Revulsion at Homosexuality: Roots of Homophobia (Book Notes: Created Equal)

The oppression and persecution of homosexuals in America is becoming more and more important politically. Back when discrimination against gays was the norm, there were no questions about why it occurred. Now that it is being challenged, though, the roots of this hatred are being exposed.

In Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America, Michael Nava & Robert Dawidoff write:

The decision to regard homosexuality as a species of alien behavior, and to punish it, makes a law of the majority’s personal taste and habits. For most people, the “sin” of homosexuality is a question of taste. The question embarrasses people not because they can’t imagine it, but because they can and do.

The revulsion many men and women feel at the thought of sexual activity between people of their own sex remains a formidable obstacle on the path of gay rights. This revulsion, which we call the Ick Factor, equates distaste with immorality. It is a child’s vision of life, in which the things one wants to do are natural, and the things one doesn’t want to do are matters of morality: “I don’t like it; it’s bad.”

People’s objections to homosexuality are not intellectual. It’s not like someone who objects to communism because they sincerely believe that capitalism is a better economic system while communism inevitably reduces freedom, opportunity, and happiness. Justified or mistaken, such opposition is intellectual in nature.

People’s objections to homosexuality aren’t even just religious, though religious ideology plays an important role in this. Deep down, people’s objection to homosexuality appear to be a revulsion at homosexual acts themselves. People are able to imagine what they are like and, being horrified, seek to ensure that they don’t occur.

Religion serves to rationalize and justify this revulsion, but in the end people are disgusted at the idea of people engaging in certain kinds of sexual acts. Normalizing homosexuality, much less same-sex marriage, would ultimately send the message that there is nothing wrong with those acts and that’s not something which many people are willing to accept.

Should disgust form the basis for laws which control other people’s behavior? No. Some have defended disgust as a basis for laws on the theory that disgust tells us something about fundamental social norms, but that’s just a circular argument. Others have defended disgust on the theory that it tells us something about human nature, something outside socialization and social customs. That’s not even plausible, much less persuasive. Some have even argued that the experience of disgust is itself a type of harm which the law should prevent.

At one time, people experienced disgust at seeing interracial relationships, interfaith relationships, and living near racial or religious minorities. Their disgust was no less real than the disgust people experience today at the thought of gay couples — but was that disgust a reasonable basis for anti-miscegenation laws or housing discrimination? Of course not. There is far less disgust at such things today precisely because the laws were overturned and people were socialized to think differently about such situations.

Thus, it’s true that normalizing homosexuality and gay marriage would send the message that there is nothing wrong with them — at least, nothing wrong from the standpoint of civil law. People would be free to continue experiencing disgust and revulsion at gays and gay relationships, but as people are socialized not to regard their gay neighbors as aliens, such disgust and revulsion will become just as much a minority viewpoint as disgust at interracial marriages is today.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.