Why all the gay hate? More questions than Answers.
Dave Muskera, M.A.
November 19, 2007
I’m disappointed and disheartened by many recent events in the arena of conflict between organized religion and gay citizens. At times, I’m still blind-sided by the vitriol generated by this topic.
Organized religion has a long and ignominious history of perpetuating self-serving “truths” and biblical interpretations: a long history of turning blind eyes to human suffering while building bigger and bigger churches and cathedrals; while those leading the flock live in luxury on the backs of Sunday alms givers; a long history of violence in the name of one god or another. With such a history as backdrop, I suppose I should not be so surprised at some of the current thinly veiled but none-the-less hate filled dialogs. But I am. I’m almost discouraged at the status of present human evolution. I’ve hoped and wanted to believe that humanity has grown and matured a bit more. But it’s getting more difficult to hang onto that idea.
The world and its human population is suffering and bleeding from so many wounds: so many wars; so much anger and self-righteousness. So many who are absolutely certain their god is the only true way. Little seems to have really changed with our species for the last 2,000 years. Yes, we now have computers and cell phones but we still kill each other over differences in our tribal gods. We argue and fight over who should have consensual sex with who while ignoring the rape and plunder of poor nations. At best, the veneer of civilization is pretty thin.
So much time and energy seems spent on beating the anti-homosexual drum. As if gay people were the most pressing of threats to Western Civilization. Why do we have ex-gay movements but no camps for ex-liars, ex-cheats and ex-wife abusers? Why has this “gay marriage issue” taken over so many other important topics needing addressed and redressed. Issues like child abuse, domestic violence, sex and drugs in the music and entertainment industry, marital infidelity, personal and business greed and avarice, etc.
Two sitting US Presidents (Clinton with his DOMA - “Defense of Marriage Act” and Bush with his push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) have believed it a necessary and OK thing to do to step on the backs of gay US citizen taxpayers. That it was in their job description to insure that gay citizens never attain equality in civil relationship contracts. Why would the US Congress even consider altering the Constitution so that marriage is defined as per religious belief when there is so much of real importance to be considered and worked on? Why do churches come to blows within their own ranks threatening one another with splits over the “homosexual question”? How in god’s green earth did this topic take on such swollen proportions? I obviously have more questions than answers.
As a counseling psychologist, I’ve spent most of my adult life mopping-up the emotional messes people have inflicted on one-another: marriages in violent conflict, children at psychological and physical risk, violence in word and deed directed at others, lust, unbridled anger, incest, rape and a roster of other terrible things that I wish we could pass constitutional amendments against. We humans have endlessly creative imaginations when it comes to mistreating our own. Over a thirty year span of clinical practice, I’ve seen more than my share of examples.
So just how is marriage “defended” by things such as DOMA and Constitutional amendments? In all my time working with families, I don’t recall even one situation where clearly a specific marriage was endangered because of the existence of gay people who wanted to enjoy equal treatment under civil law. In fact, for most of my years, gay people would not have even dreamed of reaching for such a thing. The possibility never existed. On the other hand, I do remember counseling in several situations where a marriage was in trouble because one of the partners finally dealt with repressed homosexuality and realized too late they should never have married in the first place.
In truth, heterosexual marriage would be better defended if, in fact, gay folk were given the legal benefits of “marriage” and the full rights and responsibilities granted by government that go with it. Gays would be less likely to become involved in a heterosexual marriage that ultimately leads to divorce and disappointment. Their own relationships would be potentially stabilized. If the Defense of Marriage group was serious and informed, they would applaud and endorse gay unions.
If, instead of spreading twisted statistics, egregious untruths and a host of other mean-spirited lies, people would seek factual information…then, some of this stupidity might go away. I wonder how many in the anti-homosexual camp have spent an afternoon on the Internet visiting and exploring the websites of the American Psychological or the American Psychiatric Associations ? How many have done independent research on the topic rather than relying on organizations like the AFA or Focus on the Family? How many are willing to spend some time at the Public Affairs Educational Directorate of the American Psychological Association. On the Internet, it’s a few easy clicks away. Would doing these things make any difference? Probably not - for this issue is one of emotion not intellect. And again, just why is that so?
