{"id":1018,"date":"2019-05-25T09:57:09","date_gmt":"2019-05-25T14:57:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johnniequezada.me\/jqme\/?p=1018"},"modified":"2019-09-26T09:59:56","modified_gmt":"2019-09-26T14:59:56","slug":"an-argument-for-lgbtq-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johnniequezada.me\/jqme\/2019\/05\/25\/an-argument-for-lgbtq-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"An Argument for LGBTQ Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Note: This is an older post from my Blogger days. When I first wrote this piece\u00a0 a number of years ago I did not foresee the rise of Identity Politics and the weaponization of LGBTQ rights. While its good to see LGBTQ people become more visible in media, the Arts\u00a0 and elsewhere, it has in part come about via political forces that have hijacked the struggle for LGBTQ rights for reactionary purposes. A virtual Taliban has arisen that\u00a0supposedly speaks in the name of the LBGTQ community\u00a0but rather than fighting for\u00a0the genuine inclusion of LGBTQ people in the life of the society, instead use it as a political battering ram to smear, browbeat, cajole and terrorize their political opponents. The aim here is not so much the advancement of the human rights of the LGBTQ community as whole, but the furthering of the political\u00a0and economic interests of a complacent, smug and relatively well off, middle class segment\u00a0of that community. Moreover, the ensuing divisive and\u00a0diversionary discourse meant to divert people’s attention from the pressing political, social and\u00a0class\u00a0<\/em>rooted economic issues is readily used by, as Gore Vidal put it: “the second most enthusiastic Capitalist party” (the Democratic Party), to dragoon people into its waiting, wide open jaws. My observations can also be applied to feminist and “anti-racist”\u00a0 movements such as #metoo and #blacklivesmatter. Figures such as Jussie Smollet and Rachael Maddow are poster children for this sort of “protest through identity.” Theirs, like most of their ilk, are grievances underlain by\u00a0 privilege,\u00a0 addressed\u00a0 through rank opportunism and always, always genuflecting in the face of power. Future movements, beyond the usual resistance to change, will have a rough time of it because of the harm, possibly irreparable, done by the recent wave of weaponized movements created under the auspices of Identity Politics.<\/strong>Gay and Lesbian rights over the last 40 years has been a contentious issue within the\u00a0United States. From former Bill Clinton\u2019s misguided \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d policy in the armed forces to Actress Ellen DeGeneres \u201ccoming out\u201d on the sitcom\u00a0Ellen\u00a0<\/em>to\u00a0<\/em>Stonewall the fight for gay\/lesbian rights has had many ups and downs. In this essay I will provide a rough sketch of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights in the United States as well as deal with some points of philosophical import. My objectivity will not stem from any notion of the \u201cdetached observer\u201d carefully noting the facts. Although I will present the facts as best I can in the strongest light possible, I will do so as an advocate for gay\/lesbian rights. Moreover, this essay will provide a brief historical sketch combined with a philosophical backdrop.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here it is important, for purposes of clarity, to define some terms: A homosexual is someone whose sexual inclination is towards that of that individual\u2019s own sex rather than the opposite sex. A lesbian is a homosexual woman. A transvestite is a man who derives sexual pleasure by dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex. An effeminate person is someone possessed of qualities generally attributed to women such as weakness, gentleness, delicacy . . . etc. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. A trans-gendered person is someone who was born a female and was surgically converted to a male or vice versa. Finally, the generally accepted definition of a hermaphrodite is someone born with both male and female sex organs. But in reality, there are three types: True, Male pseudo and Female Pseudo. \u201cA\u00a0True<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>hermaphrodite is a\u00a0<\/strong>person born with both ovary and testicular tissue, this could be 2 separate gonads ( one of each) or a combination of both in one (an ovotestes). The genitalia can vary from completely male or female, to a combination of both or even ambiguous looking. A\u00a0Female Psuedo<\/em>\u00a0is a person born XX with normal female internal organs but with “masculanized” genitalia. They can appear more male then female or a combination of each. Finally, a\u00a0Male Psuedo\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>is a<\/strong> person born XY with testes (usually in the abdominal cavity). The external genitalia are usually female but can be ambiguous.”[1]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I have defined these terms because frequently when I am arguing for or speaking of gay rights I invariably get comments like \u2018I don\u2019t want my child taught by no homo!\u2019 The implication being that the child will be either taught a gay lifestyle, to accept a gay lifestyle or, what is usually meant, the child will be sexually molested. Many times people confuse homosexuality with pedophilia, a person who is hermaphrodite, effeminate, trans-gendered or a transvestite with the end result that I am talking about apples, so to speak, and they are talking about oranges. Granted a homosexual can have any of the qualities described by the terms I\u2019ve just defined but he or she cannot possess them by definition. So, in other words, making an objection to homosexuality because you fear your child will be molested is an invalid inference because a homosexual by definition or necessity is not a pedophile anymore than a heterosexual is.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is, however, another classification that does not get as much press but more than heterosexuality and homosexuality exemplifies the fluidity of human sexuality. This is bisexuality. Being bisexual means having many options. Such an individual likes men and women alike. In her book Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life Marjorie Garber noted that \u201cwhen an interviewer asked Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey report, what made someone bisexual, he replied that it was the wrong question. You should ask, \u2018why isn\u2019t everybody?\u2019\u201d[2]<\/strong> Indeed, considering the obvious suppleness of human sexuality that is an interesting question. Likely, a large part of the answer is the power of Western civilization to enforce rigid gender roles. But also likely is the difficulty in settling on what one is. Are you straight or are you gay? Answering neither seems to be a bit too equivocal or ambiguous. Sort of like being left adrift at sea and not knowing which way to face before starting to row. It is thus not surprising that Kinsey institute research has found that \u201cat least 25 percent of all American men had a sexual experience with another male as teenagers or adults. [However,] the majority of these men think of themselves as heterosexual.”[3]<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>From a societal standpoint bisexuality, in relation to heterosexuality and homosexuality, can be heard as saying \u2018ruin on both of your houses.\u2019 It can be seen as radical in that it rejects the defined roles projected from either camps or conservative in that it appears as a \u201cglass half full\u201d to both sides. Perhaps it is this inability to be classified one way or another that adds to the appeal of stars such as Mick Jagger and Madonna. Gore Vidal explained it this way:<\/span><\/p>\n

