Professor Gregory Herek, who's work I have already cited (and who has a great website for anyone interested in gay issues, the reason I cite him often and will continue to do so in this series is that he has written so much on it, and he generously makes his excellent work available online, so I can link to it). has written extensively on heterosexual attitudes towards homosexuals. I intend to summarize some of this work. I believe it is a weakness of both the democrat party and the gay movement as a whole that the various forms of anti-gay prejudice are not properly disambiguated. Herek identifies four causes of anti-gay prejudice (he uses the term sexual prejudice for this): (source)


"As with other forms of prejudice, sexual prejudice has multiple motivations. For some heterosexuals, it results from unpleasant interactions with gay individuals, which are then generalized to attitudes toward the entire group.

For others, sexual prejudice is rooted in fears associated with homosexuality, perhaps reflecting discomfort with one's own sexual impulses or gender conformity.

For still others, sexual prejudice reflects influences of in-group norms that are hostile to homosexual and bisexual people.

Yet another source of prejudice is the perception that gay people and the gay community represent values that are directly in conflict with one's personal value system."

Since there are 4 different motivations for homophobia, it must be targeted in a four pronged attack. Accusations of being in favor of inequality will not convince those for whom sexual prejudice reflects influences of in-group norms.

Although what comes next is just an educated guess, I've been a faux-straight person before (most gay people have), and I've seen people with these different motivations for sexual prejudice. I'd like to suggest a four pronged approach that will be more effective in combating homophobia then the sort of accusation of inequality that we are seeing now.

To target those whose sexual prejudice is caused by unpleasant interactions with gay individuals, we must show them that their unpleasant interaction does not generalize to the gay population as a whole. Pictures like the ones these, found via Scalzi, whose posts you should read, might go a long way toward doing that.

To target those who's sexual prejudice is caused by a perceived value conflict, we must show that there is only a small disagreement. Look at those pictures again. Those same pictures could have this effect as well. Show that homosexuals value the same things, love, friendship, family, as these people, with the only difference being their homosexuality. After doing this, make the case that is better to focus on shared values then different ones. Use as a model for this tolerance of the difference between Mel Gibson's Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. Like them, we don't have to share every value in common to work towards common goals.

To target those who's sexual prejudice is caused by the influence of in-group norms is tricky. Perhaps the best way to do this is to show the abhorrent behavior by some homophobes (Godhatesfags.com, for example) also conflicts with the same in group norms. Then, the in group must decide what in group norms are more important, love or hate.

To target those who's sexual prejudice is a result of their own discomfort with their gender or sexual conformity is harder. I am not sure how to best address this. (counseling?). I think it would be wrong to target these people by saying they have this discomfort, this will put them on the defensive. Maybe the best strategy is a "what's the big deal" kind of strategy. Why do you allow yourself to be so infatuated with these homosexuals? I don't know what the answer here is, maybe some readers have some suggestions.

Of course, sexual prejudice can be caused by a combination of the four underlying motivation. A religious person might object to homosexuality both because in-group norms are hostile toward them and because of perceived value differences. A person might object to homosexuality both because of previous unpleasant experiences with gay people and uncertainty about their own gender or sexual identity. The marine in American Beauty, has both these traits. A person might have all four motivations together. See, for example, the guy in the green homophobic shirt here. A person who's motivation for being sexually prejudiced is rooted in more then one of the four underlying causes will not be able to change until they are presented with something that removes all the reasons for their homophobia. This is why homophobia is so prevalent. Only a multi pronged approach has a chance of reaching most people who are homophobic.

Also, and this goes so much without saying I almost forget to include it. We must aggressively combat gay stereotypes. See the post below this one for a discussion of that.

My solution might not be the best one, but it is on the right track, and any approach that will be the best one will have to target itself to each of the motivations for homophobia.

