Blaming the victim

By John Corvino
Opponents of homosexuality often claim that gay people lead miserable lives. To the extent that this claim is true (and it's generally not), it's largely because of the actions of those making the claim. Who wouldn't be miserable when faced with a steady stream of unjust attacks?
I call this "the argument of the bully." Imagine a bully on the playground who teases his classmate, causing him to cry, and then justifies the teasing on the grounds that his classmate is a crybaby. Our opponents are like that bully: they make our lives more difficult, and then point to the difficulties as evidence of our depravity.
Sometimes this vicious circle is fairly obvious, such as when critics of homosexuality point to higher suicide rates among gay teens (without recognizing their own contribution to the problem).
Sometimes the difficulties are more complex, and thus more likely to be misunderstood. Take the alleged promiscuity of homosexual persons. In the book "Sexual Orientation and Human Rights," gay-rights opponent Michael Levin ridicules the idea that such promiscuity results from anti-gay oppression:
Liberationists explain the promiscuity of homosexuals by the forbidden nature of their love. Taboo desires naturally result in furtive, sordid encounters, they say; were homosexuality accepted and homosexual marriage permitted, homosexuals would be as faithful as heterosexuals. But this explanation has worn thin. The intelligentsia and the media have been pro-homosexual for three decades. Can you recall the last homosexual portrayed unsympathetically in the movies or on TV? The love that dare not speak its name is bellowing into megaphones, kissing in public, holding hands in front of presidents. Yet there is no evidence that, apart from the impact of AIDS, homosexual promiscuity has abated (p. 129).
There are several problems with Levin's analysis. First, Levin grossly underestimates the pressures faced by homosexuals today, even in our relatively tolerant American culture. In 37 states it is still perfectly legal to fire someone simply because he or she is gay. Even where such discrimination is illegal, perceived homosexuality can limit a person's professional and social success in a variety of more subtle ways. While Levin and I work in the relatively privileged sphere of academia, the situation is far different for the vast majority of gays and lesbians in this country. Some work in factories; some live on rural farms; some serve in the military, and so on.
In a similar vein, Levin underestimates the effect of personal history on people's ability to form and maintain successful relationships. While their peers are exploring the exciting, confusing, and terrifying world of dating, gay adolescents often suffer alone with feelings of shame, isolation and fear. A substantial number are disowned by their own families Ñ the very people whose support most adolescents take for granted. Such formative experiences have profound psychological effects that do not disappear simply because Ellen is on TV.
Moreover, the argument Levin ridicules is a straw man. True enough, the pressure to remain in the closet is more conducive to furtive encounters than long-term relationships. But there's more to the problem than that. Relationships are challenging. Heterosexuals know this, which is why they have a complex web of social structures in place to support them. By and large, homosexual people don't have such structures (hence the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage).
Indeed, there's an interesting tension in the anti-gay position here. On the one hand, opponents of homosexuality claim that marriage is a fragile institution in need of support. And they point to the increasing prevalence of divorce and premarital sex among heterosexuals as evidence that such support is declining. Yet they refuse to concede that the complete absence of similar support for homosexual relationships might explain many of the alleged problems of homosexuals. They can't have it both ways.
I do not wish to paint an overly bleak picture of the current situation of gay people in this country. Indeed, one of the most encouraging effects of the debate over gay marriage has been to publicize the fact that, despite various challenges, many gays enjoy happy, loving long-term relationships.
Nor do I wish to absolve gay people of responsibility for their own relationships. There is no inconsistency between claiming that someone is responsible for meeting certain challenges and claiming that others are responsible for having needlessly intensified those challenges.
But insofar as gay rights opponents contribute to the difficulties we face, shame on them for casting blame. In that regard they are indeed no better than bullies.