I realize that answers to my questions are not simply had. Most good answers probably are found in a complex of factors and information - mixed also with history. The public in general is often too intellectually lazy to do their homework. I think that explains why NPR is less popular than FOX News. So here we are - our current President and even the new Pope pound their anti-homosexual shoes on the table: voices rise in chorus opposing the granting of basic civil rights; fair and equal treatment and the unfettered and equal right to chose ones marital contract partner are reserved for only the fortunate heterosexual. The pursuit of happiness, promised by our founders, obviously does not apply if you’re gay.
As an aside, it’s interesting to note that currently a man and woman can “marry” in a civil ceremony without any reference to god or religion. Indeed, from the state and government point of view, religion is superfluous to the legality of marriage as a contract. Does it make any real logic that government then turns round and pronounces it adopts only a religious based dictate when it comes to the sex of the two people involved? Just doesn’t make sense. But again, it’s an issue of emotion and not reason and that is primarily why there is so much hype and fear-inducement in the rantings of the anti-gay groups.
One answer that seems less apparent is that all the fear and hype just might be better at raising funds. It might help to loosen purse string that might otherwise remain tight. It’s possible that this sort of motive also underpins the annual victim cry that’s becomes so prevalent around Christmas time each year. To go after real problems and real “sinners”, ministers might just have to eye-ball the entire front pew of the church. This risks losing them as contributors. The wife beater, the marriage vow-breaker and the business greed cheater are far too valuable to the building fund. Yes? I don’t really suspect that answers are this simplistic, but sometimes I wonder none-the-less.
Without doubt there is a fundamental misogynistic attitude in much of western culture. In this sort of framework, the most abhorrent thing imaginable for a male is to willingly give up masculine power and preeminence over the female of the species. Is this what really happens if you are homosexual? Is that why straight men are so easily threatened by gay men? Do real “men’ still secretly want to drag women to the back of the cave and have their way?
How is it that men are so homosocial and so anti-homosexual at the same time? How in the world can the existence of gays be a greater threat to humanity than humanity is already to itself?
Food for thought.
Organized religion has a long and ignominious history of perpetuating self-serving “truths” and biblical interpretations: a long history of turning blind eyes to human suffering while building bigger and bigger churches and cathedrals; while those leading the flock live in luxury on the backs of Sunday alms givers; a long history of violence in the name of one god or another. With such a history as backdrop, I suppose I should not be so surprised at some of the current thinly veiled but none-the-less hate filled dialogs. But I am. I’m almost discouraged at the status of present human evolution. I’ve hoped and wanted to believe that humanity has grown and matured a bit more. But it’s getting more difficult to hang onto that idea.
The world and its human population is suffering and bleeding from so many wounds: so many wars; so much anger and self-righteousness. So many who are absolutely certain their god is the only true way. Little seems to have really changed with our species for the last 2,000 years. Yes, we now have computers and cell phones but we still kill each other over differences in our tribal gods. We argue and fight over who should have consensual sex with who while ignoring the rape and plunder of poor nations. At best, the veneer of civilization is pretty thin.
So much time and energy seems spent on beating the anti-homosexual drum. As if gay people were the most pressing of threats to Western Civilization. Why do we have ex-gay movements but no camps for ex-liars, ex-cheats and ex-wife abusers? Why has this “gay marriage issue” taken over so many other important topics needing addressed and redressed. Issues like child abuse, domestic violence, sex and drugs in the music and entertainment industry, marital infidelity, personal and business greed and avarice, etc.
Two sitting US Presidents (Clinton with his DOMA - “Defense of Marriage Act” and Bush with his push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) have believed it a necessary and OK thing to do to step on the backs of gay US citizen taxpayers. That it was in their job description to insure that gay citizens never attain equality in civil relationship contracts. Why would the US Congress even consider altering the Constitution so that marriage is defined as per religious belief when there is so much of real importance to be considered and worked on? Why do churches come to blows within their own ranks threatening one another with splits over the “homosexual question”? How in god’s green earth did this topic take on such swollen proportions? I obviously have more questions than answers.
