Intolerance of Homophobia

Homosexuality seems to be in the news a lot recently. Between same sex marriages in Canada, nobbling gay bishops in the UK, sodomy laws in the US, and the latest Baroness Barking seeking to retain Section 28 in the Lords, a number of stories seem to have come together to focus on this one area of human society. Unfortunately, the picture these stories illuminate is not a pleasant one.

The primary lesson to be learnt from all these news stories is that bigotry is alive and well. An innocuous supreme court decision, sensibly stating that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business, has been portrayed by so-called Christian groups as dangerous, evil, a sodomists charter. The insidious section 28 was described as "protecting against the most dangerous form of sex education". The belief being demonstrated is clear - homosexuals aren't born, they're made. Evil men seduce youngsters away from "proper" desires. Homosexuality is something that can be stamped out. Outlaw it, don't talk about, ban its "promotion".

But what is there to protect against? Same sex couples can be as loving, committed, and intense as any mixed gender marriage. Conversely, heterosexuals can indulge in casual, unprotected sex, and their relationships can be abusive. The "protection" sought is not for the good of the individual. Instead it is some arbitrary moral code that is being protected. Anti-homosexual attitudes come from the same basket that prohibits contraception and pre-marital sex, and leads to the execution of adulterers. In short, homophobia is just one part of the belief that we must all be miserable in order to indulge someone else's insane religious beliefs.

Simply, as a society we are incredibly repressed about sex. We want it to be nasty, not talked about, furtive. As a result, we produce generations of women who don't enjoy sex, men who don't understand sex, and anyone who actually manages to find something they do enjoy is embarrassed or even scared by it. Any sane person would realise that their children's happiness is more important than any adherence to imposed social norms. Instead, people force their children into a sexuality that suits the parents whims, cutting the vulnerable off entirely from support. You can't choose who you fall in love with, who you find desirable. You can't choose that person's gender. There is no truth to the idea that homosexuals are "made". People don't choose that route - for them it is natural. Section 28 is particularly insidious. In a society designed to alienate youngsters beginning to realise that their sexuality is not approved, UK law cuts them off from the one source of support that should be available.

Not only are we repressed, we're good at exporting it. Our noxious attitude to the most basic of human desires has been successfully transplanted to other countries, corrupting other societies. The appointment of an openly gay man as Bishop of Reading was blocked by evangelists, largely in the third world. Money, extorted from the poor through the threat of eternal damnation, proved an effective weapon against the reforming attitudes of Lambeth palace. It is depressing to see the speed with which Lambeth reversed their decision when opposition became clear. Religion is still ruled by the reactionary, not the caring.

The continued prominence of reactionary killjoys in the running of our society (and others) is worrying. Even those of us who are not homosexual, should worry about the bigotry that has recently been displayed. Every freedom curtailed for someone else is a precedent for curtailing our own freedoms. The right of consenting adults to enjoy sex in private should be sacrosanct and unarguable. That we can have this debate at all is indictment enough of our society. Equal tolerance for all, regardless of their creed or preferences, is an ideal we will never reach, but we have a clear duty to protect and support those who are most vulnerable. The homosexual teenager needs our support. Hiding the problem removes the outlets these young people need, leaving them to find their way through experimentation, with all the dangers that implies.

Every scrap of evidence we have suggests that sex education works. That it allows teenagers to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, to grow safely. The dangers of the sexual world - pregnancy, disease, exploitation - are best avoided through education. Those who seek to regulate sex education out of existence in the name of protecting children are those who are doing most harm.

Human society is full of bigotry. We're good at it. Those of us with dreams of an equalised society need to guard against this natural tendency. We need to beware of the bigotry underlying the actions of ourselves and others. No amount of stating "I have nothing against homosexuals" can change the fact that it is fundamentally homophobic to attack the freedom of consenting adults to enjoy themselves in private, or the right of teenagers to the support and education appropriate to their emerging sexuality.

A major problem is that many of those leading the bigoted end of the debate are, themselves, members of what may be perceived as a special interest group - defined by their religious affiliation. So much of the homophobic nonsense we've seen recently comes from Christian or Islamic extremist that accusations of religious bigotry emerge swiftly when the more sensible, enlightened position is put forward. For some liberals this produces a difficult dilemma - oppose homophobia, or support religious freedom. I find nothing convincing about any group claiming to deserve tolerance for their own intolerance. The intolerance found at the heart of many religions is destructive and dangerous. Religious views based on hatred and intolerance, frankly, deserve to be marginalised. Let those who seek tolerance of religious belief concentrate their attention on the (many) sections that are not fundamentally offensive.

The debate on homosexuality has been driven too long by bigoted extremists. Its time to marginalise these people, for the media and government to promote tolerance and acceptance. Playing to the bigots may be a vote winner, but it is never acceptable in a civilised society.

Graham Robinson. 16th July 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.