American Attitudes towards Homosexuals - Research Paper Example

? American Attitudes towards Homosexuals Introduction Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transvestites, are just some of the individuals generally classified or referred to as homosexuals. Due to their different sexual orientation, they are often discriminated against and generally treated differently by the general majority population. In the traditional sense, the discrimination against these individuals has mostly been based on gender bias and the majority perception of the existence of only two genders – that of the male and female sex. Despite this dominant gender perception, homosexuals have been persistent about their rights and about their place in society. The laws have also been firm on the application of the equal protection of rights and the due process of law, as far as these homosexuals are concerned. As a result, these homosexuals have taken on a more public presence and have become more visible to the general population. In a way, they have made their presence known in almost all aspects of American life. However, even as their public visibility has increased dramatically over the past several decades, prejudicial attitudes against them have remained persistent. This paper shall discuss American attitudes against homosexuals, discussing the minor claim that public visibility of homosexuals has increased. In detail, it shall discuss the ways in which homosexual visibility has increased, more particularly through the media and through the “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” military policy. It shall also discuss the major claim that prejudicial attitudes against homosexuals persist and specifically, how Americans view homosexuals morally and the areas where homosexuals are discriminated against, including the workplace, the military, adoption, marriage, and healthcare. Possible moral objections to these arguments shall also be discussed. This paper is being carried out in order to establish a clear and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, including its specific details and elements. Background Attitudes towards homosexuals have been one of the most important issues in our society. Even as various organizations have become more accepting of gay rights, other organizations, most especially the religious have not been very supportive of homosexuality. Most Americans have become embroiled heavily in the contrasting opinions on homosexuality with some of them favoring the rights of homosexuals to self-promotion and perpetuation, and the rest expressing their outrage for homosexuality based on religious and moral grounds. In general, studies evaluating attitudes against homosexuals yielded negative attitudes against these individuals (Besen and Zickling, p. 251). These results have been seen in studies carried out during the 1980s and 1990s, including large scale reviews and surveys during the 1990s (Besen and Zicklin, p. 251). In recent years however, the attitudes towards homosexuals have improved with many Americans considering a more liberal approach towards civil rights (Besen and Zicklin, p. 251). Many of them have been able to gain some form of social acceptance from the general populace; however, to some extent many of them have persistently encountered these social issues on acceptance from moralists. Various factors have been considered in explaining these attitudes towards homosexuals. Individuals who have negative attitudes towards homosexuals are usually authoritarian and are very traditional in their views of sex roles and of minority groupings (Besen and Zicklin, p. 251). These attitudes have also been spurred on by health concerns, with the percentage of HIV/AIDS sufferers of a higher rate among gay men. Such health concerns have further fueled the homophobic tendencies against homosexuals. Inasmuch as these negative attitudes towards homosexuals have been unfavorable, legal mandates have established provisions in order to protect the practice of civil rights among these homosexuals. Along with the more liberal ideals which many Americans have adapted, homosexuals have become more visible in the public. However, their visibility has not significantly reduced the prejudice against homosexuals. Minor claim: Public visibility of homosexuals has increased Homosexual visibility has increased particularly through television shows and other forms of media. In 1997, in the sitcom ‘Ellen’, the central character Ellen Morgan revealed that she was gay. In the days that followed, this sitcom increased its viewership and resulted in a major Emmy win for the show in writing (Roe, p. 6). This was viewed by most people as a significant progress in America’s acceptance of homosexuality. Following after the ‘coming out’ of the show’s character, other TV shows, like Friends, Chicago Hope, and even Spin City started portraying gay or lesbian characters (Roe, pp. 6-7). A year after this significant event for homosexual characters in TV, the show ‘Will and Grace’ debuted. This show featured best friends, Will, who was gay, and his best friend Grace. It was a show which featured a lead male character playing a gay role; and much to the chagrin of the disapproving conservative moralists, the show was an instant and critical hit (Roe, p. 7). This show has experienced much success among the younger population, portraying to them the possibility of living uncontroversial and successful lives as homosexuals. With other shows like Queer Folk and the ‘L’ Word, more gay characters playing central roles in sitcoms and TV shows were seen. Many movies have also included strong depictions of gay characters. With these media offerings of homosexuals, more public visibility was seen for homosexuals. In some instances, while these portrayals have sometimes been based on homosexual stereotypes, a greater acceptance of the unavoidable presence for these individuals has become more apparent (Roe, p. 7). Their visibility on television have been strong attempts towards portraying homosexuality as part of our normal existence as humans. As these homosexuals interacted with other heterosexuals with hardly any issues being seen, the acceptance of