Part 1. What evidence is there that close association with homosexuals can jeopardize the mental health or disrupt the psychological or social functioning of heterosexual men and women and how damaging does such disruption appear to be?

How we answer this question depends on how we define the term 'homosexual' -- and what this term means is not as clear as one might think at first glance.

The idea of a person being 'a homosexual' as opposed to any ordinary person engaging in homosexual sex, is a fairly new idea. The concept of a homosexual person began appearing in the English language during the seventeenth century; before that there was no thought of people being homosexuals, there were just 'homosexual acts' (McIntosh, 1968). How is that possible? It is possible in the same way that today we don't define people by whether they prefer square meals or sweet snacks. Even though there may be a few people who generally prefer sweet snacks, we expect people to go in phases, and flip back and forth, and so it seems silly to categorize them as though they were completely and in every way a 'sweet snack eater.' Homosexuality was thought of in much the same way. For the concept of 'a homosexual' to make sense people had to start thinking that there existed a class of people who were exclusively homosexual and that there weren't alot more people who flipped back and forth. Although the concept began appearing in English in the seventeenth century, it was the late nineteenth century before the concept gained popular currency. In the late nineteenth century medical authors began arguing that 'homosexuality' was a diagnosible disease (cf. Greenberg, 1984). The theme was picked up and by general psychiatry and by World War II the United States military adapted the idea and banned 'homosexual people' from the military. Before that they had only banned hmosexual acts. The psychiatrists were in charge of determining which people were 'homosexuals' regardless of whether they had ever committed homosexual acts (Berube, 1991, p.2). This meant that the homosexual act became less important than whether or not a person was, in some deep internal sense, 'a homosexual,' in a pure and simple way.

But if we look at the data that has become available since that time we find that there are very few pure homosexuals and that there are lots of people who engage in homosexual acts, more still who have homosexual ideas and fantasies. According to the classing Kinsey studies, about 50% of all men and 28% of all women say they have responded homosexually inside themselves. About 37% of all men, and 13% of all women, say they have had some homosexual experience yet only 4% of men and less than 2% of females are exclusively homosexual (Kinsey, 1948, p.650; Kinsey, 1953, p.474). There are many more people with some element of homosexual interest in their personalities, and engage in some homosexual behavior, than there are pure homosexuals (cf. Klein, 1979). Doing a little arithmetic on Kinsey's figures we can see that there are about 8 times as many people who have some homosexual experience (are bisexual) than there are people who are purely homosexual.

And, among the fifty percent of men (and 72 percent of women) who told the Kinsey interviewer that they have never had homosexual thoughts there are a fair number who would not be classified as heterosexual if we took a closer look. With a closer look, we find people who are asexual, or sexually dysfunctional. In addition, we can presume there are people who claim to be heterosexual even though their inner dynamics are secrety homosexual. and a few more who have pretended never to have homosexual relations even though they do. Mental health clinicians have long worked with people who are very frightened of a secret homosexual preoccupation (Gutstadt, 1976). Based on data reported by Shields & Harriman (1984) we can estimate that figure is ten percent over the self-disclosed population. It appears that a person who feels secretly homosexual is more likely to express dislike of 'homosexuals' than other 'heterosexual' people (Crawley, 1983, Cory, 1960; Gurwitz & Marcus, 1978). So this means that the image we have that the vast majority of people are completely and purely heterosexual is an illusion and a myth.

The large proportion of people who have a significant homosexual inclination is largely invisible to the heterosexual and bisexual public (Berger, 1987). This is because most people hide their homosexual interest and experience (Henkin, 1984, Nemeyer, 1980, Cornelius, 1980, deMonteflores & Schultz, 1978, Wells & Kline, 1987) because they fear the censure and rejection which they encounter when they reveal their hidden interest in homosexual contact (cf. Town and Harvey, 1981). And, since the vast majority of people cannot detect homosexuality in others (Berger et al, 1987) it creates the general illusion that there are only very few who are homosexual.

Since heterosexuals currently interact frequently with people who are, to varying degrees, homosexual, future interactions with homosexuals are not likely to result in a new kind of harm.

We might ask, however, if heterosexuals might be harmed by more people openly identifying themselves as homosexual. That is, would harm come from knowing that one is interacting with someone who was, to some degree, homosexual? In considering this possibility, however, it should be borne in mind that most homosexuals are generally reluctant to reveal their homosexual identities to heterosexuals, and reticence seems more controlled by fear of rejection by heterosexuals than by institutional policy towards homosexuals (Nemeyer, 1980). This means that if an institutional policy were implemented that protected homosexuals against discrimination, one would not expect a large proportion of the homosexual and bisexual constitutency to suddenly announce their homosexuality.

Still, we can evaluate two possible effects on heterosexuals from their learning that their close associates are more or less homosexual: 1) It might cause the heterosexual to engage in homosexual acts which might be particularly harmful if the heterosexual felt very negative towards homosexual acts. 2) It might cause heterosexuals to pull away from homosexuals and for there to be less bonding, and perhaps even expressed anger or rage, or otherwise disrupt social functioning.

Would heterosexuals be more likely to engage in homosexual acts if they knew their colleagues were doing so? The best evidence suggests this would not happen at least if the heterosexual was thoroughly and exclusively heterosexual. There are three kinds of evidence for this. First, although tolerance for homosexuality seems to have increased since the time Kinsey published his study (cf. Gallup, 1977, Levitt & Klausen, 1974; Kinsey et al, 1948) the relative incidence of homosexuality seems to have remained stable (Hunt, 1974; Downey, 1980). Second, if being around homosexuals made one homosexual, then we would have a hard time explaining why the childen of homosexuals are themselves generally heterosexual (Green, 1979). Third, mental health professionals have tried for years to help the homosexually inclined to become more heterosexual, with little ability to do that even with years of intensive psychotherapy (Green, 1988; Acosta 1975). The homosexual identity may be modifiable (whether a person thinks of himself or herself as homosexual) but the orientation to have homosexual thoughts and feelings seems resistant to change (Reiter, 1989). And if years and years of therapy doesn't make a homosexual more heterosexual, or very much more, it is hardly likely that the mere knowlege that a fellow worker is homosexual is going to convert the heterosexual to homosexuality (Mosher & O'Grady, 1979)

But the situation might be different in the case of the 'pseudoheterosexual' who privately entertained homosexual thoughts but who did not act on homosexual impulses either at all, or very seldom and with considerable inner conflict. Removing the most important external sanctions against homosexuality might enable some of these people to act on their homosexual inclinations, or to act on them more frequently. Perhaps, some of these people might also experience what is known as a 'homosexual panic,' an anxiety attack in which a person's homosexual interests become frighteningly conscious (Dannels, 1972; Baptiste, 1990). Still, we would expect these numbers to be small, again, because the increased tolerance for homosexuality (cf. Gallup, 1977, Levitt & Klausen, 1974; Kinsey et al, 1948) does not appear to have increased the proportion of people who engage in it (Hunt, 1974; Downey, 1980).

But does the presence of a known homosexual disrupt the social functioning of a group containing heterosexuals by reducing social bonding, increasing social distance, or encouraging expressions of distaste or even aggression?

Homosexuals tend to be less liked by heterosexuals when the fact of their homosexuality becomes known (Weinreich, 1981). However, all homosexuals are not equally disliked. The most disliked homosexuals (and also most assaulted ) are those who do not conform to the social standards of masculinity or feminitity for their sex (Rubin, 1985; Harry, 1982) Research tells us there is somewhere between zero and 6 percent more effeminite males among homosexual as compared to heterosexual groups (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Storms, 1980). The predjudice isn't so much against homsexuals as against effeminite boys and men regardless of whether they are homosexual (Seyfried and Hendrick, 1973;Fling & Manosewitz, 1972; Hartley, 1959; Lansky, 1967).

Homosexuals are also disliked for being male. That is, gay men are more likely than lesbians to be disliked at least by other men (Turnbull & Brown, 1977; Gurwitz & Marcus, 1978; Gross, et al, 1980; and Daugelli & Rose, 1990; Milham et al, 1976) and more likely to have been been assaulted for their homosexual orientation (Harry, 1990).

Is male bonding compromised by the presence of a known homosexual? There is some evidence suggesting that male bonding is more compromised by the presence of an antihomosexual attitude than by the presence of a known homosexual. Okum (1975) found that men who were highly anti-homosexual sat further away from both heterosexual and homosexual males, but there was no tendency for them to sit further away from men they knew to be homosexual than from other men. In general, men who are antihomosexual seem much less capable of developing emotional closeness with other men than are less antihomosexual men (David & Brannon, 1976; Farrell, 1974; Fasteau, 1975; Goldberg, 1980; Lewis, 1978; Lehne, 1976; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Pleck, 1976; Woods, 1976).

Between 19 to 40% of homosexuals report that they have been physically assaulted at least once because of their sexual orientation (Berrill, 1990; Hunter; 1990). The available data suggests the assailants tend to be twenty-one or younger, male and strangers to the victim (Berrill, 1990; Berk, 1990). It is a problem that needs to be considered and even anticipated, much as one might anticipate violence being expressed towards other out-groups.

Part 2. What evidence is there that attempts, successful or otherwise, to change attitudes towards homosexuals can jeopardize the mental health or disrupt the psychological or social functioning of heterosexual men and women and how damaging does such disruption appear to be?

We can make an educated guess as to what changes would occur for people psychologically and socially if they were to become more tolerant of homosexuals and then consider the extent to which these changes might be considered either psychologically or socially damaging.

If heterosexuals who are antihomosexual were to become more accepting of homosexuality, we might expect them to behave and think more like those people who are currently more accepting of homosexuality. If so they would be less predjudiced against all outgroups (Larsen et al, 1982; Bierly, 1985; Henley & Pincus, 1978) and be more opposed to increased equality between the sexes (McDonald, 1974; MacDonald & Games, 1974; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Smith, Resick, & Kilpatrick, 1980; Weinberger & Millham, 1979; Smith, 1971, MacDonald et al, 1973). They would develop less conservative ideas about sex and religion (Larsen, 1983; Jensen et al, 1988; Britton, 1990), and become less authoritarian (Hood, 1973; Larsen et al, 1982; MacDonald and Games, 1974; Smith, 1971). Research tends to confirm this speculation in that studies show that antihomosexuals become more tolerant after sex education courses (Stevenson, 1988, Cerny, 1984), just as older studies show that the authoritarianism, which typifies the anti-homosexual group, is decreased by education (Christie, 1954;MacKinnon, 1956; McDill, 1961; Roberts,1956; Srole, 1956).

We might also anticipate a modification of the traditional sex roles, particularly the male role. That is, we might expect men to become less traditionally masculine, less likely to have a masculine swagger (Kirkham, 1971), less likely to be violent (McConahay & McConahay, 1977), and less likely to engage in delinquent or criminal behavior (Clark & Haurek, 1966; Thornton & James, 1979; Oakley, 1972; Matza, 1974).

The antihomosexual male today wants to behave in ways that make his heterosexuality above suspicion. The male more tolerant of homosexuality would be less concerned about this image and we might expect them to become more comfortable with male to male touch (Larsen et al 1982; Larsen & LeRoux, 1984; Zilbergeld, 1978), more willing to engage in intimate dialogue with personal disclosure (Jourard, 1971; Jourard & Landsman, 1969; Jourard & Lasakow, 1958; Jourard & Richman, 1963) and to experience more intimacy generally (Clark, 1972; Lewis, 1978; Morin, 1978; Aries, 1976). Fasteau (1974), noting the general lack of intimacy between men, pointed out that such masculine men bond more in war and sports than in most other arenas. Perhaps in the context of physical danger, men, who are generally guarded against intimacy, can sometimes let this guard down and feel a brotherhood that is otherwise not available to them. If these men became less defended against being seen as homosexual, they might be able to experience such bonding in other settings.

