Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign seems to be a step back from the medical models of homosexuality that was, as far as I know, still the dominant model in 1977. If, as many scientists and doctors believed, there existed something like a “gay gene” or some other medical, biological reason for same-sex desire, it would be impossible to “recruit” or convert heterosexual individuals without this gene. Even if some people were “recruited” by the efforts of gay activists, they would, by this model, have to have the capacity for or have experienced same-sex desire already!
It still seems strange to me the supporters would march “under the catchphrase, ‘Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit’” (92). Did Bryant and other supporters of the “Save Our Children” campaign actually believe that people with same-sex desire had no desire to reproduce and that reproduction was a physical impossibility for them? Even without any official medical records stating that it is just as easy for a lesbian to get pregnant or a gay man to impregnate as it would be for a heterosexual to reproduce, it should seem obvious that this is the case by the many examples--even before 1980--of gay men marrying women to appear to be heteronormative and respectable by social standards or of women being raped for actual or suspected homosexual desires.
Amazingly, some people still seem hold this belief today. But if homosexuals can reproduce, then by the logic of that campaign, they would not have to recruit. Again clearly, their children don’t turn out gay by default. According to an article Huffington Post, “while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html).
And, if they could not reproduce to create individuals with a gay gene, and they could not possibly recruit people because homosexuality required a gay gene, then where, really is the harm in openly expressing and practicing same-sex desires?
This is an example of how homophobia (and other phobias) was and still is used to rationalize and justify ridiculous, illogical beliefs about individuals who experience and act out same-sex desire (among other things).
Also, I thought it was funny but fitting that she was “former Miss America” (92). I’m under the impression that beauty contests, such as the Miss America pageant, resurfaced to counter the new social and political power that women were gaining in the United States (the appliance rush and 50s image of the ideal woman as homemaker and trophy wife seem to do the same thing). It is not surprising that the woman who felt compelled to speak out against violations of conventional gender rules--which include compulsory heterosexuality--would also have taken part in a contest that upholds and stresses conventional femininity (and, therefore, masculinity by showing what a woman is and what is man cannot be). It makes sense that Bryant would be homophobic (with homosexuality as a violation of gender normativity) because to believe in the flexibility of gender would be to shake the foundations of her fame and career as a feminine figure and spokesperson.
No comments:
Post a Comment