its turn
leads to hostility. Homophobia is dangerous, because it affects all groups of people -
heterosexuals and homosexuals, grown-ups and children, men and women. It may lead to
violence and even death. There are numerous cases when people were actually killed
because of homophobia. To name few of them - Matthew Shepard(homosexual), John Braun
(heterosexual), Steve Kennedy (homosexual) and the list can be continued. As Jeffrey
Nickel puts it, [p]rejudice against homosexuality sharply limits how all men and women
may acceptably behave, among themselves and with each other( 529). It is obvious that we
can no longer pretend that the homosexual issue is none of our concern. In attempt to
evaluate our attitude towards people of different sexual orientation we will be able to
understand them better. What is more important, we may overcome our prejudice, which
often results in discrimination of one group against another. To acknowledge that there
are people who are different and learn to tolerate them means to live in a safer world. 
The next question is: Do we have the right to discriminate against homosexuals? Until
recently homosexuals were invisible minority. Therefore, many Americans were unaware that
gays and lesbians were discriminated against. But homosexuals were and still are treated
unfairly on the basis that they undermine our morality, that they present danger to our
children and that they are transmitters of AIDs far more than heterosexuals. Today many
gays and lesbians come out of the closet and demand the same rights that heterosexual
take for granted. We have to admit that some steps have been made to protect homosexuals.
However, many government and public institutions and individuals still discriminate
against homosexuals denying them employment, housing, insurance, marriage, child's
custody and so on. 
Why is it allowed to discriminate against people who have different sexual orientation?
Some may put forward arguments that being gay is immoral, that it is illegal, that it is
a sin against nature and violation of God's law and, as Pete Hamill remarks, some people
consider homosexual variety [as a] proof of existence of Satan (532). Some homophobics
qualify homosexual behavior akin to lying and stealing and, therefore, support the idea
that gays and lesbians deserve to suffer. As Pete Hamill points out ,...gay-bashing is
real; homosexuals are routinely injured or murdered every day, all over the world, by
people who fear or hate their version of human sexuality(532). But as was mentioned
above, the medical studies confirm that being gay is not a matter of choice or
preference, but a deviation from normal sexuality, which lays in genes and hardly can be
changed. Given a choice many would have preferred not to be homosexual. It is hard to
imagine the somebody would voluntary give up all the privileges of being straight and
subject himself to harassment, discrimination, assaults and scorn. Some argue that the
homosexual act is unnatural since it is not procreative. Then why don't we discriminate
against sterile couples or those of over childbearing age? Others express their concern
that by granting homosexuals rights we will give our blessing to other forms of sexual
perversions such polygamy and pedophillia, for example. Here it is important to notice,
that for one, pedophillia is not necessary a homosexual act. Secondly, it is immoral and
unlawful because one of the partners in this case is a child or a teenager who more often
than not has no other choice than to yield to the power of the adult. As Joseph Geraci
and Donald H. Mader point out the power imbalance between the adult and the younger
partner in a pedophille relationship is so great that it inevitably leads to coercion and
exploitation (969). Unlike pedophillia, a homosexual act is consent between two adults,
no harm to others is done and with our bodies we are free to do whatever we please.
Therefore, there is no point to call it illegal. Moreover, discrimination against people
of different sexual orientation will be a violation of the constitution, which guarantees
common rights for everybody. Thus, despite our own preference we have neither moral nor
legal right to discriminate against them. As for disapproval of different religions of
homosexuality, everyone should have the freedom to go to hell as one wants, as Udo
Schuklenk and Tony Riley put it quoting Enlgelhardt (602). 
