The Scapegoating of Homosexuals as Threats to Society Essay

The movement of the gay and lesbian population in the United States is one that has been in progress since the early 1900s, and is still facing overwhelming controversy and backlash today. The push for gay liberation in a country founded on Christian morals and beliefs has subsequently led to struggles over equality of marriage, adoption, jobs, and healthcare. One side of the controversy argues that every individual deserves the same rights, while the opposing mindset argues that being homosexual puts you into a group of people that is different, and will therefore be treated as such.

The LGBT community has been silently suffering through generations. But in this generation, they are finally showing the world their voice. There have been many instances where young adults were denied their right to be who they are and now they are speaking out about the mistreatment. Even though the united states have begun to be more open about the LGBT community here is still more change it come. These changes can be explained through many sociological perspectives including: functionalist, conflict, symbolic interactionism and interactionism. Along with these perspective religion, norms and deviance all impact these individuals who are striving to be open about who they really are inside and out.

Life for most homosexuals during the first half of the Twentieth century was one of hiding, being ever so careful to not give away their true feelings and predilections. Although the 1920s saw a brief moment of openness in American society, that was quickly destroyed with the progress of the Cold War, and by default, that of McCarthyism. The homosexuals of the 50s “felt the heavy weight of medical prejudice, police harassment and church condemnation … [and] were not able to challenge these authorities.” They were constantly battered, both physically and emotionally, by the society that surrounded them. The very mention or rumor of one’s homosexuality could lead to the loss of their family, their livelihood and, in some cases, their

“Sex was something mysterious which happened to married couples and Homosexuality was never mentioned; my mother told me my father did not believe it existed at all ‘until he joined the army’. As a child, I was warned about talking to ‘strange men’, without any real idea what this meant. I was left to find out for myself what it was all about.” Mike Newman, who was a child during the 1950s America recalls how homosexuality was perceived during the post-World War II era (F). This sexual oppression was not only in Newman’s household, but in almost everyone’s. While the civil rights movement began in the mid-1950s and ended late 1960s, the LGBT community started to come out of the closet slowly. The gay rights movement stemmed from the civil rights movement

During the 1980’s indulging in homosexual activity was considered in crime, people were imprisoned when caught doing so. But in 2003 some parts of the United States, suspended the law, and made homosexuality legal, soon European countries such as Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands passed an act which approved of homosexual weddings (Bonvillain 2006). If one digs deeper into this issue, where these debatable, one can find that it roots back from religions. Most religion disapprove of homosexuality but in religions such as Hindu, for sexuality, scriptures of homosexual activity only stated that it was normal and natural, to be attracted to the same sex (Bonvillain 2006). But in today’s society the main issue is regarding the issue of males being attracted to each other, an example of this issue is ‘Homophobia of men’. Homosexuality is considered to be a cultural construct, which apart from the ‘lesbian identities’ gave rise to the ‘gay identities’ (Herek 1986). It is common for normal men, to avoid influencing with homosexual men, as they fear what the public might think of them being judged as not ‘masculine’, where as its more normal for woman to associate with lesbians or homosexual women, as they are not being judged by the rest of the females (Herek 1986). Studies showed, that the social construction of gay identities meant that there was something psychologically wrong with that person,

“The Monster and the Homosexual” is written to give the reading audience a sense of a background on the history homosexuality has gained through culture in society and how people are bearing a comparison behind a homosexual and a monster. Some individuals view homosexuality as immoral and nefarious, similar to how one would describe a monster. Although not biased, homosexuality is an alteration to the typically known heterosexual relationship, and that seems to be the reasoning behind why homosexuality is considered as relentlessly as monstrous activity (739). Benshoff brings forth the reasoning in his article by stating, “Some people have always considered anything that opposes or lies outside the ideological status quo intrinsically monstrous and unnatural” (738). “The Monster and the Homosexual” provides the readers with several circumstances in which the comparison of homosexuals and monsters is apparent, whether in the form of symbolisms or in some instances, such as The Gay Agenda, the comparison is more straightforward without the use of symbolism (737). Overall, the argument of Harry Benshoff’s article, “The Monster and the Homosexual,” is to unveil a side of the ongoing comparison of homosexuals and monsters that some may have not

Jones observe (2002: 15). In these ways, institutionalized heterosexuality is central to some of the key motivation(s) behind and design of public policy frameworks in the United States. By “institutionalized heterosexuality” I am referring to the set of ideas, institutions and relationships that make the heterosexual family the societal norm, while rendering homosexual/queer families “abnormal” or “deviant” (Ingraham 1999). My queer analysis of social welfare involves examining how sexuality and gender can be rethought and reorganized in economic and social policy frameworks, theories and practices. Throughout the article I examine how heterosexuality is assumed to be the natural basis for defining the family, and by extension, society, both explicitly (by excluding LGBT people from the analysis and by stigmatizing certain individuals as “non-family” or “anti-family”) and implicitly (by assuming that all people are heterosexual, that marriage is a given and exists only between a traditionally-defined man and woman, and that all people fit more or less into traditional gender roles; see Foucault 1978; Fraser and Gordon 1994; Ingraham 1999; Phelan 2001;

