Category: Homosexuality

Homosexuality refers to somebody who has a sexual attraction to somebody of the same sex. It’s a topic which is more broadly accepted in society now than it used to be. In the 1900’s, homosexuality was illegal in most countries, and it would be classed as a ‘mental illness’. In modern society, it has made it’s way into the appropriate social norms and in many countries, people accept homosexual behaviour in public. My interest is to figure out how those attitudes have changed, and what still needs to be improved with regards to behaviour towards homosexuals.

Attitudes towards homosexuality differ across cultures. In some countries such as Nigeria and Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death. Whereas in the UK, the Government has created laws in favour of the LGBT community. A recent study based off attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of high school students in Kenya showed shocking results. Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya – a prison sentence may be given to anybody who identifies as homosexual. This study had a large sample, with 1,250 high school students participating. This meant an overall average could be created which is able to represent school students attitudes to homosexuality. From students completing a questionnaire on perceptions of homosexuality, they found 95% believed homosexuality is abnormal (Mucherah, Owino, & McCoy, 2016). This will be due to the laws and social norms of the country, and the attitudes influenced by parents who raise children.

Attitudes towards homosexuality also differs across time. Since the 1970’s, the world has become more accepting of homosexual relationships and behaviour. In the UK, to have an attraction to somebody of the same sex was a crime, and was considered a ‘mental condition’ which psychiatrists could ‘cure’. In the 1900’s, homosexuality was illegal and those who were caught were sentenced to death or sent to a mental asylum. A study found that as of May 2017, there were 124 countries without punishments for homosexuality and 72 countries which criminalise same-sex activity.

Many people believed the sexuality was a pathological medical condition, therefore doctors started creating treatments and cures. Psychiatrists preferred being referred homosexuals because they believed they could convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. Treatments included Electric Shock Aversion Therapy – a treatment where electric shocks were given to the client if arousal occurred from watching someone of the same sex undress, Psychoanalysis, Oestrogen treatment, Religious counselling, Hypnosis, Electroconvulsive therapy and more. A study by Smith, Bartlett and King (2004) discusses the treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950’s. They found that individuals have suffered negative long-term effects from society believing same-sex attraction is an illness.

A famous example of negative impacts from treatment is Alan Turing. Turing was an English mathematician and computer scientist who broke the Enigma code for Germany’s cypher machine during the Second World War. He was a homosexual, but he accepted chemical castration as an alternative to prison for his punishment. As a result, he committed suicide in 1954. It was said that the humiliation of the prosecution for homosexuality cruel effects of the hormone treatment most likely influenced his state of mind. His impact on ending the War was not recognised until 2009, when the British Prime Minister made an official public apology on behalf of the British Government. Following this, Queen Elizabeth II gave Turing a posthumous pardon for his criminal conviction of homosexuality. It has become apparent that Turing is now not only a hero of the country, but especially for the LGBT community.

The main reason why homosexuality is accepted more widespread is due to changing laws and social norms. The LGBT community is celebrated in the modern society, however it used to be shamed upon. Many homosexuals are positively viewed by others for their courage and passion to stand out from others, but in the 1900’s, members of the LGBT community would have been abused and imprisoned. Younger generations are growing up knowing that homosexuality is common and is accepted. Schools teach children that it’s okay to have different sexual preferences to their friends, and urge them to not hide their sexuality. This is due to an increase of LGBT members being diagnosed with mental health conditions such as depression, social anxiety, substance/alcohol misuse and self-harm. These stem from a range of social factors such as isolation, discrimination and homophobia. There is also the issue of hate crime – homosexuals (approximately 1 in 5) are more likely to experience hate crime than heterosexuals. This means that whilst there are positive attitude changes, the reduction of homophobia will not change.

It it unknown whether the positive change in attitudes towards the LGBT community are the result of a true change in peoples attitudes, or whether people are reluctant to admit negative attitudes to homosexuals. Whilst there are more positive attitudes towards homosexuality, this may be due to the fact there are less explicit negative attitudes. People may still disagree with homosexuality, but not publicly. This means the majority of people may still maintain negative attitudes, without openly expressing their thoughts.

Introduction

In this essay, I will analyse and compare the arguments of Michael Levin and John Corvino, on homosexuality, where Levin is against homosexuality and Corvino defends homosexuality. This topic serves as great importance as homosexuality is a controversial topic, globally, thus, addressing arguments for and against it, captures the attention of many in a societal setting.

Arguments

I will begin with Michael Levin who claims that there is a “prudential reason” to deject homosexuality, “because it leads to unhappiness”. However, he does not claim that all homosexuals will be unhappy, but rather that homosexuals have a higher chance of being unhappy compared to heterosexuals.

However, Levin, takes in account that homosexuals do not have the choice of who they are attracted to, thus, he states that “we cannot blame them”. But, he further explains that people should still view homosexuality as a “misfortune” and that people should act to decrease its occurrence.

Levin, further explains that homosexuals misuse their sexual organs and that this act is “unnatural” as homosexuality “is based on an evolution theory”. His arguments begin by explaining the functions of the sexual organs, as he argues that the natural function of the penis is to insert semen into the vagina and not into a man’s anus. He further explains that evolution selects for creatures who mostly enjoy using their sexual organs, “according to their natural function” as well as that, human males, mostly enjoy heterosexual sexual activity, more than homosexual intercourse.

His central argument of his thesis is that homosexuality is abnormal. He further argues that homosexuality leads to laziness as he explains that “people who exercise are using their muscles according to their natural function, and will be, mostly happier as a result.” Levin quotes further evidence of his argument: “the evidence is the fact that homosexuals are, by and large, and for the most part, less happy than heterosexuals.” He believes that his theory clarifies this information well. In summary, Levin views homosexuality as abnormal and disagreeable. Not because it is “sinful” or hinders the evolution development or “weakens society”, but his main argument is that there is a misuse of genitals, regarding homosexual intercourse, as he states that the genitals of a person has a specific function and the misuse of genitals has a high possibility to relate to unhappiness in a person.

