Two Arguments on Homophobia
Introduction
The discrimination of individuals who identify as homosexual or are thought to be gay is a common occurrence across the globe. Cities, boroughs and states have passed legislation that outlaws homosexuality. Negative attitudes towards homosexual people usually lead to hostility that come in verbal and physical attacks which sometimes result in death. Homophobia or the fear of individuals who are gay has been associated with religious and cultural beliefs, general ignorance about sexuality and the need to make homosexuality a tool for political gain.
Using the case of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, this paper explores the causes of homophobia and how it affects social progress. The first argument advanced by Adams and colleagues propounds that homophobia has its roots in unconscious sexual arousal. It is a result of repressed sexual feelings. The other argument under consideration is the religious argument. According to the Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is a sin and should be outlawed. The paper relies on John Rawls’ theory of justice to make an argument for why homophobia is dangerous and how societies can stem out such prejudice. Rawls’ theory offers lenses to understand how the two disparate positions can be reconciled and understood.
Definition of Homophobia
Homophobia has been defined as “an emotional or affective response including fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort, and aversion that an individual experiences in interacting with gay individuals, which may or may not involve a cognitive component” (Adams et al., 1996). Homophobia has also been defined as the fear of being close to homosexuals. It can consist of any negative attitude, belief or action toward a homosexual. Also defined as an emotional response of fear, anxiety, anger, aversion or discomfort experience while interacting with a homosexual. Homophobia often has resulted in blatant hostility and discrimination against homosexuals. Verbal and physical acts also may occur, and have often occurred against homosexuals. Violence has for centuries been a common reaction to homosexuality. The motive that is apparent in these acts is the dislike or hatred toward the individual due to his or her sexual orientation. Some scholars argued that negative attributes and behavior toward homosexuals occur due to moral beliefs, ignorance or fear.
Homophobia as a Result of Repressed Feelings
Internalized homophobia and repressed sexual feeling is the first argument for prejudice against gay people. Research by Adams and colleagues (1996) found that homophobia is associated with sexual arousal in some males. In Adams’ research homophobia is a result of increased sexual arousal due to exposure to gay materials. This research disputes the general assumption that homophobia is caused an intense dislike of homosexuality that is grounded in disgust and morality concerns.
The fact that an individual can be vocally against homosexuality does not mean that they are not homosexual. This shows that confusion about sexuality is a recipe for vehement disapproval of homosexual lifestyle. Research by Weinstein and friends (2012) showed that homophobia is pronounced in people who are not conscious of or do not acknowledge their attraction for the same sex. This is related to the notion of internalized homophobia. Barnes and Meyer (2012) define internalized homophobia as “the LGB person’s internalization of society’s negative attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality and directing these attitudes toward one’s self” (n. p.). Homophobia is mostly an outcome of socialization and individuals who are socialized in a culture that view homophobia in a negative way are bound to be conflicted with their sexuality especially when they are aware of repressed sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
The problem with internalized homophobia is that it usually targets other minority sexual groups. A man who is conflicted about their feelings for other man are bound to advocate for harsher treatment of gay people. Besides the mere fact that internalized homophobia leads to intense hatred of people of the same sex, it also results in anxiety, risky sexual behavior, issues with being intimate and a depleted sense of self-esteem (Barnes & Meyer, 2013). Research by Ellison (1995) found out that race and ethnicity does determine the levels of internalized homophobia. The more one is part of a minority group, the higher the chances of internalized homophobia especially in the case where their family is deeply religious.
Religion and Homophobic Prejudice
The second argument for homosexual prejudice is religion. Rosik, Griffith and Cruz (2007) argue that religion for decades has been identified as a powerful predictor of homophobia. Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism has been identified as incubators of homophobia. The religious doctrine of Abrahamic religions outlaws homosexuality as an unnatural phenomenon. The spread of Christianity has in the past been a predictor of the spread of homophobia. Research shows that in places like the United States, communities that are religious have taken action against individuals of sexual minorities. Same-sex sex and marriage is condemned as sinful and most spiritual leaders especially pastors in evangelical churches preach against same sex relationships. Pastors and other church leaders refuse to perform gay marriages unions. In addition to spiritual leaders refusing to partake in same sex relationship ceremonies, the biggest Church denominations in the U.S. such as the Southern Baptist, United Methodist and the Roman Catholic have statutes that oppose gay marriage.
Religion has historically played a significant role in flaming the fires of homophobia. One of the communities where homophobia is prevalent is the black churches. Writing on black churches and homophobia, Ward (2005) observed that black churches hold a significant and central position in the black culture and society. Thus, churches influence most facets of black socialization. One of the characteristics of black church teaching is anti-homosexuality. Ward argued that black churches are linked to black nationalist ideology which “supports a strong and exaggerated sense of masculinity within black communities that, along with homophobia takes a significant but general unexamined psychic and social toll on people’s lives” (2005, p. 493). The prevalence of homophobia in black churches shows that even minority groups are capable of extreme prejudice.
