LGBT rights opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2007)

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

LGBT rights opposition refers to various movements or attitudes which oppose the extension of certain rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. The specific rights that are opposed may include rights to social equality, marriage or civil unions, adoption, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

[edit] History

Students organized by the Nazi party parade in front of the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin on May 6, 1933 prior to pillaging it and confiscating its books and photos for burning.

The first organized gay rights movement arose in the late nineteenth century in Germany.^{[citation needed]} When the German Nazi party came to power in 1933, one of the party's first acts was to burn down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. Subsequently, the Nazis also began sending homosexuals to concentration camps (see History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust). The organized gay rights movement would not rise again until after the Second World War.

From the late 1940s to the early 1960s gay rights movements began to form in America and Western Europe, but it was not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s that an organized movement arose to oppose gay rights.

In the 1980s the rise of AIDS contributed to a public backlash against LGBT rights issues.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Conservative opposition to LGBT rights in the US

In the late 1970s gay rights organizations were forming self-supporting communities in large urban centers in America such as San Francisco, New York City, and Minneapolis. Several states reformed their criminal code to decriminalize same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults, and some cities passed local anti-discrimination laws that included protection based on sexual orientation.^{[citation needed]}

Anita Bryant organized the first major opposition movement to gay rights in America, based on fundamentalist Christian values.^{[citation needed]} The group used various slogans that played off the fear that gay people were interested in "recruiting" or molesting children into a "life-style." A common slogan of the campaign was "Homosexuals cannot reproduce — so they must recruit." The Bryant campaign was successful in repealing many of the city anti-discrimination laws, and in proposing other citizen initiatives, such as a failed California ballot question designed to ban homosexuals or anyone who endorsed gay rights from being a public school teacher.^{[citation needed]} The name of this group was "Save Our Children," and its most successful campaign resulted in the repealing of Dade County's Civil Rights Ordinance by an overwhelming margin of 69 to 31.^{[citation needed]} Soon after, legislation was passed outlawing adoption by non-heterosexual persons in Florida.^{[citation needed]} In 1998, Dade County passed an anti-discrimination law that included the protection of people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the ban on homosexuals adopting children remains on the books.^{[citation needed]} The success of the Bryant campaign encouraged the development of other organizations which opposed gay rights legislation.^{[citation needed]}

From the late 1970s onwards, Conservative Christian organizations such as the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women For America, and the Christian Coalition built strong lobbying and fundraising organizations to oppose the gay rights movement's goals. These organizations tend to align themselves with the Republican Party.

Conservative Christian organizations behaved similarly in other nations.^{[citation needed]} In the 1980s organizations opposed to gay rights successfully persuaded the British Conservative Party to enact Section 28, which banned public schools from "promoting homosexuality" or endorsing same-sex marriages.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] American public opinion

Public opinion has shifted towards increased acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for gays and lesbians over the past 30 years. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who think that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal has increased from 32% to 57% since 1986.^[1][2] In 1977, 56% of Americans thought that gay people should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. Today, that number has risen to 89%.^[3][2] In 1992, 38% thought that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. Today, that number is 54%.^[1][2] In 1997, 27% of Americans thought that same-sex marriages should be legally valid. That number is now 39%.^[4][2] In 1977, 13% of Americans thought that sexual orientation was genetically determined; now, 42%^{[citation needed]} think it is.

Numerous studies have investigated the prevalence of acceptance and disapproval of homosexuality, and have consistently found correlations with various demographic, psychological, and social variables. For example, studies (mainly conducted in the United States) have found that heterosexuals with positive attitudes towards homosexuality are more likely to be female, young, non-religious, well-educated, politically liberal or moderate, and have close personal contact with openly gay men and lesbians.^[5] They are also more likely to have positive attitudes towards other minority groups^[6] and are less likely to support traditional gender roles.^[7]

[edit] Boy Scouts of America

[edit] Policy and rationale

For more details on this topic, see Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#Position on homosexuals.