these homosexuals has slowly been opened up to society. Major Claim: Prejudicial attitudes persist Despite the above gains achieved for the homosexuals, especially in terms of visibility, prejudicial attitudes towards the homosexuals are still persistent. A. How do Americans view homosexuals morally Although religion in the US includes a plethora of varying religious beliefs, traditions, and religions, it is dominantly Christian. The opposition against homosexuality has been dominated mostly by fundamental and conservative Christian sects and groups (Andryszewski, p. 28). These religious groups and moralists express that the Bible is the true and literal word of God and its teachings are instructions for proper and morally upright living. Many fundamentalists who believe in the literal teachings of the Bible believe that homosexuality is an unnatural state, and is not part of God’s intention in creating man. As such, these sects believe that homosexuality is a sin (Andryszewski, p. 28). Due to these morally restrictive beliefs against homosexuality, the overall attitude against homosexuals has been less than favorable. Religion is one of the most crucial factors towards comprehending discrimination against homosexuals (Besen and Zicklin, p. 252). In general, a person’s religion is considered to be extrinsic as individuals utilize religion in order to gain security and status; it may also be considered intrinsic, especially when an individual uses religion for personal reasons. Various religious studies have been able to establish that some religions are actually more conservative and very traditional in their beliefs therefore do not accept the presence of homosexuals (Besen and Zicklin, p. 253). Other religious groups, like the Jews and those who have no religious groupings, including the inactive Christians are more likely to accept homosexuals, as compared to Catholics and Protestants who have a low tolerance towards these groups (Besen and Zicklin, p. 253). Two thought processes were pursued by Besen and Zicklin (p. 252) and the first thought process pointed out that intrinsically religious people would likely help a homosexual only if the help extended would not encourage attendance at a gay pride parade. In this case, these religious people may not support the so-called sin of homosexuality, but would support the homosexual individuals themselves. Another thought process is that the participants would not distinguish between the homosexual behavior and the individual himself; as such they would not likely provide any support for the homosexual (Besen and Zicklin, p. 252). In effect, some intrinsically religious individuals live by deeply moral codes which cause the animosity against homosexuals, in some instances it even causes the disgust that they feel towards these homosexuals. Although the teachings of Christianity basically support the idea of ‘hating the sin, not the sinner,’ this idea or concept has largely been based on an isolated acceptance of homosexuality and the homosexual (Besen and Zicklin, p. 252). Even with these teachings, the basic morale stance on homosexuality has relatively been firm on the moral objectivity of homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and homosexual individuals. B. In what areas are they discriminated against, for instance, workplace, military, adoption, marriage, healthcare? Workplace Moral disgust and disapproval is not the only issue which homosexuals have to deal with on a daily basis. Many of them also have to face and deal with discrimination in the workplace. A considerable number of homosexual workers often do not disclose their sexual orientation because they fear that they would be ‘outed’ by their colleagues (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, p. 815). Thus, most homosexuals often find it safer for them and their status as workers to keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Unlike other minority groups, including the elderly or the disabled, most homosexuals have little protection from the law in terms of their civilly protected rights (Hebl, et.al., p. 816). Moreover, only a few states have attempted to pass laws to protect the rights of these homosexuals in the workplace. As a result, many homosexual employees have to deal with the discriminatory issues practiced against them with hardly any legal leg to stand on. In reviewing attitudes of employers in relation to homosexual employees, self-reports reveal that they would sooner dismiss a homosexual employee than their heterosexual employees (Hebl, et.al., p. 816). Their main consideration is often related to the stigma which is placed on these homosexuals, and this is a stigma that they would rather not deal with in their workplace, along with other polarizing employees like the elderly or the disabled. In a study by Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. (p. 1), they were able to establish that two out of five homosexual adults in the US workplace report some form of hostility and discrimination in their workplace; and one in ten homosexuals express that they have been fired or unfairly treated, or even pressured to resign from their jobs because of their sexual preference. In a survey of about 2000 Americans, they were asked which groups of in society they viewed would be discriminated against in the workplace, and about 73% of the respondents replied homosexuals (Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc., p. 2). The survey also went on to review the attitudes of the employees towards homosexuality in the workplace and a great percentage answered that sexual orientation must not be considered an element in the workplace. Nevertheless, this ideal or hope for the workplace among various employees sharply contrasts with the actual practices in the workplace where homosexuals often experience discrimination and are often pressured to express all details of their lives to their employers and their co-workers (Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc., p. 2). Many homosexual still express workplace harassment, hostilities, and being passed over for promotions due to their sexual preference. The survey also acknowledged the fact that even as fairness