Social stigma of choosing to be gay

[Jupiter60]

Social stigma of "choosing to be gay"

People choose to smoke, regardless of the social stigma about smoking, so why do people use the social stigma argument against people choosing to be gay? Note that I don't really believe people choose myself. I don't think social stigma though is the best argument against it being a choice though.

 

[Simon Bridge]

The comparison, sexual orientation and smoking, is not very apt.

People usually choose to smoke because of social pressure when they are kids - often coupled with a desire to rebel or be seen to rebel, or maybe their whole family smokes. Then they get addicted. The effects of the social stigma do not kick in until adulthood and it's not that much of a stigma when you get down to it - i.e. in NZ only 20% of the pop are non-smokers. Smokers have no trouble finding a large accepting peer group.

By comparison, sexual orientation stigmatizing starts before adolescence. If you are gay, you are likely the only member of your family who is and very few in your peer group in school would be either. This creates a strong negative pressure - so strong that many teenagers pretend to the socially acceptable orientation just to avoid it.

You are right - it's not a definitive argument. It is a contributing factor. That's what social science is like.

 

[zoobyshoe]

People usually choose to smoke because of social pressure when they are kids - often coupled with a desire to rebel or be seen to rebel, or maybe their whole family smokes. Then they get addicted. The effects of the social stigma do not kick in until adulthood and it's not that much of a stigma when you get down to it - i.e. in NZ only 20% of the pop are non-smokers. Smokers have no trouble finding a large accepting peer group.

To put a better point on it: people usually choose to smoke at first to escape social stigma, to prove they are cool, or properly rebellious for their age group.

Later, they continue to smoke, despite the social stigma, simply because they're addicted.

Here in the U.S. it is now a huge stigma to be a smoker.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

People don't choose their sexuality. The fact that it is often presented as such is due to a tactic used by certain homophobic groups to present it as a moral option. Stigmatisation of non-heteronormative people is a huge topic, nature versus nurture arguments are but one component.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I got the smoking the wrong way around - in NZ, about 20% smoke. About the same percentage as the USA.
I still maintain that smokers have no trouble finding accepting peer-groups and so can mitigate the stigma of smoking.

How big-a stigma is "huge"? Compared with homosexuality?
Do smokers get beat up regularly for eg.? Do they get heckled when they smoke in public? Do they get rejected by their peers, their church? Do they get called "sinners" and told they are going to hell?

refs:
CDC - Fact Sheet - Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States - Smoking & Tobacco Use
Cigarette smoking - Social Report 2010

examples and effects of lgbt social stigma in the US
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/spssi_91_pre.PDF

smoking-related stigma in the US (for comparison)
Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized socia... [Soc Sci Med. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Social Stigma Created by Anti-Smoker Policies Found to Negatively Impact Health Care for Smokers

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You can add to that list of comparisons:

Are smokers discriminated against by law? Or even persecuted?
Are smokers often stereotyped across a variety of media?
Are terms for smokers synonymous with profanity and insults e.g fag?

 

[Simon Bridge]

You can add to that list of comparisons:

Are smokers discriminated against by law? Or even persecuted?
Are smokers often stereotyped across a variety of media?
Are terms for smokers synonymous with profanity and insults e.g fag?

Smokers are discriminated against by law - but smoking has never been a criminal offence.
"Persecution"? I have not found a credible reference. They tend to hysteria, like http://www.topnews.in/usa/gop-us-senate-hopeful-likens-smoking-ban-nazi-s-persecution-jews-216897.

Smokers are often stereotypes across media - used to be favorable, I'm not sure how to characterize it now. What I could find, i.e.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/3/308.full.pdf (which seems pretty representative)
... basically says "it depends on who's watching". But the research is done by anti-smoking folk.

Profanity and insults? Well, "fag" means "cigarette" here, but that use is not pejorative.
"Smokin'" is usually a term if appreciation isn't it?

Anyway - the references in the prev post handle all those and more.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Back on topic - better evidence indicating a lack of choice in sexual preference seems to have been coming from neurobiology. i.e.

Goldstein J. (2011) Homo Or Hetero? The Neurobiological Dimension Of Sexual Orientation Address to the 21st Meeting of the European Neurological Society.

A 2007 lit review of neurobiological factors in human sexual behavior makes rather weird reading:
Neurological control of human sexual behaviour: insights from lesion studies

tldr: human sexuality and sexual behavior is complicated.
People have less choice in orientation than in, say, smoking, but their does not seem to be any particular thing that determines "gayness". Hence the "falling in love" analogy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I got the smoking the wrong way around - in NZ, about 20% smoke. About the same percentage as the USA.

