With homophobia being about the only form of prejudice that is still widely and proudly recognized as acceptable, now seems a good time to examine some issues surrounding homosexuality and its consequences in America.

Anti-homosexuality is still viewed as a valid and perfectly acceptable form of prejudice, based primarily upon not fact and information, but fear and paranoid ignorance. Nothing more.

I realize some object to homosexuality on the basis of religion, but Istill find anti-homosexual stances, religious or otherwise, to be supported by little cognitive thought.

I really don’t want to get embroiled over the validity of being opposed to homosexuality as a result of religious beliefs.

But how come nobody is as zealous about following the Bible’s teachings when it comes to executing adulterers and people who wear clothing made of two different types of material (such as jeans and a t-shirt) as they are about condemning homosexuality? The word of God is the word of God, right?

If you want to take one passage out of a book that is apparently not always supposed to be taken literally anyway and use it to justify prejudice, hey, it’s your thing, and you can shake it like ya wanna…

But no matter how many hairs you split, prejudice is prejudice, and anti-homosexual efforts are immersed in intolerance, “Defense of Marriage of Act” semantics be damned.

What is most concerning about the recently approved “Defense of Marriage Act” is that it is based on the illogical assertion that homosexual marriages somehow attack the sanctity of heterosexual unions.

Not only do we despise homosexuality in and of itself, we now are so paranoid we assume its very existence threatens the “sanctity” of virtually unrelated events.

Homosexual unions no more infringe on the inviolability of heterosexual cohabitations than the basic existence of men encroaches on the existence of women, Asians on Jews, or, for that matter, apples and oranges.

Many homophobes don’t buy the parallels made between homophobia and other issues such as racism or sexism.

Case in point is Marsha Harmon’s letter to editor to the Daily that appeared last week:

“I don’t believe (the) parallel to the racial discrimination issue is accurate. I don’t believe people feel superior to homosexuals.

“I believe they believe it is a lifestyle that is wrong, just as they believe the lifestyle of a child molester, thief, embezzler, child pornographer or drug pusher is wrong and should not be recognized in any way.”

During discussion on a failed Congressional bill that would have outlawed job discrimination on the basis of sexuality, Trent Lott, R-Miss., said, “This bill would validate a lifestyle that is unacceptable.”

Both of these people mention the word “lifestyle.” Here’s my sticking point in this debate: is homosexuality an act, or a state of being?

We seem to define homosexuality as the act of people engaging in sex with people of the same gender. This is a “lifestyle choice,” anti-homosexual people say (don’t play semantics and say they’re not homosexual, they just think homosexuality is wrong, because the two are interchangeable; pretending there’s a difference is an insult to human intelligence).

Is homosexuality a choice? Do human beings choose their sexual orientation? No one ever questions how one becomes a heterosexual, you just are. It’s natural to be straight, some will tell you.

If heterosexuality is indeed a natural phenomena of genetics, and homosexuality is a genetic “defect,” then how can homosexuality be a “lifestyle” choice? Mental retardation or cerebral palsy or a number of other diseases aren’t “lifestyle” choices; they’re the result of physical disabilities over which one has no control. Why is the genetic “defect” of being homosexual any different?

On the other hand, if homosexuality is indeed a conscious choice, it begs the question: how do we regard our sexuality in the case of abstinence?

Heterosexuals who abstain from sex (for whatever reason) still consider themselves straight. Are homosexuals who abstain from sex, maybe who have never had sexual relations, still gay?

Yes? But if it is the “lifestyle” that we are opposed to, and a homosexual does not act upon their choice of “lifestyle,” of what crime are they guilty?

“Thinking”they’re gay? That’s the crime? Yes, Mr. Orwell, I’d love a copy of your book…

Let’s cut the crap: Humans seem to have an inherent need to create a scapegoat. It’s a natural desire stemming from our lust for conflict to create villains.

Homophobia is simply one in a long line of prejudices that humans entertain before logic dawns and the fear of what we are not familiar with subsides.

It’s simply another Darwinian power struggle to establish and sustain dominance. And one only remains in power by the subjugation of other, weaker parties.

I guarantee you, had homosexuals a powerful lobbying group in Washington like the NRA or Phillip Morris, few would oppose homosexuality.

It’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of the empowerment we create for ourselves when we single out a group and strip them of the rights to which we ourselves consider our birthright. Just ask the mercurial Roy Cohn from Tony Kushner’s play, Angels in America: Millennium Approaches:

“Like all labels, they tell you one thing and one thing only: where does an individual so identified fit in the food chain, in the pecking order. Not ideology, or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout.”

“Now to someone who does not understand this, homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men. But really this is wrong. Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men.

“Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout.”

“This is reality. I have sex with men. But unlike every other man of whom this is true, Ibring the guy I’m screwing to the White House and President Reagan smiles at us and shakes his hand.

“Because what I am is not defined entirely by who I am. Roy Cohn is not a homosexual. Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who fucks around with guys.”

---

Tim Davis is a senior in theatre studies from Carlisle. He is the Opinion Page editor.