The American society has been divided by the issue of homosexuality based on their understanding and belief of what it takes to be morally acceptable and what is medically normal. This suggests that the issue is actually a battle between faith (not necessarily religion) and science (medicine and psychology). Heterosexism exists in the American culture because of the fact that its society is generally oriented to see homosexuality as immoral and improper even if science points to the issue as medically and psychologically normal.
This paper aims to provide the evidences that will prove that heterosexism is a reality in the different institutions of America. This paper also aims to establish the link between discrimination and heterosexism. This paper does not however in favor of accepting homosexuality as morally acceptable nor is in favor of the discrimination against homosexuals and all acts that somehow contribute to sexual inequities. It is primarily important that we first look into the concept of heterosexism for us to have a common ground of navigating the issue.
“Heterosexism is a term which is used to characterize the ethics of some of those opposing equal rights for lesbians and gays” (C. Peterson, et. al). This definition seems to suggest a social concept of heterosexism where homosexuals are socially discriminated through the evidenced by the deprivation of gays and lesbians with equal rights. In line with this concept, the term is also defined as “a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation which denotes prejudice in favor of heterosexual people and connotes prejudice against bisexual and, especially, homosexual people” (P.
Jung & Ralph Smith). Combining the thoughts of these definitions, we can draw a much direct definition of the term as “a behavior which discriminates people based on sexual orientation. ” America is probably one of the most liberated, if not the most liberated countries in the world. Looking at the social culture, America has already been open to many cultural and moral changes as with allowing women to lead in the different institutions, with legalizing divorce and abortion and by simply tolerating expression of love (kissing, holding hands) in public.
And yet, despite all these, it has been quite hard for America to accommodate lesbians and gays into their society. Thus, heterosexism continues to be a burden of those people who are regarded as morally and sexually abnormal in the eyes of the Americans. Heterosexism, on the context of sexual inequity is an ideological system, specifically an ideological oppression (K. Berill & Gregory Herek , 1992). In America, heterosexism appears in two systems: the cultural and psychological heterosexism.
Cultural heterosexism is evident in American institutions as in schools, work, social services, the church and the law. The church for example does not allow same-sex marriages although there are Roman Catholic priests and other heads of the religious sects that have already allowed such. But the Vatican officially does not tolerate or gives authority to cater to such morally unacceptable behavior. On the other hand, psychological heterosexism seems to be much of a burden for homosexuals.
It comes as individual attitudes that somehow promote violence and discrimination against the homosexuals or those who are in favor of homosexuality (Berrill and Herek, 1992, p. 89-104). In support of this writer’s argument America is actually tolerating if not promoting the sexual inequities based on sexual orientation in the society, an important survey result was adapted in order to have a wider but focused discussion on the issue.
The article entitled “The Veil of Hurt” published in the 15th issue of Southern Exposure in 1985 included the tables as presented below containing considerable solid evidences of the existence and rampant acts of heterosexism in America. Utilizing 508 respondents who personally classified themselves as gays, lesbians and bisexuals, the researchers through Richmond City Commission on Human Relations came up with alarming violence and discrimination rates. Of this sample, 82% are white and the rest are presumably non-white (Eberhardt, et. al. , page 25).
Whether coincidence or part of the research design, it is clear that the percentage of white respondents is evidently higher. It is assumed by this writer to be designed for a more credible result by eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of getting results for racial discrimination instead of sexual inequity. The researchers (Eberhardt, Peeples, and Tunstall) managed to categorize the survey results in four major areas: community services (public and private, the government, in the workplace and the actual experience of being attacked or abused.