The Dictionary of Homophobia (24 page)

Ancien Testament
. Paris: Le Cerf/Les Bergers et les Mages, 1980.

Boswell, John.
Christianisme, tolérance sociale et homosexualité
. Paris: Gallimard, 1985. [Published in the US as
Homosexuality, Intolerance, and Christianity
. New York: Scholarship Committee, Gay Academic Union, 1981.]

Cazelles, Henri, ed.
Introduction à la Bible
(8 volumes):
Introduction critique à l’Ancien Testament
. Vol 2. 1973 and
Introduction critique au Nouveau Testament
. Volume 3. Paris: Desclée, 1976–89.

Gilbert, Maurice. “La Bible et l’homosexualité,”
Nouvelle Theologie
, no. 109 (1987).

Kader, Samuel.
Openly Gay, Openly Christian: How the Bible Really is Gay Friendly
. San Francisco: Layland Publications, 1999.

Léon-Dufour, Xavier.
Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament
. Paris: Le Seuil, 1975. [Published in the US as
Dictionary of the New Testament
. New York: Harper & Row, c. 1980.]

Lohse, Eduard.
Théologie du Nouveau Testament (Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie)
. Geneva: Labor & Fides, 1987.

McNeill, John.
L’Eglise et l’homosexuel, un plaidoyer
. Geneva: Labor & Fides, 1982.

Nouveau Testament
. Paris: Le Cerf/Les Bergers et les Mages, 1983. [Published in the UK as
The Church and the Homosexual
. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1977.]

Paul, André, ed.
Petite Bibliothèque des sciences bibliques
. Paris: Desclée, 1981–85.

Scrogg, Robin.
The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contexual Background for Contemporary Debate
. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 1983.

Thévenot, Xavier.
Homosexualités masculines et morale chrétienne
. Paris: Le Cerf, 1985.

Zimmerli, Walter Christophe.
Esquisse d’une théologie de l’Ancien Testament
. Paris: Le Cerf, 1990.

—Against Nature; Catholic Church, the; Debauchery; Heresy; Judaism; Orthodoxy; Paul (of Tarsus); Protestantism; Sodom and Gomorrah; Sterility; Theology; Vice.

BIOLOGY

Just as is the case with
medicine
, a biological approach to homosexuality only further demonstrates the ambivalence of using scientific arguments in homophobic discourse, given that how they are used can often lead to diametrically opposed conclusions.

The history of homosexual “biology”—outside of zoological, anthropological (in the sense of physical anthropology), and genetic facts—is really a philosophical treatise on mankind and Nature. In this sense, if biology’s contribution to a scientific discussion of homosexuality seems marginal, or for that matter if it has even ever had any influence over the fate of homosexuals, it has nonetheless played a central part in the constitution of traditional sexual morality; the constancy of the biological debate over the years only proves this. Thus, for a very long period of time, the same basic question is continually asked: is homosexuality “natural”?

This question has its origins in scientific inquiries during the period of Classical Antiquity, specifically the anatomy and behavior of animals. Three species in particular were studied—the rabbit, hyena, and weasel—and it was upon these three animals that much of the theological reasoning of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages relating to the question of sexual relations between humans was based. Since the time of the Greek scientific revolution in the fifth century BCE, many philosophers and naturalists have collected facts and anecdotes about the animal kingdom. A mix of empirical observations and traditional legends, these treatises by authors such as Aristotle, Aristophanes of Byzantium, and Anaxagoras assign (although not without contradictions among them) various (and imaginative) characteristics to these same three animals; characteristics which during the time of Christianity became known as sexual “curiosities.” Thus, the rabbit, who (according to Aristotle) urinates backwards, became known as an animal that loses its anus once a year; the hyena was thought to change its sex every year, taking on the role of male or female as necessary; and the weasel was supposed to have sexual intercourse through its mouth.

