Behavior, and Not a Person

United States Congress May 29, 30, 31 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-06-04T22:07:52Z

What is presented in this handout is information to help have a meaningful, open, and honest discussion. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

The parameters of a discussion of homosexuality are best framed in the following way. Who one is, a homosexual or what one does, homosexuality. The support is strongest for the latter. Homosexuality is a relationship issue. Homosexuality is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for intimacy in same-sex relationships. The following quotes are by authors who self-identify as gay and are university history professors. Martin Duberman graduated from Yale University, received a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and was a professor at Princeton. John D'Emilo received a Ph.D. from Columbia University and teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago. These two university professors agree that it is homosexuality, what one does and write it this way in the following quotes.

“I have argued that lesbian and gay identity and communities are historically created, the result of a process of capitalist development that has spanned many generations. A corollary of this argument is that we are not a fixed social minority composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. There are more of us than one hundred years ago, more of us than forty years ago. And there may very well be more gay men and lesbians in the future. Claims made by gays and nongays that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, that large numbers of visible gay men and lesbians in society, the media, and schools will have no influence on the sexual identities of the young, are wrong. Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individuals' lives; now, our political movements are changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people to make that choice.” (D'Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity, p. 473-474 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Michele Aine Barale and David M. Halperin)

“There is another historical myth that enjoys nearly universal acceptance in the gay movement, the myth of the “eternal homosexual.” The argument runs something like this: Gay men and lesbians always were and always will be. We are everywhere; not just now, but throughout history, in all societies and all periods. This myth served a positive political function in the first years of gay liberation. In the early 1970s, when we battled an ideology that either denied our existence or defined us as psychopathic individuals or freaks of nature, it was empowering to assert that “we are everywhere.” But in recent years it has confined us as surely as the most homophobic medical theories, and locked our movement in place. Here I wish to challenge this myth. I want to argue that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. Instead they are a product of history, and have come into existence in a specific historical era. Their emergence is associated with the relations of capitalism; it has been the historical development of capitalism-more specifically, its free-labor system-that has allowed a large numbers of men and women in the late twentieth century to call themselves gay, to see themselves as part of a community of similar men and women, to organize politically on the basis of that identity.” (D'Emilio, Making Trouble Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University, p.5)

“It isn't at all obvious why a gay rights movement should ever have arisen in the United States in the first place. And it's profoundly puzzling why that movement should have become far and away the most powerful such political formation in the world. Same gender sexual acts have been commonplace throughout history and across cultures. Today, to speak with surety about a matter for which there is absolutely no statistical evidence, more adolescent male butts are being penetrated in the Arab world, Latin American, North Africa and Southeast Asia then in the west.

But the notion of a gay “identity” rarely accompanies such sexual acts, nor do political movements arise to make demands in the name of that identity. It's still almost entirely in the Western world that the genders of one's partner is considered a prime marker of personality and among Western nations it is the United States - a country otherwise considered a bastion of conservatism - that the strongest political movement has arisen centered around that identity.

We've only begun to analyze why, and to date can say little more then that certain significant pre-requisites developed in this country, and to some degree everywhere in the western world, that weren't present, or hadn't achieved the necessary critical mass, elsewhere. Among such factors were the weakening of the traditional religious link between sexuality and procreation (one which had made non-procreative same gender desire an automatic candidate for denunciation as “unnatural”). Secondly the rapid urbanization and industrialization of the United States, and the West in general, in the nineteen century weakened the material (and moral) authority of the nuclear family, and allowed mavericks to escape into welcome anonymity of city life, where they could choose a previously unacceptable lifestyle of singleness and nonconformity without constantly worrying about parental or village busybodies pouncing on them.” (Duberman, Left Out, p. 414 - 415.)

Larry Houston who is delivering this handout, has written it, and self-identifies as a former homosexual. I ask for affirmation and validation as a former homosexual. My story may be read on the web page, www.banap.net. There you may not only read my story of overcoming homosexuality, but of facing discrimination as an ex-gay at Harvard University. I came under investigation by three departments of Harvard University after a Harvard student wrote an article for The Harvard Crimson newspaper. Attached are two articles from The Harvard Crimson that gives details of these investigations. During these investigations no Harvard University official contacted me. The article on www.banap.net, “Discrimination for being Ex-gay” gives additional information that provides a context prior to the initial investigation by the gay and lesbian ministers of the United Ministries Department of Harvard University.

Harvard University students continue to seek me out after the investigations. This year a gay Harvard senior asked for help with a class assignment.

To help bring about a meaningful, open, and honest discussion listed below is a series of questions followed by brief answers. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

· Who is advocating for change? Homosexuals/gays/lesbians.

· Is the discussion one of legally sanctioning relationships or behavior? The case for the latter is much stronger.

· Who is a homosexual/gay/lesbian? An individual who self-identifies by behavior or the things one does. A gay male and lesbian female identity has political connotations. In late 1960s and early 70's during the beginning of what is now known as “gay liberation” homosexuals/gay/lesbians used the term “sexual preference” to describe how they viewed their same-sex erotic attraction. Later around the middle 1980s those advocating for homosexuality begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” The later implied “choice” by those practicing homosexuality, homosexual behavior. It was a social/political change to a more “conservative period” that led to those advocating for homosexuality to begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.”

· How does one become a homosexual? There are multiple pathways that may lead one into pursuing homosexual behavior. Homosexuals in their numerous articles and books acknowledge one is not born a homosexual. For this reason it may be reasonably argued that it is not a “rights issue”. This is also why no court (state or federal) has granted homosexuals “suspect class status”. Likewise for this reason it will be unlikely for courts to rule on the basis of equal protection and due process. Homosexuality is not an innate trait.

· What is homosexuality? Homosexuality is a relationship issue. It is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for same-sex intimacy. Physical sexual acts are often added to or substituted for those relational acts needed as a part of same-sex intimacy in relationships.

· What about former homosexuals/ex-gays? There are individuals who overcome homosexuality and they do so in multiple ways. But what is of great interest are those individuals who choose to continue to self-identify as gay or lesbian but have as their objects of sexual activity members of the opposite sex. The following are examples of such people who have made public declarations.

JoAnn Loulan was a prominent lesbian activist in the seventies and eighties who met and fell in love with a man in the late nineties, and even appeared on a 20/20 television episode in 1998. Jan Clausen also a lesbian activist writes in two of her books Beyond Gay or Straight, Apples and Oranges of a sexual relationship with a man. This latter book is autobiographical. She began a long-term monogamous relationship with a man in 1987.

In England Russell T. Davies wrote Queer as Folk and also wrote for British TV the show Bob and Rose airing in September 2001. This second show is about a gay man who falls in love with a woman and has a sexual relationship with her. This series was based on a friend of Davies', Thomas, who was well known in the Manchester, England gay scene. Bert Archer who identifies as a gay male in his book, The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality), writes of his sexual relationship with a woman. He also gives examples of other gay men who have similar experiences.