My contrasting argument is by John Corvino, who defends homosexuality. He argues that homosexuality can be recognised as “goods of love, happiness, pleasure, etc.” factors, of which, heterosexuals can apprehend and appreciate.

Corvino, argues against Levin’s idea of the misuse of the genitals, as Corvino explains that each body part can be used in many ways, for example, the natural function of the ears is not to hold a pair of glasses in place, therefore “it should not be immoral to use body parts to express love or giving or receiving pleasure.” Corvino also supports his argument and defends his views by claiming that even if there is a development of statistical findings that show that there is a higher percentage of depression and suicide amongst homosexuals. These statistics does not mean or show that homosexuality causes depression and suicide, but rather it could mean that that because of the ill treatment towards homosexuals in society, this can increase the depression rates within a societal setting, prominently.

Corvino, focuses on the Prima Facie argument for homosexuality. He takes an example of a homosexual couple, who gets stuck in traffic, owing to the bad weather. The couple therefore shared a romantic moment, whilst stranded in the car. Corvino, highlights the positives of this situation. Firstly, the moment shared was pleasurable. Secondly, the situation sparked communication between the two, allowing the couple to express affection and love. Thirdly, the situation increased their physical intimacy for each other thus, increasing “their emotional intimacy.” Lastly, there were no undesirable features noticed or mentioned. The Prima Facie argument elucidates that “homosexual behaviour realizes concrete goods without bad consequences, therefore any behaviour that promotes good without malicious intent or negative consequences, is prima facie morally justified.”

However, Corvino explains that “society accepts heterosexual behaviour to be morally right, thus, sexual activity that is morally acceptable for heterosexuals is also morally permissible for homosexuals.” He further justifies his defence for homosexuality by explaining that there is an importance in the pleasure of procreating with the person they love. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that homosexuals never lead to procreation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have analysed both, Levin and Corvino’s arguments, against and the defense, of homosexuality. Personally, I find Corvino’s argument, which defends homosexuality, to be more persuasive. His findings and ideas justify his arguments to a certain extent, in an open-minded way of thinking, thus he brings relevant aspects that backup his ideologies, as well as causing people to question Levin’s argument, which is against homosexuality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals, both produce love, intimacy and pleasure, thus, there is no moral reasoning to treat the two differently.

Disobedience is a romantic drama starring Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz and directed by Sebastian Lelio. Lelio teamed up with Rebecca Lenkiewicz to write the film based on the novel of the same name by Naomi Alderman. In this review, I will discuss the plot and how the film portrays Jewish identity through the lens of Orthodox Judaism, homosexuality and the struggle of having to choose between the two identities.

The film is set in an Orthodox Jewish community in North London. It begins with Rav, the community’s beloved rabbi, giving a sermon about the freedom to choose. While he is speaking to the congregation, he collapses. The Rav’s estranged daughter, Ronit, is played by Rachel Weisz. She left the Orthodox Jewish community she was raised in to be a photographer in New York. No longer conforming to her religious upbringing, her character is seen living alone, drinking and having casual sex. After being informed that her father had passed away, she jumped on a plane to fly back to London. Ronit’s first stop is at her childhood friend Dovid’s house. Dovid had become the Rav’s prodigy at a very young age. People have gathered at Dovid’s house to mourn the death of the Rav, but Ronit doesn’t fit in. There is obvious tension between her and the people from her childhood that have shunned her for leaving the community. She is shocked when she finds out that Dovid is married to Esti, a childhood friend they shared.

When Ronit meets with her uncle to discuss selling her father’s house, he shows her the Rav’s will. With no mention of Ronit, he had left his house and everything in it to the synagogue. Her uncle hands over the keys so she can visit the house and get any of her personal belongings. Esti, played by Rachel McAdams, tags along with Ronit and they roam around the house reminiscing about their childhood. After a while, Esti passionately kisses Ronit and tells her that she was the one who called to inform her of her father’s death.

The Rav caught Esti and Ronit hooking up when they were teens. Esti disclosed that she was mentally ill after he caught them and Ronit decided to leave. The Rav thought marriage would cure Esti so she put her connection with God and the Rav’s advice over her own feelings and married Dovid in an effort to abandon lesbian temptations. After they both admit that neither of them have been with other women since they were together as teenagers, Esti admits to only being attracted to women and to not being happy with her life. On the way home, Ronit and Esti stop in a park where they shared their first kiss many years ago. They begin to kiss but are interrupted by a couple who recognizes them from the congregation.

Esti is worried about her reputation because she teaches at a local Jewish school. She is called into the office at work the next day and finds out that the couple who saw her with Ronit at the park had made a complaint against her. Overwhelmed with pressure, Esti and Ronit take a train out of town. They get a hotel room together where they can be alone and spend the night making love. After Esti returns home, Dovid tells her that the couple told him what they saw and Esti admits to kissing Ronit. Dovid yells at her saying, “What’s wrong with you?” and “You’re blind!” (Lelio, 1:14:58). Esti responds by saying that she has always had feelings for Ronit and that “It’s always been this way” (Lelio, 1:15:44).

Ronit is about to board her flight back to New York when she gets a call from Dovid who is worried about Esti because he can’t find her. Ronit decides to stay in London to help Dovid search for Esti, who eventually returns home to tell Dovid that she is pregnant and that she wants her freedom. She doesn’t think they should be together and she wants to give her baby the chance to decide to be in the Orthodox community or not. At first, this is difficult for Dovid to understand.

Ronit and Esti go to the Rav’s eulogy reading that is to be read by Dovid. It is clear that Esti’s decision is weighing heavily on Dovid’s mind. He stands up in front of the congregation and begins to read. Troubled by his own thoughts, he puts the paper down and starts speaking on his own, continuing the sermon about the freedom of choice that the Rav was giving right before he died. He looks up at Esti and says, “We are free to choose. You are free” (Lelio, 1:40:56). Esti meets him outside afterward and they hug each other. Soon after, Ronit joined in their embrace. Having reconciled her friendships with both Esti and Dovid, Ronit is finally ready to head back to New York the next day. She says her goodbyes and hops in her cab. Esti chases her down, stopping the cab in the street. She gives Ronit one last kiss and promises her that she will tell her where she decides to live. On her way to the airport, Ronit makes one final detour to say goodbye to her father’s grave.