Thus it was during the time of Christianity that many theologians began to associate the sexual “non-conformism” of these animals with the various interdictions set out in the book of Leviticus. It was in this way that the Epistle of Barnabas (today considered apocryphal) describes Hebrew alimentary prohibitions as being based on the supposed mores of these animals: the ban against rabbit meat was linked to the risk of developing an attraction to boys; the ban against the meat of the hyena, to the risk of adultery or seduction; and the rejection of the meat of the weasel was linked to the rejection of oral sex. These were all very free interpretations of the writings, considering that nothing of the sort was ever specifically mentioned in the texts, and in Leviticus, the hyena was not even mentioned at all. However, this union between zoological “knowledge” and the theological carried on through time, after being taken up by Clement of Alexandria in the third century CE, a founding father of the Church of Alexandria, whose work played a central role in the constitution of the Church’s sexual morals.

However, around the same time (and partly by the same Christian authors), biology was again invoked in the condemnation of homosexuality, but in a way that was diametrically opposite. Through the idea of Nature (a concept conveniently borrowed from the Stoic school of thought that was so popular during the apogee of the Roman empire, which did, in truth, share certain similarities with the Christian faith), over a period of time stretching all the way to the eighteenth century, a paradigm was established regarding the perception of relations between members of the same sex. Even if Clement of Alexandria could maintain that sexual relations without procreation as its goal “outraged nature” while describing (without any worry of contradiction) how hyenas did exactly that, it was not until later, during the High Middle Ages, that the concept of “
against nature
” began to take on its full meaning.

The argument was not without its failings. It implies that the natural order reflects the will of God, and that reproduction, as the “natural” conclusion of sexuality, represents the way set out by God. Of course, it did not escape the attention of many that animal customs, where instances of multiple partners or incest occur frequently, are not exactly compatible with Christian morals. But most of all, the chief concern of this age, marked by the belief in an imminent final judgment, was chastity. To St Augustine (or
a fortiori
, St Jerome), sexuality, even within marriage, was highly suspect.

It would not be until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that, as part of an enormous effort by the church to codify sexual, matrimonial, and conjugal practices, the argument refuting homosexuality as a “crime against nature” would be fully exploited, thereby becoming widespread. To Albert the Great, homosexuality represented the gravest sexual sin that could be committed, by offending “grace, reason, and nature” (whereas adultery only managed to offend grace and reason); to Thomas Aquinas, it was a
sin
because it prevented the reproduction of the human species. St Thomas’s beliefs were unique because he grouped homosexuality together with other “unnatural
vices
” such as masturbation, bestiality, and even heterosexual acts where the man was
sterile
. In a sense, the positioning of homosexuality and other acts as being “against nature” is more important than the nature of the sexual practice itself, which makes interpretation of the word “sodomite” more difficult in Middle Age and Classical texts.

It was only after an essential change in the very concept of sexuality during the second half of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century that this approach to homosexuality began to change. During this time, scientific discourse became secular, detaching itself from theological discourse and casting aside the legends and traditions of the medieval bestiaries. Progressively, as the question of homosexuality was appropriated by the realm of medicine, it began to become part of the “natural” world through its new definition as a pathological entity. The change was gradual, though, and the terms “unnatural” and “antiphysical” would continue to be applied by medical law in the nineteenth century to those very elements it was in the process of naturalizing. And despite psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s belief that the “
perversion
” of homosexuality constituted a mental illness,
psychiatry
itself was evolving in such a way that by the end of the nineteenth century, a biological undercurrent had been added to the question of homosexuality. From then on, the issue centered around two points. The first was the question of heredity. This understanding of homosexuality as a pathology was developing at a time when all mental illness was considered as a sort of
degeneracy
. The theory proposed by the French psychiatrist Bénédict Morel around 1850 described all forms of insanity as “morbid deviations from the human norm,” transmitted through heredity. Even if Morel’s theory has since fallen out of favor, the idea of homosexuality being due to an innate and hereditary characteristic has persisted throughout the twentieth century. The second point was the idea of etiology: that homosexuality must have a strictly biological cause. From the first publication of works labeling homosexuality as a mental illness, new research focused on finding an organic alteration within the brain as the cause. The introduction of endocrinology as a branch of medicine added the study of hormones to this line of research, which in turn complemented the
genetic
theories.

This “return” of homosexuality to the “natural” order was generally regarded as a sign of progress.