A 29-page bibliography, that is extensive, but not exhaustive from my research for the information presented on www.banp.net, may also be found there. The two main sections are “Inventing a Homosexual” and “Identifying the Homosexual”. The first section “Inventing a Homosexual” is from a historical perspective. “Identifying the Homosexual” contains information from those advocating for homosexuality attempting to “proof text” the concept of the “homosexual” as an innate individual sexual being. www.banap.net also has a section “Legal and Political” of my lobbying the Massachusetts state Legislature for maintaining the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. The following two quotes from my research gives me great hope and encouragement in my self-identity as a former homosexual. There are pictures of my many visits to Ukraine at to help students and families www.as4us.org.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it's impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.363)

The authors of this book published in 1989 self-identify as gay. Kirk graduated from Harvard University in 1980. Madsen has taught on the faculty of Harvard University. He is a public-communications expert, designed commercial advertising for Madsen Avenue, and guided strategy for the Positive Images Campaign. This campaign was the first national gay advertising effort in American. The following quote from the introduction of their book along with the title of the book perhaps gives a very strong indication of the authors' belief in a homosexual agenda. Perhaps this may be their motivation for writing the book.

“The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.xxvi)

Why, Who, What, and How June 4, 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-06-04T21:54:18Z

Why, Who, What, and How are questions that must be answered by those advocating for change. Answering these questions as a part of a meaningful, open, and honest discussion will be beneficial for everyone. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

Those advocating for homosexuality, especially within the contexts of “gay rights” therefore should be able to support and defend their position in a meaningful, open, and honest discussion. Two words used by those advocating for “gay rights” are “discrimination” and “equality. Thus when referring to homosexuals/gays/lesbians, “Why is it discrimination and Why is about equality? Who are homosexuals/gays/ lesbians? Gay and lesban are best seen as political sexual identities. What does it mean to be a homosexual/gay/lesbian? It is to self-identify by same-sex erotic attractions and behaviors. How does one become a homosexual/gay/lesbian? There are multiple pathways that lead one to pursuing homosexuality, homosexual behavior, likewise there are multiple pathways to overcoming homosexuality, homosexual behavior. The parameters of the discussion are best framed as “Who one is a homosexual?” or “What one does, homosexuality.” The support is strongest for the latter. What is homosexuality? Homosexuality is a relationship issue. It is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for same-sex intimacy. Physical sexual acts are often added to or substituted for those relational acts needed as a part of same-sex intimacy in relationships. A part of homosexuality is sexual immaturity and also involves “learning.” As a group, homosexuals are not a unitary, monolithic group and that is best indicated by names they use to self-identify themselves. Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian, Queer, but also they use names associated with particular sexual behaviors. Not all homosexuals/gays/lesbians/queers want marriage. What do those advocating for homosexuality really want?

Changing language by those advocating for homosexuality is not uncommon. One very interesting example is the terms “sexual preference” and sexual orientation” used in referenced to sexuality. In late 1960s and early 1970s during the beginning of what is now known as “gay liberation” homosexuals/gay/lesbians used the term “sexual preference” to describe how they viewed their same-sex erotic attractions. Later around the middle 1980s those advocating for homosexuality begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” The later implied “choice” by those practicing homosexuality, homosexual behavior. It was a social/political change to a more “conservative period” that led to those advocating for homosexuality to begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” Also significant in leading to this change in language was the consequences of male homosexual behavior, high rates of STDs and the HIV/AIDS epidemic which was tragic for gay males. Camille Paglia is an American social critic, intellectual, author and teacher. In 1971 she received a master's degree in philosophy from Yale and a PhD in English Literature in 1974. Paglia is described as a “libertarian,” self-identifies as a bisexual and is supportive of homosexuality, while less supportive of “gay rights.”

“From Stonewall to the first AIDS alert was only twelve short years. In the Eighties and early Nineties, displaced anxiety over the horrors of AIDS turned gay activists into rampaging nihilists and monomaniacs, who dishonestly blamed the disease on the government and trampled on the rights of the gay majority, and whose errors of judgment materially aided the rise and consolidation of the far right. AIDS did not appear out of nowhere. It was a direct result of the sexual revolution, which my generation unleashed with the best intentions, but whose worse effects were to be suffered primarily by gay men. In the West, despite much propaganda to the contrary, AIDS is a gay disease and will remain one for the foreseeable future.” (Paglia, Vamps and Tramps. p.68)

The changing language is made even more important placed within the context of the 2003 United States Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. All things are lawful, but all things are not profitable. Lawrence v. Texas legalized homosexuality sodomy. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The statically documented fact known at that time was that the highest risk behavior for acquiring HIV/AIDS is receptive anal intercourse. This decision favors the liberty of the individual over the majority. But a strong argument can be made that the liberty of the individual may be overruled for the benefit, health, and welfare of the majority. What Lawrence v. Texas did was to further the continuation of the legitimization and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual behavior. Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health may be seen as doing the same, the legitimization and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual behavior.

“The disease first became evident among male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, and in the United States it remains disportionately concentrated in these two populations.” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p.1)

Before these two court decisions statically documented facts were available from local and state health departments and the United States Centers for Disease Control. These facts are the rising rates of STDs and HIV/AIDS among male homosexuals beginning in 2000. While the rates of STDs and HIV/AIDS have remained constant or have even fallen among heterosexuals in the same time period. This information may be found online by visiting health departments and the CDC's web pages.

What WillHappen? May 24, 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T12:55:54Z

What will happen should Goodridge be overturned or suspended? Goodridge the legal decision to allow same-sex (gay) marriage was ruled on the lowest level of legal scrutiny. The SJC rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for a decision based on “strict judicial scrutiny.” It did not address homosexuals being a member of a suspect class and it did not find a marriage to be a fundamental right. The Goodridge decision may be read at www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html

“Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, we employ “strict judicial scrutiny.”

“Because the statute does not survive rational basis review, we do not consider the plaintiffs' arguments that this case merits strict judicial scrutiny.”

The Goodridge decision was conditional and limited in its ruling, which was that the Department of Public Health did not adequately justify the law, and the law itself did not set forth the grounds on which it is based. The defendants the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, represented by the Attorney General's office failed to present a strong case. Therefore the SJC left open the possibility that the present marriage status could have been adequately supported by clearer evidence. Thus allowing for the possibility in a future legal challenge the Goodridge decision may be overturned or suspended.

Consistent in Goodridge, the legal challenge for same-sex/gay marriage beginning in the written decision by Suffolk Superior Court Justice Connolly has been the acknowledgement by judges, both in Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts delegates authority to the Legislation, not the judiciary to regulate marriage.

Justice Connolly (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “While this court understands the reasons for the plaintiffs' request to reverse the Commonwealth's centuries-old legal tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, their request should be directed to the Legislature, not the courts.”

Justice Connolly (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “This court acknowledges the inherent contradiction that the Commonwealth allows same-sex couples to establish legal relationships with their children but not with each other. Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205 (1993); Adoption of Susan, 416 Mass. 1003 (1993); E.N.O. v. L.M.N., 429 Mass. 824, cert. Denied, 528 U.S. 1005 (1999). Furthermore, the Legislature amended the adoption laws to allow adoption of children by same-sex couples. See Acts & Resolves 1999, 3 * 15. The Commonwealth's elected representatives, not courts, should resolve this paradox. See Connors, 430 Mass at 43 (excluding the word “spouse” to exclude domestic partners). While this court understands the plaintiffs efforts to be married, they should pursue their quest on Beacon Hill.”

Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court in the majority opinion in Goodridge (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983) (regulation of marriage is properly within the scope of the police power). "Police power" (now more commonly termed the State's regulatory authority) is an old-fashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to their government. In broad terms, it is the Legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are "necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community” (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760, 785 (1960). [FN12] See Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 85 (1851).”

“It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983)."

A member of the Massachusetts Legislature upon entering office takes an oath of office. In this oath they swear to support and uphold the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “Under the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth and of the United States every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military, under the government of this Commonwealth, before he enters on the duties of his office, is required to take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Manual for the General Court 1997-1998, pg. 239).