This makes more sense to me. My impression has been that smoking has become stigmatized pretty much all over the world. Regardless, I assumed you know your own country better than I do when I responded.

I still maintain that smokers have no trouble finding accepting peer-groups and so can mitigate the stigma of smoking.

I'm not disputing this. But I also cannot think of any minority group for which this isn't true. Smokers aren't unique for this, if that's what you are implying.

How big-a stigma is "huge"? Compared with homosexuality?

No, compared with a fictional New Zealand where 80% of people smoke. I only meant to convey to you that you'd be surprised if you came here from that fictional New Zealand you presented to me, and experienced how smokers are treated here.

That fiction, incidentally, used to be the reality here when I was a kid. Most people smoked back then, and there was pretty much nowhere you couldn't smoke, except church. People smoked in grocery stores, movie theaters, at work, everywhere. Nowadays, even pot smokers, non-smoking alcoholics, and non-smoking gay people look down their noses at cigarette smokers. The stigma against smoking is "huge" compared to what it used to be. I thought I should mention it to you since it probably wouldn't be apparent to someone who dwelled in a country of 80% smokers.

The anti-smoking stigma was given a boost in the 1990's by the popular TV series, The X-Files. The main villain, the source of all evil in the protagonist's world, was "The Cigarette Smoking Man":

The Smoking Man (sometimes referred to as Cancer Man, the Cigarette-Smoking Man, CSM or C-Man) is a fictional character and the primary antagonist of the Fox science fiction television series The X-Files. He serves as the arch-nemesis of FBI Special Agent Fox Mulder, as well as being revealed to be Mulder's biological father. Although his name is revealed to purportedly be C.G.B. Spender in the show's sixth season, fans continue to refer to him as the Smoking Man because he is almost always seen chain-smoking Morley cigarettes and because he, like other series villains, has multiple aliases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Man

Regardless, my original point was in support of what you said, that the stigma against smoking was not the same as the stigma against gay people, and that the OP, therefore, was reasoning from a flawed premise.

 

[Simon Bridge]

After posting - it struck me that the figure was quite surprising so I checked.
I checked further - and the percentage of the population who smoked has been about the same since the 60's in NZ. What's changed is the quantity smoked.

There are countries where smoking is not such a stigma ... it becomes obvious when a ship comes into Auckland: we sometimes get a flood of people smoking while they walk up the street <shudder>.

Looking up US stats - I found this thing:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCPH.pdf
between 1949-1978 percentage smokers in the US never went higher than 45%.
Anyway - we are in agreement of course :)

Historically, non-homosexuals did have trouble finding accepting peers - with many finding even their own families rejecting them. Most minorities can find each other these days - some are more marginalized than others.

Anyway - we are in agreement of course :)

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are countries where smoking is not such a stigma ... it becomes obvious when a ship comes into Auckland: we sometimes get a flood of people smoking while they walk up the street <shudder>.

You have any idea where they're from?

Looking up US stats - I found this thing:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCPH.pdf
between 1949-1978 percentage smokers in the US never went higher than 45%.

That has this caveat:

The survey results in Table 1 must be interpreted in light of possible non-response biases or possible underreporting of smoking (75). In particular, comparison of the post-1969 survey data of the American Institute of Public Opinion (Gallup Poll) with the other series suggests that not all individuals who smoke cigarettes during any single week would consider themselves “regular” smokers.

I am sure when I was in college (early 1970's) I read something that put the current figure up in the 60 percentile.

Historically, non-homosexuals did have trouble finding accepting peers...

You're not checking over your posts, methinks.

 

[Jupiter60]

Historically, non-homosexuals did have trouble finding accepting peers[\QUOTE]

Surely you mean, "Historically, homosexuals did have trouble finding accepting peers".

 

[Simon Bridge]

I meant "Historically, non-heterosexuals did have trouble finding accepting peers", Since I didn't want to exclude bi, trans, etc. Human sexual expression is complicated.

Nice catch though. I can get distracted.
I probably should have used "non-heteronormative people" or something but there are limits.The influx of smokers tended to come from Asian or East-European countries - that I could identify: purely subjective you understand.

I used to have the impression of far more smokers than there actually were - though I have often been frustrated by the quality of US govt supplied information too. Smoking certainly used to be ubiquitous. Remember what going to restaurants was like?

 

[Odins Acolyte]

From my experience people do not choose to be straight or otherwise. It is how their brains are wired. In other words; born that way. I do not find it to be a stigma in my eyes but I am not society. I rarely notice race unless somebody brings it up (I am white and my lady is black). I have friends I love in all the categories and divisions of humanity and know that those who do not suffer a more mundane existence than I. Remember one true thing: People are going to talk about you all of your life and you can do nothing about that. You are the only person who can make you happy.