As a counseling psychologist, I’ve spent most of my adult life mopping-up the emotional messes people have inflicted on one-another: marriages in violent conflict, children at psychological and physical risk, violence in word and deed directed at others, lust, unbridled anger, incest, rape and a roster of other terrible things that I wish we could pass constitutional amendments against. We humans have endlessly creative imaginations when it comes to mistreating our own. Over a thirty year span of clinical practice, I’ve seen more than my share of examples.
So just how is marriage “defended” by things such as DOMA and Constitutional amendments? In all my time working with families, I don’t recall even one situation where clearly a specific marriage was endangered because of the existence of gay people who wanted to enjoy equal treatment under civil law. In fact, for most of my years, gay people would not have even dreamed of reaching for such a thing. The possibility never existed. On the other hand, I do remember counseling in several situations where a marriage was in trouble because one of the partners finally dealt with repressed homosexuality and realized too late they should never have married in the first place.
In truth, heterosexual marriage would be better defended if, in fact, gay folk were given the legal benefits of “marriage” and the full rights and responsibilities granted by government that go with it. Gays would be less likely to become involved in a heterosexual marriage that ultimately leads to divorce and disappointment. Their own relationships would be potentially stabilized. If the Defense of Marriage group was serious and informed, they would applaud and endorse gay unions.
If, instead of spreading twisted statistics, egregious untruths and a host of other mean-spirited lies, people would seek factual information…then, some of this stupidity might go away. I wonder how many in the anti-homosexual camp have spent an afternoon on the Internet visiting and exploring the websites of the American Psychological or the American Psychiatric Associations ? How many have done independent research on the topic rather than relying on organizations like the AFA or Focus on the Family? How many are willing to spend some time at the Public Affairs Educational Directorate of the American Psychological Association. On the Internet, it’s a few easy clicks away. Would doing these things make any difference? Probably not - for this issue is one of emotion not intellect. And again, just why is that so?
I realize that answers to my questions are not simply had. Most good answers probably are found in a complex of factors and information - mixed also with history. The public in general is often too intellectually lazy to do their homework. I think that explains why NPR is less popular than FOX News. So here we are - our current President and even the new Pope pound their anti-homosexual shoes on the table: voices rise in chorus opposing the granting of basic civil rights; fair and equal treatment and the unfettered and equal right to chose ones marital contract partner are reserved for only the fortunate heterosexual. The pursuit of happiness, promised by our founders, obviously does not apply if you’re gay.
As an aside, it’s interesting to note that currently a man and woman can “marry” in a civil ceremony without any reference to god or religion. Indeed, from the state and government point of view, religion is superfluous to the legality of marriage as a contract. Does it make any real logic that government then turns round and pronounces it adopts only a religious based dictate when it comes to the sex of the two people involved? Just doesn’t make sense. But again, it’s an issue of emotion and not reason and that is primarily why there is so much hype and fear-inducement in the rantings of the anti-gay groups.
One answer that seems less apparent is that all the fear and hype just might be better at raising funds. It might help to loosen purse string that might otherwise remain tight. It’s possible that this sort of motive also underpins the annual victim cry that’s becomes so prevalent around Christmas time each year. To go after real problems and real “sinners”, ministers might just have to eye-ball the entire front pew of the church. This risks losing them as contributors. The wife beater, the marriage vow-breaker and the business greed cheater are far too valuable to the building fund. Yes? I don’t really suspect that answers are this simplistic, but sometimes I wonder none-the-less.
Without doubt there is a fundamental misogynistic attitude in much of western culture. In this sort of framework, the most abhorrent thing imaginable for a male is to willingly give up masculine power and preeminence over the female of the species. Is this what really happens if you are homosexual? Is that why straight men are so easily threatened by gay men? Do real “men’ still secretly want to drag women to the back of the cave and have their way?
How is it that men are so homosocial and so anti-homosexual at the same time? How in the world can the existence of gays be a greater threat to humanity than humanity is already to itself?
Food for thought.
Print
Email
