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.
Survey:
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.
| 
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or