and protection for homosexuals in the workplace has seen an increase, the attitudes against these homosexuals are not improving (Witeck-Combs, Communications, Inc., p. 3). In effect, the workplace still remains a less than ideal setting for homosexual workers, and it is a place where their true potential as employees is hampered by biases and prejudice against them. Military The ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy has discarded the sexual orientation as a criterion for entry into the military, instead, adopting a ‘disclose at your own risk’ policy for homosexuals (Stevenson, p. 1338). This policy however discriminated against those who were already openly gay, preventing them from entering the military service. This policy has prevented and curtailed the visibility of members of the military and on their right to openly express and own up to their sexuality. Since the implementation of the DADT policy, the military has already emphasized the fact that homosexuality is not compatible with the code of the military in relation to discipline and morale (Stevenson, p. 1338). The recruits were also questioned openly about their sexual preferences; moreover, the military officers argued that the homophobic soldiers may lash out violently against homosexuals or they may sometimes refuse to interact with the homosexual men, and some of them may not even follow orders from a homosexual commander (Stevenson, p. 1338). Reports have established that homosexuality must not interrupt or break the unity of any military unit, however, the military have not set much store by these reports, and the Congress has conceded to the military position on this issue. As a result, dismissals in the military for homosexuality have been rampant throughout the years (Stevenson, p. 1339). The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ policy has been justified by the military because of its overall ban on sodomy. Moreover, officials report that this policy does not actually impact on homosexuals, but this policy impacts more on those who engage in gay acts (Stevenson, p. 1339). Nevertheless, admitting that one is gay already creates the possibility of engaging in military acts, and is, according to the military, a sufficient reason to discharge. This practice is prejudicial to the homosexuals because it already labels them or accuses them of engaging in sodomy even before or whether or not they engage in it or (Stevenson, p. 1340). Moreover, the basis of their actions and activities in the military has nothing to do with their military abilities, but include those activities which are part of their personal, not professional qualities. Their sexual orientation, in actuality, has nothing to do with their ability to carry out their functions as military personnel, nor has it anything to do with their ability to maintain the principles of the armed forces of the United States. Healthcare Prejudicial attitudes against homosexuals have also been seen in the healthcare sector. Burke and White (p. 422) discuss about homophobia in the medical community and they have established that in 1980 surveys, homophobia among was seen among 23% of physician respondents and in several medical specializations, over 30% of respondents indicated homophobic attitudes. In the late 1980s when AIDS cases rose considerably, the prejudice against homosexuals also increased (Burke and White, p. 423). Some respondents also indicated how they were not sure whether or not homosexuality was a mental disorder and some of them also indicated that they were not comfortable in the presence and in caring for homosexuals (Burke and White, p. 423). In the process of medical learning, residency programs which have included studies on homosexuals considered attitudes of residents towards these homosexuals, and about 71% of the residents expressed that homosexuality influenced their choices in specializations. The respondents also expressed that homosexual residents should be listed in a lower rank among lists for residency considerations (Burke and White, p. 424). It is crucial also to note that many medical program directors have a prejudiced view of homosexuals with some of them viewing homosexuals as possessing of a genetic defect or a psychiatric condition. They also viewed that revealing one’s sexual orientation is inappropriate (Burke and White, p. 424). In the actual practice, it has also been established that about 17% of respondents have been denied referrals because of their homosexuality; and among homosexual health professionals, verbal harassments have also been common occurrences, with the use of derogatory terms like, ‘fag,’ ‘faggot’ and similar terms (Burke and White, p. 424). All in all, homosexuality has discriminated these individuals from the rest of ‘normal’ society, subjecting these individuals to less than what they deserve under equal protection laws and the principles of equality and fairness. Adoption Gay parents are also feeling discriminated against in adoptions. In some cases, they are prevented or from adopting because allegedly, they cannot deliver the same parental qualities and advantages which a parental unit of opposite sexes can bring. These arguments are however unfounded as studies on children raised by homosexual parents do not differ from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of their emotional and mental development, as well as their relationship with their peers (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology). These studies also reveal that as compared to children of heterosexual parents, children of homosexual parents are not more likely to be gay, and are not more likely to be sexually violated; moreover, they also do not manifest differences in the way they think of themselves (as males or females) (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology). Nevertheless, these studies do not seem to stop the rest of society from considering homosexuals to be bad or unsuitable parents, therefore, given less priority in the adoption processes (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology). Concerned interest groups which advocate for gay adoption rights are however pointing out important truths about