In the past decades, the struggle for gay rights in the Unites States has taken many forms. Previously, homosexuality was viewed as immoral. Many people also viewed it as pathologic because the American Psychiatric Association classified it as a psychiatric disorder. As a result, many people remained in ‘the closet’ because they were afraid of losing their jobs or being discriminated against in the society. According to David Allyn, though most gays could pass in the heterosexual world, they tended to live in fear and lies because they could not look towards their families for support. At the same time, openly gay establishments were often shut down to keep openly gay people under close scrutiny (Allyn 146). But since the 1960s, people

A reoccurring theme that has been evident throughout many systems of oppression is the necessity to define the group being oppressed as criminals. In the book Queer (In)Justice it is impossible to mistake the purposeful intent of church authorities, prosecutors, and other influential citizens who had an agenda. They were threatened by the progress being made by the gay community. Sodomy laws were falling and they began to worry about queers recruiting their youth to a “perverted” lifestyle. Most often the only crime that these LGBT people committed was being homosexual. This discrimination would be a little too evident so a feeble attempt was made to cover up hatred by producing these undeserved characteristics that queer people supposedly

Discriminatory action against individuals who identified or were labeled as non-heterosexual began to be brought to light during the twentieth century and is still prevalent today. There are arguments by certain individuals that claim that discrimination of those who identify as non-heterosexual have disappeared. I would argue that such discrimination is still alive and present in our modern society. Very noticeable today with the values of our Vice-President Elect Mike Pence who thinks that homosexuality can be “fixed” through electric shock therapy. Values like this are similar to that held during the twentieth century - which Margot Canaday deeper examines in her book The Straight State: Homosexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth Century America. Canaday’s argument throughout her book is that of homosexuality considered undesirable. Canaday starts off her book by delving into the stripping of citizenship rights from individuals who were labeled as homosexual. A topic Ian Haney Lopez explores in his book White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race: How individuals pertaining to a particular group of racial or ethnic groups were deprived of their citizenship and personhood rights. In this essay, I will explore the concepts introduced by Lopez of law as ideology and law as behavioral control and how those concepts relate to Canaday’s book in the oppression of non-hetersoxual individuals within the realms of immigration, the military, and welfare (Canaday).

This analysis will examine chapter three, “Is it Pink? Is it Blue?” of Robert N. Minor’s book, Scared Straight: Why It 's So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It 's So Hard to Be Human. Minor is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas and often focuses his writing toward gay rights and gender roles in society. This particular book is a cultural critique of the United States’ gender roles and homophobia. Minor’s arguments leave a weak impression and leave readers with a sense of confusion. Minor ineffectively uses rhetoric in his arguments to establish a purpose, inform his audience, use effective language, or to persuade his audience to take action.

The social group of gay men in America remains one of the most debated in sociological and political discourse. Homosexuality has long been a neglected topic in social sciences but since 1970s, it has become a fruitful filed of research. Gay men in the US have long been an unprotected social group that being afraid of discrimination and violence preferred to live in the shadow. However, over the last decade, the life of gay men in the US has undergone the significant changes and it is important to trace the historical progression towards the current situation with the attitudes toward this group in society and the legal rights it has. The aim of this research is to study the social group of gay men in the US focusing on its history, the statistics of its population in the country, the privileges it has and the oppression it

In Journal of Human Rights published in 2014, after the Equalities Act of 2010 enacted, the United Kingdom sees sexuality and gender identities as “protected characteristics,” with legal imperatives to address discrimination, and in Canada in the early 1990s, there were an opposition against gays and lesbian rights, but after sexual orientation recognized in 1995, gradually by 2013, gays and lesbians have equality rights. (Browne, 2014)

The realization of the homosexuality in the modern western world as a cultural, sexual and a social category has been a result of complex power relations that surround sexuality and gender. The acceptance of homosexuality in the society has met its fair share of resistance and skepticism. The view that homosexuality can be in the same league as heterosexual has led it to be viewed as a normal behavioral and moral standard (Gallagher & Baker, 2006). Inasmuch as the skeptics may not want to accept the existence of homosexuality studies show that the habit is rampant today with many gay people coming out in the open. Of interest is the political acceptance of homosexuality with passing gay rights so that it can be recognized by law. This move has given homosexuals the ability to engage in legal entities like marriage (Gallagher & Baker, 2006).

Homosexuality is defined as the attraction to individuals of one’s own sex. Throughout history homosexuality did not always have a name to it. Homosexuality was considered a sin and that sexual relations could only be between a male and female for the purpose of reproduction. As I will explain later, Michael Foucault, examines the history and of sexuality and how it’s been discussed throughout history. As for this paper, I will discuss the exclusion of homosexuals in everyday life. Throughout history homosexuals have been considered perverts and have been excluded from migration, full citizenship as well as holding political offices simply due to the fact that they fall outside of the norms of society.