Vorlonagent wrote:

>Americans seem to have some hangup about
>homosexuality.  I have no idea why. That's why
>I touch on the behviour of gay advocates.  I'm
>looking for a reason that makes sense.  We
>have the "ewwww" factor of not wanting to
>picture it and we have the confrontational
>manner of some gay activists.

I realise you're only postulating this as one possible contributing
factor, but nonetheless the evidence in favour of it is pretty scant
given that the degree of presence of "gay activists" and the like
correlates negatively, rather than positively, with the degree of
discrimination towards non-heterosexual persons in a country or
society. There aren't many activists in Saudi Arabia arguing that
women and men should have the right to same-sex relationships, or that
women should have the right to have premarital sex or multiple
partners, or for that matter to stipulate a preference for a monogamous
relationship that's equally binding on their husbands.

There weren't many activists at all in Nazi Germany defending the
rights of "homosexuals" (which presumably included bisexuals,
transgendered persons, etc.) when this group was being murdered in
concentration camps. IBM's Hollerith punch card system, in some ways
a precursor to the computer, played a significant role in helping the
Nazis commit genocide more efficiently. The categories used for
processing people in concentration camps included Homosexual (3), Jew
(8) and Gypsy (12).

In liberal European countries today, where there's arguably the least
degree of discrimination against sexual minorities, there are likely
more activists in public view than pretty much anywhere else. So, not
only are there instances where "homosexuals" have been persecuted
severely without any activists having done anything to provoke it, but
furthermore there seems to be more discrimination where there are less
activists.

As for why there's a certain degree of prejudice and discomfort
around the issue of homosexuality in the US, I think one thing to
remember is that this has been the case historically across Western
countries but that it's improving as time goes by. It is perhaps
improving a little less rapidly in the US than it is in some other
Western countries, and I can think of two factors which may be playing
a part in this. These two factors are likely related to each other as
well. One factor is the Cold War and McCarthyism, which has increased
the degree of conservative Christianity in the US. The other factor is
that the US is the most powerful country in the world militarily
speaking, and this may affect the psyche of some heterosexual men (*)
in the US, as well as leading to a degree of resistance against the
general pattern of liberalisation in Western countries.

(*) It may affect the psyche of some women too, but this is a more
complex matter.

As we've advanced technologically, Western countries have undergone a
general process of liberalisation. There are likely a number of factors
involved here. One is that the feminist movement has evolved in part
out of technological advancement, and may in fact be an almost
inevitable consequence of such. When women gain more rights and the
ability to work for money in the public sphere and have some political
representation, this makes significant changes to the sexual psychology
of a culture and contributes to further liberalisation in other areas
(such as same-sex rights). Another factor is that technology itself
changes the psychology of a culture through a number of processes,
including that constant technological change opens up the potential for
social change and diversification, and makes people less prone to cling
to familiar social mores and conventions as a coping strategy.

Since the time of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers, there has
been a steady process of technological development in Western
countries. Not all aspects of the relationship between technological
advancement and social liberalisation are entirely clear, but the two
do seem to be supported by each other. The US has been a little behind
other Western countries in the last 50 years or so, and this is evident
in other areas besides attitudes towards homosexuality - for example,
the US still has the death penalty in some states whereas most other
Western countries consider it primitive and barbaric.

Technological advancement offers the potential of hope in the long term
but also some potential pitfalls in the short term. One pitfall is that
technology brings increased potential to pollute the environment when
our society's laws and values have not yet caught up with the need to
regulate this. Another pitfall is that advanced weapons may fall into
the hands of people with less liberal views, like religious
fundamentalists (as JMS referred to with the terrorist nuking of San
Diego). The Drakh couldn't build a Shadow planetkiller but yet they
were quite prepared to use one. In much the same way, a culture of
religious fundamentalists could never invent a nuclear weapon because
they lack the scientific framework necessary to understand how to
create one, but yet they can still use such a weapon after it's been
invented by other people with superior scientific knowledge.

To get back to your query, there may of course be more to it, but I'd
be surprised if the factors I've mentioned don't play at least some
role in why there is a bit more prejudice towards homosexuality in the
US than in many other Western countries. 

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32