We would not expect greater tolerance for homosexuality to increase homosexual actions among heterosexuals, unless these inclinations were already a part of their personalities, because increased tolerance for homosexuality over the last 30 years (cf. Gallup, 1977, Levitt & Klausen, 1974; Kinsey et al 1948) has not been accompanied by an increase in proportion of people engaging in homosexual behavior (Hunt, 1974; Downey, 1980), in fact, the available evidence suggests that reducing antihomosexual sentiment in males may enhance heterosexual functioning (Gross, 1978; Berry & Marks, 1969).

Since women's sex roles do not proscribe intimacy in the way that men's do, we would not expect as dramatic a change among heterosexual females as among heterosexual males. Still, there are no doubt some women with suppressed intimacy desires would be less inhibited about expressing intimacy desires if their attitudes towards homosexuality were to become more tolerant and they were less afraid of looking like lesbians to their peers. Again, the data suggest this would only lead to increased homosexual activity for those women (and there is a smaller proportion than among men) who have this inclination already.

The effect of increased acceptance of homosexuality on the more disturbed homophobic person also needs to be considered. As the term is being used here, the homophobic people are not merely disparaging of homosexuals, but they are frightened of them because their presence stimulates them to think of their own personal, repressed, homosexual impulses. Some of these people might experience a homosexual panic (cf. Crawley, 1983; Gutstadt, 1976; Dannels, 1972; Mosher, 1979; Chuang, 1988; Baptiste, 1990), but in a context of tolerance they might have more ability to seek personal help to work through their phobic issues and find a solution to their dilemma that would give them more psychological peace.

On the basis of data reported by Shields (1984) we might speculate that a little less than 10% of the heterosexual population experience a degree of phobic response to male homosexuals, that is, are homophobic. It seems quite likely that increasing the latent homosexual's tolerance of homosexuality, would increase the incidence of their acting on their homosexual urges, at least modestly, but also, according to most measures, to increase their mental health (Myrick, 1974; Pinka, 1977; Rand et al., 1977).

Would these changes be destructive? There are at least two ways these changes might be considered destructive and two ways they might be considered constructive. They might be considered destructive in that there might be a group of neurotic people who would experience increased anxiety relative to their own repressed homosexual impulses and, perhaps, require psychiatric treatment. The destructiveness of such anxiety needs to be weighed, however, against the enhanced mental health that might be available to such men in a context of more tolerance for their suppressed homosexual impulses. And these changes towards less masculinity might be considered destructive in that they could lessen the fierce masculine competitive tradition that has been the mainstay of military philosophy for many years, a philosophy that held that the military was the best way to turn boys into men (Goertzel & Hengst, 1971; Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Eisenhart, 1975). The destructiveness of this change needs to be weighed against the advantages of less competitive conflict within the military unit.

There are at least two ways they would be constructive: The majority of individuals who experienced these changes would likely lead more meaningful and contented lives in that they would experience more social bonding, friendship and intimacy. The advantages of such a change needs to be weighed against the usefulness of having individuals less dependent on each other. These changes might also be an advantageous for society in that it would result in in fewer people inclined to engage in criminal and delinquent acts (Ross, 1983).

Cultures with highly differentiated male and female roles have often used the military establishment to 'turn boys into men,' that is harden them into this role of extreme masculinity (Goertzel & Hengst, 1971; Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Eisenhart, 1975), and it is a philosophical question whether or not a country should perpetuate the hypermasculine ideal of the traditional soldier. We have seen that such men are more aggressive, but they are also more delinquent, less capable of intimacy, and, than the average homosexual .

In the end, the question may become whether or not the modern world continues to require societies to cultivate hardened hypermasculine men to fight it battles, or if we can feel safe with a military composed of men who are merely tolerant, sensitive, and just

return to the front page for these essays

You are visitor to this page!