Orthodox Jewish identity is a very strong theme in this film. According to Merriam Webster, Orthodox Judaism is defined as “Judaism that adheres to the Torah and Talmud as interpreted in an authoritative rabbinic law code and applies their principles and regulations to modern living.” The denomination is conservative and I think, very accurately portrayed. Some of the many ways this can be seen is in the synagogue where men and women are separated, in the traditional wardrobe and wigs, in the way they mourn the Rav’s death and in the way Ronit is criticized. It was clear that Ronit disagreed with many aspects of Orthodoxy. For example, she doesn’t want to have children, she sees marriage as an “institutional obligation” (Lelio, 34:23) for religious women and she’s bisexual. How could she be a part of a community that she doesn’t fully identify with? Both Ronit and Esti struggle with this aspect of their Jewish identities because “Orthodox tradition only supports heterosexual relations and only within the context of heterosexual marriage” (Human).

Because of this, queer Judaism can be seen as contradicting by conservative Jews. Though the majority of Orthodox Jews strictly adhere to religious law, individual rabbis may personally decide to welcome LGBTQ members. “ In 2010, more than 150 Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a declaration calling for the welcoming of LGBTQ Jews in the Orthodox community” (Human). But in strict communities like the one Ronit, Esti and Dovid grew up in, this is next to impossible. Even though her own father had died, Ronit was not welcomed back to the community. Esti had to secretly call her and when she landed there was no one there to pick her up from the airport. The first thing Dovid said to her was that nobody expected her to come. This signifies the very deep separation between Ronit and the Jewish community she grew up in, all because of her sexual identity.

Early in the film, you can tell that Dovid is worried about this part of Ronit getting in the way when he sternly reminds her that “Honor is the most important thing” (Lelio, 16:15). Not only was he putting pressure on her to honor her father’s death, but he was also scolding her for failing to honor Orthodox Judaism. This is when it became clear to me that no matter what Ronit and Esti do, their actions are disobedience. If they choose to honor their religious identities, they are disobeying their sexual identities and if they choose to honor their sexual identities, they are disobeying their religious identities. In this film, Jewish identity is portrayed in their fight to connect who they are with where they come from.

For Ronit and Esti, the two did not connect. They both had to make the painful choice between their sexual and religious identities. Right before Ronit leaves to catch her flight back to New York Esti asks her, “It’s easier to leave, isn’t it?” Ronit replies, “No, it isn’t” (Lelio, 1:22:12). Just because Ronit had already disconnected herself from the community she grew up in, doesn’t mean the choice between her two identities was easy. She started a new life without any support from friends or family and struggled to come to terms with the meaning of her relationship with Esti.

Esti, on the other hand, felt trapped. She was deeply rooted in a community that viewed her sexual identity as an abomination. Not only was she married to a respected rabbi, but she also taught Jewish children. During a dinner scene, Ronit is being criticized for changing her name. Esti chimes in saying, “Women… Women change their names every day. They take their husband’s names and their own history is gone” (Lelio, 31:54). I think this was a direct reflection of how she felt. She was bound by a religious marriage and who she truly was had been wiped away.

This was very difficult for Dovid to understand as a devout Orthodox rabbi. At the end of the film, he reflects on why the Rav chose to discuss the ideas of choice and freedom. He says there is “nothing more tender or truthful as the true feeling of being free” (Lelio, 1:40:02). He had come to the realization that Esti deserved the power to choose freedom from the strict rules of their Orthodox community, even if he could not fully understand or agree with her desires. Esti chose freedom for herself and her children. Dovid chose to accept this, to not take on the role of the Rav and to reconcile his friendships with both women. Ronit chose to tell Esti that she loves her and to make peace with her father.

Overall, Disobedience portrays Jewish identity from within an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community where homosexual identities are not accepted. Dovid acknowledges Ronit and Esti’s power to choose their sexual identities over their Orthodox upbringing but he does not acknowledge the possibility of them existing as one Jewish identity. Queer Judaism exists, but not within the context of this film. There are many organizations in both the U.S. and the U.K. that work to foster environments where people like Ronit and Esti don’t have to choose between their LGBTQ and Jewish identities. KeshetUK, The World Congress: Keshet Ga’avah and Congregation Beth Simchat Torah are just a few examples. At the same time, there are many Orthodox Jewish communities that do not support LGBTQ identity and therefore, many Jewish men and women that have to choose between their religious and sexual identities. This film does a great job at shedding light on this difficult aspect of Jewish identity. Just like Ronit and Esti, there are queer Jews that must search for a balance between self-definition and assimilation. Ronit, Esti and Dovid’s stories teach us one thing that Orthodox and queer Jews can agree on: the power of choice.

References

1. Human Rights Campaign. “Stances of Faiths on #LGBTQ Issues: #Orthodox Judaism.” Human Rights Campaign, 1 Aug. 2019, www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-orthodox-judaism.
2. “KeshetUK.” KeshetUK, www.keshetuk.org/.
3. Lelio, Sebastian, director. Disobedience. Bleecker Street, 2018.
4. “Orthodox Judaism.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Orthodox%20Judaism.

The churches’ view on homosexuality has been a hot topic of discussion for much of recorded history. Because of some verses in the Old Testament of the Bible that paint homosexuality to be a sin, it has been widely accepted in Christianity that homosexuals are living a life of sin, as with many other religions, mostly Abrahamic. Abrahamic religions refer to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, because in all of these religions, God presented himself to Abraham, a profit, beginning the process of what would later come, salvation. This paper will discuss the perceived cause of and acceptance of homosexuality because of this perception, the negative impacts from the church that have affected many homosexuals, religious people’s views on homosexuals and their parenting ability, and finally, the allowance of homosexual individuals in the church.

