LGBT rights opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

This article or section deals primarily with United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

LGBT rights

Around the world · By country

History · Groups · Activists

Same-sex relationships

Opposition · Persecution

Violence

LGBT rights opposition refers to various movements or attitudes which oppose the extension of certain rights to lesbian and gay people, and by extension to bisexuals, and transsexuals. The specific rights that are opposed may include rights to social equality, marriage, adoption, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual behaviour, sexual orientation or sexual identity.

[edit] History

Students organized by the Nazi party parade in front of the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin on May 6, 1933 prior to pillaging it and confiscating its books and photos for burning.

The first organized gay rights movement arose in the late nineteenth century in Germany. When the German Nazi party came to power in 1933, one of the party's first acts was to burn down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. Subsequently, the Nazis also began sending homosexuals to concentration camps (see History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust). The organized gay rights movement would not rise again until after the Second World War.

From the late 1940s to the early 1960s gay rights movements began to form in America and Western Europe, but it was not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s that an organized movement arose to oppose gay rights.

In the 1980s the rise of AIDS contributed to a public backlash against LGBT rights issues.

[edit] Anita Bryant and conservative opposition to LGBT rights

In the late 1970s gay rights organizations were making small gains in large urban centers in America such as San Francisco, New York City, and Minneapolis. Several states reformed their criminal code to decriminalize homosexuality between consenting adults in private, and some cities were passed local anti-discrimination laws that included protection based on sexual orientation.

Anita Bryant organized the first major opposition movement to gay rights in America, based on fundamentalist Christian values. The group used various slogans that played off the fear that gay people were interested in "recruiting" or molesting children into a "life-style." A common slogan of the campaign was "Homosexuals cannot reproduce — so they must recruit." The Bryant campaign was successful in repealing many of the city anti-discrimination laws, and in proposing other citizen initiatives, such as a failed California ballot question designed to ban homosexuals or anyone who endorsed gay rights from being a public school teacher.

The name of this group was "Save Our Children," and its most successful campaign resulted in the repealing of Dade County's Civil Rights Ordinance by an overwhelming margin of 69 to 31. Soon after, legislation was passed outlawing adoption by non-heterosexual persons in Florida. In 1998, Dade County passed an anti-discrimination law that included the protection of people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the ban on homosexuals adopting children remains on the books. The success of the Bryant campaigned encouraged the development of other organizations which opposed gay rights legislation.

From the late 1970s onwards, Conservative Christian organizations such as the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women For America, and the Christian Coalition built strong lobbying and fundraising organizations to oppose what they called special rights, as well as other "secular sins" such as abortion, euthanasia, gambling, and pornography. These organizations tended to align themselves with the Republican Party.

Conservative Christian organizations followed a similar model in other nations. In the 1980s organizations opposed to gay rights successfully persuaded the British Conservative Party to enact Section 28, which banned public schools from "promoting homosexuality" or endorsing same-sex marriages. In the late 1990s, the growing public education and support for gay rights legislation in America and many other developed countries forced the organizations opposed to gay rights to change their model.

[edit] American Public opinion

Although Americans are closely divided on many of these issues, public opinion has shifted towards increased acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for gays and lesbians over the past 30 years. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who think that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal has increased from 32% to 57% since 1986.^[1][2] In 1977, 56% of Americans thought that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. Today, that number has risen to 89%.^[3][2] In 1992, 38% thought that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Today, that number is 54%.^[1][2] In 1997, 27% of Americans thought that gay marriages should be legally valid. That number is now 39%.^[4][2] In 1977, 13% of Americans thought that sexual orientation was genetically determined; now, 42%^{[citation needed]} think it is. Although, how one believes sexual orientation is determined does not necessarily make them intolerant or tolerant.^[5]

Public support for gay rights took a dip in 2004 when Massachussetts legalized gay marriage and several cities across the country began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.^{[citation needed]}

Numerous studies have investigated the prevalence of acceptance and disapproval of homosexuality, and have consistently found correlates with various demographic, psychological, and social variables. For example, studies (mainly conducted in the United States) have found that heterosexuals with positive attitudes towards homosexuality are more likely to be female, young, non-religious, well-educated, politically liberal or moderate, and have close personal contact with out gay men and lesbians.^[6] They are also more likely to have positive attitudes towards other minority groups^[7] and are less likely to support traditional gender roles.^[8]

[edit] New model

Many of the organizations opposed to gay rights began to soften their message, although some organizations such as the small church lead by Fred Phelps continued a hardline message. Homosexuality became a problem to be overcome, akin to alcoholism, rather than something to be feared or loathed.

While the ex-gay movement has been in existence since the 1970s, it started to be a greater force in socially conservative organizations that wanted to oppose gay rights. Along with the ex-gay movement, the focus on the opposition to gay rights often centers often around same-sex marriage as many other gay rights issues such as anti-discrimination laws and the right to privacy have mainstream support. For example, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states could no longer criminalize consensual acts of anal sex between adults, many opponents of gay rights opposed the ruling on the grounds that it would lead to gay marriage. Under the new model of opposition, gay rights should still be opposed, but gay men and women need compassion and treatment for their problem.

