I really don't think homophobia can stand against reality. Mine couldn't.As you guys know, I'm mixed in my feelings on integration as a kind of end all be all strategy to solve "The Negro Problem." But I'm not mixed on integration as a value. I think we should stop defining bigots as evil people. Half the problem with the "I can't believe you called me racist" is the belief that racist kill puppies, and beat their wives. But bigotry, at its core, is nothing but a kind of entrenched, willful ignorance.
It couldn't stand against the reality of my cousin, sixty years old, works for the Port of Seattle, married to her partner, good head for business, great laugh.
It couldn't stand against the reality of Martin and Andrew, who worked so hard for those twin baby girls. If you saw them with those girls, it would melt your heart.
My homophobia was challenged once again when I had lunch with Greg on his last day of work. I mentioned how, at first, his gayness was a little bit difficult for me. He said, "me too". I said that once, he was looking at the monitor and put his hand on my shoulder and it made me a little uncomfortable. He looked me right in the eye and said, "Jay, if only you weren't married." And then we laughed hysterically.
I really think that comes down to this: drink deeply from the world, it will enrich you.
I had almost the exact same experience as Jay. It was very easy to use the word "fag" around my friends--until I started working with gay people. Part of it was youth. (I was just coming into my college years) But a larger part was living in Washington D.C., hanging out in Dupont Circle (it used to be different), working in Adams Morgan, and being forced to see gay cats as actual human beings. "Gay" was no longer an abstract thing--it was, like, my editor who saved my sorry-ass copy--repeatedly.
I think it's pretty easy to deny a civil right to a dark stranger. But denying it to you children, to your friends, to your cousins is a lot harder. To bring it back to seemingly the only reason for this blog to exist, I think this is why that can't make the terrorist thing stick to Barack. They've seen this guys kids. Everything is harder then.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
bingo.
Once it's your brother, your copyeditor, your neighbor, your friend, the whole world shakes and shimmers with the power of knowledge.
Can't be better put.
As a black man born and raised in Seattle, you didn't have the option to be willfully ignorant of gay folks namely because you interacted with gays in everyday life. They weren't weirdos like on TV, or like Blaine and Twon from In Living Color...They were just regular folks working and trying to lead their lives. I'll never understand how folks don't get this simple point.
One of my favorite all time Chris Rock bits addresses this in the way that only he can (from Bigger and Blacker):
You know what's fucked up? Everybody gets so homophobic. People, we need to cut that shit out... 'cause everybody in this room
got at least a gay cousin. Every last one of you got a gay cousin. You knew he was gay when y'all was kids. You was playing ball, he was jumping rope. He didn't turn gay, he was gay then.
He just didn't have nobody to be gay with. Shit, I got a gay uncle. Call him Aunt Tom. Every Christmas, he comes over with his ''friend.''
See, it don't make no sense to hate nobody. It don't make no sense to be a racist,
sexist, or nothing, but.... It don't. It doesn't. It don't make no sense. 'Cause whoever you hate will end up in your family. That's right, you don't like gays, you're gonna have a gay son. You don't like Puerto Ricans? Your daughter's gonna come home with Livin' la vida loca!
Great post Coates. Reminds me of a family story.
My wife's family are mostly white Southerners from rural areas of TN, LA, and TX. Her younger brother, in his second marriage, married a woman from his little south LA town who had a daughter that was fathered by a black man.
Long story short - due to a stepfather's suicide and a mother's crack addiction, the little girl's grandfather wound up having to take care of the girl, along with my wife's blood-related niece (her half-sister).
Gramps was an old-school racist and made no bones about telling me so more than once. He was one of those white teenage boys in the 60s with slicked-back hair who harassed black kids during integration, basically.
But now, suddenly, he was responsible for raising his 5 year old grand-daughter, brown-skinned, frizzy-haired, and sweet as pie.
We visited him many, many times over about a 7 year period (the girl recently went to live with her mom in Houston as she entered her teens). It was fascinating and even sometimes inspiring to watch him struggle to reconcile his obvious love for his grand-daughter and his long-held racist views.
I always thought of him as a good example of someone who is a good person in practically every way except for this one thing... and for all I know, he's reverted back to form now that his grand-daughter is gone. But I kind of doubt it.
Clearly, one would rather see such views change under less tragic circumstances than this. But I think this speaks to your point in this post. Sustained proximity to people different from ourselves is the single best way to defeat bigotry.
I now feel like I felt the time in Freshman English when the instructor mimeographed (Yeah, I'm old) my essay and handed it out to the class.
At breakfast with my wife and son this morning we asked ourselves how many black people we knew by name, and would be known to. We came up with four. There were a few more Mexican-Americans. And definitely a few Muslim-Americans, including one Iraqi. Tons of Chinese-Americans, and yes, they get discriminated against, too, though in a different way. That's California, I guess.
I think it's pretty easy to deny a civil right to a dark stranger.
Hmmm. Really?