Indeed, the first German homosexual movement, built around the emblematic figure of the doctor Magnus
Hirschfeld
, embraced his theories, going so far as to talk of “
inversion
” as being nothing more than a “diversion in evolution.” Compared to the concept of homosexuality as an “unnatural” crime, its identification as a sickness probably appeared to be the lesser evil; not only because of the legal consequences, but because it allowed those “afflicted” people to make sense of their difference. Nonetheless, studies in animal behavior during this period reinforced the need to find structure in biological order, enabling a rejection of the pathological approach to homosexuality, after the fashion of André
Gide
’s
Corydon
.

Strangely, these same theories originating from the medical field—used to justify the horrible torture of homosexuals (especially in
Germany
under the Third Reich)—form the basis of contemporary genetic and neuroanatomical work being carried out by gay or “pro-gay” researchers, especially in a
North American
context where the argument of “natural” exempts the individual from any charge of fault or sin.

Likewise, based on the works of American biologist Edward O. Wilson, sociobiology attempts to integrate the question of homosexuality into a Darwinian theory of evolution. In defining homosexuality as healthy and natural (which appeals to the altruistic compulsions of humanity), sociobiology synthesizes all previous work on the etiology of homosexuality. However, even that which appears to be a form of evolutionist teleology is unable to completely extricate itself from the same perspective shared by those late Antiquity, fathers of the church, as it seeks to measure the moral value of human behavior against a presumed “yardstick” of natural origin. Especially within the American context, this research could prove to be beneficial for the homosexual cause. However, historical precedent has clearly shown the repressive, homophobic potential of this type of work.
—
Pierre-Olivier de Busscher

Bagemihl, Bruce.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999.

Boswell, John.
Christianisme, tolérance sociale et homosexualité
. Paris: Gallimard, 1985. [Published in the US as
Homosexuality, Intolerance, and Christianity
. New York: Scholarship Committee, Gay Academic Union, 1981.]

Burr, Chandler.
A Separate Creation: The Search for Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation
. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

De Cecco, John and David Allen Parker.
Sex, Cells and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference
. New York: Haworth Press, 1995.

Dorais, Michel. “La Recherche des causes de l’homosexualité: une science-fiction?” In
La Peur de l’autre en soi, du sexisme à l’homophobie
. Edited by Michel Dorais, Pierre Dutey, and Daniel Welzer-Lang. Montreal: VLB Editeurs, 1994.

Dynes, Wayne, and Stephen Donaldson, eds.
Homosexuality and Medicine: Health and Science
. New York: Garland, 1992.

LeVay, Simon. “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,”
Science
, no. 253 (1991).

———.
Queer Science
. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.

Schuklenk, Udo. “Is Research Into the Cause(s) of Homosexuality Bad for Gay People?”
Christopher Street
, no. 208 (1993).

———. “Scientific Approaches to Homosexuality.” In
Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia
. Edited by George E. Haggerty. Florida Citrus Commission. Vol 2. New York: Garland, 2000.

Tarczylo, Théodore.
Sexe et liberté au siècle des Lumières
. Paris: Presses de la Renaissance, 1983.

—Against Nature; Degeneracy; Endocrinology; Genetics; Medicine; Medicine, Legal; Rhetoric; Sterility; Theology; Treatment.

BIPHOBIA

The need to differentiate biphobia from homophobia is based on different dynamics of rejection. Phobias themselves, when they discriminate against others, are based on the construction of the purity and superiority of an individual or collective over an individual or collective which is perceived and represented as not only different, but inferior. Veiled or otherwise, they are often expressed by stereotyping individuals who are identified as “other” in order to increase one’s self-worth; in this way, phobias are related to a fear of not measuring up to a social ideal. They often go beyond this, however, as is often the case with homophobia or biphobia, which can be said to be based on a fear of disrupting the unconscious social order. It is, therefore, not enough to show the falsehoods inherent in statements of discriminatory stereotypes. It is also important, if we hope to call into question the basis of all phobias, to reveal the cross-social ideologies which give them life and the constraints they imply, including those expressed and imposed by those who practice exclusion.