It is an underlying assumption of twentieth-century\u00a0America\u00a0that human beings are either heterosexual or, through some arresting of normal psychic growth, homosexual, with very little traffic back and forth. To us, the norm is heterosexual; the family is central; all else is deviation, pleasing or not depending on one\u2019s own tastes and moral<\/em>\u00a0preoccupations. Suetonius reveals a very different world. His underlying assumption is that man is bisexual and that given complete freedom to love\u2014or perhaps more to the point of the case of the Ceasars, to violate\u2014others, he will do so, going blithely from male to female as fancy dictates . . . It is an odd experience for a contemporary to read of Nero\u2019s simultaneous passion for both a man and a woman. Something seems wrong. It must be one or the other, not both.[4]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

For those bisexual folks who are not stars their ambiguous sexuality likely will draw fire upon themselves. As Gore Vidal noted, theirs is a sexuality that the contemporary American, if not European, cannot pin down. It is easy to see how bisexual people would not be welcome in either the men\u2019s locker-room or the women\u2019s locker-room. For perhaps what is loathed more than being different, is being different with no place to go. Bisexuals don\u2019t fit; there is no easy way to categorize them and so no easy way deal with them. Most heterosexuals view them as homosexuals plain and simple while many gays see them as phonies and fakes for not \u201cgoing all the way.\u201d To borrow a line from the present discourse over terrorism, bisexuals have to decide whether \u201cyou\u2019re either with us or against us.\u201d These types of attitudes have the effect of splintering the categories of sexual identity and adding to the confusion over sexuality and identity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, sexual identity itself involves more than just a set of practices and notions about sex that a society ascribes to this or that group. Sexual identity is forged through the crucible of history and where and when one finds oneself. Being a homosexual in Ancient Greece, for example, is of a different character than being a homosexual in the contemporary U. S. In the former homosexuality in certain forms was not only accepted\u00a0but even elevated above heterosexuality. In the latter homosexuality is condemned and heterosexuality made compulsory. No one, however, sits still and passively allows him or herself to be labeled or categorized. While one is being defined, one also consciously or unconsciously reworks this unsolicited definition and reflects this back onto one\u2019s society. This reflection in turn redefines the social and cultural terrain where these identities are continually contested.<\/span><\/p>\n