PS a word about sexual prejudice/homophobia terminology. Herek does not like the term homophobia because it suggests an irrational fear of gays, where much of what would fall under the category 'homophobia' is not fear, nor is it entirely irrational for it's actors. If homophobic attitudes are required for membership in an in-group, like a church, then holding the attitude is not expressive of irrational fear, rather it is expressive of a desire to be part of the in group. As such, Herek uses the term 'sexual prejudice' instead of homophobia. Maybe one of the reasons attacks on homophobia are ineffective is that many of us think all expressed disapproval toward gays is irrational fear, when it is not. Sometimes it is neither irrational nor fear. But, the terms have the same meaning, the difference being 'sexual prejudice' does not imply irrational fear like homophobia does.


  ¶ 9:19 AM

  Calpundit asks:

"On a related note, what's with the common belief among social conservatives that homosexuality is being "actively promoted" in our schools? It's true that I haven't been in school for nearly 30 years now, but this still seems rather unlikely to me. Is this just a code phrase for schools suggesting that gays shouldn't be routinely mocked and beaten up, or what?"

No it's not. It's not about gay kids in school. While it is understandable to think it is, to think so ignores the facts and makes it more difficult to combat religious conservatives.

It's about maintaining the illusion that gays are dangerous.

Negative stereotypes tend to have several features. The stereotyped group is going to be portrayed as both inferior to, and dangerous too, mainstream society. The stereotyped group will often held to be responsible for the spread of diseases. (STD's and AIDS with homosexuals, mental illness with African Americans pre-1960, Plague in Jews, and then later, STD's in nazi Germany). The stereotyped group is portrayed as animalistic, hypersexual, over visible, heretical, and conspiratorial. This was present in Nazi Germany. This was common to southern thought about blacks (don’t' let them Negro’s smoke that reefer, they'll rape your white women and do voodoo). It is also common among thoughts about gays. Essential to creating prejudice is that the stereotyped group is a threat to mainstream society. The way the stereotyped group is portrayed as a threat to mainstream society is that the stereotyped group targets the weak in mainstream society. Women and children. Jews would steal christian babies and drink their blood on Jewish holidays. Blacks would rape white women, unable to control their passions. Gays are part of a conspiracy to target and convert your children to their heretical way of life.

(Source, from which I am paraphrasing)

So, no, Kevin, and other readers, it's not about schools tolerating gays when Conservative Christians make arguments like that. It's about maintaining the stereotype that gays are a conspiratorial threat to mainstream society. The understandable, but simplistic thinking behind thoughts like Kevin's impedes efforts to seriously combat homophobia.

The fact that stereotypes gays face today are so similar to the stereotypes faced by Jews in nazi Germany and African Americans in pre-civil rights times are why analogies to these times are valid. Yes, gays suffer less (though still to much) discrimination then these other groups. That isn't, or shouldn't be, rather, the point of such analogies. The point should be that the stereotypes that caused the discrimination and persecution of Jews and African Americans are the same in form if not in content as those that are being used by the religious right to combat gay rights.


  ¶ 11:13 AM

  Slactivist, one of my favorite whatever is on the authors mind type blogs, has a great post here.

"Positions embraced by this White House are, we have learned, subject to change. Perhaps next week the president will come out in favor of a compromise -- say that a same-sex couple counts as three-fifths of a marriage."

Ohh, read the part about Newsom wiping the floor with Musgrave too. Quite good.

  ¶ 1:22 AM

  From a report I was reading about statistics on divorce:

(Don't Believe The Divorce Statistics - Special Report - Marriage(via the comments section of LT Smash)

Here's the really bad news: Barna finds that the divorce rate among born-again Christians (27 percent) and fundamentalist Christians (30 percent) actually is higher than the rate for non-Christians (23 percent). And yes, his survey asked if the people had been divorced before or after they became Christians. Eighty-seven percent said "after."

"A person's faith doesn't seem to have a lot of effect on whether they'll get divorced," Barna says. "Even among born-again Christians, most don't exhibit attitudes or behaviors any different than non-Christians."

Maybe stopping christians from getting married would protect the institution, since christians are more likely to divorce then non-christians?

  ¶ 6:34 PM

  One of my biggest problems with the whole circus around the gay marriage issue is the effect it will have on the disproportionate number of suicides committed by gay youth.

I said earlier I would write about why I would rather have 1 candidate support equal rights for gay people and 1 oppose it, and the man who opposed it win. My reason for this centers on the suicide problem faced by gay youth.

