Makin' Whoopie
Socital
Rejection of Homosexuality
Marta Roberts
and Caroline Wagner
Introduction:
Homosexuality is not a widely
accepted social behavior. We hypothesize that the rejection of homosexuality
is due to the societal belief in sex as morally and culturally restricted
to a monogamous relationship-most specifically marriage-and the belief
that successful coital interactions results in the strengthening of these
monogamous bonds and that it also furthers the genetic material of both
participants; something that is not necessarily applicable to same-sex
couplings. The Darwinian implications of this are fairly obvious: homosexuality,
void of unconventional means of conception, cannot conceive children.
We, therefore, posit that the fear and rejection of homosexuality in mainstream
society is derived from these Darwinian instincts. However, we do not
hold that these are necessarily the only reasons for the rejection of
homosexuality. Some causes for the failure of homosexual acceptance could
be traced to religion, lack of or promotion of cultural diversity, and
socio economic differentiations.
For the purpose of this proposal
we will use the term homosexual to describe any sexuality between two
humans that does not fall under the description of heterosexual-sex between
two people of opposite sexes. Using evidence gathered from surveys of
both heterosexuals and homosexuals, we intend to gain insight into the
fear and isolation surrounding the homosexual lifestyle. While it may
seem as though we are assuming that homosexuality is not an viable lifestyle
in modern culture, legislation prohibiting same-sex unions, the presence
of hate crimes against homosexuals, and religious doctrines, including
Christianity, prohibiting homosexuality would seem to argue otherwise.
To prove this we will examine the historic contexts as well as modern
cases such as the Matthews Shepard murder.
We do not endeavor to postulate
on the causes behind homosexuality; rather, we intend to create possible
explanations to the rejection of homosexuality within society. Through
this type of careful evaluation we believe that a plausible conclusion
to the reasons behind the rejection of homosexuality can be reached.
Research and relevance:
Through our careful examination
of this topic we have found several pieces of information that would support
our theory. For the sake of organization we will split our research materials
into three primary categories: laws regarding homosexuality, proposed
reasons for the rejection of homosexuality, and Darwinian explanations
for the rejection of homosexuality.
Laws:
Laws that govern our society
are a dramatic testament to our societal beliefs. "The Family Protection
Act, introduced in Congress during the first Reagan administration, denies
Legal Aid Societies the right to 'promote, defend or protect homosexuality.'
An Arkansas statue permits schoolteachers to be fired for 'advocating,
soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting public or private homosexual
activity in a manner that creates a substantial risk that such conduct
will come to the attention of school children or school employees'" (Greenberg,
21). Laws such as this illustrate the reluctance of society to accept
homosexuality as a viable and legitimate lifestyle.
Current laws such as the ballot
initiative for the 2000 elections that passed in California are evidence
of the current objection to a homosexual lifestyle. The initiative protected
marriage as only between a man and a woman, and sought to prevent legalization
of same-sex marriages. While these are only a handful of examples of the
reluctance of same-sex unions to gain legal validity in our society, they
illustrate a general disregard for legally binding homosexual fidelity
and prove that, while specific sects within our society may approve of
the homosexual lifestyle, there is a greater majority of the populace
that disapproves.
Possible reasons for the
rejection of homosexuality:
The error in simply looking
at laws is that there is no explanation for the causes of the rejection
of homosexuality. Therefore it has become necessary for us to hypothesize
on specific causes for the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. One
such cause is the moral implication of the homosexual lifestyle.
Christianity has historically
disapproved of homosexual behavior. We intend to prove that this disapproval
has caused the view of homosexuality to change dramatically from the pagan
views of homosexual sex. In ancient Roman civilization "Plato is opposed
to slackness and the distractions of love, nature being to him simply
an additional factor. His plan is not to lead passion back to strictly
natural habits by only allowing love for women, but to suppress it altogether,
only allowing sexual activity for the purpose of reproduction" (Aries,
27).
This philosophy differs drastically
from one Christian view of homosexuality. "Anita Bryant, leader of the
'Save Our Children' campaign, announced that 'God puts homosexuals in
the same category as murders.' A mass mailing from Reverend Jerry Falwell,
head of the Moral Majority, called on readers to 'Stop the Gays dead in
their perverted tracks.' Dean Wycoff of the Santa Clara branch of the
Moral Majority stated on television that he believed that 'homosexuality
should be included with murder and other capital crimes so that the government
that sits upon this land would be doing the executing'" (Greenberg,
467).
We also hypothesize that areas
where a greater amount of cultural diversity is present homosexuality
will be more accepted. To prove this we will ask our survey participants
to answer a series of questions regarding their hometowns. By comparing
their descriptions with those of their hometown makeup, we hope to be
able to conclude whether homosexual acceptance is contingent upon the
exposure of individual to various lifestyles. A similar style of questioning
will be used in our conclusions on socio economic makeup.
Darwinian Explanations:
As we stated in our introduction,
there are clear Darwinian implications in the rejection of homosexuality.
Wright suggests that Darwin believes the only reason for the existence
of any species is to proliferate. If the species cannot reproduce, they
are slowly erased from the gene pool, only to be replaced by those that
can carry on their genes. If this is true, then why have homosexuals not
disappeared from the human race? They cannot reproduce and therefore should
have been replaced by more reproductive members of the species. (Wright)
From this, we conclude that biologically, society tries to discriminate
against homosexuals because they see no need for them. They cannot reproduce
and their genes will never be carried on. This is the concept that Darwin
calls "group selectionism."(Wright
186) Group selection implies that a group will try to take over the
job of natural selection in weeding out the people that they do not approve
of on the grounds that they do not fit into what society feels is morally
acceptable. Therefore, we conclude that Darwin would explain that discrimination
against homosexuals is the result of their inability to reproduce and
rejuvenate the species.
We believe that our survey
will also help us to discover more about the reason behind the rejection
of homosexuality. We have designed a survey that is specific to sexual
orientation (i.e. homosexuals answer different questions than heterosexuals).
We believe that this type of empirical data will lend validity to our
research and help us to make conclusions about the homosexual populations
of Oxford. Our audience will be both students and faculty. We may also
distribute this survey to community members. We anticipate distributing
around 200 surveys.
We believe that our topic will
broach several interesting and controversial issues in human nature. It
also seeks, much like Wright, to prove Darwinian implications in regard
to homosexuality.
Works
Cited and Works Consulted
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or 