The Boy Scouts of America exclude gay and bisexual people from its organizations, generally for Scoutmasters but also for scouts in leadership positions. Their rationale is that homosexuality is immoral, and that scouts are expected to have certain moral standards and values, as the Scout Oath and Scout Law requires boys to be "morally straight."^{[citation needed]} The Boy Scout organization does not view their policy as unjustly discriminatory, but instead defends their policy saying that, "Tolerance for diversity of values does not require abdication of one's own values".^[8]

In 2000 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and as such can decide its own membership rules.^[9] There is still a movement to try and persuade the organization to change its policy or allow local chapters to decide for themselves.

In 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005" to exempt the BSA from anti-discrimination laws, to require the Department of Defense to support scouting Jamborees (thus rendering ineffective a Federal Court injunction prohibiting this as an unconstitutional establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment) and to require state or local governments that receive Community Development Block Grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow BSA to have meetings in their facilities or on their property.^{[citation needed]}

Critics claim that gay people are not incompatible with scout values and are allowed to be members in most countries in the world,^[10] including the United Kingdom, where scouting was founded. Some United Ways, municipalities, school districts and businesses have stopped supporting the BSA for those reasons.^[11]

Other outdoor-focused, youth-based organizations such as the 4-H club and Girl Scouts of the USA do not have similar policies. The BSA, however, receives a high level of support from religious groups, many of which are noted for their opposition to the gay rights movement.^[12]

[edit] United States Armed Forces

The United States Armed Forces' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy requires gay men and lesbians to be discharged from the armed forces if they come out, but does not allow the military to question people about their sexual orientation.

Even when it was put in place, there have been advocates for allowing gay people to serve openly in the military. Critics of the current policy often argue that when the United Kingdom admitted gay people, no such unit cohesion or morale was lost.^{[citation needed]} The same comparison is made to no negative consequences when African-Americans and women were admitted into the military.

[edit] Fascist and far-right opposition

National Front protesting "Homosexual Marriage" at London Gay Pride 2007

Fascist political parties have been universal in their violent opposition to gay rights. Today, Neo Nazi organizations oppose gay rights, and may advocate life sentences in prison or concentration camps for homosexuals, or even the death penalty^[13] (which was instituted by the original Nazis in 1942^[14]). The Ku Klux Klan hold that homosexual behaviour should be illegal, and HIV-positive people should be forcibly hospitalized.^[15]. The British National Party has shifted its platform from recriminalisation to an extension of clause 28-style legislation, ie. making it illegal to portray homosexuality positively in the media.^[16]

In Israel, both mainstream ultra-Orthodox religious groups and Jewish right-wing movements such as the Samson Blinded oppose LGBT rights which are claimed to run contrary to the Bible.^{[citations needed]}

[edit] Psychological

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (August 2007)

Most LGBT groups see homosexuality as natural and not a choice. A resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association in August 1997 states that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder".^[17]

Some groups, many of which are funded by religious organizations, promote an idea called reparative therapy, which considers homosexuality to be a behavior that can be modified, rather than a permanent orientation, with the goal of creating ex-gays.^[18] Ironically, the desire to change one's sexuality is considered a disorder by the American Psychological Association.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Religious and philosophical

Christian,^[19][20][21] Jewish,^[22] and Islamic^[23] social conservatives view homosexuality as a sin, and its practice and acceptance in society as a weakening of moral standards. The Unification Church concurs with this view, although it permits homosexuals to be members and attend worship services. This is a primary reason why many religious social conservatives oppose the gay rights movement.

By contrast, some Liberal Christian churches are supportive of gay rights. The leadership and many congregations within the United Church of Christ have supported the right for homosexuals to marry.^[24] Currently the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) bless civil unions but do not 'marry' their congregants.

Also, in Europe some Lutheran, Reformed and United churches in Germany (EKD), Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden are supportive of gay rights. In recent years, support has also come from some Anglican churches (Canada, England).

Some also cite natural law, sometimes called God's law or nature's law, when opposing the gay rights movement.^[25][26][27]

[edit] See also

• Culture war
• Gay agenda
• Heterosexism
• Homophobia
• Homosexual recruitment
• LGBT social movements

[edit] References