Analysis #3 of S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T. Page

S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T.

Society To Remove All Immoral

 Godless Homosexual Trash

(http://www.melvig.org/mel/MELVIG.HTM)

 The ever so advancing element of time brings forth technological innovations broadening the mediums of communication connecting societies.  The Interent, the most rapidly growing means of communication world-wide, creates a forum in which social movements can voice their opinions to an international audience through unrestricted outlets.  Approaching the twenty-first century, the issue of homosexuality is continually confronted by both advocates of and proponents against the gay movement.  Given the combination of the easy access to and freedom of the Web, anti- and pro- gay web sites are being constructed in revolutionary quantities.  Through the analysis of an anti-gay site we can better illustrate, from a sociological perspective, the routes taken by the groups and the implications these sites have on movements and communities viewing this material.  The ultimate purpose of the study is to distinguish and analyze their particular perspectives (essentialist/social constructionist), how this relates to and shapes their political outlooks and religious approaches, and its significance in terms of their possible success in obtaining the desired goals.

 The Society To Remove All Immoral Godless Homosexual Trash (S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T.) is an anti-queer religious organization.  The contemporary terminological usage of “queer” will be adopted in view of the fact that the category includes men and women, and extends to transvestites and pre- and postoperative transsexuals (Greenberg 1997).  The “society” posts articles opposing the homosexual lifestyle that range from a religious plan of salvation to the promotion of the death penalty to the queer population.  Before we begin an analysis of this organization it is crucial to acknowledge that by simply defining queer behavior as deviant or impermissible, they already create a structural outline on which to base their argument.  Mary McIntosh, in her article The Homosexual Role states that “the creation of a specialized, despised and punished role of homosexual keeps the bulk of society pure.”  So in essence, by creating a separate category of unacceptable social behavior, S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T. defines society in universally accepted norms in which the line between right and wrong is clearly defined.

 The core objective of the movement, stated in Vol. 1 No. 1 of the articles posted on the site, defines S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T. as a “natural outgrowth of the silent majorities rising indignation at the tolerance of and state-sanctioned protection of everything perverse, sick, and abnormal.”  With specific regards to homosexuality, it is defined by the group as “the voice of people who have had enough of the homosexual’s assault against decency.”  In its most basic definable terms, the solution to the issue of "S.A.D.’s" (Sodomites Against Decency), as phrased by the movement, is through the commitment to a religious path and prayer, followed by action.  Ultimately achieved by returning to the source of order, order defined by the  Law given by God, their solutions to all the elements of the issue are reinforced through religious beliefs.

 Due to the broad variety of topics disputed on the site, only the most relevant issues will be confronted.  Selecting the most socially influential articles dealing with queer sexuality, they will be explored through a sociological analysis.  Among the most prominent issues are the social constructionist perspective taken by the group, the legal solutions proposed, and the use of the bible as a way of universally defending their stance on sexuality in a multifaceted society.  The final two elements will be analyzed with reference to their significance from the constructionist standpoint.

 Social constructionism, in essence, can be defined as the internalization or conscious adoption of socially imposed labels or roles which determine identity (Epstein 1987).  When applied to homosexuality, this theoretical reasoning is often times credited as a valid explanation to the issue of queer sexual identity.  This is precisely the proposal introduced by the group, which offers this rationalization as an answer for the acceptance of a queer sexual identity.  Causation’s, according to S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T., range from early sexual experiences such as male-on-male molestation, to justifications of the “alternative lifestyles,” or “deathstyle” as used by the organization, by such individuals as prominent political officials.

 For example, an article written by Joseph Sobran asks, “Would nature implant a drive for which there is no apparatus of fulfillment and no survival value for the species?”  This is in direct opposition of the essentialist position that credits queer sexual identity to a fixed, stable characteristic within the individual that emanates from internal elements; a belief internalized by many members of the queer population.  It additionally takes this sociological approach of constructionism and creates a connection to God.  Since it is believed that God created everything, including nature, this is in direct violation of the will of God.  The group combines religion and sociology in order to have a “spiritual” backing for any socially unanswerable issues.  Finally other reinforcements are used to back this theoretical approach, such as medical articles written by doctors stating the lack of evidence in the field of science, studies attempting to prove the essentialist position, which results in the denial of the theory that there exists some pre-existing gene or internal characteristic.  The constructionist position utilized by the organization creates a path, by connecting sociology, religion, and medicine, for which the following oppositional approaches can not only be theorized, but enforced through what the group classifies as either necessary or logical.

