It's Because We
Love Them:
The Controversy of
Homosexuality
The world has been against them for so long that it's become a staple of modern existence.
These days, the tune of the world seems to be the emphasis of free rights. We balk at racism, we balk at those who discriminate on the base of gender, religion, and cultural background. And yet, still, to this very day, there are those who find nothing at all disturbing about the fact that so many gay men and women are both hated and discriminated against, and for no other reason than because that's just how it's always been.
Having attended a high school in a town where both homophobia and racism ran rampant, I've seen with my own eyes just how desperate the plight of a gay male or female can be when surrounded by hate. After all, what does it say about a group of students when the number one, most frequently-used insult among them is an accusation of homosexuality? I remember, quite clearly, being in eighth grade, and constantly having to deflect taunts of "dyke" and "lesi." Was it because I showed some indication of homosexuality? Was it because I dressed differently or cut my hair short or acted suspiciously? No. It was because, when searching for insults that would truly sting, my taunters knew that, in that place and time, an accusation of homosexuality was the most dire barb that could be thrown.
It's an endless cycle of hatred and fear. The taunters accuse, knowing that there lies safety in being the prosecutor, that none would dare accuse someone who spoke so adamantly against homosexuality of being gay. And, those who are taunted quickly learn to deny, to deflect, and--in some cases--to point their fingers in other directions, hoping to distract their taunters to other, more likely targets.
Hey, but kids will be kids, right? The only problem with that is, unfortunately, that kids inevitably grow into adults, and often, those hates and fears stick with them.
One primary example is a man called Benjamin Matthew Williams who, in 1999, broke into the Northern Californian home of a gay couple and, as they slept, shot and killed them (Delsohn 1999). This, in itself, is--while horrifying and terrible--not entirely out of the ordinary. However, the media circus that followed soon afterwards is.
Not only did Williams openly admit to killing the couple, despite the consequences, but he seemed to be of the impression that his actions were a part of some modern-day holy quest. "I'm not guilty of murder," he said when interviewed. "I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the creator."
Williams then went on to say that, although many claimed themselves to be devoted to the Christian faith, few of them had the "guts" to act against the sin running rampant in the world. While this religious foundation behind anti-gay hate crimes is a common one, another "cause" of such crimes, as explored in the trial of Aaron McKinney (Cullen 1999), is "homosexual rage," or "gay panic." McKinney, tried in 1999 for the brutal murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, claimed that he killed Shepard chiefly because of gay panic, which is the idea that a person can be thrown into a panic when faced with same-gender sexual advances.
As it was, the "gay panic" defense didn't hold up well in court for McKinney, but the fact remains that these kinds of excuses for hate crimes are everywhere, giving murderers easy exoneration from their actions, if not in a court of law, then at least in their own minds.
And, yet, anti-gay supporters are not always angry, violent, under-educated fools. There are those individuals who believe wholeheartedly in the "wrongness" of homosexuality, who speak with the seductive voices of intelligence and reason. Following a rally intended to convince gays to "stop being gay" in October of 1999, Michael Johnston (Ness 1999) was quoted as saying, "If we really hated the homosexual community, we would ignore them . . . It's because we love them that we do this."
All those who have read or are familiar with the Bible are aware that, quite clearly, there are passages that speak against homosexuality. However, not all Christian institutions are of the opinion that these passages are being interpreted correctly, or that God loves a gay man or woman any less than anyone else. One example of such an institution is the UFMCC, The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (Bidwell 1995). According to the organization's self-titled web site, the UFMCC is chiefly characterized by its beliefs in the free, indiscriminatory love of God, regardless of sexual orientation, and that "no incompatibility exists between human sexuality and the Christian faith."
In an attempt to steer Christians away from the judgment of gays on the basis of Biblical passages, the UFMCC devotes an entire page to exploring and explaining those passages most typically used to prove that God is "against" gays.
What follows is an excerpt from that page, which draws from one of the most-quoted sections used to speak against homosexuality:
"Leviticus 18: 22; 20:13-14. These verses are found in the "Holiness Code" which emphasized to the Israelites that they were to be set apart from God. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby . . . cult of Molech. 'Abomination' is a translation of the Hebrew word which sepcifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship . . .
The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. . ."
Thus, the UFMCC stresses the fact that, due to mistakes and oversights in the translations of the original text of the Bible, that which may seem to be an open statement against homosexuality may, indeed, not have anything at all to do with it. This page, also, touches on the notion that homosexuality is wrong because of "nature." Some individuals, apparently, are under the impression that males and females exist for the sole purpose of reproduction, and thus homosexuality--since it doesn't produce offspring--can't possibly be endorsed by Nature or God. And, yet, the UFMCC and many others, including myself, can't help but be skeptical of such a statement.
Is that all we are? It's true, we are biological organisms who continue to live because of our ability to reproduce, but is that truly all that makes a human being? Is our highest goal in life to reproduce ourselves, to "continue the line," so to speak? Animals, insects, and other creatures work from this principle, so why not humans?