 

[Chronos]

I believe everyone experiences homosexual urges, including those of murder, thievery, rape, and just about any other known and frowned upon behavior. That's probably the basis for moral imperatives. Most people refrain from engaging in such behavior. Social ostracization and possible legal prosecution is a strong demotivating factor. Not all such behaviors are immediately detrimental to society. Some are insidious, call them gateway behaviors, and have a cumulative, deleterious effect on society. I have nothing against homosexuality. I've had a number of friends who dabbled in alternative life styles. But, frankly, I think its for the better to keep it discrete. If I were out in public with a gay friend who chose to make a spectacle of him/her life style choice, I would be very disappointed and embarrassed. I think most people feel that way.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well yes, but I'd be embarrassed if a heterosexual friend were flaunting their sexuality around too.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I believe everyone experiences homosexual urges, including those of murder, thievery, rape, and just about any other known and frowned upon behavior.

I'm sure you don't mean to link homosexuality with murder and rape there - probably you mean that most people experience homosexual urges sometime, however fleeting, just like they feel any urge - such as urges to charity, maternal/paternal urges, or to protect the weak.

Just like homosexuals may have felt attraction to the opposite sex or bisexuals may have felt a preference between a man and a woman in some social group.

If I were out in public with a gay friend who chose to make a spectacle of him/her life style choice,

Surely "homosexuality" is a sexual orientation, rather than a lifestyle.

...I would be very disappointed and embarrassed. I think most people feel that way.

Well yes, but I'd be embarrassed if a heterosexual friend were flaunting their sexuality around too.

... well then, you'd better stay home and leave the TV off since heterosexuality gets flaunted, pretty much, everywhere.

Sure - some people choose a flamboyant and showy life and it can be embarrassing to be around them sometimes. But that is the same regardless of sexuality. I suspect that's what you mean.


However - this is a science forum isn't it?
Should we be airing personal beliefs without backing them with some sort of science?
So where is the science?

Turns out to be tricky to find in a casual google ... but there are some starting points:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413
http://ed-share.educ.msu.edu/scan/ead/mwawrzyn/Weber.pdf
... each has their own references and citations.
It's not too difficult - so perhaps it can be a challenge for anyone wanting to take a position to back it up?

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, I was pointing out that it has nothing to do with sexuality.

There's lots of subjectivity and opinion in science (there's journals named for it, even). What's annoying (and against forum policy) is when opinion gets passed as fact.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Agreed Pyth. Please stick to the original topic people, drifting into personal opinions (ex specially presented as fact) will result in a lock.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Yes, I was pointing out that it has nothing to do with sexuality.

Thought so :)

It can be quite embarrassing to be around active religious evangelists, or anti-gay activists, when they get "set off" - it can be helpful to think of similies along these lines - our friends can embarrass us in all kinds of ways.

Mind you, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a peer-reviewed citation in support ;)

There's lots of subjectivity and opinion in science (there's journals named for it, even). What's annoying (and against forum policy) is when opinion gets passed as fact.

Too true ... there are plenty of other forums for unsupported opinion.

 

[Pythagorean]

Referring to OP:

It shouldn't really matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. In the U.S., at least, it should be painfully obvious from our constitution that rights and fair treatment shouldn't be conditional on sexuality, regardless of whether it's a choice, social, genetic, etc. Maybe that's only my liberal interpretation, but as far as I can tell, all objections to homosexuality are religion-based and thus deserve no preference from congress. There's already an inherent conflict in the legal status of marriage if it shows preference for a particular religion and that should be resolved in honor of the 1st amendment, as per the establishment clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

 

[Simon Bridge]

The constitution only limits government - not social attitudes. Which is the topic.
It could prevent a prevailing prejudice from having force of law ... in principle anyway.

Notice how many people are talking about the practice of homosexuality - it's social manifestations - rather than the fact of homosexuality itself? This is where the "sure, people are allowed to be gay - but please only be gay in private, where we don't have to look at it" comes from. So your sexuality may or may not be a choice but you sure choose how to act.

Ergo the choice or otherwise of the sexuality itself is not normally the issue anyway.

There have been similar attitudes concerning women, blacks, foreigners, poverty, physical deformity, etc, etc iirc.

Nice observation though ;)

Aside: The situation varies with country.
NZ does not have a constitution - but freedom of sexuality, and expression of, is explicitly covered in our bill of rights and the private expression is covered in the privacy act, which restricts everyone.
OTOH: Parliament has the right to make laws which ignore these documents.
Our BoR deals with the application of law rather than which laws can be made.