Studies have shown that people with negative attitudes towards lesbians and gays are more likely to be male, older, religious, less well educated, politically conservative, and have little close personal contact with out gay men and lesbians.^[9] They are also more likely to have negative attitudes towards other minority groups^[10] and support traditional gender roles.^[11] They may have a personal, moral or religious objection to homosexuality.

[edit] Boy Scouts of America

The Boy Scouts of America exclude homosexuals and bisexuals from its organizations, both as Scouts and Scoutmasters. They say that they have certain moral standards and values, and that homosexuality is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, which requires boys to be "morally straight." They say that this is not discriminatory. As they say on their website, "Tolerance for diversity of values does not require abdication of one's own values" [6].

In 2000 the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [7] that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and as such can decide its own membership rules--but there is still a movement to try and persuade the organization to change its policy or allow local chapters to decide for themselves.

In 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005" to exempt the BSA from anti-discrimination laws, to require the Department of Defense to support scouting Jamborees (thus rendering ineffective a Federal Court injunction prohibiting this as an unconstitutional establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment) and to require state or local governments that receive Community Development Block Grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow BSA to have meetings in their facilities or on their property.

Critics claim that homosexuals are not incompatible with scout values and are allowed to be members in most countries in the world [8], including the United Kingdom, where scouting was founded. Some United Ways, municipalities, school districts and businesses have stopped supporting the BSA for those reasons. [9]

Other outdoor-focused, youth-based organizations such as the 4-H club and Girl Scouts do not have similar policies. The BSA, however, receives a high level of support from religious groups, many of which are noted for their opposition to the gay rights movement. [10]

[edit] United States Armed Forces

The United States Armed Forces has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, under which gay men and lesbians can be discharged from the armed forces if they come out, but will not be specifically questioned about their sexual orientation. While the policy is defended on fundamentalist grounds, it is also argued that young avowed heterosexual men would not tolerate working with young avowed homosexuals and those lifting the ban would hurt the morale and unit cohesion, yet when the United Kingdom admitted homosexuals, no such unit cohesion or morale was lost. The same was said of African-Americans when the military was integrated - and while there were incidents in the beginning, in modern times the diverse military community has fewer incidents than the civilian community.^{[citation needed]} The enforcement of this policy has been noted to fluctuate with shifting manpower requirements in times of conflict.

[edit] Libertarian opposition

Libertarianism runs contrary to the mainstream gay rights movement on some, but not all, gay rights issues. While a libertarian perspective on gay rights endorses some gay rights positions, it also opposes gay rights when they involve anti-discrimination laws that impose government regulations on the private sector, religious organizations or private clubs. The Gays and Lesbians For Individual Liberty filed a brief in support of discrimination against gays by the Boy Scouts of America before the Supreme Court, and other libertarian organizations, such as the Outright Libertarians, likewise oppose all gay rights that require government action.

[edit] Fascist opposition

Fascist political parties have been universal in their violent opposition to gay rights. Today, Neo Nazi organizations and the Ku Klux Klan also oppose gay rights, and advocate the death penalty or life sentences in prison or concentration camps for homosexuals.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Anarchist & other opposition

Most anarchists support gay rights, but the hardline straight edge movement, which is an ascetic anarchist variation on straight edge, is indebted to Abrahamic religion and opposes gay rights. Their primary objection is that the ethos disseminated in the Hardline Manifesto opposes "special privileges" for certain groups. In addition, they have medical and religious objections to homosexuality (regarding sex purely for procreation).

(See Anarchist criticisms to sexuality and Vegan Reich, the band who developed the hardline doctrine for more details.)

[edit] Psychological

Most LGBT groups see homosexuality as natural and not a choice. A resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association in August 1997 states that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder"^[12].

Some groups, many of which are funded by religious organizations, promote an idea called reparative therapy, which considers homosexuality to be a behavior that can be modified, rather than a permanent orientation, with the goal of creating ex-gays.^[13]

[edit] Religious and philosophical

Christian,^[14][15][16] Jewish,^[17] and Islamic^[18] social conservatives view homosexuality as a sin, and its practice and acceptance in society as a weakening of moral standards. This is a primary reason why many religious social conservatives oppose the gay rights movement.

By contrast, some Liberal Christian churches are supportive of gay rights, such as the leadership and many congregations within the United Church of Christ have supported the right for homosexuals to marry.^[19]

Also, in Europe some Lutheran, Reformed and United churches in Germany (EKD), Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden are supportive of gay rights. In recent years, support has also come from some Anglican churches (Canada, England).

Some also cite natural law, sometimes called God's law or nature's law, when opposing the gay rights movement.^[20][21][22]

[edit] See also

• Anti-gay slogan
• Culture war
• Ex-gay movement
• Family values
• Homophobia
• Homosexual agenda
• Homosexuality and Christianity
• Homosexuality and Islam
• Homosexuality and Judaism
• Homosexuality laws of the world
• LGBT social movements

[edit] References

• "Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation", article from the psychology department at UC Davis