Probably the most misunderstood and marginalized group of gay and lesbians as a distinct class are queers of color. White middle-class gay men are quite visible in comparison to their colored, usually non-middle class, counterparts. This is no accident as from the start sexuality in general in U. S. society had been racialized. Beginning almost immediately following the \u201cdiscovery of the\u00a0New World\u201d people of color where marked as, at best, beings living in a unmediated natural state (meaning uncivilized) or, at worst, simply savages or barbarians in need of the civilizing hand of Europeans. For example, often Africans and Native Americans were depicted in woodcuts, drawings and paintings with hardly any clothes on in subordinate positions to Europeans. These images cemented in the minds of Westerners notions that those depicted were uncivilized people on the one hand and exotic sexual objects on the other. Siobhan B. Somerville quotes Kobena Mercer and Isaac Julien as saying:<\/span><\/p>\n

The prevailing Western concept of sexuality . . .\u00a0<\/em>already contains racism. Historically, the European construction of sexuality coincides with the epoch of imperialism and the two inter-connect . . . The personage of the savage was developed as the other of civilization and one of the first \u201cproofs\u201d of this otherness was the nakedness of the savage, the visibility of its sex.[5]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Race thus has to be understood as<\/span><\/p>\n

a historical, ideological process rather than fixed [on] trans-historical or biological characteristics: one\u2019s racial identity is contingent on one\u2019s cultural and historical location. Processes of \u2018racialization\u2019 [are] the extension of racial meaning to a previously unclassified relationship, social practice or group. \u2018Racialization\u2019 is an ideological process, an historically specific one[6]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

It is through this prism, which this legacy of conquest and imperialism represents, that gays and lesbians of color are seen. While most people of color in U. S. society to this day have two identities, one African-American and the other simply American[7]<\/strong>, gays and lesbians add a third; their identity as homosexuals. Not being able to exist outside of the society in that surrounds them, African-Americans and Latinos show little more tolerance for their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters than the larger society. Homophobia runs deep in communities of color like in the rest of society. Prison is one of the few places where one sees a peculiar breakdown in this area. There a man is considered homosexual if he plays the role of \u201ccatcher\u201d rather than the role of \u201cpitcher.\u201d So in prisons we are left with a situation within the sphere of homosexuality where the stigmatized\u00a0other<\/em>\u00a0is feminized in the absence of the ability, because of objective conditions, to racialize the\u00a0other.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of relations between gays and lesbians themselves, race adds another layer of complexity and ambiguity. For example, earlier in the twentieth century psychologist Margret Otis, in an article appearing in a medical journal in 1913 and entitled \u201cA perversion not Commonly Noted,\u201d wrote of the pervasive \u201clove-making between white and colored girls\u201d in all female institutions such as reform schools. She drew attention to what she deemed the \u201cpeculiar moral code\u201d that governed these relationships:<\/span><\/p>\n

In particular, she noted that the girls incorporated racial difference into courtship rituals self-consciously patterned on traditional gender roles: \u201cone white girl . . . admitted that the colored girl she loved seemed the man, and thought it was so in the case of the others.\u201d[8]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Already segregated by gender these girls apparently replicated traditional gender roles through the use of race. In this case black skin became synonymous with masculinity while white skin represented femininity. A curious development since Black men practically from the beginning of slavery were painted as sexual predators always looking for a white woman to take. In this instance, however, it is the black woman that is recast as the black man. This being early in the twentieth century when Victorian norms of sexuality between women still held on one hand and \u201cJim Crow\u201d was alive and well on the other, Ms. Otis\u2019s readers were likely appalled by the inter-racial nature of these relationships rather than the homosexual aspect of it. In essence the fear and loathing heaped upon the Black man for his supposedly uncontrollable sexual urges, could, through homosexuality, be transferred to the Black woman. But more telling is the adaptability and pragmatism of human relationships. The lessons that need to be learned here is that race and homosexuality can combine in a peculiar social cocktail that can lead to not easily resolved tensions in sexual identity and that one\u2019s identity, as discussed earlier, is as much about what one does with what is handed down.<\/span><\/p>\n