 Once the site defines its objectives and perspectives, it begins to propose numerous solutions to deal with this lifestyle. Among the most extreme proposals is their support of the death penalty for the homosexual population.  S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T. justifies this suggestion through both political and religious reasoning.  Politically, they go back to the early construction of the laws of the United States, quoting from the early legal definitions of marital relations which were defined through male-female relational terminology and condemnation of same sex relations.  It is important to note here that the group is attempting to take language from a historical time period and connect it with contemporary times.  The problem with this is the lack of acknowledgment of evolutionary changes that often times make historic language incomparable to modern terminology’s. The core argument however, attempts to validate itself through the correlation of politics and religion as a collective faith.

 For example, the site states, “there will be far less death and suffering if society simply reinforces Sodomy Criminal laws in every state in America in accordance with our Creator’s righteous, existing law.”  They further this idea by quoting passages in the bible that essentially outline a death penalty for homosexuals that show it can and should be done through religious justification.  This element of the group's agenda for dealing with what they see as critical deviant behavior in society creates an example of the most extreme form of social constructionism.  Carole Vance, in her article Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality, writes, “The most radical form of constructionist theory is willing to entertain the idea that there is no essential, undifferentiated sexual impulse, “sex drive” or “lust”, which resides in the body due to physiological functioning and sensation.”  The group assumes this position and gives no leeway to the possibility of a non-constructed sexual identity in both their political and religious practices.

 The major route of attack for S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T involves their continual referencing of the bible to reinforce every approach taken to fight the queer movement.  Whether it be a political argument, medical discussion, sociological analysis, or religious justification, if all else fails the group will quote scriptures to dispute any given issue.  For the Christian, this is an extremely logical tactic since the goal in life is to follow the Word of God.  For example, when confronted with the essentialist perspective they reference biblical passages that show God’s strict forbidance of same sex relations.  So in essence, they reinforce their constructionist standpoint by showing that queer behavior was not a creation of God.

 Like any theoretical perspective, the one taken by the group has limitations.  As devoted Christians, they have accepted their faith as the only true religion.  So it appears that if an individual is Buddhist, Jewish or atheist, this argument would have significantly less influence.  The group fails to recognize the extreme religious diversity existing in the U.S..  Secondly, by taking such an extreme standpoint on the issue they might also act as a deterrent.  A site attempting to educate those individuals searching for personal gratification to this controversial issue would most likely be turned away by such an extremist position.  Finally, their “old fashioned” arguments, in both the areas of politics and continual referencing of one on the oldest text in history (the bible), they avoid confronting the issue from a contemporary perspective.  This element is further reinforced by their usage of outdated language in both the aforementioned strategies.

 Overall, in the large U.S. spectrum on the politics of sexuality, they seem to have one sided, limited influential capabilities.  The advocates of such a site are reasonably assumed to be of Christian religious origin, conservative political parties, and a population of individuals who support an outdated mentality with little relevance to contemporary society.  Their allies on the other hand would appear to be the significant portion of individuals who come from either a different religious background, essentialist mode of thinking, or more diverse urbanized environments.  This argument however, is not to exclude the group from this enormous debate on identity.  Regardless of their perspective, religious and political, they still are part of the most broad and influential communication medium in the world today: the Internet.

 In conclusion, an organization such as S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T. plays an important role for both the advocates and proponents of the issue.  For the opposition of the queer movement, they are one more voice contesting this so called problem.  To the supporters of the movement, this is a verification of the ignorance and opposition remaining in contemporary society.  In conclusion, in terms of their influence the group is still a reminder of the lack of social acceptance of queer sexual identity.  In terms of the probability of achieving their desired aims, in a diverse country where fights for  freedom have existed since the time of Native Americans and the Civil Rights Movement, this view seems impossible, let alone fathomable.
 

REFERENCES

Greenberg, David F.,  1997. “Transformations of Homosexuality-Based Classifications,” in Professor John  Horton, Sociology 167: Contested Sexualities, California: Westwood

Epstein, Steven, 1987. “Gay Politics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Constructionism,” pg. 141 in  Peter M. Nardi and Beth E. Schneider, eds. 1998.  Social Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Studies:  A Reader. New York: Routledge.

Vance, Carole S., 1989. “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality.” pg. 163 in  Peter M. Nardi and Beth E. Schneider, eds. 1998.  Social Perspectives on Lesbiam and Gay  Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge.

McIntosh, Mary, 1968. “The Homosexual Role.”pg. 69 in Peter M. Nardi and Beth E. Schneider, eds. 1998.   Social Perspectives on Gay and Lesbian Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge.