Student Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Title
Date
Political Movement for LGBT
Introduction
The modern world continues to register massive achievements as far as diversity across communities continues to be embraced and also incorporated organizational, national, and global policies. Nonetheless, there still remain major setbacks to the realization of diversity especially on the emerging issues such as the rights of the lesbians, gays, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) communities. The demand for equality among these and the general population is met with major divides from a political perspective regarding the best way to integrate the LGBT community without any form of discrimination. One of the major divides the assimilation versus embracing the differences and freedom of the LGBT community. As far as the assimilation political approach to diversity regarding the LGBT community is concerned, the policymakers aim at promoting the integration of these populations in the general public to create a homogenous population. On the other hand, the differentiation policy aims at embracing the differences between the general population and the LGBT communities. In this paper, the two schools of thought and approaches to promoting LGBT welfare will be reviewed by employing major developments and reviewing their impacts on this cause.
The 1950s and 1960s homophile movement
The 1950s and 1960s homophile movement were led by organizations that were advocating for gay rights in major institutions such as media, medicine, law, and religion among others. The majority of individuals who led in this movement were college-educated middle-class professionals, most of whom were gay. The use of the term homophile (Loving the same) by these organizations to drive their agenda was meant to shift the attention of the public from the sex entity of homosexuality (Jackson, 57), and this points to an inclination towards conservatism as far as interpersonal relationships are concerned. This implies that the activists in this era were inclined towards assimilation where they may have wanted the public to perceive them as equals with regard to sexual behavior.
AIDS and the bathhouse controversy
The emergence of HIV/AIDS had a huge impact on the general American population and it prompted researchers to establish the factors and health determinants of its prevalence and incidence. One of the major findings has been the high-risk population that is men who have sex with men (MSMs). This led to a public health versus gay rights controversy that resulted from the increase in the number of gay bathhouses in the USA that Rabin (1986) observes were more than 200. The bathhouses facilitated the privacy of gays in the USA in a period when homosexuality was still considered repugnant compared to today’s perception. The public health officials proposed tougher regulations to reduce the spread of the virus in the US population while the city administrators proposed the closure. The pro-gay-bathhouses activist, on the other hand, were fighting for the houses to remain open as a way of protecting gay rights. This points to an inclination towards embracing the respectability of the LGBT community built around their differences from the general society.
Efforts to legalize gay marriage
The gradual embracement of diversity along the sexual orientation and gender lines has seen gay marriages become more popular and legal in many regions. However, this has not been the case historically as, despite the acknowledgment of the existence of same-sex relationships, marriages were not considered for homosexuals. Until 2004, gay marriage was illegal in the USA but the supreme judicial court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, and by 2015, same-sex marriages are legal in the USA (Smith, 65). The pro-gay marriage activists saw it as an infringement of human rights to abridge marriage on the basis of the sex of the participants, and this points to their need for assimilation as opposed to differentiation from the general population.
Who stood to gain and who stood to lose from the two different approaches?
Both approaches towards protecting the interests of the LGBT communities are associated with both challenges and benefits. It is a matter of weighing the significance of either approach by the activists and adopting it in the most beneficial way. The developments described in the previous part were experienced at times when diversity along the sexual orientation and gender lines was an emerging phenomenon, and it is likely that either approach was not informed by research, but rather the face value. In the first development regarding the homophile movements, activist organizations tried to deviate the element of sex pertaining to same-sex relationships. This approach may have worked against them in the long run, since sexual orientation and preference for a same-sex partner is a fundamental element of the LGBT community. Instead, the advocates should have employed a strategy that would show the world that same-sex relationships are a right.
In AIDS and the bathhouses controversy, the public health officials stood to lose by abolishing these facilities. According to Rabin, the presence of bathhouses would help in reaching the LGBT communities and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, since these facilities helped to contain its spread in the public space. It also would serve to the advantage of the gay persons that visited the houses as it would serve as a form of promoting positive behavior such as the use of condoms, a fete that would be hard to achieve while the individuals were spread across the country. The assimilation approach adopted by the LGBT activists in advocating for the legalization of gay marriage worked fully in their favor. The assimilation policy as Johnson observes is based on the principles of the LGBT community enjoying equal rights and this means engaging in the daily life activities as the general population. Without the legalization of gay marriage, the relationships would be somewhat meaningless, and this implies that the LGBT community would not be in a position to explore happiness in full.
Benefits and setbacks of the politics of difference and assimilation for the LGBT people
The politics of assimilation have had more benefits for the LGBT people compared to the politics of difference. Under the policies of assimilation, society tends to realize that the LGBT community does not choose to be in that category more than the general population chooses to be heterosexual. On the other hand, special treatment that is likely to result from the politics of difference has been and can be easily exploited against the interests of the LGBT persons. For example, building washrooms that are special for the transsexual persons implies that they become more vulnerable to targeted abuse compared to when they are allowed to integrate with the general population. The politics of difference, having been employed in other special populations such as persons with disabilities, have helped in the establishment of special policies, laws and regulations that address some of the challenges that the LGBT people are faced with. Nonetheless, the politics of difference are more likely to dehumanize the LGBT community than would assimilation, making assimilation more effective as far as the interests of LGBT people are concerned.
Works Cited
Jackson, Julian. “The homophile movement.” The Ashgate research companion to lesbian and gay activism. Routledge, 2016. 47-60.
Johnson, Genevieve Fuji. “Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems. By Edwina Barvosa. New York: Cambridge University Press. Perspectives on Politics 17.2 (2019): 543-544.
Rabin, Judith A. “The AIDS epidemic and gay bathhouses: a constitutional analysis.” Journal of health politics, policy and law 10.4 (1986): 729-747.
Smith, Miriam. “Historical institutionalism and same-sex marriage: A comparative analysis of the USA and Canada.” Global Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. 61-79.
