h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just heard on R4 that prior to launching the War on Drugs, Richard M Nixon said (it's recorded in his tapes) that 'Homosexuality, drugs and immorality are what is destroying society.' I'm assuming that by 'immorality' he meant stuff like sexual immorality and not, say, the subversion of democracy.

I can see that there's a plausible argument for drugs - although many would say that this is overstated. But what about the other two? Leaving aside the 'What tosh!' argument, what dangers do we think others might have seen in homosexuality or sexual immorality (however the latter is defined.)?

Note that Nixon was not a Bible Believing Christian etc etc (Quaker background) so there are probably some secular arguments.

Wasn't Nixon gay himself?

You're thinking of Hoover, possibly.

nighthoover's gay?!

I'd guess, and it'd work from either the secular or non-secular, that its all about 'the family', and immorality and homosexuality, being the twin evils which distroy the 'normal' 'family unit', which as we all know is the only safe and workable way within which to bring up children to be fine and upstanding citizens into the future... maybe.... (and I heard that on the radio too this morning....)

Quakers believe in the bible.

and porridge oats...

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/316901

but back to the question.
I'm really not convinced that you can divorce anti-homosexual views from religion. Whilst there are clearly bigots who are not religious or even believers, the pervasive nature of christianity and teachings on homosexuality throughout western history for many centuries means that the idea had crossed over into just being a norm. Religion identified the out group and it progressed from being a religious outgroup to being a general one, although the reasoning, if anyone actually looked, was still religious. There is no non religious basis for the bigotry. Whether there was a pre-christian anti-homosexual view I don't know, not found any sources that speak on it.

Sexual immorality, maybe though. Breaking a pair-bond, taking advantage of the innocent or young can be seen in general terms of causing friction in the community. Breaking trust in a community is generally considered not a good thing, so from that point of view yes, I can see a secular argument - leads to violence, arguments, fallings out and generally disrupts the smooth running and efficiency of society. Of course, the actual rules broken are often traced back to a religious argument, although not always. The rules of immorality being decided by the community. So it isn't immorality itself, rather it is the breaking of communal rules and morals, which can be seen as placing oneself outside of the community and saying 'it doesnt apply to me' which again is going to disrupt smooth running and get peoples backs up.

Ictoan, I assume you are not suggesting that there are no homophobic atheists? I'm not sure that religion is the issue as such (do we know if all religions promote homophobia?). Isn't it more the ones that originated in the Middle East? If so then I think the argument needs to be framed in a religious/cultural context, not just Religion itself.

3rd sentence

"Whilst there are clearly bigots who are not religious or even believers"

Ictoan:

>>Quakers believe in the bible.

Well, yes. But not in the way I was meaning. Which you understood fine well.

'Most Quakers regard the Bible as a very great inspirational book but they don't see it as the only one, and so they read other books that can guide their lives.'

And not all Quakers see themselves as Christian.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_1.shtml

I read your third sentence Ictoan before I replied. The rest of your post seemed to be about how religion was the basis of homophobia. My post started with a clarification* and then went on to talk about where I disagreed.

Hmm, Ictoan. I believe that your argument has parallels to to CS Lewis's 'All good that is done in the name of Tash is done in the name of Aslan. All evil that is done in the name of Aslan is done in the name of Tash.'

Now the religious tell us that without religion, morality will collapse. This is clearly not true. There are good, secular reasons for morality. Similarly, without religion, there are also seemingly good reasons for bigotry. Yes - there will also be inertia centred around norms. But can it be that people are so vehement out of apathy?

And in the case of religion - the religious don't *just* tell us that homosexuality or other 'immoralities' are wrong because The Bible says. They also give sound secular reasons. We none of us want society to collapse, do we?

Can we take a guess at their reasoning? Is there some way in which they might see homosexuality as a threat to their way of life?

Ictoan:

>>The rules of immorality being decided by the community. So it isn't immorality itself, rather it is the breaking of communal rules and morals, which can be seen as placing oneself outside of the community and saying 'it doesnt apply to me' which again is going to disrupt smooth running and get peoples backs up.

This is maybe Jean Genet territory. Homosexuality as revolutionary deviance.

Kea: my post came across a bit sharp on re-reading. Didn't mean that.
My point was, and is, that religion, specifically christianity, has been such a pervasive part of western society for so long that much of what it has to say has become part of the standard non-religious part of social constructs. There is, as we both agree, a non-religious area of homophobic bigotry. My argument is, though, that that is borrowed from the religious bigotry, not a separate strand. Religion (specifically christianity in western countries) is to blame for the more pervasive type of homophobia. People who are so get it from somewhere, from family, friends and general society. That/they in turn got it from somewhere and the earliest records of such a view come from the middle eastern religions.

Of course, that isn't the full story. If, like me, you think religions are a human construct then someone(s) sat down at some point and wrote that into them for a non-religious reason (even though they might have thought themselves inspired by god). What caused them to do that is something we can't know - and even to speculate is problematic since we don't know how they thought about such things prior to that bit of the religion being codified. Could just have been a couple of head guys in a patriarchal society who were a bit squeemish about it so said it was wrong. Could have been a couple of women in a matriarchal society who thought there was no such thing and men needed persuading to stick with them so they could control them. Or a hundred other things.

But in our society (and that of nixon) the basis seems clearly to be religious originally on the balance of evidence.

Ed: lunch, get back to you in a bit...

Well for one thing, the mechanics of sex could mean an increase in sexually transmitted diseases due to homosexuality. Then there is the idea that the concept of marriage would be devalued, which might give problems for the "nuclear family" structure, if gay marriage was allowed. More broken marriages and single parents perhaps.

>>Well for one thing, the mechanics of sex could mean an increase in sexually transmitted diseases due to homosexuality. Then there is the idea that the concept of marriage would be devalued, which might give problems for the "nuclear family" structure, if gay marriage was allowed. More broken marriages and single parents perhaps.

Hmm. I feel that the sexually transmitted diseases one is a red herring, back-fitted onto bigotry. AFAIK there is only one, big STD for which there is a greater risk of transmission is associated with practices proportionally but not numerically more common amongst male homosexuals - and that appeared long after bigotry was established..

The marriage devalued thing. I can't quite get my own head around it (and why should I?) - maybe it's a matter of gay relationships -> alternative family models -> single parents yadda yadda.

Why should you? Because you asked this in the first place.

>>Then there is the idea that the concept of marriage would be devalued<<

I've never understood this: how does homosexuality damage marriage? If gay folk are getting married, doesn't that strengthen marriage? Allowing gay people to marry strengthens the assimilationist movement that claims gay people should act just like straight people in order to gain social acceptance/equality and weakens the rejectionist movement that wants gays and straights to live entirely seperate lives.

As for the STDs, lesbians have a far lower risk of catching any STD than heterosexuals - does that mean all women should try and be gay?