Many people have an opinion on homosexuality and if it is, in fact, natural or a choice. Religion can have an impact on this opinion, as stated in attribution theory. This theory was developed in 1944 by Heider and furthered in 1979 and 1985 by Weiner. Attribution theory states that “individuals work to predict and control their environment by attributing others’ behaviors as the result of internal or external factors (Whitehead, A.L., 2010).” In a study done by Andrew Whitehead and Joseph Baker, and another study done by Whitehead, results show that people who see homosexuality as a choice are far less likely to support same sex marriage (2010, 2012). This makes sense, because why would someone choose to go directly against God’s orders? It would make sense that followers of that religion would be quick to demonize and even cast out people who did so whether it be homosexuality or another sin. As people attended more church and prayed more often, they were less likely to see homosexuality as natural, therefore less likely to be accepting of it (Whitehead, A.L., & Baker, J.O., 2010, 2012). This was only studied in Christianity, however, so other religions can not be accounted for. It is troubling that people who attend church more are less likely to accept homosexuals for who they are. Church is supposed to be a love and freedom, and the fact that this is the narrative in many churches is unnerving. There are many other factors that play into whether someone is more or less likely to believe that the etiology of homosexuality, such as, views on science and its credibility, political affiliation, gender, economic standpoint, education level, etc. One of the most striking, however, are those who believe in science. About 94% of those who have a positive affect towards science see homosexuality as innate (Whitehead, A.L., & Baker, J.O., 2010).

Whether it was because they attended church themselves or were the victim of some malicious act at the hands of a religious person, many homosexuals have had negative experiences that can be drawn back to the church. One thing that is particularly interesting and harmful, is internalized homonegativity. Internalized homonegativity is “a unique [experience] to non-heterosexual individuals who direct internalized negative attitudes towards homosexual orientation in themselves as well as towards homosexuality in general (Meladze, P., & Brown, J., 2015).” One of many reasons that internalized homonegativity is so harmful, is because most gay men experience it at one point or another. It has been linked to negative impacts on mental and sexual health, “internalized shame, low self-esteem, disordered eating, depression, psychological distress, negative body image, isolation,” and many other, negative side-effects (Meladze, P. & Brown, J., 2015). After learning the last statistic, this becomes even more startling. Along with internalized homonegativity, comes cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is experiencing conflicting attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, etc. Many religious homosexual men experience cognitive dissonance because their religion tells them that their sexuality is bad and should be ignored. This cognitive dissonance can be combatted by either discarding certain belief sets, or deciding that no matter what your religion says, your sexuality is valid (Meladze, P. & Brown, J., 2015). Either one of these processes can be very hard and time-consuming. Even so, about 50% of homosexual men were still able to make one of these changes, while about 50% of gay men were not (Meladze, P., & Brown, J., 2015). Pikria Meladze and Jac Brown found that many homosexual men with Abrahamic faiths experience more homonegativity than homosexual men with newer, more progressive faiths like Buddhism, Wicca, etc, or no religion at all (2015). The fact that something as trivial as who someone is attracted to could bring this much negativity into their life, mostly from others’ thoughts, opinions, words, etc. is very troubling. Furthermore, the fact that others’ thoughts, opinions, words, etc. could affect someone in such a deep way is just as troubling. This shows that religious leaders need to take a bigger step in being allies for homosexuals, rather than a group that demonizes and casts them out.

Another long-seeded debate revolving around the LGTBQ+ community: are they fit to be parents? Should they be allowed to adopt? Research has shown that about one third of Americans would consider a same-sex couple without children a family, and about 60% of Americans see same-sex couples with children as a family (Whitehead, A.L., 2017). How do these statistic change when religion is thrown into the mix? Well, people who consider themselves Catholic are more likely to believe that same-sex couples are able to their opposite sex couple counterparts (Whitehead, A.L, 2017). As with many of these statistics, church attendance can have an effect on people’s opinions on LGBTQ parenting. Unsurprisingly, Whitehead found that church attendance is negatively associated with people holding the idea that same-sex couples are fit to be parents (2017). A negative association between variables means that as one increases, the other decreases, and vice-versa. So, as one attends church more, they are less likely to see LGBTQ members as fit for parenthood. Surprisingly, though, unlike many of the statistics listed in a previous paragraph, prayer has no significant association with believing that same-sex couples can be as good of parents as opposite-sex couples. (Whitehead, 2017). How people see the bible can have an effect on this as well. Most people fall into three categories: people who see the bible as inspired, or should be interpreted, people who see it as a book of fables, and people who see it as literal. People who see the bible as a book that should be interpreted individual are more likely than those who think it should be read literally to believe that LGBTQ couples are just as fit as heterosexual couples to be parents. However, those who see the bible as a book of fables are more likely than those who think it should individually interpreted to see same-sex couples as fit to become parents as opposite sex couples (Whitehead, A.L., 2017). How does one’s sexuality effect their ability to parent? It doesn’t seem to. There can be bad opposite-sex couples when it comes to parenting, just like there can be bad same-sex couples when it comes to parenting. However, I just do not think that this would be because of either couple’s sexual orientation, but rather, something inside them, or even something from their past could make it that way.

Should members of the LGBTQ community be able to be members of a church? That varies from church to church. Similarly, churches allowing women to be clergymen varies from church to church. Andrew Whitehead looked into if there is any correlation between churches allowing women as clergymen and their allowance of LGBTQ individuals as members and leaders. Many churches, about 37%, allow LGBTQ individuals to be members in their church. About 19% allow LGBTQ members have leadership positions. About 47% of churches allow women to be clergymen, while only about 8% of churches actually have women serving as head clergy (Whitehead, A.L., 2013). There is no passage in the bible that states that women or homosexuals cannot be head clergy, so that only leaves homophobia and misogyny as a reason for excluding these groups from either leadership positions or membership in a church. Many will say things like “well, you cannot have someone who is living a life of sin to hold a leadership position!” but, according to the bible, we are “ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of god (American Bible Society, 2010). So, who then, can hold positions of leadership? Whitehead found that the congregations that allow women to be head clergy are more likely to allow homosexual membership in their church; this likeliness almost doubles from those churches who do not allow women as clergy! Furthermore, churches become thrice as likely to accept LGBTQ members as clergy when they allow women as clergy (Whitehead, 2013). This shows that as churches become more progressive in allowing women as clergy, they also become more progressive in letting homosexuals be clergy.