Imagine you are a gay youth. You live in the Midwest. Your parents, although they love you, often make comments deriding gays. They see the marriage issues on TV, and make comments about how gay people are taking over the country, have an agenda, etc. These comments, which you echo because you are afraid your parents will reject you, confuse you. You've never felt you had an agenda or wanted to convert anybody. Your want is to not be rejected. As a result of this animosity towards gays all around you, you withdraw from that society. This causes feeling of isolation and depression. Soon, you are quite depressed, and contemplating suicide. You regularly think about the gun in your dads desk drawer. Then, you are watching the debate between the democratic nominee and George W. Bush. George Bush talks about the proposed amendment to enshrine discrimination into the constitution. He says he supports it. It is obvious to you that the reason for this is that he is appealing to people who hate gays. Then the democratic nominee starts talking. You hear him say that while he opposes amending the constitution, that he is also not in favor of gays having complete civil rights. He, too, would deny you rights. He frames his talk about it in terms of protecting the institution of marriage. But, having seen the reaction of your community, your parents, and friends to this talk, you know that he is speaking in code to people who hate gays. The person who you would expect to be on your side, the most important democrat in the country, also panders to the homophobes. Sure, he covers it up, talking about how they should be able to have a separate institution that's almost as good, but you know, again from the reaction of your community, that this is just a way to make it so the homophobes don't feel so guilty about being homophobic. All the sudden, the level of isolation you feel increases, because even those who you thought would protect you are appealing to those who hate you. Then, the gun in your dads desk starts to look that much better.

Now imagine the debate, the same as before. The democratic nominee gets up. He immediately goes on the offensive. He points out that the people George Bush is trying to appeal to are people like Phelps, of Godhatesfags.com fame. He reads from the comments of Phelps, and recounts some of the horrendous things Phelps has done. Then he explains how the same motivation (a fear of gay people) is behind George Bush's stance. He says that he understands many people are misinformed about homosexuality, and many people feel uncomfortable with it. But misinformation and discomfort are no reasons to deny someone their civil rights. He continues, making a strong moral case for gay rights. Now, you feel less isolated, because you realize there are people fighting for your side. After listening to the speech, you start to realize your parents motivations for their homophobic actions, realize that people are working to help you, and all the sudden you feel less isolated, less depressed, and less suicidal.

The problem gay people face in this country isn't that we can't get married. That we can't get married is a symptom of the problem we face, the huge amount of homophobia in this country. This homophobia is why gay kids kill and attempt to kill themselves in hugely disproportionate numbers. By merely opposing the amendment, but still opposing gay marriage, democrats contribute to this huge amount of homophobia, validate it, and show that playing to it brings rewards. This, in turn, increases the isolation felt by both out and closeted GLTB youth, and contributes to the ongoing problem of suicide. This is important, so let me reiterate it. People are dying because of homophobia. We know the republicans are OK with this. We know this because they pander to Fred Phelps types. It is disappointing that the democratic candidates seem to be OK with this as well.

  ¶ 2:54 PM

  George Bush.

Where to start with this guy?

I know.

We could start with a hypocrisy charge.

Lets start with the GOP Debate on the Larry King show from Feb 15, 2000. (source)

Here it is:

"Q: So if you have gays working for you, that’s fine and you don’t have a problem-you’d appoint gays in the Cabinet and so forth.
A: Well, I’m not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. I’m going to put conservative people in the cabinet. It’s none of my business what somebody’s [orientation is]. Now, when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I’m going to stand up and say I don’t support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.
Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.
A: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue. "

Now, lets look at relevant comments:

From the AP: (source)
"White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women."

From the AP: (source)
"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq (news - web sites), and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

Now, I typed in hypocrite to dictionary.com. I got many results, but my favorite one is this:

"one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in
religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their
hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).
The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or
"profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary"

Here is my hypocrisy charge. George Bush condemns Kerry for waffling on the issues. Apparently, to change your mind over time in light of new evidence is to waffle. Yet, here is an issue George Bush has waffled on. Therefore he is a hypocrite.