Re: The quotation at the top of the post:
It is always easier for people to handle female homosexuality. Indeed, the Old-Testament prohibition on same-sex sex was limited to men.
It may have something to do with the lower status of females and their availability for copulation with males whatever the woman's sexual tendencies.
"It may have something to do with the lower status of females and their availability for copulation with males whatever the woman's sexual tendencies.
Posted by Jeremiah | October 19, 2008 3:49 PM"
That's probably part of it. From what I've heard, female-with-female adultery among the upper class in Saudi Arabia isn't really seen as adultery because women aren't seen as sexually threatening enough to be capable of being "the other woman" the way a man can be "the other man." I think part of it though has to do with the fact that people seem to think male gay sex is always anal sex (think of how many straight people, and even more gay and bi people than most people realize, don't really enjoy the idea of anal sex) and that lesbians don't get penetrated. Also, men (in my experience) tend to be more homophobic, but what straight guy doesn't like the idea of two beautiful women together?
How do we deal with the evil within us... I think one of our ailments as a country has been accepting the fallacy that we are (or should be) without sin, rather than accepting the truth that we must always struggle against our tendency to stray.
Fantastically put Ta-Nehisi.
It's always too easy to write off people who have less-than-desirable mindsets or beliefs as "evil" (racists, bigots, Bush, etc), when all too often the reality is they mostly are truly good people doing either what they've been taught or simply what they honestly believe is right based on their own experiences. Not only is that hard to accept (I think often due to the significantly higher amount of constant thought and reasoning required), it's far more difficult to rally a cause around.
Few have the talent and intellect to craft a speech filled with both passion and nuance where it's needed.
Re: Indeed, the Old-Testament prohibition on same-sex sex was limited to men.
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that the male sex drive is more promiscuous and rapacious, and therefore needs more regulation? Simply put, women are not typically as prone to bad behavior as men (of whatever sexual persuasion).
Hector quotes and writes: "Re: Indeed, the Old-Testament prohibition on same-sex sex was limited to men.
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that the male sex drive is more promiscuous and rapacious, and therefore needs more regulation? Simply put, women are not typically as prone to bad behavior as men (of whatever sexual persuasion)."
I'd be more inclined to figure that the fact that Hebrew honchos like Solomon had hordes of wives and were able to arrange frequent threesomes and moresomes had a whole lot more to do with it.
But maybe that didn't occur to you.
Zic says, 'Once it's your brother, your copyeditor, your neighbor, your friend, the whole world shakes and shimmers with the power of knowledge.'
I agree with this, in that it's a human phenomenon that you gain deeper understanding of any issue with personal experience, but to be honest, I'm really tired of it as an excuse for ignorance. 'These people have never met a gay/black/Muslim person!' the left wing cries. 'It's not their fault!'
It IS their fault. They are ignorant. I don't need a bunch of friends who are midgets to believe that they should be given equal opportunities. I don't need a brother in a wheelchair to believe that handicapped access should be universal. I'm a reasonably intelligent adult. I can objectively look at the world around me and have compassion for groups that I don't have contact with every day.
Yes, it's understandable that people need a gay cousin to be pro-gay. But they shouldn't. It's not OK to be homophobic, regardless of your reasons or circumstances.
Gay marriage has existed in America for 30 years now. Gays already live together and raise kids. The debate is a joke, the *only* way gay marriage doesn't occur in America is legislatively. In every other sphere it is already entrenched.
Like TNC said last week about race, we don't need to be your best friend, we just don't want to be oppressed. I don't really care why someone is anti-gay, and it's not my job to take them under my gay wing and teach them the benefits of tolerance and diversity. I'm not going to waste my time bringing Mr. Magoo up the baseline maturity level we expect from our literate citizenry. People should be capable of thinking about this issue in an intelligent way without relying on 'but my brother can't marry his boyfriend!'
I'm glad the world is tilting in my limp-wristed direction, but i feel like the process gets slowed down by our tolerance of myopia.
One thing about increasing tolerance for gays in the society is that more people know about (rather than suspect but can turn a blind eye to) gays in their families or their offices or whatever. It's not like it wasn't obvious that (to use a real-world example from a very small town in Missouri) the PE and history teacher, who decided to become "roommates" after the history teacher's divorce, were lesbians. It's just that it was possible not to notice, if you didn't want to.
The more people can just be out, the harder it is to be a bigot. You can't just edit your apparently-gay cousin out of the picture when he's openly gay, tells you so if you ask, and is living in San Diego with his partner, planning their wedding. You've got to reconcile "those people are disgusting and should be locked up" with "except for Fred, who's a pretty good guy."
[In Patriarchal cultures] male sex drive [has been permitted and encouraged to be] more promiscuous and rapacious, and therefore needs more regulation? Simply put, women are not typically [allowed to get away with] bad behavior as [are] men (of whatever sexual persuasion...
Fixed that for you.
Moe,
Yep, Solomon had many wives. We are told he suffered for it, too, and it did not turn out well for his soul. Hardly a ringing endorsement of polygamy.
"Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon." 1 Kings 11:7.