Some churches find any way they can to condemn, demonize, and cast out members of the LGBTQ community from their services. This is very saddening considering that church and religion is supposed to be about love and acceptance, no matter what you do in life. Many LGBTQ members have to avoid coming out to avoid being cast out from their church, or decided to do so anyway, and had to leave the church they loved. Do churches condemn pre-marital sex, wearing of more than one fabric, eating shrimp, divorce, and hatred of another person, which are all spelled out as sin in the bible, the same way? No, and they should not.

References

1. American Bible Society. (2010). Holy bible: Containing the old and new testaments: King james version. New York.
2. Meladze, P., & Brown, J. (2015). Religion, sexuality, and internalized homonegativity: Confronting cognitive dissonance in the abrahamic religions. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(5), 1950–1962. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-0018-5
3. Whitehead, A. L. (2010). Sacred rites and civil rights: Religions effect on attitudes toward same-sex unions and the perceived cause of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 63–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00681.x
4. Whitehead, A. L., & Baker, J. O. (2012). Homosexuality, religion, and science: Moral authority and the persistence of negative attitudes*. Sociological Inquiry, 82(4), 487–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2012.00425.x
5. Whitehead, A. L. (2013). Gendered organizations and inequality regimes: Gender, homosexuality, and inequality within religious congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(3), 476–493. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12051
6. Whitehead, A. L. (2017). Homosexuality, religion, and the family: The effects of religion on americans’ appraisals of the parenting abilities of same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(1), 42–65. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2017.1310550

The topic of homosexuality always causes a lot of controversy in Islam and people are very emotionally involved with it. There are usually alternatives in Islamic law from things that are prohibited, e.g interest is prohibited, trade is permissible, there are haram foods but there are also halal foods, but in the case of a person with homosexual orientation there is no good alternative. You can not prescribe for the person to get married to a person of the opposite sex because that has no appeal to them and you can not simply say to them to be celibate because that is too much to demand of them. There is nothing directly mentioned in the Quran about homosexuality in particular and the Quran does not go in to detail about the orientation and the intimate act, in order to differentiate between the two we must draw on modern views. Because of this Islamic scholars have different interpretations and in this paper I will discuss the stances of different Islamic scholars on the topic of homosexuality. I will also discuss how people with homosexual orientation are treated in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan.

Some of the main questions that the younger generation Muslims are struggling with is that why does Islam hold such a strict stance towards homosexuality?, why is it haram?, why would Allah criminalize something that might be natural or what’s the big deal in what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. These questions has raised out in the mind of younger generation Muslims to the point that they are considering Islam to be an invalid religion based upon it’s stand on LGBT. Because of this Islamic scholars have an extremely important task of answering these questions in an Islamic way. Since this topic is vastly misunderstood there’s a lot of discrimination and haterds towards LGBT community in Muslim majority countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Since the time its creation, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been impacted by different Islamic belief systems originating from various governments. Because of this the whole society is intensely affected by religion, homosexuality stays a forbidden. All the significant sects of Islam have totally illegalized homosexuality yet the presence of a LGBT populace can’t be denied in Pakistani society. To explain what people of homosexual orientaion has to deal with in Pakidtan I am going to use the story of a young gay man from Lahore, Pakistan. Haseeb Rathore is a youthful gay man from Lahore, Pakistan who felt unique in relation to others at an extremely youthful age, yet was not permitted to communicate his emotions. Like other gay young men, Haseeb attempted his best to be acknowledged yet nothing at any point worked for him. During grade school, school and even in his expert life, he felt cornered, presented to harassing by relatives, schoolmates, and associates. When he was asked how do gay men spend their life in Pakistan?, he replied:

“Most gay men spend their life in guilt, carrying a burden of sins. In our society they only have two options: one is to come out of the closet and live a horrible life and being bullied; the other is to conceal their sexuality for the rest of their lives. People usually choose the second option. They get married and start living a dual life: one for the family and society, the other for their own satisfaction. This makes life very pathetic and a under continuous threat of being caught. Very few men come out and even when that happens, they get very little support from family and society.”

This shows us that Muslims in these countries have very little knowledge on the topic of homosexuality and what Islam says on how to treat them. Many extremists tend to treat people with homosexual orientation in ways that often goes against the core priciples of Islam.

Treatment of gay people by authorities and by society in general is likewise very unforgiving in Saudi Arabia. Homosexuality is unlawful in Saudi Arabia and those saw as liable are dependent upon death punishment. The accompanying data was given to the Research Directorate by the Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia (CDHR), located in Washington, DC, in correspondence dated 23 January 2007: Homosexuality is considered anti Islamic. Homosexuals are beaten, incarcerated and could face the death penalty. They are called Makhaneeth which could mean many things including the scum of the earth.

Homosexuality is a contentious issue among many religious groups and cultures throughout the world and has been one the most volatile political topics in recent years. Although societal attitudes toward homoeroticism vary greatly across cultures and historical eras, as do attitudes toward erotic desire, activity and relationships that exhibit homosexuality overall. Homosexual behavior has been variously punished, suppressed, tolerated and approved of throughout history. With many of the world’s cultures now consider homosexuality a normal, recognized form of sexual attraction. In ancient Greco-Roman times a prevalence of pederasty, “a socially acknowledged erotic relationship between an adult male and a younger male usually in his teens. Characteristic of the Archaic and Classical periods,” (Nissinen 2004, p. 57) is critically acknowledged and is representative of ancient Greece as a culture that openly accepts gay relationships. Whilst within certain sects of religions including Judeo-Christian and those influenced by Abrahamic tradition, acts of homosexuality were and currently are censored. Whereas medieval Europe saw period of sexual persecution where one found guilty of homosexual acts could be punished via death and established a precedent for other forms of sexual suppression in the future, resulting in the lasting taboo nature of the topic today, elucidating the everchanging regard in which homosexuality is perceived in.