From a constitutional perspective one of the more important cases dealing with the legal status of gays and lesbians in the last ten years is the case of Romer v Evans. This suit was launched as a result of the passage of a law known at the time as Amendment 2. Amendment 2 was a state-wide anti-gay initiative prohibiting all branches of state government in\u00a0Colorado\u00a0from passing legislation or adopting policies prohibiting discrimination against lesbians and gay men based on their sexual orientation. This measure was passed by a slim majority of\u00a0Colorado\u00a0voters in 1992. In 1996, however, as a result of this suit the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 6-3 ruling struck down this law. There was very little choice for the Court to do otherwise unless it was willing to destroy a century of legal precedent and law. The 14th<\/sup>\u00a0Amendment clearly states that<\/span><\/p>\n

all persons born or naturalized in the\u00a0United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the\u00a0United States\u00a0and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In essence the court simply upheld the \u201cequal protection clause\u201d of the\u00a0Constitution that had been in place since 1866. Writing in \u201cWomen, Gays, and the Constitution\u201d Professor of Law Daniel A. J. Richards states:<\/span><\/p>\n

The strongest constitutional argument for constitutional limits on antigay\/lesbian rights iniatives has been the one least explored in the available literature and the one all other arguments impliedly depend on for their force: namely, the initiatives in question express constitutionally forbidden sectarian religious intolerance through public law against fundamental rights of conscience, speech, and association of lesbian and gay persons protected by America\u2019s first and premier civil liberty, the liberty of conscience.[9]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

While I certainly can agree with Mr. Richards that the right arguments need to be presented I think that it should be kept in mind that, like the \u201cJim crow\u201d laws existing between the era bracketed by the end of Reconstruction and the apex of the Civil Rights Movement, anti-gay initiatives find their force during times most favorable to their enactment and enforcement. Arguments need to be presented yes. Also, legal recourse can be pursued such as the strategy of the NAACP that challenged the legal basis of segregation. But ultimately it is mass movements, rather than lawsuits, agitating for overarching social change that will transform the political climate where these initiatives germinate. In addition, while the U. S. Constitution states, \u201cthat all men are created equal,\u201d this was certainly not true, at the time the constitution was ratified, for enslaved African-Americans, Native Americans, Women and the property-less. They were to remain outside the loop for some time to come. My point being that laws are as much a function of political expediency as they are guarantors of our rights as citizens. It all depends on the alignment of political forces outside the legislative chambers of Congress and the courtrooms of the legal system.<\/span><\/p>\n

For gays and lesbians living in the\u00a0United States\u00a0the defining moment and point where their fight for equality took off occurred in a small bar on\u00a0Christopher Street\u00a0in\u00a0New York City\u00a0called Stonewall. This event has taken on mythic proportion so stories vary as to what exactly happened that fateful night in 1969.\u00a0David Bianco\u00a0writing for\u00a0www.planetout.com\u00a0gives one of the more credible accounts:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the early morning hours of\u00a0June 28, 1969, the police raided the Stonewall Inn, a dingy, Mafia-run “private club” on\u00a0Christopher Street\u00a0in\u00a0Greenwich Village\u00a0with a predominantly gay clientele. The charge was illegal sale of alcohol. It was the second time that week the bar had been targeted by the police, and other gay bars had also been raided in prior weeks. Police officers lined up the Stonewall’s 200 patrons to check identification. Most were free to leave, but the staff, as well as three drag queens and two male-to-female transsexuals, were detained.
\nEyewitnesses recalled that the scene outside the bar was at first campy and festive. Tourists and passers-by joined patrons and everyone cheered when a gay person emerged from the bar, dismissed by the police. But when a paddy wagon arrived and the police loaded the bar’s staff and the three drag queens inside, the crowd on the street grew surly. One person threw a rock through a window, and eventually garbage cans, bottles, and even a parking meter were used to assault the building. Someone set a fire with lighter fluid. By newspaper accounts, 13 people were arrested and three police officers sustained minor injuries in the confrontation.\u00a0<\/em><\/span>
\nLater that night and into Sunday morning, a crowd again gathered in front of the ravaged bar. Many young gay men showed up to protest the flurry of raids, but they did so by handholding, kissing, and forming a chorus line. “We are the Stonewall girls,” they sang, kicking their legs in front of the police. “We wear our hair in curls. \/We have no underwear. \/We show our pubic hair.” Police cleared the street without incident this time, but another street altercation occurred a few days later.[10]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Coming as it did during one of the most politically charged periods in\u00a0U. S.\u00a0history (the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War Movement were in full swing); the Stonewall riots ushered in a new era in the struggle for gay\/lesbian rights. Clearly the message being sent by gays and lesbians was that they were no longer going to tolerate being marginalized and abused. The time had come to push back hard against the old ways of thinking and doing. But as mentioned earlier, the alignment of political forces at the time was quite favorable to any kind of progressive politics. While before \u201cStonewall\u201d there were only a few dozen gay\/lesbian rights groups, after a few years following \u201cStonewall\u201d they numbered in the hundreds. One of the more important and long-lived organizations formed was founded in July of the same year and took the name \u201cGay Liberation Front.\u201d The \u201cGay Liberation Front\u201d and organizations like it fought for repeal of sodomy laws, legal protection from discrimination in housing and employment as well as against the spread of hate speech and anti-gay violence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Undoubtedly, the history of the fight for gay\/lesbian rights has been a long, tortuous and winding road in the\u00a0United States. While progress has been made there is still much to be done. Comments, made in the aftermath of the September 11th<\/sup>\u00a0attacks in\u00a0New York\u00a0and\u00a0Washington, such as those of Jerry Falwell and his fellow traveler Pat Robertson (quoted below) on the September 13th<\/sup>\u00a0edition of their television program \u201cThe 700 Club\u201d show that anti gay\/lesbian sentiment is still strong and has an audience. Here is what they had to say:<\/span><\/p>\n

