NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do straights hate gays?
An 72-year-old gay activist isn't hopeful about the future.
By Larry Kramer, LARRY KRAMER is the founder of the protest group ACT UP and the author of "The Tragedy of Today's Gays."
March 20, 2007

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world. If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it. Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties. Who cares if a faggot dies? Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation. I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted. Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech. This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate? Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.


---------------------------------------------

The scary thing, is, I'm not sure the author's analysis is too far from the mark. There does seem to be a deeply vested hatred in our society that reaches across society very broadly for these people. What does that say about our society's maturity?

I'm waiting for this guy's apology for using the term "to sell down the river." It's clearly racist and not to be tolerated.

The scary thing, is, I'm not sure the author's analysis is too far from the mark. There does seem to be a deeply vested hatred in our society that reaches across society very broadly for these people. What does that say about our society's maturity?What he says is right on the mark and there does not only seem to be a deeply vested hatred of homosexuals in our society, there is.

Of course, he, too, can't deliver an actual "analysis" because all he can do is look at reality and ask "Why?".

If anybody has an answer to that, I'd be glad to hear it, because I've been asking myself that a lot and have yet to come up with anything.

If anybody has an answer to that, I'd be glad to hear it, because I've been asking myself that a lot and have yet to come up with anything.

Well, it has something to do with religion, and something to do with our obsession with gender roles.

Those are the beginning threads of a decent answer, I think.

What he says is right on the mark and there does not only seem to be a deeply vested hatred of homosexuals in our society, there is.

Of course, he, too, can't deliver an actual "analysis" because all he can do is look at reality and ask "Why?".

If anybody has an answer to that, I'd be glad to hear it, because I've been asking myself that a lot and have yet to come up with anything.

My personal theory is that it has to do with the desire for a scapegoat in a society that is undergoing changes. I believe that the US is seeing a strong backlash by an authoritarian minority against the progressive reforms of the 20th century, and this minority gets momentum by exploiting the social anxieties of half the country (who are not all authoritarians; read John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" for more about authoritarianism and related social phenomena). History shows us that, when societies experience severe anxiety/pressure, demogogues/idealogues can inflame and manipulate feelings/viewpoints by designating and then attacking a scapegoat. Blacks and Jews are no longer legitimate targets in the US, and frankly (maybe surprisingly), Americans didn't really get on the anti-Muslim bandwagon -- but gays, now there's a perennial target for you. After all, sex sells, and as Jon Stewart once put it, "two guys kissing trumps everything."

Well, it has something to do with religion, and something to do with our obsession with gender roles.

Those are the beginning threads of a decent answer, I think.
Actually, from a "secular European" ;) standpoint, it doesn't have anything to do with religion. The vast majority of people here, even older generations, who don't like homosexuals don't do so because of religious reasons but simply because "it's wrong".
Now, I might give you that the roots of this way of thinking may well be partly in religion, but people today are not exactly aware of that anymore here. And many, many people here don't go to church or are otherwise religious in their lives, so religion isn't what perpetuates it.

As for our obsession with gender roles, of course that's the biggest part of it. The question I've been asking myself, however, is just why the disruption of these gender roles by homosexuals scares us so much, and why after we've acknowledged and addressed our fear of people who are different in skin color we're still having such a big problem with addressing our fear of people who are different in sexual orientation.

Of course xenophobia and racism is still in full swing but at least that can in many countries be partly explained (not excused, but explained) by economic hardships and unemployment leading to unfounded fear of "they're stealing our jobs and our welfare". But what are homosexuals stealing from or doing to us? What kind of danger do they actually constitute to me personally? I can't think of any, real or imagined.

Now, I might give you that the roots of this way of thinking may well be partly in religion, but people today are not exactly aware of that anymore here. And many, many people here don't go to church or are otherwise religious in their lives, so religion isn't what perpetuates it.

No, but the culture that was influenced by religion does indeed perpetuate it.

Admittedly, though, the "religion" explanation can't explain why homosexuality specifically is such an issue, compared to, say, premarital sex.

As for our obsession with gender roles, of course that's the biggest part of it. The question I've been asking myself, however, is just why the disruption of these gender roles by homosexuals scares us so much,

Well, the word "obsession" kind of answers that question, doesn't it? ;)

Perhaps the better question is, why are we obsessed with gender roles in the first place? And that one I have no answer to.

and why after we've acknowledged and addressed our fear of people who are different in skin color

We haven't, really.