It's simple, really.

  ¶ 1:54 PM

  I was reading through some comments on the Official Edwards Campaign Blog.

It looks like Edwards does not deserve the support of the gay community, at least on the basis of some of his supporters remarks.

Lets look at some representitive remarks.

(From TeeJay)
"To lose this election or jepordize it in any fashion is stupid.
1) get Edwards nominated
2) Get Bush OUT of the WH
3) clean up Iraq, job losses, and other Booosh fiascos.
Then we can approach the issues like civil union's and gay marriage.

I don't understand self centered people like that.
Your country is about to go down the drain of corporate fascism and you don't care??

You would really take chance and let Booosh destroy this country over the next 4 years for 1 personal agenda?!!"

(From Georgia Peach)
"The choice for me, if I were a homosexual in this nation at this time, would be a very clear one indeed, and therefore would not be an issue at all. Senator Edwards has clearly stated that in his mind a marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The mere fact that he is running for President does not deprive him of his RIGHT to express his point of view. This point of view is widely held in this country and it probably will be for at least another hundred years. He has also stated that he supports Civil Unions, he will work, as President to insure that EVERYONE’S Civil Rights are protected and that there definitely needs to be legislation proposed to more clearly define issues of property succession and parental rights as regards same sex civil unions. I totally fail to see why there seems to be a problem."

I'm still wrestling with the issue, but right now, my feeling is that I will not be supporting any candidate that does not publically support gay marriage. Obviously, no one is saying Edwards can't say what he wants, and he does have a right to express his point of view. But, we also have the right to challenge his point of view.

It isn't selfish of homosexual people to demand their rights. It's not selfish for us to want access to our loved ones when they are hospitalized or assurances that our partners get our assets after we pass on. Yeah, it will take political principle to get these things for gays. But these are rights most people take for granted. While I do agree that Bush needs to go, taking a muddled, morally reprehensible stance on the issue is not the way to vote him out of office.

What the democrats on this website seem to be doing is asking us gays to stand aside while they pretend like they are disgusted enough by us that they will continue to deny us rights so that someone who is bigoted against us will be convinced by their rhetoric. I'm not playing that game. I'm not going to happily vote democrat while my party consciously appeals to those who are so disgusted by me they would deny me my rights. Is this selfish of me? Perhaps, but it is selfish of them to ask me to set aside fighting for my rights so that they can appeal to people who hate me. Of course, if the democrats do win, they will keep telling us "Just sit tight, we'll have equal rights for you soon, but right now we have to appease those bigots whose support we relied earlier while you stood by silently, so just sit tight a little longer. Maybe after the next election."

It really worries me when I read through these political message boards and see so much ambivience over what is a straightfoward moral issue.

I'll have a lot more on the reasons I'd rather have a supporter of gay marriage lose to Bush then an opponent of it win to him later.

  ¶ 5:29 PM

  Does anyone remember this court decision, from 1996?

Court Decision, Baehr vs. Miike (complete text)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:
1. The sex-based classification in HRS 572-1, on its
face and as applied, is unconstitutional and in violation of the
equal protection clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawaii
Constitution.
2. Defendant Lawrence H. Miike, as Director of
Department of Health, State of Hawaii, and his agents, and any
person in acting in concert with Defendant or claiming by or
through him, is enjoined from denying an application for a marriage license
solely because the applicants are of the same sex.
3. To the extent permitted by law, costs shall be imposed against
Defendant and awarded in favor of Plaintiffs.
DATED: Honolulu. Hawaii. December 3, 1996.
KEVIN S. C. CHANG
Judge of the Above-Entitled

  ¶ 12:04 PM

  I'm going to start this blog off by doing a series of posts designed to convey information to the blogging community about homosexuality. My series will focus on getting research out into the public so that the debates people have about homosexual issues can be better informed. In particular I hope to offer facts from the literature on the topic, combined with analysis, to combat the talking points of those opposed to gay rights.