[Falwell] “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of\u00a0America\u00a0to give us probably what we deserve. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, \u2018You helped this happen.”<\/span><\/p>\n

[Robertson] \u201cWell, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.\u201d[11]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

From a philosophical standpoint, these comments, their illogic and venomous invective aside, expose the paradoxical ideological and political framework that underpins\u00a0United States\u00a0society. It is within this framework that, on the one hand, comments, such as those of Falwell and Robertson, are protected and, on the other hand, numerous other voices, while also having the formal right to be heard, are all but shut out because of the manner in which power is allocated. Understanding this framework will shed much needed light on both sides of the struggle over gay\/lesbian rights and progressive causes in general. While many thinkers contributed to this framework, it is the views of John Locke and J. S. Mill that standout. I will therefore briefly discuss the contributions of these two men before going on to argue forthrightly on gay\/lesbian rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the realm of political–economic theory, no one, other than Adam Smith, had as much influence as John Locke. John Locke was an English philosopher born on\u00a0August 29, 1632\u00a0who came to be best known for his book \u201cTwo Treatises of Government (1690).\u201d In it he argued that, labor is the origin and justification of property; contract or consent the nexus of government. However, the state of nature knows no government; but in it, as in political society, men are subject to the moral law, which is the law of God.\u00a0Men, as he puts it, are born free and equal in rights. However, whatever a man “mixes his labour with” is his to use and \u201cby his labor does, as it were, enclose it from the common.\u201d[12]<\/strong>\u00a0Or, at least, this was so in the primitive condition of human life in which there was enough for all and “the whole earth was\u00a0America.” Locke sees that, when men have multiplied and land has become scarce, rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies. Oddly, for Locke, the origin of government is traced not to this economic necessity, but to another cause. He admits that while the moral law is always valid it is not always kept. Consequently, in the state of nature all men equally have the right to punish transgressors and civil society originates when, for the better administration of the law, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers. Thus, government is instituted by a “social contract”; its powers are limited, and they involve reciprocal obligations. Moreover, these powers and obligations can be modified or rescinded by those that originally entered into this social contract.\u00a0Nevertheless, from here Locke goes on to argue more strongly from the premise that the state exists in order to protect the rights of property holders than for its role as an arbiter between men who in their \u201cnatural state\u201d would all be at odds with each other. His statement that man:<\/span><\/p>\n

. . . hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty, and estate against the injuries and attempts of other men . . .[13]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

would make its next appearance 86 years later, almost to the word, in\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0United States Declaration of Independence<\/em>\u00a0(1776) where Thomas Jefferson wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,\u00a0Liberty\u00a0and the pursuit of Happiness.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Locke\u2019s arguments however rest on some shaky assumptions. First, he assumes that \u201cthough the things of nature are given in common, man . . . had still in himself the great foundation of property.[14]<\/strong>This is an argument from nature. Are \u201cmen\u201d, by nature greedy or possessive? Second, while it is true people have a right to the product of their labor, it does not follow that land, being the means through which one realizes the product of one\u2019s labor, entitles one to exclusive possession of both the means (the land) and the product (born of one\u2019s labor). Third, because he sees only the consensual aspect of community he is mistakenly led to argue that \u201cit is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority.\u201d[15]<\/strong>\u00a0Of course, this leaves the minority at the mercy of the majority. Finally, more a mistake born from the era in which he lived, where America stretched out as a great frontier awaiting \u201cimprovement\u201d, Locke believed \u201cmen\u201d could always depart or dissolve whatever community they found themselves in and start afresh in any part of the world\u00a0\u201cthey can find free and unpossessed.\u201d[16]<\/strong>\u00a0Of course today, that is out of the question. You can move to another part of the world but in general you just cannot simply start your own nation-state. Perhaps sensing some of the weaknesses in Lockian political theory, Thomas Jefferson when writing\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0United States Declaration of Independence<\/em>\u00a0(1776) replaced \u201clife, liberty, and property\u201d with \u201clife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is with J. S. Mill that we find a somewhat different conception of the individual, his or her role in society and, in turn, society\u2019s function and the form and role of government. John Stuart Mill was born in\u00a0London\u00a0on\u00a0May 20, 1806, and was the eldest of son of James Mill. He was educated entirely by his father, James Mill and from his earliest years was subjected to a rigid system of intellectual discipline. He was profoundly affected by, at least early in his life, Utilitarianism and its main proponent Jeremy Bentham. His early works are tinged throughout their entirety with the philosophical determinism of utilitarianism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here, what concerns us is his works \u201cOn Liberty\u201d and\u00a0\u201cConsiderations On Representative Government\u201d where he argued for the freedom of the individual from undue government intrusion and what government\u2019s role should be. For Mill, the individual was sacrosanct. The individual had the natural right to pursue his own aims without hindrance as long as in pursuit of these aims he did not keep others from doing the same or cause harm. Furthermore, he recognized that human beings, while possessing a nature, are still very much conditioned by the social context in which they exist. Thus, the free flow of information and ideas is paramount not only to guarantee individual freedom but also to precipitate the mental growth of the individual and by extension raise the cultural or intellectual milieu.\u00a0The best form of government, he believed, was one of proportional representation. To his credit, Mill recognized that proportional representative government, characterized by checks and balances along with separation of powers, could still fall prey to a tyranny of the majority, a \u201cgeneral ignorance and incapacity, or, . . . insufficient mental qualifications in the controlling body [and] the danger of its being under the influence of interests not identical with the general welfare of the community.\u201d[17]<\/strong>\u00a0No doubt, he would see the oligarchic nature of present day \u201cdemocracy\u201d in the\u00a0United States\u00a0as an affront to his ideals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Locke\u2019s legacy in the\u00a0United States\u00a0has meant winner-take-all elections through the concept, put in practice, of majority rule, a highly punitive justice system, by way of the over-zealous mis-application of the rule of law, and the large gap that exists between rich and poor, built upon the deification of property so prominent in Locke\u2019s writings. While Locke would be aghast by the means and ends of the\u00a0United States\u00a0since its inception, his conception of government as the ultimate protector of property rights played no small part in the construction of\u00a0United States\u00a0political institutions. To be fair, Locke\u2019s intent may not have been what has evolved in the\u00a0United States, or in the nations of the West generally, but certainly the\u00a0logic<\/em>\u00a0of his ideas pointed to few other alternative outcomes. Mill\u2019s impact is evident in the guarantees of personal freedom contained both in the \u201cBill of Rights\u201d and \u201cThe Constitution,\u201d and the representative form, albeit formal at this juncture, of government in the\u00a0United States. Unfortunately, rather than challenge laissez faire economics he instead drew from other political theorists of his day, such as David Ricardo and Adam Smith, and attempted to humanize these extant theories.[18]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Because Mill\u2019s contributions were reformist and did not seek, as Karl Marx did, to transform the socio-economic relations that grew out of bourgeois political and economic theory, it is now up to others to complete this project of transformation.It is precisely this project, or at least a piece of it, that the gay\/lesbian community, along with other groups, such as people of color and the working poor, must persevere in completing if they are to gain the rights that Locke and Mill spoke of.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here I\u2019ll just mention, in regard to homophobia (which can be defined as a fear or hatred of homosexuals) that studies have been conducted, of which the most recent I came across appeared in a 1996 issue of Journal of Abnormal Psychology, that appear to show that\u00a0“Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies,” In sum, this study of 64 volunteers, strongly indicate[s] that most homophobic males (54%, but up to 80%) have a detectable homosexual component in their psyche and that their homophobia reflects the concept called “projection” [or the transfer of qualities or features one hates in oneself onto others] in psychiatry\u201d.\u00a0[19]<\/strong>\u00a0I make mention of studies such as this one not to present their conclusions as verity, though the evidence seems strong, but as \u201cfood for thought\u201d. My hope is that my readers can put into perspective or gain some insights into the virulence, vehemence and violence that seem to characterize anti-gay\/lesbian forces.\u00a0If we are to wage a successful fight for gay\/lesbian rights we need to be aware of all the contours of this issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are some common misconceptions and faulty arguments put forth by anti-gay forces. Here I will deal with some of these. The most common argument used to condemn gay people is the idea that same sex relations defeat the purpose of reproduction. Closely related to this idea is the notion that female sex organs are expressly to be used for intercourse with that of males and vice versa. This begs the question as to how much of the time humans engage in sex for purely reproductive purposes? Also, when humans engage in heterosexual intercourse, do they always engage in the activity in a manner that would lead to pregnancy?<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, both male and female sex organs also act as conduits for the ejection of urine. An elephant uses its nose both to breathe and to bathe. Humans use their limbs in many different ways. In soccer, players frequently use their heads to hit the ball. My point is that people as well as animals use their body parts in many different ways. So to say that people can only use their genitals in a certain way and only with the opposite sex is, in fact, not only unnatural but also myopic. In fact, there is ample evidence that homosexuality has existed throughout human history in diverse cultures, societies and places. However, it was something was considered an activity one did rather than a main marker of identity. Michael Foucault described this phenomenon within Western culture, in regard to sexuality, of becoming what you do in the following way:<\/span><\/p>\n

Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.[20]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This is not to say that this makes homosexuality right but it does show that its occurrence is not uncommon and that therefore its supposed uncommon occurrence makes it abnormal. Moreover, humans as a species have separated themselves more than any other from the animal or \u201cnatural\u201d world exactly because we seek to shape our surroundings to our will rather than allowing the opposite. Automobiles, cellular phones, private property and nuclear weapons all stand as monuments to both our genius and our folly.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another branch of the argument from nature is that homosexuality is not inborn but a learned behavior. In fact there have been a number of studies done, especially recently because of the rise of bioengineering and the techniques it has spawned, that test whether or not homosexuality is inborn or learned. To cite one study, conducted by Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey and Boston University\u2019s Richard Pillard entitled \u201cA Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation\u201d, it found, after comparing fifty-six identical twins, fifty-four fraternal twins and fifty-seven unrelated adopted brothers, that \u201chomosexuality is highly attributable to genetics: by some measures up to 70% attributable\u201d. The study broke down its findings thusly:\u00a0for adoptive brothers there was a gay to gay concordance rate of 11%, for fraternal twins the rate was 22% and finally for identical twins 52%.\u00a0[21]<\/strong>\u00a0I must, however, caution that humans are extremely complex creatures that can be affected at least as much by their environment, likely more so, than by genetics. Or as J. S. Mill put it:<\/span><\/p>\n

Human nature is not a machine built after a model, and set to do the work exactly proscribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing . . .[22]<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Also, even if homosexuality is wholly a matter of genetics it seems more likely than not that it involves a number of genes. Thus, trying to isolate \u201cthe gay gene\u201d may turn out to be a quixotic quest. Clearly, though, the body of evidence in the field of genetics dealing with this issue has proven its worth. Beyond that, the field of psychiatry has long held that \u201chomosexuality is immutable and non-pathological\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

That homosexuals spread disease is also a part of the rational for denying gays their rights and even recognition of their existence. However, According to a 1998 report covering 25 states by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the most recent full year from which overall trends in these states can be examined \u2013 1995 to 1996:<\/span><\/p>\n