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I,_______________________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the Constitution thereof. So help me, God. I,_______________________, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as ___________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the constitution, and the laws of this Commonwealth - So help me God.

The current proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to maintain the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman requires a second successful vote in a Constitutional Convention to allow the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to vote and participant in the governing of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Likewise this proposed amendment has past constitutional, judicial, and legal scrutiny in two legal challenges to it that have reached the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The first ruling was that the amendment is “going forward” and thereby is not an attempt overturn a previous SJC ruling in the 2003 Goodridge case. In a side note of possible interest, the lead plaintiff couple Hilary and Julie Goodridge, in the legal challenge to allow same-couple to marry married in May of 2004 and separated in July of 2006. The second ruling addressed the responsibility of the Massachusetts Legislature to vote on proposed Constitutional Amendments. The SJC ruled they had no authority to demand the Legislature to take a vote. But in strongly worded language encouraged the Massachusetts State Legislature to uphold their oath of office to support the Constitution of Massachusetts and exercise the authority delegated to them in the Massachusetts Constitution to regulate marriage by voting on the proposed marriage amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature followed the advice of the SJC by taking a vote on January 2, 2007, a vote of approval, thus requiring a second vote.

What Do they Realy Mean? May 21, 207

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T12:49:30Z

What do they really mean? What they say or what they write? The following information was written by self-identified gays and lesbians, many who are university professors with PhDs. Why is it “discrimination” or a “rights issue” if is about one's behavior.

“We tend to think now that the word ‘homosexual' has an unvarying meaning, beyond time and history. In fact it is itself a product of history, a cultural artifact designed to express a particular concept.” (Weeks, Coming Out, p. 3)

“In sum, homosexuality is not one but many things, many psychosocial forms, which can be viewed as symbolic mediations between psychocultural and historical conditions and human potentials for sexual response across life course.” (Herdt, “Cross-Cultural Issues in the Development of Bisexuality and Homosexuality”, p.55)

“Against the certainties of this tradition, I intend in this essay to offer an alternative way of understanding sexually (indeed ‘sexualities'). This involves seeing sexuality not as a primordially ‘natural' instinct phenomenon but rather as a product of social and historical forces. ‘Sexuality', I shall argue, is a ‘fictional unity', that once did not exist, and some time in the future may not exist again. It is an invention of the human mind. As Carole S. Vance has suggested, ‘the most important organ in humans is located between the ears.' (Vance 1984).” (Weeks, Sexuality, p.6)

“But if identity, and sexual difference, are precarious at the level of the unconscious, they are also in large part a fiction at the level of social and cultural life. This is, I know, a controversial statement, and one that many lesbian and gay activists would bitterly challenge. The search for a gay gene, or special type of homosexual brain, or whatever, which is frequently welcomed by self-appointed gay spokespeople, attest to a constant wish to find an explanation rooted in nature for homosexual difference. As I have already indicated, Altman rejects such fantasies, and anticipating Foucault and other writers' arguments for the historical shaping of the homo-heter distinction. This is not to deny the value of constructing lesbian and gay identities as an essential way of combating discrimination, and negotiating the hazards of every day life. Such identities are, in words I have used elsewhere, a necessary fictions. But fictions, they are, nonetheless.” (Altman, Homosexual: Oppression or Liberation, p.13)

“It is the myth of gay identity, the belief that homosexuals are a different kind of people. Gay identity is one of the great working myths of our age. Even though it is based on the ideas of gender and sex that have more to do with folklore than science, it occupies a central position in the beliefs and principles that govern our behaviors. It is a significant element of our social organization of gender and sexuality. The myth holds us all in thrall, not just those who have adopted the gay role. . . . Being gay is always a matter of self-definition. No matter what your sexual proclivities or experience, you are not gay until you decide you are.”(DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.1-2)

“Lesbian and gay historians have asked questions about the origins of gay liberation and lesbian feminism, and have come up with some surprising answers. Rather than finding a silent, oppressed, gay minority in all times and all places, historians have discovered that gay identity is a recent, Western, historical construction. Jeffrey Weeks, Jonathan Katz and Lillian Faderman, for example have traced the emergence of lesbian and gay identity in the late nineteenth century. Similarly John D'Emilio, Allan Berube and the Buffalo Oral History Project have described how this identity laid the basis for organized political activity in the years following World War II.

The work of lesbian and gay historians has also demonstrated that human sexuality is not a natural, timeless “given”, but is historically shaped and politically regulated.” (Duggan, “History's Gay Ghetto: The Contradictions of Growth in Lesbian and Gay History,” p.151-152 in Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture edited by Duggan & Hunter)

“Psychological theory, which should be employed to describe only individual mental, emotional, and behavioral aspects of homosexuality, has been employed for building models of personal development that purport to mark the steps in an individual's progression toward a mature and egosyntonic gay or lesbian identity. The embracing and disclosing of such an identity, however, is best understood as a political phenomenon occurring in a historical period during which identity politics has become a become a consuming occupation.” (De Cecco and Parker, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Sexual Orientation or Sexual Preference,” p. 20 in Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual, Preference, editors De Cecco and Parker)

“I have argued that lesbian and gay identity and communities are historically created, the result of a process of capitalist development that has spanned many generations. A corollary of this argument is that we are not a fixed social minority composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. There are more of us than one hundred years ago, more of us than forty years ago. And there may very well be more gay men and lesbians in the future. Claims made by gays and nongays that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, that large numbers of visible gay men and lesbians in society, the media, and the schools will have no influence on the sexual identities of the young, are wrong. Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individuals' lives; now, our political movements are changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people to make that choice.” (D'Emilio, Making Trouble Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University, p.12)

“Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a far more complex protean identity. It is rare that people are confused about their race or gender, but anyone can be a homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior.” (Bronski, The pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom, p. 13)

“For well over a century homosexualists have dreamed that the invention of the homosexual as a person would ultimately detoxicate homosexual behavior and win a place of equality alongside heterosexual behavior.” (De Ceeo, “Confusing the Actor With the Act: Muddled Notions About Homosexuality”, p. 411)

After reading what self-identified gays and lesbians have written one can therefore understand it best in the following way. Who one is, a homosexual or What one does homosexuality. The support is strongest for the latter. Why is it “discrimination” or a “rights issue” if is about one's behavior.

Chapter 5 Stonewall to the 1980s

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T00:45:00Z

Chapter 5 Stonewall to the 1980s

· Stonewall

“In short, the political and cultural environment had undergone a liberalizing shift which had created the opportunity for the emergence of a mass homosexual movement.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.38)

“Ironically, when the uprising finally occurred, many people failed to recognize its significance. Looking back, however, there is no denying that what began as a skirmish at a Greenwhich Village bar became the harbinger of a new movement of human rights. Detailed accounts of Stonewall have taken on the quality of myth, as more people remember being thee that could have possibly have fit in the tiny grimy bar. It is generally accepted that a diverse group of bar patrons, led by drag queens who were Stonewall regulars, spontaneously began to fight back during a police raid. The resistance turned into a riot, which lasted for several days.” (Kranz & Cusick, Gay Rights: Revised Edition, p. 35)

“The years leading up to Stonewall saw a breach in the assimilationist attitudes of the docile homophiles of the previous generation in favour of more revolutionary ones of people who craved more purely sexual freedom.” (Archer, The End Gay, p.91)

“But in the 1960s and 1970s, the gay movement broke decisively with the assimilationist rhetoric of the 1950s by publicly affirming, celebrating, and even cultivating homosexual difference.” (Chauncey, Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality, p.29)

An event that took place on June 12, 1969, in New York City at a gay bar called, the Stonewall Inn, had great social and cultural historical significance in the development of the concept of the “modern homosexual” who soon adopted what is known as a “gay” identity. This was an act of resistance, a riot by drag queens mourning the death of Judy Garland. It was a group of effeminate men, wearing women's clothes resisting police authority, during a raid on the gay bar. What started out as a typical raid by the police, a shake down for bribery from a gay bar turned out much differently. This event is often linked with the beginning of the “gay liberation movement.” It should be noted that it was a fringe group of homosexuals, and not representative individuals of the homosexual community at large who displayed this physical resistance.

“Stonewall was an act of resistance to police authority by multiracial drag queens mourning the death of Judy Garland, long divinized by gays. Therefore Stonewall had a cultural meaning beyond the political: it was a pagan insurrection by the reborn transvestite priests of Cybele.” (Paglia, Vamps and Tramps, p. 67-68)

“In the 1970s gay liberation was the name of a major theoretical challenge to assimilation as well as minoritization. Early activists and writers argued that gay liberation could transform all sexual and gender relations; they argued against marriage and monogamy and against existing family structures (Altman 1981); Jay and Young (1972).” (Phelan, Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship, p. 108-109)

“Gay liberation had somehow evolved to the right to have a good time-the right to enjoy bars, discos, drugs, and frequent impersonal sex.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.445)

· American Psychiatric Association

Another historically significant event in the development of the concept of the “modern homosexual” occurred in the early 1970s. This was the decision in 1973 by the APA, American Psychiatric Association, to remove homosexuality from the lists of sexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Homosexual advocates acknowledge the hijacking of science for political gain.

“Of course, to mount this counterattack, gays and lesbians must challenge authority of scientists, and that is exactly what gay rights activists did when they campaigned to have homosexuality removed from the APA's list of mental disorders. In fact, those activists argued that homosexuality is not a disease but a lifestyle choice. Although that argument was successful in the early 1970s, the political climate has changed in such a way that gay rights advocates no long want homosexuality to be considered a choice.Instead, they want homosexuals to be thought of as an immutable characteristic, and the gay gene discourse helps them in this effort.” (Brookey, Reinventing the Male Homosexual: The Rhetoric and Power of the Gay Gene, p. 43)

“In 1973, by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the diagnostic category of homosexuality was eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (Bayer 1981).” (O'Donohue & Casselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional , and Value Issues, p. 66 in Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm editors Rogers H.Wright, and Nicolas A. Cummings.)

“The decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision. It was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion as a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition of homosexuality as a problem.” (Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 213)

“Perhaps the greatest policy success of the early 1970s was the American Psychiatric Association's 1973-74 decision to remove homosexuality from its “official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual list of mental disorders.” This decision did not come about because a group of doctors suddenly changed their views; it followed an aggressive and sustained campaign by lesbian and gay activists.” (Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States, p. 85-86)

“Writing about the 1973 decision and the dispute that surrounded it, Bayer (1981) contended that these changes were produced by political rather than scientific factors. Bayer argued that the revision represented the APA's surrender to political and social pressures, not new data or scientific theories regarding on human sexuality.” (O'Donohue & Casselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional , and Value Issues, p. 66 in Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm editors Rogers H.Wright, and Nicolas A. Cummings.)

“The APA's very process of a medical judgment arrived at by parliamentary method set off more arguments than it settled. Many members felt that the trustees, in acting contrary to diagnostic knowledge, had responded to intense propagandistic pressures from militant homophile organizations. “Politically we said homosexuality is not a disorder,” one psychiatrist admitted, “but privately most of us felt it is.” (Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality, p.5)

The removing of homosexuality as a sexual disorder was as a result of a three year long social/political campaign by gay activists, pro-gay psychiatrists and gay psychiatrists, not as a result of valid scientific studies. Rather the activities were public disturbances, rallies, protests, and social/political pressure from within by gay psychiatrists and by others outside of the APA upon the APA. The action of removing homosexuality was taken with such unconventional speed that normal channels for consideration of the issues were circumvented. This action taken in the APA had dramatic consequences on psychosexual life according to Charles Socarides in a article published in The Journal of Psychohistory, “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.” Socarides writes the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was a false step with the following results.

“This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality and an encouragement to aberrancy by those who should have known better, both in the scientific sense and in the sense of the social consequences of such removal.” (Socarides, Charles W. “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality,” p.320-321)

In this article he described a movement within the American Psychiatric Association that through social/political activism resulted in a two-phase radicalization of a main pillar of psychosocial life. The first phase was the erosion of heterosexuality as the single acceptable sexual pattern in our culture. This was followed by the second phase the raising of homosexuality to the level of an alternative lifestyle. As a result homosexuality became an acceptable psychosocial institution alongside heterosexuality as a prevailing norm of sexual behavior.

“In essence, this movement within the American Psychiatric Association has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with, a revision of the basic code and concept of life and biology: that men and women normally mate with the opposite sex and not with each other.” (Socarides, Charles W. “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality,” p.321)

The hijacking of science in the APA by those advocating homosexuality has now taken a very interesting twist. Thirty years later after this decision by the APA, Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. who was instrumental in the removal of homosexuality in 1973 from the lists of sexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is once again facing the anger of others. The first time was by those who opposed the normalization of homosexuality. Now after publishing the results of a study showing that some people may change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, it is those advocating for homosexuality. Dr. Spitzer's study and peer commentaries have just been published in the October 2003 issue of the “Archives of Sexual Behavior.”

“An additional personal parallel-the anger that has been directed towards me for doing this study reminds of a similar reaction to me during my involvement in the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality from DSM-II in 1973.” (Spitzer, “Reply: Study Results Should Not be Dismissed and Justify Further Research on the Efficacy of Sexual Reorientation Therapy”, p. 472)

· Circuit Parties

Circuit parties are unique to the homosexual community, but are similar to other parties called “raves” and can be traced back to the popularity of disco music in the 1970s. The popularity of these “circuit parties” has grown tremendously over the past 10 years. There is no uniform definition of a “circuit party”, because these parties continue to evolve.

“However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town or city and centers on one or more large, late-night dance events that often have a theme (for example, a color such as red, black or white)." (Mansergh, Colfax, Marks, Rader, Guzman, & Buchbinder, “The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: Findings And Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men.” p.953)

“Circuit Parties are weekend-long, erotically-charged, drug-fueled gay dance events held in resort towns across the country. There's at least one party every month somewhere in the U.S.-New York's “Black Part,' South beach's “White Party,” Montreal's “Black and Blue Party,” and son- and people travel far and wide to take part.” (Ghaziani, “The Circuit Part's Faustian Bargin,” p.21)

Because these “circuit parties” are unique to the homosexual community, it is from the media of this community itself that most of the information about these parties comes from. Although there has been a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, which is quoted from above. I have also found an article form USATODAY.com, “Worries crash ‘circuit parties', 06/20/2002. The information that is coming from all sources is strikingly similar. That is the high prevalence of drug use and sexual activity, including unprotected anal sex.