Although the characterization of sexual attraction, homosexuality, “sexual interest in and attraction to members of one’s own sex, with the term gay is frequently used as a synonym for homosexual and female homosexuality often referred to as lesbianism,” is generally used to describe a same sex relationship it is not applicable when referring to ancient Greece (Homosexuality 2019). In ancient Greek society during the Archaic period from 800 BCE-500 BCE (Ancient History Encyclopedia 2009) nature of homosexuality was common and viewed as not any more defamatory than heterosexual conduct, in fact with Greece’s unbounded sexuality and steady obscurity of normal sex jobs in the time period it fostered a sexually fluid climate wherein homosexuality, in particular pederasty, and was considered neither unnatural nor skeptical. Pederasty is an ancient Greek society was a form of interaction in which members of the same sex would partake in the pleasures of a sexual relationship as part of an acceptable social custom, (Hubbard 2003) with the ideal pederastic relationship consisting of an older male and younger boy who’s passed puberty typically of the age of 16 and no older than 18. (Dover 1978) Therefore the sexual fluidity of these ancient people is unable to fit inside the strict rigid definition and term ‘homosexuality’ coined within the late 19th century by German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert (Pickett 2018) long after the civilization perished. Rather the practice of pederasty and the Greeks version of homosexuality where they did not judge sexuality in those terms of a homosexual or heterosexual. Instead focusing of the act, itself, but now pederasty is considered repugnant to the degree it has been classified as illegal, specifically characterized as pedophilia. Evidently, the word homosexual does not encompass nor satisfy the nuances within the Greek lexicon to describe their attraction to a man that would now otherwise be found a criminal act.

The persecution and censorship of homosexual behavior facilitated via religious bodies throughout history has resulted in a lapse of gay literature during the middle ages and is a significant part of the history of homosexuality to note. Especially when discussing the manner in which homosexuality has been perceived in, during the active defemination of homosexuality in the past, until current times in order to evaluate the nature of its representation in literature. In the later stages of the Roman Empire when Christianity developed through Europe homosexual encounters and behaviors came to be considered as unacceptable, due to the religious concepts of holiness and purity advocated for by Christian authorities based on certain words in the bible. Christian sexuality’s main approach held an opposing view to homosexual actions. Sex was only intended during this medieval period for strictly procreation purposes. The literature of medieval authors did not understand sex as a mutual, shared experience by two or more people of any preferred sexual denomination or gender. Society viewed sex as an act one person performed on another, as such that only a man penetrating a women’s vagina with their penis was considered acceptable.

The implications from this medieval thought about sex on homosexuals was grave and provided a precedent for the treatment of those who are gay and how literature portrays homosexual now. A man penetrating another male was a perversion of the ideal sex act as a mans role was to penetrate and be active, not passive and penetrated. This is demonstrated in the 12th century poem ‘The Plaint of Nature’ by Alain of Lille and reads, “The active sex shudders in disgrace as it sees itself degenerate into passive sex. A man turned woman blackens the fair name of sex.” The term sodomy, anal sex between two men, became outlawed by the Church in the 12th century. While certain jurisdictions in continental Europe elevated the punishment of male same sex relations particularly in France and Italy to an extreme level, that constituted the death penalty and cemented the anti-homosexuality sentiment in both religion and law.

The authors of this time were tainted in blind hate towards homosexual relationships, spurred on by societal delusions that were engraved into themselves from childhood and so no written work was achieved on the subject. To the extent that Bernadino of Siena, a prominent voice and author in his era, praised Venice for burning sodomites alive at the stake. In this period of time members of society and social customs contributed to the blatant blackout of homosexual literature ranging generally from the collapse of the Roman empire in 5th century, up until the early stages of the age of enlightenment. The forced suppression of the homosexual or homosexual act through means of harsh and exaggerated punishment by the government and through religious exploitation of the church and other religious bodies, including those associated with the Muslim faith to obtain their desired society in accordance with their own sacred guiding scriptures. Evidently this scourge of the homosexual occasioned a drastic lapse in any preserved literature that wasn’t confiscated or burned and contained accounts of homosexuality as a theme within the text. Rather the only literature from this period is confined to a few short quotes and poems, but nothing large enough to in depth understand how homosexuality was truly represented in literature as a consequence of the deliberate attempt to rid Europe of homosexuality. It was only until the 20th century when society began understanding and being accepting of homosexuality when novels and texts on the subject started to be written and published again.

This dissertation aims to critically analyze how homosexuality has been represented in societies throughout history, from ancient Greco-Roman times, to the 19th century and the counterculture sexual revolution of the 1960s where societal understanding of different sexual orientations became generally accepted, using literary texts from the corresponding time periods. In depth, I strive to understand in what manner literature is used to convey homosexuality in society and how that conforms and comments on the cultural zeitgeist. In addition, elucidate societal changes to the nature of homosexuality.

Censorship is the suppression of anything considered objectionable, and often target topics such as sexuality, racial issues, religion, drug usage and violence. In adolescent literature, there are many novels that are challenged can be due to language usage, personal views and values, and social issues; book challenges often request schools or libraries to remove that material. This paper will discuss the issues on banning adolescent literature in middle and high school classrooms, literature on LGBTQ+ content being challenged/banned, and the challenges on the novel “Looking for Alaska” by John Green.

According to the American Library Association Banned/Challenged Book List, many books are challenged due to the material being sexually explicit, having offensive language and unsuited to any age group (2019). Most of these censorships come from parents who disapprove of language and material dealing with sexuality, making it not age appropriate for students. Many parents do not want their children to use profanity and believe that seeing or hearing profanity can encourage adolescents to do the same (First Amendment in Schools, 2019). Profanity occurs in books, films and is used in everyday language; it should be up to the parents to teach their children not to use profanity at a young age when they are constantly exposed to it, even outside of literature.

Censorship can limit resources for teachers; with many novels being challenged, or even banned, it can make it difficult for a teacher to choose a novel for the class to read and learn about. Reading novels in middle and high school teach students how authors construct values, lifestyles, and points of views. It gives students motivation and creativity with being able to have an interpretation of the novel.

