Politically, Western society took a stance of ignorance is bliss when the subject of queerness was formally introduced. Queer gaining political ground scares the Western culture because it challenges the idealized role of the queer community in society. Also, this movement frightens Western culture because of the lack of understanding surrounding this group. Warner comments on this topic by saying, “There are many people, gay and straight, who think that sexual orientation is a fairly clear and simple political matter, that discrimination should be eliminated but that gay people have no further political interest as a group.” In this quote he is saying that Western culture views Queer in political matters as needing basic human rights but nothing further. In a similar matter, the role of queer within the institution of marriage is also narrowly viewed -if any at all- in Western …show more content…
In western culture, Judeo-Christian values on marriage dominate the definition of marriage. This definition excludes the queer community almost entirely which, once again, constricts the role of queer in this institution. Because of the weight of value on these morals, queer is forced through this perception; Warner states that, “Unlike other identity movements, for example, queerness has always been defined centrally by discourses of morality.” He is saying that unlike race, ethnicity, gender etc., queer is subjected to the preconceived Western morals. This ideology is similar to how queer is limited in the political realm because it is valued lower than other identities. This occurrence of constricting the definition of the institution of marriage can be seen in the recent Supreme Court ruling in marriage equality to include the queer community which was highly protected by many. The passionate protesting shows how deeply Western culture filters its definition of society through its traditional