When talking about homosexual vs. heterosexual unions, they are comparable in all ways; however, legalizing them together would cause irrevocable damage to our already weak view of the institution of marriage. Our young generation is in a time where they are being told how to speak and sometimes think, and societal indifference to gay marriage would further confuse our youths who already find their sexuality hard. It is very important that we continue to take strides toward accepting homosexual unions; however, legalizing gay marriage is not a necessary step for that to
Elizabeth Savoy Professor Michael Griffin WGS 2500 Midterm Paper Heterosexuality and Homosexuality in Society Everyone is created differently from each other. We have different skin colors, facial features, genders, and sexualities. As we meet new people, we see the common similarities and differences we have with them, and we judge them by the characteristics they have. People tend to accept the majority’s characteristic as a standard one. That is because the most people are likely to be in that category.
Paula C. Rust, in her article, “Two Many and Not Enough: The Meanings of Bisexual Identities”, paves a way for those people who have been marginalized and have been forced to categorize themselves into a monotheistic label of sexual orientation. Her thoughts are supported and based on the entire sample collected for the International Bisexual Identities, Communities, Ideologies, and Politics (IBICIP) study. Through the individuals responses, we are able to see how those who are attracted to both genders or have had romantic or sexual relations with members of both genders, deal with the oppression of an exclusive heterosexual/homosexual binary construction.There can be a little bias when the majority of the study is focused on middle-class, white, non-transgendered, highly-educated people, however, through the respondents insight, we are able to get a better understanding of their psychological, political and social relations. Furthermore, “...in a cultural world in which sexuality is seen as a source of identity and individuals who lack sexual identities are seen as deficient, individuals who do not fit neatly into culturally produced heterosexual, lesbian, and gay categories seek to claim the experiential space that can form the basis for bisexual identity” (34). This article is about claiming and making visible that third space that has been silenced and historically received hatred and even stated to not exist.
So if you are saying that gay marriage should not be allowed to marry based on moral issues, you are in essence saying that morally it is worse to be a homosexual than to be a rapist, murderer, or child molester. It is this kind of thinking that has held society back. Still others would argue that due to divorce and cohabitation the institution of marriage is already in a weakened state. They view allowing legal gay marriage as the potential straw that is going to break marriages back. I would acknowledge marriage does not have the same prevalence and level of commitment it held in past generations but the decline of marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Some government officials believe that the only reason to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be to improve military effectiveness. The controversy over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will continue to be an ongoing issue until homosexuals, civilians and the military can come to an agreement. Works Cited Cary, Peter. "The Pentagon's Fight to Keep Gays Away." U.S. News 1989: 57.
The human reproductive system is designed to be sexually compatible in order to bare offspring. If the act of homosexuality were a natural, genetic occurrence then the genes responsible for it would quickly disappear due to the inability for homosexuals to reproduce. Human physiology explains that the body is not designed for homosexual activity and that the anus is not designed for sexual pleasure. For example, the rectum is a lot different from the vagina in regards to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and supported by a group of muscles.
For Gay Marriage Andrew Sullivan’s article “For Gay Marriage” is an excerpted from Sullivan’s 1995 book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, and reprinted by Behrens and Rosen (404 – 407). This paper provides a summary of Sullivan’s controversial article on this timely and long-fought civil rights issue. “For Gay Marriage” highlights the moral, philosophical and legal arguments surrounding the issue of denying marriage to homosexual and lesbian Americans. More importantly, it highlights the moral, philosophical and legal arguments in favor of gay marriage, which Sullivan clearly supports. Although Sullivan clearly supports gay marriage, his article is an insightful piece that provides a respectful look at various views of this philosophically and emotionally-charged subject, while providing a sound intellectual argument in favor of gay marriage.
Introduction Conversion-Reparative Therapy, hereafter referred to as CRT, is a widely debated topic in both psychological and religious literature. CRT is generally recognized as any one, or combination of, different approaches aimed at moving an individual from a state of primarily homosexual orientation to a state of primarily heterosexual orientation ( Haldeman, 1994; Throckmorton, 1998). First documented as a treatment approach to homosexuality in the early 1960’s (Throckmorton, 1998), CRT continues to be used by a wide variety of professionals and paraprofessionals including psychoanalysts, clergy, religious counselors, and therapists (Haldeman, 1994). Presently, CRT is most commonly found in the fields of psychoanalysis and/or religion-based counseling, but during the past fifty years is has been employed across a wide range of disciplines including behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and group therapy (Haldeman, 1994; Throckmortaon, 1998). In this study I explore two reoccurring issues found in CRT research, specifically, the effectiveness of CRT
Theorising Heterosexuality 3 issues: heterosexual identity, (hetero)normativity, ‘lifestyle choice’ - sex in late modernity 1. issue: heterosexual identity - difference in expression of sexual identity for heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals - distinction between sexual behaviour and identity - What does it mean today to say that a person is a ‘heterosexual’? (answer1: term refers to individuals who are attracted to persons of the opposite sex or to feel sexual attraction toward the person of the opposite sex; answer2: relates to the notion of identity) - Why did the meaning of heterosexuality change from a reproductive instinct to a sexual desire and identity? (answer1: relates to a crisis of gender identity in the early 20th ct.; answer2: by the 1950s, gender division between men and women was collapsing = result: the creation of a culture of homophobia) 2.issue: (hetero)normativity - critique of heterosexuality as a hegemonic structure - variety of heterosexual identities and heterosexual ‘normativities’ in the past - Friedrich Engels: The Origin of the Family - instrumentality of heteronormativity (the role of sexuality in wider economic and social processes) - the central paradox of heteronormativity - how heterosexuality becomes identity or lifestyle choice? (Lesbian and gay history and social and political movements - used discursive approach of labelling and naming - no comparative document of the increasing self-awareness of heterosexuals) - how the hegemony of heterosexual choices is maintained? (through propaganda and the lived culture of everyday; public culture of entertainment fits model of propaganda for heterosexual living; the archetype of popular romance) - is heterosexuality changing?
However it is the foundation of debates regarding the moral status of a large number of sexual acts – the latent stigma still attached to homosexuality is a prime example of the influence of the theological standpoint on sexual desires. Despite retaining some influence on the way we think about certain sexual practices the traditional theist conception of sexual desires is often widely ignored in modern times. A primary objection to the viewpoint is that it is an almost empirically observable fact that sexual desires do not necessarily aim at procreation. The massive use of contraceptives throughout the modern world is evidence