The last question that is important to discuss: Should homosexuals be a protected
minority? Like any other minority homosexuals deserve the protection by any government
and public institution. An absence of protection against discrimination will result in
more violence and injustice. For a example, a gay who was beaten and harassed may not
seek justice in court because by doing so he puts himself and his loved one in the open
position for further discrimination. Most homosexuals prefer not to engage themselves in
such procedures for fear of losing more. Therefore, while heterosexuals feel free
victimize them in different ways, homosexuals can not even exercise the rights given them
by law. Some may argue that homosexuals themselves often cause trouble. Gay activists
harass doctors, disrupt public meetings, and scream self-righteously about their
rage(Hamill 534). It is hard to dismiss this point, but by denying homosexuals their
rights one can not stop violence. Only by accepting them into the society on the same
terms as we accept heterosexuals will give us a chance to stop the escalating rage from
both sides. Other opponents of homosexuality argue that granting gays and lesbians the
same protection under law that is granted to other minorities is to give them special
privileges. But homosexuals do not ask for special privileges. They want the same rights
as heterosexuals - the right to have a job they want and be treated according to their
skills and performance at work, but not by the fact that they share their bedrooms with
the same-sex partners. They want to live in the house they like and be judged according
to their action, but not for who they are. They want the same benefits from their
employers and insurance companies as heterosexuals have. Finally, they want to get
married and have children, but those basic human choices cause the main disagreement
among heterosexuals. As was mentioned above, there are many families with homosexual
members. Some parents are disappointed that their child will never be married and they
will never have grandchildren, but most of those parents still want to see their children
happy and hope that they will find somebody to love and share their life. Why should not
society find it possible to share the same maturity. Moreover, in the wake of AIDs
encouraging gay monogamy is simply rational public policy. However, according to
Washington Post poll 70 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, yet only 53
percent oppose homosexual relationship between consenting adults (Francoure 246).
Some will argue that one of the family's function is it conceive and raise children. But
today sex is not the only way to have a child. It can be conceived in vitro through sperm
and eggs donors or by surrogate mother, and there is always such option as adoption. In
addition, the wide spread opinion that homosexuals will raise children who also will be
homosexuals has no scientific evidence. To the contrary, some studies show that the
sexuality of a child is determined very early, perhaps at conception and it is very
unlikely that parents can have influence on his or her sexual orientation. As one can
see, there is no justification to deny homosexuals their rights. In addition, if there is
no other way we can provide gays and lesbians with those rights without making them a
privileged group this is not their fault. Since homosexuals often are the subject of
harassment, violence, mistreatment, discrimination, or illness for no fault of their own
we should chose the position which will allow them to have the same rights as
heterosexuals do.
As science and technology moves forward, we easily accept changes in the outside world,
and yet we are reluctant to leave our beliefs and prejudices behind. I hope that people
are becoming smarter not only in developing sophisticated methods, producing and
operating complex devices, but also in understanding other human beings. It is time to
abandon our ancient prejudice about homosexuality and start think reasonably. We have to
acknowledge the scientific fact that being a gay is not a decease, not a curse, not an
immoral act, not a preference, but just another type of sexuality. Gays are a permanent
minority and aren't likely to go away. So, instead of burdening ourselves with
unnecessary tension by rejecting them, we have to adjust our apprehension, accept them
for who there are and treat them fairly. By doing so we will reduce violence, hate crime
and stress. Is it not a good reason to overcome the last of our prejudices?
Bibliography
Francoeur, Robert T. Should Society Recognize Gay Marriages? Taking sides: Clashing
Views on controversial Issues. Issues in Human Sexuality. 4th Ed. Stephen Satris: The
Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc, Guilford,1994:246-247. 
Geraci, Joseph and DonaldH. Mader. Pedophillia. Encyclopedia of Homosexuality
Ed. Wayne R Dynes. Garland Publishing, Inc , New York, 1990: v2, 964-970.
Hamill, Pete. Confessions of a Heterosexual. The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric and
Reader.
2nd Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View,
California,1998: 531-536. 
Mohr, Richard D. Gay Basics: Some Questions, Facts, and Values. Taking sides: Clashing
Views on controversial Issues. Moral Issues. 4th Ed. Stephen Satris: The Dushkin
Publishing Group, Inc, Guilford,1994:186-194. 
Nickel, Jeffrey. Everybody's Threatened by Homophobia. The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric
and Reader.2nd Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, 
Mountain View, California, 1998:527-530.
Schuklenk,Udo and Tony Riley. Homosexuality, Social Attitudes Toward. Encyclopedia of
Applied Ethics. Editor-in -Chief Ruth Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2,
597-603. 
Ulanowsky, Carole. The Family. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in-Chief 
Ruth Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2,