}

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Good news in the numbers

It’s not often that several of my blog posts are tied together by a single news story, but this is such a time. A new poll by CBS News found a massive majority of Americans who know someone who’s gay and it also found increasing acceptance of gay relationships.

On Monday, I obliquely referred to a recent Gallup poll when I wrote, “Recently, the US passed, somewhat late in the game, the point at which half the people surveyed thought gay relationships were morally acceptable.” The CBS poll found a decrease in the percentage of respondents who didn’t find gay relationships “objectionable”: In January 2009, 56% didn’t “object” to such relationships, but in the latest poll that dropped to 48%. CBS offers no reasons for the change, but does note that in 1978, only 23% didn’t “approve”, so support is still more than twice what it was then.

The poll found, as the chart above shows, that 77% of Americans says they know someone who’s gay or lesbian, up from only 42% in 1992. Even the latest percentage is probably too low: Many people do, in fact, know someone who’s gay or lesbian, but they may not know that for a variety of reasons.

But this poll found, as so many before it have, that:

“Those who know someone who is gay or lesbian are less likely to disapprove of homosexual relations than those who do not. More than half of those who know someone who is homosexual do not see homosexual relations between consenting adults as wrong. On the flip side, more than half of those who don't know anyone who is homosexual say such relations are wrong.”

The poll found other unsurprising things: Those over 65 are least likely to “approve” of gay relationships; that age group makes up the biggest part of the anti-gay Republican Party, too. Naturally, people under 30 and Democrats generally don’t “disapprove”.

It also wasn’t unsurprising that language mattered: Respondents asked about “homosexual” relationships were somewhat more likely to disapprove than those asked about “same-sex” relationships. Oddly, though, respondents were slightly more likely to say that people are born “homosexual” than “gay or lesbian”.

And this is where my recent previous two posts on hate groups comes into the picture: What all anti-gay hate groups have in common is that they always use the word homosexual and write “gay”, in quotation marks, to be dismissive. They know that to many people, the only syllable they hear is the third—homoSEXual, reinforcing images of gay people as sick, perverted sexual predators. It also sounds clinical, like a disorder. I believe that both aspects account for the differing responses to the word “homosexual” in questions: Applied to relationships, “gay and lesbian” sounds less overtly sexual, while in the question of whether people are born gay, “homosexual” sounds like a medical condition, while “gay and lesbian” sounds like a choice. These ideas—pathology and choice—are exactly what the rightwing has been trying to foster.

However, here’s what’s important: The percentages of people who realise that they know a gay or lesbian person is reaching ever more massive majorities. Such people are far more likely to support GLBT people’s rights and to realise that we’re born, not made. That, in turn, means that inevitably we will prevail and the anti-gay hate groups will fail.

Progress is slow—far too slow for a civilised society, but it’s clear and unstoppable. The right wing knows that, which is what’s behind their increasing—and increasingly obvious—desperation. The day is rapidly approaching in which the vast majority of Americans will know the truth and the battles will end.

So, polls like this aren’t merely interesting numbers—they’re a glimpse of a better a future. They also show that the future will arrive much sooner if every gay and lesbian person comes out.

3 comments:

Moosep and Buddy Rabbit said...

Come Out!

Come Out!

Come Out, wherever you are!

liminalD said...

Sorry but I really have to say something here.

I'm pleased that the numbers show increasing acceptance for LGBT people and relationships in the States, that's awesome news and helps me feel a little more faith in humanity, but I do have to disagree with the statement that 'we're born and not made.'

I think the whole 'born gay' argument is quite frankly fairly weak, the evidence from historical/cultural studies, genetics and biology would seem to indicate that in fact we ARE made (see the excellent books 'Nature via Nurture' by Matt Ridley and 'Evolution's Rainbow' by Joan Roughgarden for more in this vein, or read Foucault's 'History of Sexuality').

Now, I'm certainly not saying that it is a 'choice' as the religious nutjobs insist (although for some it certainly IS - google 'Queer by Choice' for more on that note), but rather I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim the inherent quality of a trait for political expediency, which in my view is what this argument amounts to.

Simply put, it seems easier to argue for equal treatment on the grounds that 'we're born this way, we can't help it,' but how demeaning is that? Where's the Pride we pay so much lip-service to? Why do same sex relationships and alternative lifestyles have to be based on some inborn quality for them to be legitimate? Shouldn't we be arguing for fair and equal treatment for all (where nobody is being coerced, hurt etc), regardless?

I'm inclined to think that the supplicant stance of queer communities has actually done more to hinder progress than help it. We're always on the defensive, which keeps us in a position of inferiority, when we should be on the offensive, challenging the claims of moral superiority/ authority made by those who think they get to tell others how to live.

Just my two cents worth.

D

Arthur Schenck said...

moosep: Yes, that's it exactly!

liminalD: While I understand what you're saying, I do disagree with the underlying premise, that gay people are made. Certainly sexual and gender behaviours are shaped by environment (culture and family), but that's not the same thing as creating them in the first place.

The science is far from conclusive on this subject, but the best evidence to date is that there's some unknown combination of genetics AND environment that creates gay people so one could say that gay people are "born AND made".

So for me, it's not because of political expediency that I talk of one being born gay, but because current scientific research indicates a biological component.

I also don't know of any modern activists who would argue that "we're born this way, we can't help it". Instead, if anything, it's more like, "we're born this way, get over it." I do remember, however, that in the early days of the GLBT rights movement, that kind of attitude was expressed, but it was pretty much gone by the time I was an activist in the early 1980s to the early 1990s. I know that neither I nor any of my colleagues ever suggested we were helpless, but instead we were free and equal citizens "who happened to be born gay," to use the phrase we used at the time. We argued that as equal citizens we were equally entitled to all the rights and privileges of society.

So because of all that, I don't see the modern movement as supplicant. However, I agree that it's always on the defensive, but that's because our enemies are rich and powerful and they set the discussion agenda and frame the debate. The current battle over marriage equality in the US, for example, wasn't started by gay people but by the religious right.

I should post about this sometime, but I think the real problem is that Western culture sees everything entirely through binary thinking: Things are either this or that, up or down, male or female, gay or straight, right or wrong. But neither sexuality nor gender are that rigidly defined and are more like a spectrum. This is, as you know, why many gay people prefer the term "queer".

Queer leftists—and I'm obviously not one—argue that we shouldn't even be in this debate, that we should be fighting to open up society to multifaceted realities instead of fighting for access to existing structures, like marriage, created by binary-minded heterosexuals. I disagree.

I am not a "society transformationist", though I applaud people who are. Instead, I fight to make the world as it is a better place for GLBT people. So, if there is to be marriage, it must be open to same-sex couples. If there is to be a military, then gay people must be able to serve openly. If there is to be immigration law, then gay people and same sex couples must be treated the same as heterosexuals.

I think that we may think similarly about, as you put it, "challenging the claims of moral superiority/ authority made by those who think they get to tell others how to live." It's still not fashionable to take on those people—the religious in particular—but blunting their power is, in my opinion, the only way to get back to setting the political agenda and not always merely reacting to it.

But this is an important discussion to have, so thanks!