Heterosexism is a system of bias against homosexuality. It is not homophobia because it does not arise from irrational fears or a visceral hatred of homosexuality, but can include homophobia. Despite arising from a reasoned system of bias or prejudice, it is not rationally defensible. It is a prejudice.
Awareness of heterosexism has found some traction in academic psychology and sociology, but exerts very little influence elsewhere. It is a pervasive mindset existing within our legal, economic, political, social, interpersonal, familial, historical, educational and ecclesial institutions.
There is no single view of homosexuality that constitutes heterosexism. The views run the spectrum from believing that just and loving homosexual relationships cannot exist to grudgingly tolerating them, but defining them as defective or imperfect, and never to be given the value and esteem of marriage.
Even theologians, who attempt to lessen the negative impact of Vatican documents on homosexuality, tend to argue from a heterosexist standpoint, which, though unintended, can manifest as being patronising.
Heterosexism gives rise to the assertion that children have a “human right to a father and a mother” and the ridiculous, not to say obscene, conclusions that arise from it.
If children have such a “human right” then how is it to be vindicated? If a married parent of a child dies through illness or accident, is the surviving spouse obliged to marry again without regard to grief and loss in order to provide the child with its human right?
Rights violated
Any delay in finding a replacement is to deprive the child of its human rights. If human rights are violated, then there ought to be consequences. What penalties ought to be enshrined in law to vindicate the human rights of the child and punish the surviving parent for violating them?
Likewise if an abused spouse separates from an abusing partner to live as a lone parent, is/are their child/children being deprived of a human right to a father and a mother? If such human rights are to be vindicated, then it would seem that the abused spouse is required to return to the abuser with the child/children.
The awkward thing about human rights is that they are exactly that – human rights that apply at all times and in all cases, without caveat. They do not exist to be emotively pulled into a conversation as a means to justify a prejudice.
Heterosexism also gives rise to the assertion that biological complementarity is the only possible understanding of complementarity. There is more to human relationships than the “lock and key” understanding of male/female genitalia, where one bit fits into the other and completes the action.
Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler argue persuasively for "orientation complementarity" in their theological anthropology. Biological complementarity is a component of orientation complementarity but not its point of departure.
Holistic approach
Orientation complementarity is a holistic approach that embraces the whole person in all her/his complexity as a sexual being.
It moves the issue away from the physical sexual act which seems to occupy so much of the attention of those who would deny same-sex marriage to those who yearn for it. Who yearn for it not only as a means to solemnise their love, but also as proof of their equal citizenship of this country.
A further benefit of orientation complementarity is that it acknowledges and facilitates the phenomenon of the variety there exists in human sexuality.
To be truly human, sexual activity must not only be in accord with holistic complementarity, but also be just and loving.
People within the LGBT community are just as capable as anyone else at forming just and loving relationships and many long-term, monogamous relationships are a testament to this.
Orientation complementarity also challenges the heterosexist thought and language of the Catholic Church, which persists in describing gay or lesbian people as having an intrinsically disordered "inclination" as if sexuality was extrinsic to personhood.
It is worth noting that despite all the talk of biological complementarity and ends of marriage, there are three things seen as central for marriage in the Catholic Church – consent, fidelity and constancy. All of which can be found in same-sex marriage.
It is only heterosexist thinking that insists the couple be of opposite sex.
Angela Hanley has recently completed a research MA on the implications for Catholic theology of same-sex marriage. She is the author of Whose à la Carte Menu?: an Exploration of Catholic Themes in Context, recently published by the Columba Press