“The circuit-with its jet set “A-List” of well-heeled and muscular gay men- had actually been in existence in the pre-AIDS time, albeit it was small and very exclusive. It consisted in the late 1970s into the early 1980s mostly of a about thousand men who flew back and forth between New York and Los Angeles, going from the famous parties at the Flamingo and the Saint in New York to the ones at the Probe in L.A. But in the 1990s the circuit grew to consist of parties all around the country, indeed around the world-from Miami to Montreal, Vancouver to Sydney-with tens of thousands of men who regularly attend events. In the early 1990s there were only a handful of events; by 1996, according to Alan Brown in Out and About, a gay travel newsletter, there were over 50 parties a year, roughly one per week. Typically these are weekend-long events, more a series of all-night (and daytime) parties stretching over a few days, often taking place in resort hotels, each punctuated by almost universal drug use among attendees." ( Signorile, Life Outside, p.64-65)

“Every party has a similar format, with loud music and dancing at its core, spiced with live entertainment from popular singers and scantily-clad male dancers. Circuit parties began in the mid-1980's as part of an effort to raise gay men's awareness of AIDS as well as to raise funds to combat the disease and help its victims. To this day, many circuit parties HIV/AIDS charity events, benefiting a variety of nonprofit organizations.” (Ghaziani, “The Circuit Part's Faustian Bargin,” p.21)

According to health officials, Palm Springs, CA has developed one of the highest per capita rates of syphilis in the nation, driven mostly by gay and bisexual men. Palm Springs is where the White Party is held annually in April. The 2003 party raised concerned among public health officials and some gay leaders that the event would feed the spread of syphilis.

Some charities - along with public health officials and many gay rights leaders - are increasingly uncomfortable with what has become the dark side of circuit parties: widespread drug use and random, unprotected sex that some charities say is just the type of behavior they discourage. (“Worries crash ‘circuit parties'.” www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/20/circuit-parties-usat.htm

“This seems harmless enough, but there is also a flipside. While the evidence to date is inconclusive, circuit parties may ironically be a potential site for HIV infection. The irony is that circuit parties began as vehicles for HIV awareness and fundraising.” (Ghaziani, “The Circuit Part's Faustian Bargin,” p.22)

“It is well known, both anecdotally and through research that drug use is wide spread at circuit parties. Studies indicate that club drugs are consumed by by about 95 percent of party attendees (Mansergh, 2001). Indeed drug use is incorporated into the setting as an intergal part of circuit culture.” (Ghaziani, “The Circuit Part's Faustian Bargin,” p.22)

“Research revels an abundance of sexual activity during party weekends.” (Ghaziani, “The Circuit Part's Faustian Bargin,” p.22)

But one national gay organzation in September of 2004 appears not to be concerned with this dark side of circuit parties. The NGLTF (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) has purchased the rights and assets to the Winter Party held in Maimi, FL. A Washington Blade online article (Friday, September 09, 2004) quotes the executive director of the NGLTF, who sees no problem with being a sponsor of a ‘circuit party'. He goes on to call it a dance event.

“Foreman said he sees no problem with the Task Force becoming associated with a circuit party.”

“We're very proud to have acquired the Winter Party,” Foreman said. “Having a dance event where people come together and have a good time is a good thing.” (“Task Force to take over Winter Party”, Washington Blade online, Friday, September 03, 2004)

· Gay Male Clones

Throughout history the male homosexual was often based on non-gender conformity, that is the effeminate male. Although this still continues today, a rejection of this stereotyping is seen in the “gay male clone”. There are two books written by homosexuals themselves that defines this “gay male clone”. Michelango Signorileis is the author of the book, Life Outside. Signorileis writes about gay men, masculinity, the “gay male clone”, and “circuit parties”. Martin Levine was a sociologist, and university professor. The book, Gay Macho, is an edited version of Levine's doctoral dissertation. He died from complications of AIDS at the age of 42. The gay male clone was not a representative homosexual, but only one of many groups among the “modern homosexual” gays, lesbians, queers, and homosexual.

“Clones symbolize modern homosexuality. When the dust of gay liberation had settled, the doors to the closet were opened, and out popped the clone. Taking a cue from movement ideology, clones modeled themselves upon traditional masculinity and the self-fulfillment ethic. (Yankelovitch 1981) Aping blue-collar workers, they butched it up and acted like macho men. Accepting me-generation values, they searched for self-fulfillment in anonymous sex, recreational drugs, and hard partying. Much to activists' chagrin, liberation turned the “Boys in the Band” into doped-up, sexed-out, Marlboro men. The clone in many ways was, the manliest of men. He had a gym-defined body; after hours of rigorous body building, his physique rippled with bulging muscles, looking more like competitive body builders than hairdressers or florists. He wore blue-collar garb-flannel shirts over muscle T-shirts, Levi 501s over work boots, bomber jackets over hooded sweatshirts. He kept his hair short and had a thick moustache or closely cropped beard. There was nothing New Age or hippie about this reformed gay liberationist. And the clone lived the fast life. He “partied hard,” taking recreational drugs, dancing in discos till dawn, having hot sex with strangers. Throughout the seventies and early eighties,clones set the tone in the homosexual community (Altman 1982, 103; Holleran 1982). Glorified in the gay media, promoted in gay advertising, clones defined gay chic, and the clone life style became culturally dominant. Until AIDS. As the new disease ravaged the gay male community in the early 1980s scientist discovered that the clone life style was “toxic”: specific sexual behaviors, even promiscuity, might be one of the ways that the HIV virus spread in the gay male population. Drugs, late nights, and poor nutrition weakened the immunity system (Fettner and Check 1984)” (Levine, Gay Macho, p.7-8)

“The clone role reflected the gay world's image of this kind of gay man, a doped-up, sexed-out, Marlboro man. Although the gay world derisively named this social type the clone, largely because of is uniform look and life-style, clones were the leading social within gay ghettos until the advent of AIDS. At this time, gay media, arts, and pornography, promoted clones as the first post-Stonewall form of homosexual life. Clones came to symbolize the liberated gay man.” ( Levine, “The Life and Death of Gay Clones.” p.70-71 in Gay Culture in America: Essays from the Field editor Gilbert Herdt.)

"Four features distinguished clones: (1) strongly masculine dress and deportment; (2) uninhibited recreational sex with multiple partners, often in sex clubs and baths; (3) the use of alcohol and other recreational drugs; and (4) frequent attendance at discotheques and other gay meeting places. Clone culture with its pattern of sexual availability, erotic apparel, multiple partners, and reciprocity in sexual technique became an important organizing feature of gay male life during the 1970s. It also became a seedbed for high rates of sexually transmitted diseases as well as frequent transmission of the hepatitis B virus. Many treated sexually transmitted diseases as a price that had to be paid for a life style of erotic liberation." (Jonsen and Stryker, editors, The Social Impact of AIDS in the United States, p. 261-262)

“A key factor in the formulation and promulgation of the cult of masculinity that also dismayed the gay liberationist was that the dominant gender style was now supermasculine. It was as if the 1960s and the counter culture androgyny never occurred. Gay male culture was still reeling from the crisis of masculinity that had affected homosexuals for decades. Gay men, attracted to the masculine ideas they'd cultivated in the furtive days prior to Stonewall, seemed now institutionalize and exaggerate a heterosexual-inspired, macho look. The 1970s clone was born, and his look exploded on the streets of rapidly growing gay ghettos in dozens of American cities.” (Signorile, Life Outside, p.51-52)

“A whole industry was sprouting from and glorifying this male culture, with clothing stores like All American Boy on Castro Street, a gym called Body Works, and dozens of sex clubs and baths, with names like Animals. The sex clubs catered to every to every imaginable sexual taste: the leather set; men who enjoyed being tied up; men who wished to be urinated on. The bathhouses had once been seen as an expression of gay liberation, at least among those who equated gay liberation with sexual abandon. Now, they were celebrating and enforcing the values that Evans saw parading down the Castro every day: The Premium was put on physical appearance and conformity.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.445)

For the “gay male clone” what resulted was not “gay liberation” or freedom from alienation by society, but was bondage into the enforced cult of modern homosexuality.