There are novels that should be challenged for middle school, but not for high school students. In Lycke and Lucey’s article, shows teacher candidates choosing controversial texts that would be “uncensored” for each school level. For example, The Outsiders by S.E Hinton was placed in the middle and secondary level (ages 12-18) (2019). This novel focuses on gangs and violence, but teachers tend to focus on different themes and connections and encourage middle school students to be able to identify them. Another novel shown in the article was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald being appropriate only for high school students. The Great Gatsby presented sexual references and language. Compared to The Outsiders, The Great Gatsby has more profanity and sexual references, and is considered explicit for middle school students.

Out of the top eleven most challenged/banned books in 2018, six out of the eleven include LGBTQ+ content (2019). Books are often challenged from those who have different views and values and are often offended by certain topics; unfortunately, sexuality continues to be an issue Many argue that books with LGBTQ+ content “promotes homosexuality”, and fight to remove them from libraries. “The increase in visibility of the LGBTQ+ community, despite making great gains, has made a target of discrimination and censorship” (Sheffield 2017). Books, often, help many students understand their emotions about sexuality. Characters that share a LGBTQ+ orientation can help a person feel accepted and a part of society; it can useful to have different resources in order to help them feel connected in their community. Having libraries ban/challenge LGBTQ+ content can affect students that continue to struggle with their sexual orientation and not feel accepted.

Sheffield’s study was to take a preliminary look at LGBTQ+ resources in Alabama, focused on only country library systems and examined how many challenged LGBTQ+ content books were in their public libraries. The ALA most challenged book list from 2001 to 2015 was used in this study; it was done in Alabama because of an expectation of having access to these books to be limited, considering that the state is known for its widespread disapproval of LGBTQ+ individuals. “Out of sixty-seven counties, twenty-six had at least one of the challenged books available to check out” (2017). It was found that LGBTQ+ books are not as restrictive as predicted because, many challenged and banned books were available for check-out. Having the LGBTQ+ challenged books to be available, challenge those who have tried to advocate to remove those materials.

Looking for Alaska by John Green has been a challenged book for several years on the ALA most challenged books list, due to it being sexually explicit and having offensive language. In Marion County, Kentucky, a parent challenged the novel in a twelve-grade classroom, complaining about the language in the book, without reading the entire novel (Hoffman 2016). This teacher sent out a formal note to parents about teaching the novel in her classroom, because of its sensitive content; the parent, challenging this novel, is gathering other community members to remove the book from the school after reading excerpts of it claiming it is “pornographic”. This novel discusses personal and social issues teenagers face, which is suitable for a high school classroom. The issues in the book deal with identity, friendship and loss,

“Essentialism” is the belief that things have characteristics that make them the way they are, if we were to connect this word to homosexuality it would mean homosexuality is something biological and out of an individual’s control. Since this has come into the light the LGBTQ community can defend themselves by saying they should be accepted the way they are since they were “born that way” and that sexuality “isn’t a choice”. Now that such a topic is floating about there has been a search to find the “cause” of homosexuality.

Is homosexuality something that can be proven scientifically? Is it just a part of Nature or is it “Nurtured” by things as one grows up? Is it a combination of both? Or is it a choice that people can freely make? Reasons will be provided here as to why homosexuality is something that happens before birth and that sexual orientation is decided by nature.

In the article “Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes” published on December 12, 2012, on SciTecDaily.com, studies have shown that epigenetic changes triggered by hormones in the womb can cause changes in a child’s sexual orientation. Due to constant fluctuation of hormone levels in the womb, sex-related genes are “turned on” or “off” which can quite possibly determine whether or not an offspring will be homosexual or not. Epigenetic changes like this either “enhance” or “blunt” testosterone activity which causes gene [Expressions] to change in the area of a child’s brain that most likely are connected to sexual orientation and preferences. This shows that homosexuality is something that caused by nature and that happens before birth as a child develops because epigenetics are changed in organisms caused by altering in a gene’s expression but not gene code itself. This article shows that depending on the level of testosterone, genes can undergo epigenetic changes that can cause homosexuality. In addition to this, in another genetic study, it is shown that the most genetically similar brothers (twins) were also the ones most likely to be gay.

In the article “Gay Men in Twin Study” published on December 17, 1991, on New York Times, a study on identical twins, fraternal twins, and unrelated brothers happened in Chicago on December 16th. J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston said that the study showed that 52% of identical twins of gay men (parents) were also gay, it also showed with 22% of fraternal twins and 11% of unrelated brothers (adopted/not blood-related). The assistant professor says this is a pattern you’d definitely see when genetics are involved, he also estimated that the amount of genetic relation to homosexuality could range from 30 to almost over 70% depending on how well this study “represents twins in the general population”, Dr.Bailey also said that he thoughts the studies were well-founded and that earlier evidence showed that there was in fact, a genetic effect. This shows that before these twins were born because their egg was fertilized by sperm that belonged to a gay male then this shows that they were genetically affected and born as a homosexual. Not only was there one twin study but two, which we will talk about next.

In the article “Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers” published on October 8, 2015, by Los Angeles Times, a UCLA biologist stated that he had identified several epigenetic changes that are strongly connected to homosexuality when studying male identical twins. The biologist said they identified these epigenetic changes in 9 areas of the human genome and that the simple presence of these changes can predict homosexuality up to a 70% accuracy. The biologist says that people interact with things all their lives that can cause epigenetic changes that affect one’s sexual orientation. How does this prove our claim that homosexuality is something that develops before birth? Well, the study showed that the gay twin had several noted epigenetic changes in his genes that were different from his straight brother and that these changes are strongly linked to homosexuality. This shows that homosexuality is something inside a persons DNA, in their body that makes them homosexual, it is not a choice nor is it something they experience that suddenly makes them homosexual but instead something is genetically a part of them.

Various movements toward civil rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community have begun around the world as early as 1969 during the Stonewall Riots. More and more recently, we as a global community have seen acceptance of LGBT culture with gay marriage legalized in all 50 U.S. states in 2015, which sparked other countries, such as India, to legalize that type of marriage. However, 72 countries, most of which are in Iraq and Africa, still oppose same-sex relationships and forms of gender expression. Even though the LGBT community is not as equal as the majority of the world’s total population, the countries that still have anti-gay laws should revoke said codes because everyone is equal within their rights, humanity, and beliefs; this includes anyone who is not heterosexual.

