Homosexual: Difference between revisions

35 bytes removed ,  10 years ago
m
update links
m (Mass update links)
m (update links)
Line 4:
There are multiple words for the trait. "Gay" is gender-neutral, but more likely to apply to men. "Lesbian" applies exclusively to women; this is a reference to the Greek isle of Lesbos, where poetess Sappho kept a collection of women with whom she was enamored ("Sapphic relationship" comes from this as well). "Queer" is gender-neutral, and has often been used as a derogatory slur, but is now being reclaimed by the radical queer movement. Then there's "homosexual" itself, but this word can carry negative connotations (not to mention five syllables) and is avoided outside of technical speak; the shortened version, "homo," is mostly used as a slur, as are "faggot" and "dyke."
 
Current statistics claim that about one person in ten is homosexual. This has contributed to the historical view that it is unusual at best, a serious deviation at worst. Until 1973, the [[wikipedia:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]], basically the official textbook for abnormal psychology, listed homosexuality as a mental disorder <ref>Filed under DSM-II 302.0: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance (homosexuality)"</ref>. Just about the only term that has escaped the pejorative label is "Bi", as in "[[Useful Notes/Bisexual|Bisexual]]," meaning "attracted to members of ''both'' sexes". This is partially because the term is relatively new, as is the idea that sexual orientation is a spectrum; and it's also because bi people are still willing to sleep with people of the opposite sex, which is a big point in its favor.
 
Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five<ref>Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty</ref>. [[Death by Childbirth]] was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.
Line 26:
Today, there are major stereotypes going on, some of them documented on this wiki, about the kind of person you are if you're a homosexual. We've talked about [[Manly Gay]] and [[Lipstick Lesbian]], as well as the obvious [[Camp Gay]] and [[Butch Lesbian]]. [[Straight Gay]] is somewhere in the middle. Being bi just means being awesome; it's become rather trendy today to identify yourself as bi, regardless of whether or not you would enter a serious relationship with the same gender. Having said that, as the [[Bi the Way]] trope remarks, a lot of times the media don't know how to deal with bisexuals. And let's not even get into [[Asexuality]] or anything more complicated than that. But the point is that, whether rightly or wrongly, homosexuality is perceived as being about more than just who you sleep with; it's thought of as being a ''lifestyle''.
 
Today, being homosexual is also about politics. As with [[Useful Notes/American Gun Politics|Gun Control]], homosexuality, its legality, its normality and its social acceptability is a [[Single-Issue Wonk]] for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. In modern American politics, for example, it's valid to ask, "Would you vote for [[Barack Obama|an African-American presidential candidate]] just ''because'' he's African-American, regardless of his actual platform," because some people would ''actually answer No'' (or Yes) to that question. A politician's stand on homosexuality can be a similar deal-breaker.
 
Even better, there are scriptures in various religious texts condemning homosexual acts. This of course raises its own questions: Why are those condemnations there? Is it to encourage reproduction, or does <{{smallcaps|Deity Of Your Choice}}> actually consider it evil? Does the passage of scripture actually mean what you say it does, or is it being taken out of context? Is it just because, before condoms and penicillin, [[ST Ds]] were much more of a problem and monogamy was the best way to reduce their spread? Some people refuse to ask these questions on principle. Indeed, they tend to focus on anti-gay scriptures while [http://ozyandmillie.org/2000/08/14/ozy-and-millie-403/ ignoring those that condemn their own vices], simply using religion as an excuse for pre-existing hatred.