And, yet, while there is no solidified way of determining such a thing, we humans possess something that few of the other creatures on this planet seem to have the capacity for. We have love. Songs are composed, poems and novels are written, movies are made, paintings are created--all for love and the idea of love.
To prove my point, I offer a hypothetical example:
Kerry and Tim, after meeting online through a mutual friend and spending several years as the best of friends, realize that they are in love with each other. These two have never met, but--through written speech and endless hours of sharing their lives with one another--can say with great certainty that they are in love. Naturally, as with those who feel such immense emotions, Kerry and Tim want to meet each other. However, the night before they're scheduled to have their first in-person date, Kerry confesses to Tim that she is an overweight African American woman who is less than attractive, and gives him the opportunity to call off their meeting in light of this confession.
Now, naturally, those enlightened individuals hearing
of such a turn of events would scream, "He loves her! It doesn't matter what she looks like or
what race she is! They're in love!"
In times such as these, most people would find it offensive to hear anyone say
differently of this situation, or to suggest that--after falling so completely
and totally in love with this woman--Tim would brush her off because of her
physical appearance. It seems the
natural choice, and the obviously-right one.
And, yet, if Kerry were to come out to Tim, instead, with the confession that she were actually a male, what would the consensus reaction be? Would anyone remember that Tim and Kerry were, only a few short hours earlier, deeply in love and ready to spend the rest of their lives together? No, because under today's societal norms, the idea that the exterior doesn't matter in a relationship doesn't seem to hold water when it comes to the idea of gender. Hypocrisy, perhaps, but this seems to be the norm. In fact, if Tim were most men, he would no doubt be in a frenzy after such a confession, scared and sick that he might be gay because he found himself "tricked" into loving another man.
In long ago days, before the creation of the internet, such a problem was extremely rare, since most relationships were based on face-to-face interaction. And, while crossdressing has occurred in history, not all males and females were capable of "pulling it off" convincingly, so the chances of a man falling in love with a man he thought to be a woman were very slim. However, in days such as these, the truth of human nature and love seems to be glaringly-obvious, what with such institutions as the internet in place.
How could it be possible, if it were "natural" for a human male to fall in love with a human female, for a man to fall in love with another man on the internet? In real-life meetings, an opinion is formed immediately by the human brain that gives either a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. For the straight male, women get the green-light, while any thoughts towards other men aren't even given a chance to form, because of the preconceived "thumbs-down." Yet, on the internet, there is no such preconceived notion, and thus the possibilities of human affection are endless.
Could it be, perhaps, that love isn't as strict and bordered a concept as it was once thought to be? Could it be that, were we not bound with the constraints of "morality" and "Christian values," humans could choose freely among the population of their fellow humans for their life's mate?
Of course, not all individuals on this planet believe in God, but for those who do, I pose this question. Do you honestly believe that, while standing in the mists of Heaven directing souls to their earthly bodies, God had little signs with M's or F's duct-taped onto all human spirits? Do you honestly believe that God, who--despite the pronoun usage in the Bible--is clearly neither male or female as He does not utilize sexual reproduction, is concerned with such a trivial thing as gender when it comes to the human soul? There mere idea of it is ludicrous. A soul is a soul, regardless of body or race or religion--regardless of gender. How can those campaigning for the rights of women or the rights of African Americans claim that we are all the same, and yet dismiss the idea of indiscriminatory love? Gender is not as rigid a thing as we seem to believe.
Where we stand right now in history, it seems unlikely that the tide of the world is likely to turn anytime soon. However, little by little, humanity is becoming enlightened to the idea of homosexuality; the idea of love based not on gender, but on a mutual attraction of souls and minds. Entertainers like Ellen Degeneres and Melissa Etheridge pave the way for those that follow, defying stereotypes and proving that it is possible to be talented and successful without being straight. On television, meanwhile, shows such as "Will and Grace" and "Spin City" feature openly-gay characters, while musicals such as "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" speak openly and truthfully on the facets of gay life and love.
To close, I offer a quote by Rita Mae Brown, stated at the Gay Olympics, 1982:
"This is a celebration of individual freedom, not homosexuality. No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody."
Works Cited
Bidwell, Charles. "Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches." Online. Internet. 15
October 1995. Available: http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/UFMCC/freetobe.htm.
Cullen, Dave. "Quiet Bombshell In Matthew Shepard Trial." Online. Internet. 1 November 1999.
Available: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/01/gay_panic/index.html.
Dehlson, Gary and Sam Stanton. "I'm Guilty of Obeying the Laws of the Creator." Online. Internet. 8
November 1999. Available: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/08/hate/print.html.
Ness, Carol. "Anti-Gay Speakers Make No Converts." Online. Internet. 12 October 1999. Available:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/10/12/METRO1608.dtl.