It's common for anti-gay bigots to complain that it's inappropriate for homosexuals to 'display' their homosexuality all the time. They imagine that such displays are done deliberately as a political or social statement, and at times this may be true. What they forgot or simply ignore, however, is how often heterosexuality is on display.

D. J. Heasman wrote in the July 1977 issue of Political Quarterly:

The trouble with publicly proclaimed homosexuals is that they wish to be “integrated into society” and treated simply as “person”, yet they want in all situations to be identified as homosexuals. On the one hand, sexuality is unimportant, on the other all-important. Is it really appropriate that an individual’s sexual predilections should be on display at all times as an emblem of identity? There are many deviations besides homosexuality which are engaged in with the consent of the participants. Why single out homosexuality? Why not accord public recognition to them all?

Does Heasman ask whether’s it’s really appropriate for an individual’s heterosexual predilections to be on display at all times as an emblem of identity? Did Heasman ever ask whether it was appropriate for heterosexuals to hold hands in public, kiss in public, talk about their partners, and so forth? I doubt it.

Anti-gay bigots don’t ask those questions because they treat heterosexuality as normal and, therefore, the actions of heterosexuals are beyond question. They hold homosexuals to a double standard not because they are upholding a principle, but because it serves their general desire to prevent homosexuals from being treated as or even from thinking of themselves as fully equal citizens in society.

Heasman asks “why single out homosexuality,” but that’s the question which he should have asked himself.

The important point, one would think, for homosexuals to keep in mind, and it should be of some comfort to them, especially if they do not wish to be regarded as uniquely odd but to be met in a kindly, sympathetic spirit of charitable fellowship, is that everyone has sides to his nature that are best kept private; and that keeping them private is mandatory where there is contact with children.

Heasman is certainly right that there are aspects of all our lives which should be kept private, but what he misses in his arrogant and condescending comments is that he doesn’t justify why homosexuality — as opposed to heterosexuality — should be one of those things. He assumes it, that’s obvious, but he’s not able to provide a serious argument for this position.

Heasman is willing to regard gays “as uniquely odd” and “in a kindly, sympathetic spirit of charitable fellowship,” but did he ever ask himself whether gays were interested in such a condescending attitude? Did it ever occur to him that perhaps gays would rather be treated as equals — not as odd, but as different, not in a “sympathetic” manner, but in a fair and civil manner?

It would be far better for people like Heasman to be honest that they are bigoted and prejudiced than to engage in condescending tolerance which barely concealed desire to be intolerant.

 

Read More:

• Gay Rights, Gay Marriage
• Godless Liberalism
• Godless Political Notes