"For a great many gay men in the urban centers-the majority of which, some studies since the 1970s have shown, have hundreds of partners throughout their lives-living the fantasy has of course all been under the guises of liberation. Perhaps there is no such thing as true liberation. When we break from one rigid system, we often create another. Its true that most gay men in urban America are not having a life of enforced heterosexuality, as gay liberationist might call it, with a driveway, a picket fence, and children to nurture. Many are, however, instead living a life of enforced cult homosexuality, with parties, drugs, and gyms ruling their lives." (Signorile, Life Outside, p.26-27)

In New York City, San Francisco, and other large cities many gay and lesbians had formed large “gay communities.” So it was now possible to live, work, and socialize in what became “gay gehettos.” The following quote is making reference to the opening of, The Saint, a large disco for gay males in New York City.

“It was mailed only to Mailmans' friends and their friends, a self-selected group that formed the base of The Saint's membership of three thousand. Anyone who wanted to join had to be referred by a member to the membership office for screening. The clientele reflected the screening process: nearly all white, professional in their twenties and thirties, most good-looking and muscled, with the mustaches and short hair that were the style of the time.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.442-443)

“The streets of San Francisco offered, in theory at least, a cross-section of America's male homosexual community, but, Evans thought, one would never know it to walk down Castro Street. All these men looked identical, with their short haircuts, clipped mustaches and muscular bodies, turned out in standard-issue uniforms of tight faded blue jeans and polo shirts. The image was one part military, one part cowboy, one part 1950s suburbia and conformity, and they swaggered down the street, many aloof and unfriendly, as if their affected distance enhanced their masculinity.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.444)

Bibliography

Archer, Bert. The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality). Thunder's Mouth Press. New York, 2002.

Bayer, Ronald. Homosexuality and the American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Basic Books. New York, 1981.

Brookey, Robert Alan. Reinventing the Male Homosexual: The Rhetoric and Power of the Gay Gene. Indiana University Press. Bloomington & Indianapolis, 2002.

Chauncey, George. Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality. Basic Books/Perseus Books Group. New York, 2004.

Clendinen, Dudley and Adam Nagourne. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1990.

Engel, Stephen M. The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, 2001.

Ghaziani, Amin. “The Circuit Party's Faustin Bargain.” The Gay & Lesbian Review / Worldwide. July-August, 2005, Volume XII, Number 4, p. 21-24.

Jonsen, Albert R. and Jeff Stryker. The Social Impact of AIDS in the United States. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., 1993.

Konemeyer, Robert. Overcoming Homosexuality. Macmillan. New York, 1980.

Kranz, Rachel and Tim Cusick. Gay Right: Revised Edition. Facts on File, Inc. New York, 2005.

Levine, Martin P. Gay Macho. New York University Press. New York and London, 1998.

Levine, Martin P. “The Life and Death of Gay Clones.” p. 68- 86 in Gay Culture in America: Essays from the Field editor Gilbert Herdt.

Mansergh, Gordon, PhD, Grant N Colfax, MD, Gary Marks, PhD, Melissa Rader, MPH, Robert Guzman, BA, & Susan Buchbinder, MD. “The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: Findings And Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 953-958.

Paigila, Camille. Vamps & Tramps. Vintage Books. New York, 1994.

Phelan, Shane. Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, 2001.

Rimmerman, Craig A. From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, 2002.

Signorile, Michelangelo. Life Outside. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, 1997.

Socarides, Charles W. “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.” The Journal of Psychohistory Winter 1992, 19 (3), 307-329.

Spitzer, M.D., Robert L. “Reply: Study Results Should Not be Dismissed and Justify Further Research on the Efficacy of Sexual Reorientation Therapy.” Archives of Sexual Behavior October 2003, Vol. 32, No. 5, 469-472.

Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1988.

Wright, Rogers H. and Nicolas A. Cummings. Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. New York and Hove, 2005.

Chapter 4 World War II to the 1960s

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T00:22:00Z

Chapter 4 World War II to the 1960s

The “homosexual” as a distinct person, which was first advocated in Germany during the 1860s by homosexuals themselves seeking legal rights, was next adopted by sexologists and then by psychiatrists. But it was the American military during World War II with the psychiatric profession that was to play a leading role in defining the ‘homosexual' as a character type, who was sick that persisted until the early 1970s.

“Examining the evolution of gay and lesbian identity shows that two pivotal periods in history were essential to the establishment of the gay rights movement in the 1950s. Sexologists in the nineteen century argued that sexual orientation is a core trait that defines the essence of human beings. Under their influence, those who were attracted to people of the same gender began to think of themselves as homosexuals. Following this change in personal identity, homosexuals had the opportunity to form communities during World War II, when the crisis afforded them chances to meet others like themselves and develop networks. For the first time in history, gay men and lesbians could share their stories and find like-minded friends and partners.” (Burns, Editor, Gay Rights, p.21)

“The status of homosexuals changed around the time of World War II. Prior to this point, identifications with homosexuality were primarily individual experiences. The identification of homosexuals as a group was given impetus by the actions of the military and the federal government who attempted to identify homosexuals and remove them from military positions. Early in the war effort, discovered homosexuals were given dishonorable discharges by the thousands. Later, those who had served in the war were given a newly created category of discharge - a “general” discharge which was neither honorable or dishonorable (Licata, 1980). The labeling and singling out of these individuals by the government helped to create minority status of homosexuals as group and to promote discrimination against them.” (Heyl, “Homosexuality: A Social Phenomenon, p. 341 in Human Sexuality: the Societal and Interpersonal Context, edited by Kathleen McKinney and Susan Sprecher)

“Over the course of the 1940 build-up, all the backing and forthing between the military and the burgeoning psychiatric community, and than, once when war was declared, all that psychiatric screening, in whatever its final form created in the mind of huge portions of the general population a picture of the a character type known as ‘the homosexual'.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.106)

“What the military did in its rough and ready way was to mush all these things together into one character type – the homosexual. The homosexual was now, for all the world to see an effeminate man (and after the war, a masculine woman) who had sex with members of the same sex, and was either passively or actively pathological.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.105)

“While the discussion of such things as the relationship to gender to sexuality was limited to scientific, literary, intellectual, and interested circles – as it was, mostly from the nineteen century through the Second World War – the link was not firmly or especially popularly made. Many pieces of what would eventually be the popular conception of the early-modern homosexual (which let's say dates from the Second World War to about 1969) were floating independently between sexologists and psychiatrists. There was the effeminate man or pansy, there was the pervert and/or psychopath who could be expected to commit violent crimes of a sexual nature on any sort of person at all, and there was the man or woman, not much spoken of in polite company, who had a tendency to have sex with others of the same sex. When this was spoken of, it was in purely non-sexual terms, like the partners on ranches that Front Runner author Patricia Nell Warren remembers her father mentioning in Montana when she was a child in the late thirties and forties, or those urban bachelors and the ubiquitous maiden aunts and their companions.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.105)