The church’s influence on homophobic attitude cannot be underestimated. The justification is provided from history and recorded books which makes homophobia based on religious grounds most difficult to deal with.
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice and Homophobia
Rawls’s theory of justice can be used to understand homophobia as well as in providing solutions to the seeming problem of homophobia that is developed in rules and laws of states. Rawls understand that Western democracies were contending with cultural wars that emerged out of the disparate voices (1999). One of those cultural wars is related to the issue of sexuality. Cultural struggles over the administration of states has resulted in market divisions that have resulted in groups like the Christian Right to explore new avenues of channeling their anti-homosexuality message. This avenue comprises of moving to third world countries and influencing legislation. Rawls’ idea of the veil of ignorance which seeks equitable justice and treatment for all does not apply to the realm of homophobia.
The theory of justice of composed of three critical elements. These are reflective, deliberation, the original position and the creation of a well-ordered society. According to Rawls people in well ordered societies have the capacity to develop an original position which has two components of liberty and difference principle (Rawls, 1999). The theory provides critical lenses to understanding homophobia and its origins. It also helps in understanding internalized homophobia as well as the religious origins of homophobia. The theory of justice helps us in understanding the justifications for homophobia.
David Bahati who is the member of parliament for Uganda’s National Resistance Movement tabled a draft bill called the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2009. Bahati’s bill was a follow up to the constitution amendment that that made homosexuality illegal and prohibited same sex marriage. The move by Bahati was unprecedented since it became one of the few developments in Ugandan society and politics that showed the growing levels of homophobia and sexual intolerance in the East African nation. The Bill that Bahati tabled sought to impose harsher penalties on individuals who would have been accused of homosexuality. Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill has its roots in the colonial laws developed by British administrators that seek to use Christian and Western mores of the time to deal with what was believed to be unnatural sexual behavior. The bill was passed into law in 2013 and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed it into law in 2014.
One of the justifications for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is that homosexuality is un-African. The basic premise behind this justification is that homosexuality has no history or place in the African culture. Individuals who crafted the legislation argued that across the African continent homosexuality should be outlawed. The colonial origins of the law were ignored and were replaced by a more religious justification.
Recommendations from researchers and academics that the Bill was a public health hazard and contributed to human rights abuses was ignored. Gay rights activists have highlighted that the bill is not just unconstitutional but it is against United Nations human rights conventions. The Bill has been argued to be a thorn in the fight against HIV/AIDS. This effort did not deter the Ugandan government’s campaign to impose harsh penalties on homosexuality. The government used the state media to fight against the push back from human rights groups.
The campaign to get the Anti-Homosexuality Bill repealed has led to the growth of new voices that believe that the push by international gay rights activists amounts to a new kind of cultural imperialism where Western nations are forcing developing nations to accept values and mores that the West were against only a decade ago. Uganda argues that it is a sovereign nation and has the right to make cultural and social laws that it deems relevant. The Ugandan government further argues that the law has nothing to do with homophobia but the preservation of their culture. The problem of this imperialism explanation is that part of the pressure to create the law came from Western Christian evangelical groups. Uganda denies homophobia but it is the relationship between known US evangelical groups and the Ugandan legislators that unmask the homophobia behind Uganda’s law.
The role of the United States’ Christian Right in the Ugandan gay laws has the capacity to show that the argument opposition to the law has something to do with imperialism is inaccurate. Homophobia with its basis in Christian teachings is behind the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Kaoma cited in Wahab (2016) argued that “U.S. religious conservatives’ ideologies and activism are behind the growing violent homophobia in Christian Africa” (Wahab, 2016. p. 691). The Christian conservatives support for Uganda’s anti-homosexuality laws has been baffling to observers since it is an alliance between individuals who believe in the liberal democracy ideas and a sustained illiberal state. The alliance is borne out of the culture wars in the United States.
The anti-gay movement has lost traction and is being squeezed out by the triumph of liberal cultural policies. This has made places like Uganda fertile ground for the continuation of the anti-gay movement. The most homophobic elements from the Christian Right have found it difficult to navigate the cultural terrains of the United States. Places like Uganda because of the strong Christian element and the already established anti-gay laws provided the grounds for the Christian Right to continue its fight against the liberalization of American society.
An example of the influence of the United State conservatives on Uganda’s laws is observed in the seminar that were conducted by individuals like Scott Lively who represented the anti-gay organization called Defend the Family. Scott held a seminar in Uganda which was called “Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda”. The seminar was attended by all the anti-homosexual groups in Uganda including the infamous Pastor Martin Ssempa who was notoriously known for showing gay video footages during his church sermons and inciting more homophobia from Ugandans.