My first post will be on differences and similarities between heterosexual and homosexual couples. From Dr. Gregory Herek's Entry on homosexuality in the APA's Encyclopedia of psychology.:

"The psychological dynamics of heterosexual and homosexual relationships are highly similar. No consistent differences in psychological adjustment or satisfaction have been observed between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. As with heterosexual relationships, same-sex partnerships vary widely in their duration, with relationships lasting 20 years and longer not uncommon.

Despite the similarities, some differences have been observed between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Partners in same-sex relationships may be less likely than those in heterosexual couples to assume gender-typed roles. Another difference is that same-sex couples may be more likely than heterosexual couples to directly discuss and negotiate the issue of sexual monogamy. Lesbian couples appear more likely to be sexually exclusive than heterosexual couples, who in turn are more likely than gay male couples to be sexually monogamous. The fact that within heterosexual couples, men are more likely than women to have outside sexual relationships, suggests that gender may have a stronger relationship to sexual exclusivity then does sexual orientation."(emphasis added)

Why is this relevant? Because, one of the talking points of the No Gay Marriage website reads in full:

Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage. Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality. See appendix.

There are three problems here. The first is that it is very unlikely that straight married people will even hear about gay marriage once the media attention surrounding it dies down. In order for gay marriage to threaten AFA style marriage in AFA style people, two things would have to happen. First, married gays would have to talk to AFA style married couples, and second, the AFA style couples would have to be so tolerant to gay people that they would be influenced to change their behavior by them. Both situations are unlikely.

The second problem is that there is an equivocation going on in this talking point. The equivocation is a complex one on the term ‘homosexual relationship’ and ‘homosexual model'. The AFA does a trick. They use the comma to separate out the two instances of homosexual relationship. ‘Homosexual relationships usually lack both permanence and fidelity,’ is one part, and ‘homosexual relationships are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model for lifelong faithful marriage’ is the other. An easy example to see their equivocation trick: Blue, which is my favorite color, is how I am feeling today. Because I am feeling this way, if you shine yellow light on me I turn green. The equivocation is on the term ‘blue’ even though it only appears once. Although the AFA is a little more tricky then this, you can see the idea.

OK. Lets take the first part. The kinds of homosexual relationships that lack fidelity and permanence are not the kinds of homosexual relationships that result in marriage, so in order for this part to be true, homosexual relationship must be disambiguated to mean ‘sexual relationships between men’. Only by disambiguating the term this way do we get a true second part, that homosexual relationships are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong faithful marriage. But, then the next part turns out false. ‘Societies expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model’. This is because the types of gay people who want marriage do not fit into the ‘sexual relationships between men’ type of homosexual relationship, they have loving caring relationships. In order for this to turn out valid, the second part (‘homosexual relationships are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong faithful marriage’) would need to disambiguate ‘homosexual relationships’ as ‘loving caring relationships’. But, to change the second part in this way changes its truth, so that the second part is false. If all the parts of this talking point is true, then it’s conclusion (A further weakening of the institution of marriage) does not follow from the premises.

Finally, with divorce rates hovering about 50%, and adultery rates high as well, the traditional model for lifelong faithful marriage is an ideal that heterosexual couples by and large fail to live up to. In fact, the research, cited above, shows that lesbians in committed relationships are more faithful then heterosexuals in similar relationships! So, since the AFA thinks that marriage is an institution that needs to be shored up, and that homosexual marriage would influence heterosexual marriage, they should be encouraging lesbians to marry! You could rewrite the talking point this way:

Popular understating of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Lesbian relationships, which have more permanence and fidelity then heterosexual relationships, fit the model of traditional lifelong faithful marriage. Societies expectations of marriage will change in response to the lesbian model, thus leading to a strengthening of the institute of marriage.

Since the AFA would most likely reject this, I’m sure they will be throwing their own talking point out soon as well! In fact, since lesbians, being more faithful then heterosexuals, will positively influence marriage, they will cancel out the negative effect of gay men, and all will balance out.


  ¶ 11:20 AM

  Posting will start tomorrow. I hope to add trackback and comments, but I am not tech savy when it comes to blogs so that might not happen soon.   ¶ 7:16 PM

  Hi. This is the inaugural test post.

I hope you enjoy this blog.  ¶ 7:03 PM