| Clause And Effect: Anti-Homosexual Laws Essay, Research Paper
?In Edinburgh, a homosexual man is four
times more likely to be attacked than a heterosexual man.?
This fact has been iterated so much by
the media over the past few weeks that it would be a challenge to find
one Scot who could not quote it accurately. One would think that this alarming
statistic could be greatly improved if people were educated from an early
age in the aspects of homosexuality, and taught, even if not to agree with
it, at least to be tolerating towards it. Why, then, is there such an opposition
to the repealing of Section 28 of the Local Government Act, a clause which
prohibits the ?promotion of homosexuality?, thereby increasing homophobic
prejudice, legitimising the bullying of homosexual and bisexual school
pupils, and encouraging hate crimes against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals?
Currently, there is a great deal of controversy concerning whether or not
this law should be repealed. Is it that this law protects children or encourages
ignorance and prejudice?
Section 28 was invented in 1986 by the
Conservative Party. The actual wording of Section 28 is as follows:
A local authority shall not:
(1) intentionally promote homosexuality
or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality
(2) promote the teaching in any maintained
school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Those in favour of Section 28 would argue
that educating children in matters of homosexuality is morally wrong. They
believe that children are extremely susceptible to what they see and hear
around them, and that hearing from teachers about homosexuality would encourage
them to try it for themselves. Claims have been made that children could
be ?turned? gay in this way. This would certainly be backed up by the unfortunate
Jamie Bulger murder, where two young boys admitting to killing two-year-old
Jamie after watching a violent film on television. If the media did not
make an impression on people?s minds, advertising companies would go out
of business. Another argument is that school pupils learn many things from
their teachers, that is the reason that they go to school, so could learning
about homosexuality not teach them to be gay?
Firstly, the media can not be blamed for
individuals eradicating the blame for their own actions. Religious programming
on television has not caused a nationwide surge of Christianity. It is
true that advertisements on television and in magazines can have a strong
influence on the things we do and by, but how many adverts have you seen
where a gay man or woman appears on the screen and says in a voice reminiscent
of the child-catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, ?Come on kids, it?s
great. Why don?t you try it? You might like it.? This would be the so-called
?promotion? of homosexuality, something completely separate from giving
a child a well-balanced education in all areas of modern society?s sexual
tendencies.
As for banning the promotion of sexuality
in schools, I cannot see that there ever has been any, or that there ever
would be any reason to ?promote? it. If a child is going to grow up to
be an informed individual, they need to be taught all aspects of modern
life, including homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. At the moment
the government could be accused of the ?promotion of heterosexuality,?
which has not been successful in preventing those who are born gay from
continuing to be so. One would think that this would work exactly the same
way when reversed; Why should receiving information about homosexuality
convert someone who is inherently ?straight? into a raving homosexual?
In spite of the introduction of Section
28, there still exists a thriving gay community, which shows that someone
will be who they want to be, whether they are having other people?s beliefs
shoved down their throat or not. Surely the government should be able to
deduce from this that gays and lesbians who have been brought up in a ?straight?
society have not altered their ways of life because of pressure, therefore
heterosexuals are not likely to want to turn gay simply because they know
that this way of life exists.
Over the past few years, bullying and crimes
against people who are different in any way has been a huge problem. The
government claims to want to solve this problem, yet enforces bigoted rules
like Clause 28 upon us. It is a widely known fact that people are afraid
of things they are unfamiliar with. Yet it has been proved in the past
that hate crimes and bullying can be reduced and/or prevented by educating
people about the subject they are afraid of, such as courses available
for those with severe arachnophobia. These courses teach people all about
spiders and eventually encourage people to actually deal with them by picking
them up, safely disposing of them etc. If a similar course could be invented
to teach homophobics that there really was nothing to scared of, perhaps
Section 28 would never have had to be introduced. This is why it is vital
to include homosexuality in sex education at school.
From 1939 to 1945 Adolf Hitler executed
millions of Jews because they were ?different? and he could not learn to
tolerate them. Perhaps the existence of Clause 28 is showing us that we
have not progressed at all in our thinking over the past 60 years. Hate
is a horrible, destructive thing, whereas love is looked upon as something
sacred and pure. Does it really matter who a person loves? I would have
thought that it was far better for any two people to feel affection for
each other than to encourage bigotry and hate crimes through ignorance
and discrimination.
|