“Despite this modicum of sympathy initially extended to “sexual perverts,” the military categorically declared homosexual behavior and “proclivities” as incompatible with military service. Historian Allan Berube (1990) has documented the ill effects of this military ban on those who managed to stay in the service and those given dishonorable discharges simply for being homosexual. The psychiatric profession that dedicated itself to screening out homosexuals also promised to treat the “problem of homosexuality” as it was perceived to affect the individuals discharged and the society that would receive them.” (Rosario, Homosexuality and Science A Guide to the Debates, p. 89)

This military ban on homosexuals was a result but not the intent of two psychiatrists. President Roosevelt received a memo from Harry Stack Sullivan and Winfred Overholser suggesting a screening process for identifying potential soldiers who may later suffer from mental health issues. Their intent was to help prevent a situation that occurred after World War I, in which men by the thousands required treatment for mental health issues, including hospitalization that resulted in a tremendous financial cost and burden. President Roosevelt accepted this idea and had these two psychiatrists draw up guidelines, which became known as Medical Circular Number One. But within one year, both the army and navy had revised the guidelines, adding homosexuality to the list of deviations Sullivan and Overholser had said should disqualify those from military service. This revision resulted in the military for the rest of the war and decades thereafter, referring to men and women who engaged or were prone to homosexual activity as sexual psychopaths. This military ban on homosexuals was the unintended result of the actions by psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan, who was a homosexual himself. One interesting part of Sullivan's life was his relationship with, James Inscoe, who was 20 twenty years younger than Sullivan. When they meet in 1927 Sullivan was 35 and James was 15 years old.

“As I said earlier, Sullivan's standing in psychiatric history is not quite what it was. This is, in part, due to rumors that he was as one colleague said upon hearing of his death, “a homosexual, an alcoholic, and a paranoid schizophrenic.” (Allen, “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry,” p.5)

“Sometime in 1927, he met a young man named James Inscoe. Jimmie who later took Sullivan's surname, was about 15 or 16 years old at the time. Although Helen Perry wrote that nobody would tell her how Harry met Jimmie, she confessed to me when we met one quiet fall afternoon in her Cambridge, Massachusetts, apartment, that Jimmie had been a “male hustler” in Washington D.C. Shortly thereafter, Jimmie who was to become Sullivan's secretary, housekeeper, officemanager, and longtime companion, moved into Sullivan's surban Maryland home. Harry and Jimmie made a home together in Maryland and in New York City, for twenty-years, until Harry's death in 1949. Jimmie's place in Sullivan's life was complex and ambiguous; to Sullivan's colleagues, he was “Harry Stack's foster son,” although they had no official or legal relationship; among Sullivan's friends. Jimmie was known simply as “the man who came to stay” (Perry, 1983).” (Allen, “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry,” p.9)

“Not all soldiers who experienced homoerotic feelings toward other soldiers or who even engaged in sex with other men were gay. Often heterosexual men engaged in “situational homosexuality,” having sex with other men only to attain a level of physical intimacy deprived by the war experience. It was not uncommon for men to dance together at canteens, to share beds at hotels when on leave, or to share train berths while in transit. The critical point is not the Second World War led to an increase in the number of homosexuals; such a statement can be neither confirmed nor denied. Rather, the war created a sexual situation where individuals with homosexual feelings or tendencies could more readily explore them without the absolute fear of exposure.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.23)

“The decisions of particular men and women to act on their erotic/emotional preference for the same sex, along with the new consciousness that this preference made them different, led to the formation of an urban subculture of gay men and lesbians. Yet at least through the 1930s this subculture remained rudimentary, unstable, and difficult to find. How, then, did the complex, well-developed gay community emerge that existed by the time the gay liberation movement explored? The answer is to be found during World War II, a time when the cumulative changes of several decades coalesced into a qualitatively new shape.

The war severely disrupted traditional patterns of gender relations and sexuality, and temporarily created a new erotic situation conducive to homosexual expression. It plucked millions of young men and women, whose sexual identities were just forming, out their homes, out of towns and small of cities, out of the heterosexual environment of the family, dropped them into sex-segregated situations as - GIs, as WACs and WAVEs, in same-sex rooming houses for women workers who relocated to seek employment. The war freed millions of men and women from the settings where heterosexuality was normally imposed. For men and women already gay, it provided an opportunity to meet people like themselves. Others could become gay because of the temporary freedom to explore sexuality that the war provided.” (D'Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity” p. 471-472)

“Men and women who were aware of same-sex attraction, but had not acted upon it, could explore it in a relatively safe environment. Individuals already aware of their homosexuality could meet others, embark on relationships, and build further ties to help foster the development of a gay community. The point is not that the war experience fostered homoerotic feelings and a rise in homosexuality. Rather, the disruption in the social environment caused by the war provided the opportunity for homosexuals to meet, to realize others like themselves existed, and to abandon the isolation that characterized the homosexual lifestyle of the pre-war period.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.23-24)

“The war functioned as an opportunity to promote homosexual visibility in a variety of ways. First, by asking recruits if they have had felt any erotic attraction for members of the same sex, the military ruptured the silence that shrouded a tabooed behavior, introducing some to the concept for the first time. Furthermore, the act of considering a homosexual unfit for service illustrates both a sharp shift in the language of military policy as well as a change in the common perception of the homosexual. Previously the sexual act was the problem; individuals discovered in sexual relations with a member of the same sex were punished accordingly through the military's criminal justice system. Yet, the drafting procedure initiated by the Second World War viewed the person as mentally ill. In an interesting parallel to Foucault's argument, the sexual act was not banned, rather the homosexual himself was banned. Second, the war functioned to bring previously isolated homosexuals together. Given that the recruits could merely lie about their sexual inclinations and that the draft preferred young and single men, it was likely that the armed forces would contain a disproportionately high percentage of gay men. Third, soldiers often resorted to antics which exaggerated common homosexual stereotypes to alleviate sexual tension.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.22)

“The Second World War coupled with the Kinsey studies of the late 1940s created the opportunity for men and women unsure of their sexual orientation or already aware of their homosexuality or bisexuality to meet others like themselves and realize their commonality.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.29)

“Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the opportunity provided by the Second World War for gay men and lesbians to explore their identity and the subsequent repressive environment of the 1950s fostered a dissonant atmosphere from which the first politically active gay and lesbian organizations emerged.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.29)

It was as a result of this military response to homosexuality and after the war a similar response to homosexuality adopted by the federal government that led to homosexuals beginning to organize themselves. Harry Hay and other male homosexuals founded one such group, the Mattachine Society in 1951 in Los Angeles. The Daughters of Bilitis founded in 1955 was a similar organization of female homosexuals. The term ‘homophile' was chosen by the homosexuals who founded these groups to be used in describing these groups so as to de-emphasis the difference between homosexuals and other members of society, that is the difference of sexuality, i.e. who one had sex with.

