Homosexuality, prejudice, and discrimination - Essay Example

1. What are the two chief types of antigay stereotypes Is Mohr correct in contending that antigay stereotypes are a means of reinforcing gender rolesin society What do you think explains violence against and harassment of homosexuals According to Mohr (1994), there are two chief types of antigay stereotypes. One revolves around an individual's confused gender identity, such as females who are lesbians who want to look like and act like men and gay men are the opposite. The other type of stereotype revolves around gays as a sinister conspiratorial threat, such as gay men who are child molesters or sex maniacs. I agree with Mohr that antigay stereotypes are a means of reinforcing gender roles in society. Since time immemorial, homosexuals are a minority in society. The traditional gender roles came about because the majority of members of society and who are either male or female. Since homosexuality is not the norm, no role has been defined for it except that it breaks the norm. The antigay stereotypes are thus means to reinforce the traditional gender roles in order to "normalize" the situation and not change the norm. It is precisely these types of thinking that explains the violence against and harassment of homosexuals. People through time for concepts of right and wrong, which become the accepted norms. Although in existence since the history of civilization, homosexuality has always been not freely manifested, even by the homosexual themselves which also reinforces the notion that being homosexual is abnormal, until the present time that more and more homosexuals have gathered the courage to publicize their sexual orientation. Because for a long time, the view of homosexuality is that it is an abnormality and publicized incidents highlight negative aspects, violence against and harassment of homosexuals has resulted. 2. That something is descriptively moral (or immoral) does not make it normatively moral (or immoral). What is the relevance of this point to homosexuality According to Mohr, the prevailing definition of morality is what is normative or prescribed by society according to its values which consist of mores, norms and customs. This ways of defining morality is what has brought about the contention that homosexuality is immoral because it violates mores, norms and customs. However, Mohr contends that something descriptively moral or immoral does not make it normatively moral or immoral. By this he means that even if something can be described as moral or immoral should not automatically be prescribed as moral or immoral. As an example, he used slavery. For many years, people did not see anything immoral about slavery, perhaps because it had some beneficial aspects to it for both slave and master. However, today, slavery is no longer considered moral, especially after societies realized that the practice of slavery violated basic human rights. This example can be plotted against the issue of homosexuality. Not because the prevailing values seem to categorize homosexuality as immoral, it does not make actually immoral. Therefore discriminations against homosexuals is out of place and also violate of human rights. 3. How does Mohr respond to the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because it violates the function of the genitals, which is to produce babies Why does Mohr believe that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice How is this point relevant to the issue of discrimination Are there moral arguments against homosexuality that Mohr has overlooked or not done justice to Mohr uses a number of arguments against the view that homosexuality is unnatural because it violates the function of the genitals. He starts by using biblical references. He says the bible does not univocally condemn homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is not against God's will. And even if the bible does condemn homosexuality, in a democratic society, religion should not be used as justification for its condemnation. On the grounds that homosexuality should be condemned as unnatural, Mohr argues that there many more unnatural behaviors in society which are not condemned. Examples of this are breastfeeding in public and women who do not shave body hair. These examples are also deemed unnatural but are not condemned. Moreover, the reactions to unnatural behaviors such as these are more emotional rather than logical. Another argument Mohr presents is the definition of unnatural which is supposed to be artificial or made by humans. Homosexuality is not man-made, therefore it is natural. It is not a matter of choice. So is the choice of sexual gender for a partner, is also natural because unlike choosing an ice cream flavor, the desire cannot be fulfilled by simply substituting the options. Gays do not deliberately work to become homosexuals, they are naturally so. Therefore, there is no reason for discriminating against homosexuals because it a natural thing, much like color. There are other examples presented by Mohr which contradict the moral arguments for discrimination, which sufficiently justifies that discrimination against homosexuals should be stopped. 4. What arguments does Mohr give in favor of legislation banning job discrimination against homosexuals Do you find them persuasive Can any arguments be given against extending civil rights legislation to protect homosexuals Would such legislation have any practical problems or bad effects Mohr argues that self-respect, self-sufficiency, general prosperity and individual flourishing are the core of American values, which legislation is supposed to support. Legislation banning job discrimination against homosexuals is supportive of these values. According to him, the misery of unemployment goes beyond poverty and social embarrassment. As experienced by people upon retirement, unemployment also diminishes the individual's view of self-worth. In America, one's job is equivalent to social identity. Job discrimination against gays is un-American. Moreover, being a non-socialist and non-communist country, it is expected that American citizens should be primarily responsible for providing their individual needs and government must work to enhance the conditions that support this expectation. Mohr presents persuasive arguments in favor of legislation banning job discrimination against homosexuals. They are also supportive arguments for extending civil rights of homosexuals rather than curtailing them. There appears to be no practical problems or bad effects at all from such legislation. 5. For a period in the early 1990s, the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, a restaurant and gift shop chain in the Southeast, adopted a policy of firing homosexual employees and refusing to hire homosexuals. Supposedly based on the company's commitment to "traditional American values" and the perceived "values of (its) customers," Cracker Barrels policy violated no laws. Critically assess its policy both from a business point of view and from the moral point of view. If a private employer believes that homosexuality is immoral, is it wrong of the employer to choose not to hire homosexuals The policy of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store may be rooted from a business point of view, that which focuses on the customer to ensure the growth and profitability of the business. Since there is the perception that its customers would be disapproving of homosexuals, the company does not want to invoke their displeasure and therefore formulates and implements the policy of firing and refusing to hire them. But from the moral point of view, with definitions of moral discussed earlier, there is no reason for doing so. Especially in these changed times, when an increasing number of people already view homosexuality as a natural thing and homosexual are human beings, that deserve equal treatment with all other human beings. According to existing laws on private business, employers have a free hand in formulating and implementing their own employment policies and practices, as long as they are consistent with freedom of contract. Therefore, it is legally alright for employers to refuse to hire homosexuals. However, although this is legally right does not make it morally right. 6. Do companies have a moral obligation to discourage antigay sentiment among their employees How might they do so With Mohr's arguments, it seems that companies have a moral obligation to discourage antigay sentiment among their employees. Some ways this can be done is by first setting the example that the company itself is not antigay in terms of its employment policies which should provide equal rites to all. Another way is to incorporate certain items in the employee code of conduct that will prohibit antigay sentiment, such as those that prohibit profane language and similar negative behaviors. Yet another way is to specifically include policies which discourage antigay sentiment, as negative acts much like dishonesty and neglect of duty, for which sanctions are imposed. References Mohr, R. (1994). Homosexuality, prejudice, and discrimination. In A More Perfect Union, Boston: Beacon Press. Read More