By Nathan Tobey, ACLU-PA Central Chapter board member American tolerance appears to be backsliding. Many states have recently passed amendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage, and workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation remains unaddressed by federal law. Meanwhile, the increasingly influential religious right is clamoring for additional steps to undo the gains made towards rooting out sexuality-based discrimination. Here in State College, a Penn State professor convinced the 3rd Circuit of the US Court of Appeals that a local school district's anti-harassment policy unconstitutionally limited his children's right to publicly express their condemnation of homosexuality (Sam Alito wrote the decision). And whenever the local Coming Out Day comes around, readers write angry letters to the editor deploring the event and the terror caused by seeing people of the same sex kissing. I have never been able to understand these kinds of reactions. I know all the arguments against recognizing the equal value of homosexual and heterosexual relationships: homosexuality is not natural (Since when do we hold ourselves to that standard? Are cars natural? Is plastic?), God said homosexuality was bad (We all know the existence of God itself is no better than a hunch, which would make his or her condemnation of a particular sexual preference quite the long shot), homosexual relationships threaten the sanctity of heterosexual ones (I would hope heterosexuals are a bit more secure in their relationships than that), homosexual couples cannot biologically produce offspring (It's not as if we have a people shortage), and homosexual couples cannot raise a "well-adjusted" child (If anything, a child with two loving gay parents is likely to be more "well-adjusted" than a child with a single parent or no parents at all. Unless, by "well-adjusted," we actually mean, "a bigot." If that is what is meant, then I would have to admit that a child raised by gay parents is probably less likely to be "well-adjusted.") By pointing out the abject silliness of these objections, I do not mean to question the sincerity of those who advocate them. People sincerely advocate many ridiculous things. But considering how hollow and forced these objections are, it seems to me there must be something more driving the intolerance. What's the underlying source of this baffling vitriol? The reaction to the homosexual identity is merely an extreme example of a societal tendency to stigmatize and devalue, to differing extents, those individuals whose search for themselves leads them into conflict with the traditional norms of the majority. Why do we react this way? Because people tend validate their own identities and choices by looking to those around them- especially to those held up by their family or community as respectable- and thinking, "I'm like that, I'm normal. I'm in the club." This tendency, then, presents the opportunity to exploit those who make unusual or deviant life choices for the purpose of reaffirming our own normality. When a man uses the word fag, for instance, he is effectively asserting his own heightened masculinity---his own normality. Similarly, when a woman labels another woman a slut, she is effectively asserting her own sexual purity and proper femininity. As children in the schoolyard and as adults at the water cooler, we often rely on the identification of deviancy as a means of asserting what we are, what we're not, and most centrally, what we would most like to be seen as. We also label deviancy in order to obtain the feeling of power that comes with shaming others. To label a woman a "slut," or a boy a "fag," is to exert control through shame; it is to brandish the transgressor with a mark of deviancy. Through this act of labeling we posit ourselves as arbiters of normality, and sitting in judgment feels like a secure place to be. This tendency is understandable, in the same sense that a bully picking on the "weird" kid in school is understandable. We're all insecure. We all want recognition. The bully, like the bigot, just deals with his insecurity and need for attention by tearing others down. The alternative is teaching our children and ourselves how to find security and recognition through positive acts of creativity, tolerance, productivity and kindness. Sure, that all sounds cliché, but it's easier said than done. Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have that dark capacity to take the cheap shot, to exploit the perceived advantages of our identities by highlighting the deviancy of others. But this behavior is often based on more than merely this essentially juvenile impulse. It is frequently founded upon the sincere fear that the deviant behavior will, perhaps, contribute to dangerous shifts in society. Almost invariably, however, these feared shifts would only be dangerous insofar as they lessen the perceived status distinction between a particular set of normal and abnormal behaviors, between, for instance, homosexuality and heterosexuality. And for those who appreciate the advantages of their normal status, this is not a good thing. Heterosexuals like knowing that most people see them as being much more well-adjusted than those non-heteros. Those who focus on these fears have lost sight of our past. Norms have never been static, nor should they be. It is the inevitable mixing of cultures, the fusion of identities, and the challenging of limits which mark and enable our progress as people. Our future depends on our ability to recognize this fact, to appreciate the unavoidable blending of our differences rather than fight over it. I am not advocating that all forms of deviancy should necessarily be accepted. Where should we draw the line? Any private actions which take place between consenting adults and do not pose a clear threat to the safety of either the participants or others should be tolerated. A plethora of reasons may reasonably permit rejection and regulation of behaviors which do not fall within those parameters. In the end, the collision of individuality and tradition, though often uncomfortable, can be a beautiful thing, allowing for an appreciation of our shared humanity. The film "Brokeback Mountain," for instance, embodies this principle on many levels. The main characters, Jack and Ennis, have sexual lives which may be different than our own, but our empathy with the timeless tragedy of love denied helps viewers realize how much more alike we all are than different. We all have a part of us that would like to see Jack and Ennis, or any other couple, overcome the odds to realize authentic, fulfilling love. That is only what we would want for ourselves. After all, everyone wants similar things: love, recognition, dignity, freedom, and the chance to follow our individuality. To have those aspirations denied is tragic, no matter how we look or who we love. By the same token, seeing those yearnings finally fulfilled, especially after years in which they were denied because of others' insecurities, should light up the joy in our better selves.
|