My personal theory is that it has to do with the desire for a scapegoat in a society that is undergoing changes. I believe that the US is seeing a strong backlash by an authoritarian minority against the progressive reforms of the 20th century, and this minority gets momentum by exploiting the social anxieties of half the country (who are not all authoritarians; read John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" for more about authoritarianism and related social phenomena). History shows us that, when societies experience severe anxiety/pressure, demogogues/idealogues can inflame and manipulate feelings/viewpoints by designating and then attacking a scapegoat. Blacks and Jews are no longer legitimate targets in the US, and frankly (maybe surprisingly), Americans didn't really get on the anti-Muslim bandwagon -- but gays, now there's a perennial target for you. After all, sex sells, and as Jon Stewart once put it, "two guys kissing trumps everything."That is an excellent theory. It makes a lot of sense, esp. when you look at it comparatively in the US and Europe (I'll have to take Germany as an example here, because it's the one I can speak about most "authoritatively").

I think the social anxieties, the feeling that the world is moving too fast for you and the moral codes are crumbling and many things you used to be able to hold on to are disappearing, is common to pretty much all of the Western world. And it would seem logical that different countries would pick different scapegoats for it according to their unique cultural setting.

So I think it does make sense that in Germany, a very secular country deep in economic trouble, the lashing out would be directed at those different from us in the form of immigrants.

In the US, with its strong religious base, the backlash already goes into the direction of not only back to traditional values but to the religious foundation of these traditional values, often manifested in a hyper-traditionalist fundamentalism. So it makes sense that the scapegoats here would have to be found in that realm, too.

It certainly isn't a coincidence that, while homosexuals here are still in many ways discriminated against, they are nowhere near as viciously denounced as in the US.

Wow.. I live in Canada, and while not everyone up here is accepting, we can marry, discriminating against us is a hate crime, and things do at least seem to be better socially than in the states.

Reading this article makes me quite sad that our closest neighbor is still in such a backwards way. I feel for, and fear for, my boyfriend, who lives in North Carolina and has to deal with homophobia every day. It's comfort to both of us that, one day, we'll be living together, hopefully up here.

No, but the culture that was influenced by religion does indeed perpetuate it. Yes, that's what I meant. It's just that at a certain point it really is just "culture" or "tradition" or "ingrained prejudice" and not actual religion anymore.

Admittedly, though, the "religion" explanation can't explain why homosexuality specifically is such an issue, compared to, say, premarital sex.Well, to be fair, premarital sex has at times reached almost the same kind of hysterical reactions in the US as has homosexuality, what with the abstinence campaigns and things.

Well, the word "obsession" kind of answers that question, doesn't it? ;)

Perhaps the better question is, why are we obsessed with gender roles in the first place? And that one I have no answer to.In a way, I can see it, because it is the one role every single one of us has, and traditionally there have been only two to pick from (in Western societies).
I'm thinking this where an MA in Gender Studies would come in handy...

We haven't, really. We haven't mastered them, but I do think we have acknowledged and addressed them.

Yes, that's what I meant. It's just that at a certain point it really is just "culture" or "tradition" or "ingrained prejudice" and not actual religion anymore.

True, but religion, at least in the US, also is a moral safety net.

It allows homophobia to gain the moral legitimacy that racism no longer has, making it much harder to get people, even decent people, to recognize how immoral their attitudes are.

Well, to be fair, premarital sex has at times reached almost the same kind of hysterical reactions in the US as has homosexuality, what with the abstinence campaigns and things.

Yes, but the sort of social prejudice directed against gays has not, at least not in recent times, been directed against those who engage in premarital sex.

In a way, I can see it, because it is the one role every single one of us has, and traditionally there have been only two to pick from (in Western societies).

But why are we so concerned about other people subscribing to them?

We haven't mastered them, but I do think we have acknowledged and addressed them.

Certainly they are much less socially acceptable than homophobia.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.




This is exactly why I have begun to sit out many elections. I can't in good conscience vote for someone who doesn't support equal rights for all Americans. Democrats aren't much better than republicans when you get right down to it. They screw us over just as often.

If anybody has an answer to that, I'd be glad to hear it, because I've been asking myself that a lot and have yet to come up with anything.

