Addressing Negative LGBT Stereotypes
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Recently, in its December 8, 2006 issue, The Stanford Review published an article, “Attending an LGBT workshop at Stanford”, by Chris Seck. Though the article is well-written and the author introduces interesting points, it reinforces negative and inaccurate stereotypes about the LGBT community.
The article’s first misconception is that the LGBT community is monolithic. It is made up of various ethnicities, religions, and even political opinions. You will definitely find your sexually liberated anti-establishment gays, but you will also find your moderate gays, apathetic gays, and even your religious conservative gays. As a gay conservative, I find that the LGBT community has many contrasting views and approaches to current issues that it faces. Prominent vocal gay conservatives like Mary Cheney, Tammy Bruce, and Bruce Bawer have contributed greatly to the conservative movement.
The article addresses the question of conflict between religion and gay lifestyle, but paints a picture of deserted or manipulated faith. Within the Jewish community there have been many interpretations of Leviticus 18:22, which ostensibly prohibits homosexuality. One interpretation holds that the prohibition against homosexual relations was part of the push against polytheism and its practices. Homosexuality itself would not therefore have been evil, although its ties to polytheism were. Judaism is a living religion that adapts to changing times through the Oral tradition of responsa. That is why today rebellious children are not stoned in the town square, and animal sacrifice, the primary focus of Leviticus, hasn’t been practiced since the destruction of the second temple.
Judaism plays a significant role in my life, indeed more significant than my sexual orientation. Having come to terms with my religion’s prohibitions against one aspect of my lifestyle, I don’t think this conflict between my sexual orientation and the religious texts should deny or exempt me from a fulfilling, moral, and Jewish life.
The article poignantly notes that homosexuality’s acceptance is an exception to similar deviant sexual practices like polygamy and bestiality, which are wholly rejected by most of America. As an equality-advocacy group, Safe and Open Spaces at Stanford (SOSAS), would have a difficult time saying that the LGBT community deserves equal rights while other groups do not. However, the article twists the quotes of individual panelists to make blanket statements about the LGBT community that are out of context.
Homosexuality differs from polygamy for two reasons. It is widely accepted that homosexuality is not a choice. The same cannot be said about polygamy; a polygamist is not biologically restricted by heterosexual monogamy. Secondly polygamy is inherently sexist against the multiple partners. In every society that has embraced polygamy, the wives are never treated equally. Even in the Bible, every polygamous relationship shown was sexist from Abraham to Elkana to King David. Therefore while polygamy was completely acceptable by historical standards, it cannot be allowed today, because it is inherently sexist whether the multiple partners are women or men.
In theory bestiality, like homosexuality, could be considered an innate part of the person and not their individual choice. If we grant this, bestiality is still immoral. One of the panelists mentioned that animals lack choice. The article responds to this by mentioning a recent study by liberal professor Peter Singer and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that animals have the ability to give consent. This fringe view ignores commonly accepted zoology. For the vast majority of animals, sex is simply for the purpose of reproduction, not the act itself. While some animals may find pleasure in sex, it is only within their own species. Secondly bestiality entails an act of self-gratification, not an emotional relationship. Almost all human sexual relations, hetero and homo, strives for emotional attachment and a bond that is reinforced by sex. To assuage the author’s fear of opening the floodgates of deviant sex, in all my experiences, I have never met an LGBT person no matter what their opinions are who argues for or supports binding the LGBT cause with polygamy or bestiality.
A common joke these days is that if gays want to get married, let them be miserable like the rest of us. While this may be a poor reflection on American marriage it recognizes a fact about marriage; it is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility. I feel that if the LGBT community wants to eliminate the irrational fear of opening the deviant sex floodgates seen in the LGBT workshop article, it should vigorously show that it desires the responsibilities of marriage along with the rights.