gay adoption – that it does not impair the overall development of children and that denying these homosexuals the chance to donate seems to be more about gay discrimination, not about concerns for child welfare. In effect, these homosexuals are being denied their rights to be parents purely based on anatomical functions, not on their ability to deliver care to a child and to raise the child as valuable members of society. Most homosexuals can only enjoy parenthood by adopting and the fact that they are discriminated against in the process of adoption is another means of discriminating against these homosexuals. Starting a family is a goal for most people, and when these homosexual parents are not afforded the same rights and processes in eventually having children is also tantamount to a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. This right is very much related and fundamentally linked to the couple’s right to marry which shall be discussed below. Marriage No more is the discrimination against homosexuals more apparent than in the right to marry. The passage of the Proposition 8, which basically establishes that only marriages between a man and a woman can be valid in California, has been met with mixed reactions among various interest groups within the gay community (Dnes, p. 86). Most studies which have sought to review the impact of this proposition have revealed that there have been significant negative consequences seen after the passage of this policy. Due to the passage of the proposition, these homosexuals have been subjected to stress and psychological distress. Their stress has mostly been due to the negative and vilifying words they have been subjected to from other people as a result of their sexual orientation or their campaign against the passage of Proposition 8. Surveys carried out by Marriage Equality USA (p. 2) revealed that many homosexuals have been subjected to physical harm, verbal abuse, as well as different types of discrimination during and after the campaign for Prop 8. Children of same-sex couples have also been subjected to discrimination and bullying from schoolmates and neighbors (Marriage Equality USA, p. 2). Proposition 8 seemed to legitimize discriminatory practices against the homosexuals. Proposition 8 and the denial of homosexuals to marry has supported the legitimatization of gay unions and marriages, disregarding the important principles as set forth by the equal protection and due process clause which ensures the free exercise of people’s rights, liberties, and property, free from any preventive practices from the government or the general public. Although the public visibility of homosexuals has increased in recent years, their civil right to marry has not been afforded the same visibility. The only legitimacy given to these individuals is on their right to enter into homosexual relations, however the legal recognition of their union is not afforded. Being denied the civil right to marry is a clear indication that prejudice is an ever present fixture in the lives of homosexuals. Their right to claim the privileges to marriage unions is denied by most states in the US, preventing them from declaring their right to be respected and afforded status as a married couple. There is an inherent danger to the denial of gay marriage and this danger lies mostly in the persistent discriminatory perceptions against homosexuals. When a group is singled out and denied their right to something which is granted to everyone else, the majority population sees this as an opportunity to also vilify them; moreover, their status as homosexuals is also put in danger. All in all, there is a danger of a slippery slope phenomenon, where other civil rights of homosexuals may be denied because they are denied their civil right to marry. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, this study concludes that despite the increase in public visibility among homosexuals, prejudicial attitudes against homosexuals still persist. The public visibility of homosexual have increased in the media, including television, movies, broadcasting, and its associated forms. In a significant way, the acceptance for homosexuality has been eased through these media. However, on a fundamental sense, the public visibility of these homosexuals has not decreased the prejudice against them. They are still discriminated in the workplace, in the military, and in healthcare. They are also prejudicially dealt with in relation to adoption and in availing of the civil right to marry. These acts of discrimination manifest how society, especially its moralists have not quelled the debate of the moral arguments against these homosexuals. As such, with these persistent beliefs, prejudice against homosexuals will likely not see any relief in the near future. Works Cited Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology, ‘Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents’ AACAP (2011) 15 November 2011 Andryszewski, T. ‘Same-sex Marriage: Moral Wrong or Civil Right?’ Minneapolis: Twenty- First Century Books, 2008. Print. Besen, Y. & Zicklin, G. ‘Young Men, Religion and Attitudes Towards Homosexuality’. (2007) 1 Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality 3: 250?266. Burke, B. & White, J. ‘Wellbeing of gay, lesbian, and bisexual doctors’, (2001) 322 BMJ 7283: 422–425. Dnes, A. ‘Marriage, Cohabitation, and Same-Sex Marriage’, (2007) 12 The Independent Review 1: 85–99. Hebl, M., Foster, J., Mannix, L., & Dovidio, J. ‘Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias Toward Homosexual Applicants’, (2001) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, pp. 815-826 Marriage Equality USA ‘Prop 8 Hurt My Family: Ask Me How’. Marriage Equality (2009) 01 November 2011 Roe, A. ‘Growth of Visibility of Gays and Lesbians on Television and Need for Continued Growth’. (2004). 14 November 2011 Stevenson, L. ‘Military Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Solomon Amendment’, (2004) 37 LA.L Rev. 1331, 15 November 2011 Witeck-Combs Communications, ‘Gays and Lesbians Face Persistent Workplace Discrimination and Hostility Despite Improved Policies and Attitudes in Corporate America’ (2002). 15 November 2011 Read More