Heterosexuality is Socially Constructed

When I say the word gayNESS, I am indicating the construction of gay persons and what it means to be gay, similar to Chinese-ness which immediately conjures up images of slanted eyes, the word chink, gook, tong-yan, jook-sing, lo-fan, etc. To essentialize gayness as simply abnormal or undesirable is an immediate way of interpreting what is normal opposed to abnormal. This has something to do with double standard. "Girl on girl action" (lesbians in porn) is desirable as Britney smooching Madonna elicited sexual arousal among men. This double standard of double-the-sexual overload (intensification of sex) when two women kiss or caress each other's bodies, is wielded as power dynamic. To consider two females kissing and floating together in a tub with limbs interlocked is interesting and somehow fascinating, but when two men caress and kiss, it appears rather undesirable and gross. This immediate reaction when audiences saw Brother and Sister, produced vociferous comments. Some viewers lamented the death of conservative television. The problem here lies in the understanding of HETEROSEXUALITY and the closed understanding of HOMOSEXUALITY. If homosexuality was termed a disease from the conspiracized theory of AIDs epidemic, then homosexuality is termed deviant and abnormal because heterosexuality was deemed normal and disseminated by religion. If everything ELSE was abnormal then it was condemned from this dichotomy viewpoint.
Those who are against gay marriage are strictly subscribed to conservative viewpoints which praise religion -- it is where moral /ethic grounds transpire. If heterosexuality is partnered with Adam and Eve, not Adam and John, then of course they will slander homosexuality and be disdainful toward it. Those who are anti-gay may also deflect homosexual feelings of their own. That is why people respond "No homo" when they say something homosexual implied such as let's eat dinner together---two males chatting. To say no homo is to affirm heterosexuality and to pat one self on the shoulder --- I am not gay, no need to worry because I just vocalized "No homo," now I'm safely known as straight. This idea of "normality" is pronounced when someone says anti-gay phrases like "fags" or "suck d*ck." These phrases allude to deviance inscribed in homosexuality. To say things like "let them do whatever they want" is also a falsely cynical giving-in to gay rights---to say that they can marry a refrigerator, a car, etc is to give ubiquitous rights to everyone, everything. This is also a wrong way to see things. Gay rights do not approve of marrying inanimate objects for that is not the point. The point is to disassemble the view that heterosexuality is king and that being straight was normal. For there is NO "NORMAL," it's humanly constructed just as religion is said to be constructed but humans forgot they constructed religion (Marx, Hegel, Freud)
Deconstruction is the conscious divorcing of action from meaning. In symbolic interaction as well as sign-signified-signifier structure, an action has a certain latent or manifest intent/function which spurs a meaning that is collectively held as either meaningful, meaningless, or disruptively ambiguous to the flow of communication. If I cross dress on Saturday nights, it may indicate my sexual tendencies to be a woman opposed to a man; it can indicate an erotic fetish projected towards a constructed female that I falsely embody/internalize; this act can also indicate gender indifference. However these readings are all made possible by attaching action to some kind of meaning. Now if we cut the rope between action and meaning similar to disrupting the connection between action and reaction, we can deconstruct the act and divorce it from stereotypical meanings attached to it. Butler’s idea of performativity disrupts a presumed naturalness of deviant gender behavior and removes the deviant connotation from it. She simply makes performance an act of performance, similar to a banana is just a banana. She draws attention to the cross dressing as an activity separated from its connotations or implications about the individual. But it does not deprive it of meaning, because it actively divorces it of its meaning and truncates the unicausal connection between action and intended meaning. In this case persons can hardly make sense of why someone is cross-dressing. But why can’t he crossdress for the hell of crossdressing?!