· Homophile Movement

“The emphasis on self-education, minority-group distinctiveness, and community organizing evident in the statement of missions and purposes prepared by the founders of the Mattachine Society stood in marked contrast to the ideas aired by Donald Webster Cory in The Homosexual in America. Cory argued that prejudice was responsible for negative stereotyping and discrimination, and he maintained that the public had to be taught that homosexuals were in important respects like heterosexuals and were therefore worthy of equal opportunity and a place in the mainstream. These ideas bespoke the world view of liberals and civil rights leaders who believed that America was an admirable melting pot and that progressives should be concerned with acculturating and integrating members of excluded minority groups. But Hay and his followers held the Marxist view that capitalism required the oppression of minorities. They believed that homosexuals had to organize so that they could explore their sexuality, become aware of how it equipped them to contribute to a more humane society, and prepare to join with other organized minorities in the struggle to replace capitalism with socialism.” (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p. 9-10)

“They had, in fact, what is here called the basic homophile outlook-the belief that prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination were the source of the homosexual's problems and that education, policy reform, and help for individual homosexuals would bring about the recognition of basic similarity, equality of treatment, and integration that were tantamount to social progress.” * (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p.11)

“*During the 1950s, the term homophile was used as a euphemism for homosexual by those who wanted to combat the stereotype that homosexuals were obsessed with sex. The suffix –phile was suppose to suggest that homosexuality was more an emotional than a sexual attraction and that homosexuals, like respectable heterosexuals, were interested in love more than sex. Early in the 1960s, Mattachine leaders in the east suggested that the word homophile be used to refer to their movement to secure rights and status for homosexuals. The term is used here both to identify the ideas about gay political activity that predominated before the gay liberation movement and to characterize the groups, leaders, and activities that were guided by these ideas.” (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p.11-12)

“Homosexuals begin to speak for themselves in the language of civil rights and social inclusion in the post-World War II period. Initially, the war spawned urban networks of among homosexuals; the antihomosexual politics of the 1950s and 1960s in the midst of general liberalization of society and the materialization of homosexual life in urban areas provided a favorable context for movements of homosexual empowerment. By the early 1970s a self-identified, self-accepting homosexual population had swelled, and a collective homosexual life developed in the exclusively gay bars, social clubs, friendship networks, and political organizations that cropped up across the urban landscapes of America. Skirmishes between a new militant, self-respecting homosexual and the guardians of heterosexual privilege broke out in bars, the courts, and in the worlds of science, literature, and art. In particular, these emerging gay subculture gave birth to a cultural apparatus that challenged religious and scientific-medical definitions of homosexuality as an illness or sin. Discourses issued forth the gay culture that projected new, affirmative identities: homosexuality was reconfigured as a natural human expression, as a basis for a new minority, as an alternative lifestyle, and as a political rebellion against patriarchy and heterosexism. Symbolic of this change was the substitution by the homosexual community of the term “gay” for “homosexual”. Whereas the latter term carried resonances of deviance, disease, and destruction, and gave the legal, medical and scientific institutions control over individuals' lives, “gay” signified dignity and personal integrity; it framed homosexuality as a social identity. Self-identification as gay symbolized a community that was intent on taking control of its own lives.” (Seidman, Embattled Eros, p.147-148)

“A historical sketch of American gay and lesbian movement reveals that the movement's guiding ideology exhibits a bipolar pattern exacerbated by gender-based rifts. Movement philosophy tends to swing between periods of moderation or assilimationism on one side and militancy and liberationism on the other. These seemingly oppositional ideologies have divided the movement throughout the post-war era. The homophile movement, initiated in 1951 with the formation of the first modern gay rights organization, the Mattachine Society, illustrates the effect of these conflicting ideologies on mobilization. The history of the Mattachine Society specifically, and of the homophile movement in general, follows a pattern of brief militancy followed by long period of assimilation and moderate leaders leading to a crescendo of renewed radicalism climaxed by the Stonewall riots.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.30)

“Founded by Harry Hay in April 1951 in Los Angeles, and modeled after the communist party, the Mattachine Society became the first organization of what would become the homophile movement. The secret hierarchical and cell-like organization adapted from the communist party was necessitated, according to the founders, by the oppressive environment fostered by McCarthyism. Yet, Mattachine drew on the communism for more than just a structural guide; Marxist ideology functioned as a means to mobilize a mass homosexual constituency for political action. Utilizing a Marxist understanding of class politics, that is, a class as merely a socioeconomically determined entity until it gains consciousness enabling recognition of its inherent political power, Hay and the other founding members theorized that homosexuals constituted a similarly oppressed minority group. Homosexuals, like members of the proletariat, were trapped in a state of false consciousness purported and defended by the heterosexual majority which maintained homosexuality to be a morally reprehensible individual aberration. Hence, the early Mattachine attempted to promote a measure of cognitive liberation and homosexual collective identity. During a time when both religion and law condemned homosexuality, and medicine viewed it as an individual psychological abnormality, the Mattachine Society was advocating the development of a group consciousness similar to that of other ethnic minority groups in the United States.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.30)

“By asserting that homosexuals constituted a minority comparable to other ethnic groups, Mattachine defined itself rather being defined by the dominant culture: homosexuality was distinct from and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Self-definition is a recurring theme in the attempts to create a validating and positive collective identity, and the sexual minorities community continued the trend with the adoption of “gay” in the 1970s and less widespread adoption of “queer” in the 1990s. Furthermore, the comparison to ethnic minorities provided a model for action; homosexuals should follow the lead of other groups and politically organize for equal civil rights.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.31)

“In order to help develop the homosexual consciousness, the Mattachine Society coordinated public discussion groups. By late 1951, approximately twelve discussion groups existed throughout southern California; Mattachine billed these events as positive alternatives to the anonymous sexual encounters fostered by the bar and bathhouse subculture.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.31-32)

“In order to mitigate some of the growing dissension, the original five members called for a convention in April 1953 to convert the Mattachine Society into an above-ground organization. However, rather than ameliorating tension, the conference merely exacerbated the rift between moderate and militant perspective. Chuck Rowland and Harry hay were confronted by the demands of Kenneth Braun, Marilyn Reiger, and Hal Call. The former individuals stressed the need to build an ethical homosexual culture and to end prejudice that privileges heterosexuality as morally superior. Burns, Reiger, and Call took the opposite stance. They emphasized assimilation and suggested that homosexual behavior was a minor characteristic that should not foster a rift with the heterosexual majority.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.32)

“Abandoning its communist-based ideology, the post-convention Mattachine Society no longer sought to promote a homosexual culture or mass movement. Instead, it established an assimilationist tendency emphasizing homosexuality as primarily an individual problem, and it turned to psychology to provide theories on homosexuality. The new leadership proposed, and members endorsed, an elimination of any mention of “homosexual culture” from the statement of purpose. Indeed, the statement no longer even identified the Mattachine Society as a homosexual organization; the word “homosexual” was eliminated form the passage altogether.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.33)

It was this ‘homosexual' that was popularly known and accepted until the late 1960s when once again homosexuals themselves begin speaking for themselves and defining themselves. It is was this new generation of homosexual activists, who differed from the previous generation of homosexual activist who comprised the homophile movements of the 1950s and early 1960s. Stonewall is often cited as the beginning of this transition. Whereas members of the homophile groups worked together with the psychiatrists, this new generation of homosexual activists tactics were to protest and fight against psychiatrists. While homosexuals seemed to gain control of their lives and their destinies which was the commercialization of homosexuality and the adoption of gay and lesbian as defining terms/identities. The result was AIDS.

Bibliography

Allen, PhD. Michael S “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1995, Vol. 29 (1), p.1-18.

Archer, Bert. The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality). Thunder's Mouth Press. New York, 2002.

Burns, Kate. Editor. Gay Rights. Greenhaven Press/Thompson Gale. Farmington Hills, MI, 2006.

D'Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity, p. 467-476 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Aine Barale, and David Halperin. Routledge. New York and London, 1993.

Engel, Stephen M. The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, 2001.

McKinney, Kathleen and Susan Sprecher editors. Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey, 1989.

Moratto, Toby. The Politics of Homosexuality. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, 1981.

Rosario, Vernon A. Homosexuality and Science A Guide to the Debates. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CO & Oxford, England, 2002.

Seidman, Steven. Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethnics in Contemporary America. Routledge. New York, 1992.