Meem, Gibson, and Alexander write, “Others have argued that in part because it is a variation and not the norm--and also because of the long history of persecution and punishment of those engaging in same-sex (and other nonsanctioned [sic]) sexual acts--homosexuality should continue to be restricted or outlawed by the state” (66) the contemporary example of Scalia’s opinion that “society needs sodomy laws because society has always had sodomy laws” (66) follows. Of course, people like Scalia only ever make this argument when it’s something they personally oppose (with ungrounded reasons). Far fewer people today would suggest that laws against oral sex should remain intact or that only white male property-owners should be allowed to vote. Applying this “logic” to other “natural variations in the human species,” it would be best to make laws to punish people for having red hair, freckles, unusually large or small breasts or penises. Being left-handed would be a sin, punishable by life in prison or death if proven in court, and rather than praising ambiguous-handed people for their ability to use both, we would treat them as outcasts, just as bad as the left-handed. This all seems ridiculous, of course, but they are also variations in the human species. Favoring heterosexuality in an over-populated world is even worse than favoring right-handedness or certain hair and skin colors because, in addition to the discrimination, violence, and stereotypes that result, heterosexual relationships can create unplanned pregnancies as well.
Although Freud calls it “a great injustice...and cruelty too” to treat homosexuality as criminal, he also says, “we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development” (66). Speaking out against persecution is great, but implying that same-sex desire is a mark of immaturity places those individuals in the same category as children. Was it better to be considered in need of guidance because one is childish than because one is mentally ill? Isn’t society’s treatment of each the same? How did they feel about it at the time?
As Kathleen Parker says, discharging gay men from the military was (and is) “not about gay rights, but about the rights of non-gays to be protected from forced intimacy with people who may be sexually attracted to them” (72). It might be helpful to add “whom they are not attracted to.” And clearly, this idea only applies to heterosexual men. People can identify with men who are the unfortunate “victims” of sexual interest from other men or from women they consider unattractive, but it’s unheard of for them to sympathize with women who go through the same. In some cases, they may even favor women’s uncomfortable situations if they believe they could lead to one of their sexual fantasies (O M G L E S B I A N S). It’s hard to imagine a law or a social rule that would make sure that women--of any sexual identity--were protected from “forced intimacy with [men] who may be sexually attracted to them.” Further, it seems that every man thinks himself attractive to the woman he tries to pick up at a bar--even if she isn’t interested in men at all--so that he never believes himself at fault for the same things he complains about. Heterosexual men’s rampant homophobia informs their attitudes and apparently our laws because, for whatever reason, they see other men’s same-sex interest as a threat to their masculinity and well-being.
No comments:
Post a Comment