Skip to main content

The difference between homophobia and heterosexism

The issue of same sex marriage represents a different sort of conversation than previous conversations around queer rights.

Before now GLBT people have wanted to be tolerated - not criminalised, attacked, fired from their jobs etc for who they are.

Same sex marriage is different it's about more than tolerance. It's about same-gender loving people standing up and demanding that their they be treated in every way equally. It's about believing that in every way same-sex relationships are of equal value to different-sex relationships.

Some might say that opposition to same sex marriage is homophobic. It isn't. It's not about people having a fear or hatred of GLBT people. But it is about heterosexism - it is about believing that same-gender relationships are of an inferior status to different-sex ones.

There are plenty of people who are not homophobic, who would not wish any ill to queer people, who may think of themselves as quite liberal and open, but who nevertheless oppose marriage equality. There are people who think that tolerance is enough. And that (though they may not think of it this way) GLBT people should know their place. They are allowed to exist in society but they shouldn't claim that their relationships are equal.

But while not being homophobic this is heterosexist. Queer people (shock horror!) are not content to simply be tolerated as second class citizens. We are demanding full equal rights. We are saying that our relationships are of an equal value as anybody else's, and therefore should be treated the same under the law.

Same sex marriage is the last legal fight for GLBT people. There will still be homophobia in the world (as there is still racism) but society as a whole will be making the statement that homphobia and heterosexism is wrong. That's why marriage equality matters.

Comments

Tim Moore said…
I like how you've differentiated between homophobia and heteronormativity in your argument.

Heteronormative rhetoric has at times been a mask for homophobia by some commentators (eg Cardinal O'Brien) but they are also different perspectives which should be responded to differently.
Yewtree said…
Well, personally, I would say that heterosexism was the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm. One manifestation of this is constantly assuming that other people's partners will be of the opposite gender to them.

I would classify thinking that LGBT relationships are inferior as a form of homophobia. OK, it's a milder form than beating LGBT people up (etc), but it is still homophobia.

It is rare for me to disagree with you, but on this occasion, I do.
Tim Moore said…
I think you're right about that, Yewtree!
Yewtree, what your call heterosexism I would call heteronormativity.

The problem with calling it homophobia is that it's in danger of shutting down the conversation. People will think "I don't queer-bash, therefore I'm not homophobic." But you still see GLBT relationships as inferior!

It's about explaining that it's not about hatred, and it's not even about being a bad person, it's about the subtle structures of thought, language, and society that teaches us how we should value certain people.

This is why there is a proportion of the GLBT community that are not convinced of the need for marriage equality. They have accepted and internalised society's heterosexism, and accepted a second-class status. They are not homphobic, but they have internalised heterosexism.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th