Applying the Two Arguments to the Ugandan Case
Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill has its basis mainly in colonial laws and Christian doctrine especially the conservative Christianity of the United States’s South. The argument on religion as a predictor of homophobia is strong especially when one put into consideration the actions of individuals like Scott Lively whose seminars sought to make Ugandans opposed to matters they were just told were un-African, unnatural and against Christianity without being presented with enough evidence to support these claims. Actions from groups such as the Liberty Counsel proves who praised Uganda’s anti-gay laws showed that the church has to contend with the fact that it promotes bigotry.
In addition to actions by the Liberty Counsel, the personal relationship between Martin Sempa, the anti-gay pastor in Uganda, Scott Lively and David Bahati proves that the church is actively engaged in the process of outlawing homosexuality in Uganda. Having failed in the United States, organizations like Defend the Family and Liberty Counsel took advantage of the fact that Uganda was a heavily Christian nation with homophobic legislators and pushed their agenda. The veil of the protection of culture is used by anti-homosexuality groups. The laws against homosexuality in Uganda were mostly developed under the guise that African culture and tradition was being eroded by gay Western culture.
The argument that homosexuality is Western masks the truth about the nature of homosexuality in Uganda and Africa in general. While the Christian Right bought into the idea that homosexuality was undermining Ugandan culture, it forgot to reflect on the fact that its own influence would amount to neo-colonial domination as well. Transnational evangelism’ biggest achievement in East Africa related to the institution of anti-gay laws in Uganda.
It is difficult to clearly identify the opposition to homosexuality in Uganda as evidenced by the Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a result of internalized homophobia that stems from repressed feelings. No research has been made on internalized homophobia and the sprouting of anti-gay laws especially in Uganda. Such an understanding would need a psychological and psychobiological studies of individuals like Pastor Ssempa and David Bahati. Further research would find links between homophobia and repressed feelings. The argument that homosexuality is unAfrican is made by individuals who are afraid of the gay people dominating the cultural and social scene ending with young people embracing the gay culture. The assumption of this research is that it is within the argument that homosexuality is unAfrican that it becomes apparent that there is a factor of internalized homophobia which is about to be revealed.
A Rawlesian Solution to Homophobia
Rawls argued that society should be organized around fair principles and these principles should manifest themselves through constitutional and legal methods. Rawls wanted to find a way for social institution to exist in harmony. It is the concept of the original position that is critical to the case of homophobia in places like Uganda. The institutions that were designed in Uganda promotes alienation and exclusion. The Rawlesian solution to this problem would be for those who are responsible for the crafting of legal and social institutions to take a step back and create a distance between themselves and the laws they created. The veil of ignorance is important in establishing the original position. The veil of ignorance makes it imperative that no individual enjoys more power than the other in the establishing of social institutions and laws. For those who make laws based on their religious convictions the veil of ignorance demand that one abandon their religious convictions for a moment and help craft laws without preconceived notions about other groups. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of Uganda was drafted using two justifications that have no basis in human rights but in the stifling of individual rights.
Conclusion
Homophobia permeates throughout modern societies. Different groups come up with different reasons for being homophobic. In terms of religious reasons, the Abrahamic religions provide groups for prejudice. The Church especially through the Christian Right's has resorted to transnational evangelism which has led to the promotion of anti-homosexual bills in developing Christian nation. The case of Uganda shows the extent to which religious extremism can manifest itself in different forms. The Anti-Homosexuality Law of Uganda provides statues of decades that can be spent in jail if one is found guilty of homosexuality. The bill was also crafted by people whose motto were to kill gay people. In Uganda, religion and politics plays a key role in the promotion of prejudice. The anti-gay network can be traced all the way to the United States.
Rawls’ theory of justice especially his original position despite its origins in the West provide viable solutions for addressing the human rights and institution building problems created by anti-gay laws. It is difficult to ask individuals to suspend their religious beliefs but it is imperative that the future function of society take into consideration dissent. The argument that homosexuality is unAfrican is a mere argument to justify impunity and repression. Prejudice against gay people does come in so many forms and societies find justification in bad science, hearsay and religion. It is most driven by fear.
References
Adams, H. E., Wright, Jr. L. & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual
arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105, 3, 440-445.
Barnes, D. M. & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 82, 4, 505-515.
Eliason, M. J. & Schope, R. (2007). Shifting sands or solid foundation? Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender identity formation. In: Meyer IH, Northridge ME, editors. The health of sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. New York: Springer
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Harvard University Press,
Rosik, C. H., Griffith, L. K. & Cruz, Z. (2007). Homophobia and conservative religion: Toward a
more nuanced understanding. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77, 1, 10-19
Wahab, A. (2016). “Homosexuality/Homophobia Is Un-African”?: Un-Mapping Transnational
Discourses in the Context of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill/Act. Journal of Homosexuality 63, 5, 685-718.
Weinsten, N. et al. (2012). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102, 4, 815-832.