Machismo. At least to a large extent. Gay men are seen as betraying and degrading their sex by acting in the manner of "lowly" women. Our society is all about being macho, manly, strong, etc. It is a perceived affront to all that our society supposedly stands for for men to debase themselves and behave in any way feminine. That is also why lesbianism is generally more tolerated. Women behaving as men is seen as them bettering themselves and buying into the macho culture. Women wearing mens clothing = cute and perky. Men wearing womens clothing = disturbing and disgusting.

Most people who are rabidly anti-gay also tend to be misogynistic.

Women wearing mens clothing = cute and perky. Men wearing womens clothing = disturbing and disgusting.

Eh.. dunno if I'd call women in mens' clothing 'cute and perky..' kinda odd if you ask me, and I've seen more than a few. As for men in womens' clothing, also odd, but celebrated in some cultures, e.g. the British. I won't play headshrinker here, but I doubt it's so simple.

Women wearing mens clothing = cute and perky.
I just think, more often than not, that it = laziness.
Men wearing womens clothing = disturbing and disgusting.
I don't have a problem with it. Takes more guts than most of those macho-men have.

Well, it probably has to do with how our brains can only truly recognize 150 others at the most as real people. We see all others as less than that, whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not. Think about how often you mouth off about evil neo-cons, or evil corporations, or evil Muslims or whatever other organization or group of people you just dismiss.

Secondly, it seems people have to hate something. Almost everyone does, be it a consumer product, a group of people, an ethnicity, or what have you; you hate SOMETHING. I hate Duracell batteries. I will never, ever use one. I don't know why...it makes no sense, but I will never, ever use one.

*SNIP*

*SNIP*



*SNIP*



But why are we so concerned about other people subscribing to them?



*SNIP*
In answer to this, much of the reasoning (even among ostensibly non-religious persons, and mind you I use the term "reasoning" VERY loosely here) behind this follows a "guilt by association" or "monkey-see, monkey-do" mentality. Essentially, many today still see a person's sexual-orientation/gender-role as a "moral" issue subject to choice rather than an inherent biological characteristic determined by genetics; and the US is notorious for its moral panics when we feel that otherwise "normal" people are being somehow seduced into (supposedly) "wicked" behavior on a wide scale. Remember McCarthyism, or more-pointedly the 1980s Satanic Ritual Abuse flap?:rolleyes: That's the same sort of dynamic we're dealing with here; the assumption (based on an old Catholic dogma known as "Dangerous Sensation") that simply being exposed to immorality makes you liable to commit it reflexively. Literally, a fear of proverbial "moral contagion" in the manner of a virus, only a virus of the soul instead of the body. By the strongest formulaiton of this dogma, if you even so much as look at a heretical or otherwise immoral book you are in danger of eternal damnation (hence book-burnings during the Inquisition, as well as the infamous Index maintained by the Vatican to this day...), or likewise if you witness an immoral act or know an immoral person and do not repent of such immediately and abjectly (preferably dropping some names while you're at it too...).
I of course find this line of pseudo-thought to be pure bunkum, and hateful bunkum at that. It denies the very sense of individual moral responsibility it claims to defend, presuming humans to be reflexive automatons liable to make sweeping personal "conversions" for good or evil at the slightest provocation. But as was pointed out above, given the influence of even casual religion and so-called "rugged individualism" (machismo plus the strongest take on individuality compatible with social existence) in US culture to this day, many simply are too blinkered to realize just what "values" they are espousing; to the point that argument simply doesn't faze them.:headbang: The thought itself that they might be mistaken simply eludes them out of reflexive ignorance, or else they actually believe that knowing an LBGT person makes themselves or their children more vulnerable to somehow spontaneously "convert" to that lifestyle. Hence the trendiness of so-called "conversion therapy" (what they call "brainwashing" when used by non-Christians or political radicals) to try and combat that lifestyle. Either way, the fear of moral contamination by the mere example or existence of a supposedly "immoral" population in society's midst is a major cultural hurdle that has to be overcome before an accurate perception of homosexual/bisexual/transsexual/"other" (literally) persons is to emerge as the mainstream opinion in America and elsewhere.

Shouldn't he have written "Dear Religious people"

I'm straight. I don't hate them. I vote for their issues and I know quite a few.....then again it's late and I am slow on the uptake......