Some people might state that a man belongs with only a woman and that God does not approve of homosexuality. Well for starters, Jesus, who is declared to be God’s son, did not have any romantic or sexual attraction to men or women, therefore making him asexual and part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Second, the phrase “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” (Leviticus 18:22) is mainly against prostitution and non-consensual sex, rather than homosexuality. Lastly, if anything other than heterosexuality was a sin, it would be called the 8 Deadly Sins, not the 7, which are as follows: Lust, (which mainly is towards modern-day cheating,) Greed, Gluttony, Envy, Pride, Wrath, and Sloth. If religion is a reason why anti-gay laws are being made, then maybe they should reread the bible and determine the meaning of the specific phrases, words, and lessons it contains.

One might think that the LGBT+ community is not that much of a community since everyone has different opposing beliefs on politics, economy, music, and other subjects despite their sexuality. The main thing that ties this community together is the general fear of what others will think of them once they are “out of the closet.” “Coming out” is the phrase used among this group when they decide to reveal their sexuality, either privately or publicly, to someone. Generally when or before this happens, fear and doubt go through these people’s minds. Some thoughts include “ Is this person still going to accept me for who I am?” “ Are they homophobic/ transphobic?” Am I really ready to come out?” Sometimes these questions, as well as laws against the LGBT community, can prevent these folks from coming out for months, or maybe even years, making these individuals hate themselves for who they are. Taking away rulings against gays would not only help build these people’s confidence but also improve their self-esteem and give them a more positive mentality towards themselves and other closeted or out humans.

A final thought on why anti-gay laws should be revoked is that due to these laws, many people end up not marrying, or ending up in unhappy marriages. This means almost 37% of the world does not get an opportunity at real love; this is not only sad but emotionally wounds the LGBT society. And sometimes when the straight person finds out about the other’s sexuality, it can turn towards abuse and kicking the LGBT individual out of their homes, rather than dealing with who they are and still treating them as a human beings. If injunctions against the gay community were taken away, maybe these people would find more love and acceptance soon after.

In conclusion, anti-LGBT laws as a whole should be ruled out and replaced with Pro-Lgbt rulings. The LGBT community should be treated as humans; they should be treated with respect and kindness, and deserve a chance at love and a healthy life as much as anyone else. Having said laws doesn’t help anything, it just makes it worse for people to express themselves openly and freely. If these laws became null, maybe everyone would finally have a chance at love, and perhaps even freedom of expression and individuality.

Imagine if you were restricted by vendors because of who you’re married to. Now imagine if someone fired you from your job because of the person you were dating. These are real-life scenarios that people in the LGBT community endure each and every day. To clarify, LGBT is an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. Although you may not be gay or lesbian yourself, you probably know someone who is. Think about what they go through in life: name-calling, bullying, or even abuse. Think about how they feel being constantly singled out for who they are. In order to show you how important it is to protect those in the LGBT community, let’s clarify the discrimination that people experience, how we can solve it, and how this solution would help those that experience injustice.

LGBT discrimination is a worldwide epidemic. Although it mostly goes unnoticed, LGBT people endure discrimination in the form of verbal and sometimes physical abuse. According to the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for the rights of all humans, LGBT youth are twice as likely than their peers to be physically assaulted. This statistic is focused on LGBT youth because of the major concentration of abuse in schools. Also, people in the LGBT community may be denied the right to adopt a child. Instances in which gay people are denied services that other people are offered create a second class of citizens. Discrimination against the LGBT community is more widespread than most would think. According to BrandonGaille.com, a blog on marketing statistics, 41% of LGBT employees say that they’ve been physically or verbally abused by their co-workers. Additionally, a study showed that 47% of transgender employees said that they were either not hired or fired from a job because of their gender identity. As someone in the LGBT community, I have experienced discrimination because of my sexuality. The word “faggot” is a popular choice of most people that try to make me and many others feel as though we are wrong for being ourselves. According to the New York Times, there is no question of whether the LGBT community faces discrimination, “for the record shows that it clearly does.” The constant reminder that you aren’t normal can really get to people and cause emotional distress. In his book LGBT Health, Smalley claims that mental and emotional disorders are some of the biggest issues facing those in the LGBT community. Anxiety and depression are some of the most common plagues of those that identify as such.

In order to help end this discrimination faced by the LGBT community, there must be an act to make it unlawful to do so. This law is called the Equality Act. The Equality Act is an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful to discriminate against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The act would include the protection of sexual orientation and gender identity. This act has been passed through the House of Representatives, but it still has to pass through the Republican majority Senate and the President. The Equality Act would protect against denial of entry into any establishment, which has been a problem ailing those in the LGBT community. Another provision of this act is that it protects people from unfair treatment as seen in the workplace. The Equality Act also protects against harassment and violence, which has become an everyday occurrence for those that identify as LBGT. Dissenters of the passage of this act argue that it will become oppressive to those who aren’t of the LGBT community. According to The Heritage Foundation, businesses would be forced to serve people against their religious beliefs. This argument is invalid. Any “private” business has the power to decline access to anyone for any reason. But, if a business is open to the public and is in any way benefitted by federal funding, it is a public service and by law is not allowed to decline entry to anyone unless they are a threat to others. For example, a private school can reject whoever they want because they are funded by students. On the other hand, a public school has to accept anyone because it is funded by the government. The rejection of LGBT people in public is a violation of civil law.

Now just for a minute, imagine your child was gay. If the Equality Act is not passed, your child will fall victim to discrimination and abuse. Would you want them to live with the fear that they might be beaten for holding the hands of their significant other? Discrimination is not going away unless we have a law to make it stop. The Equality Act is a step in the right direction towards true equality for those in the LGBT community. Studies have shown that states with anti-discriminatory laws have fewer cases of violence against LGBT people. If other states follow suit and cases of discrimination decrease, then it is proven that these types of laws work. This is similar to the passage of anti-discrimination laws against African Americans. Although discrimination is not totally eradicated, there is a much lower rate of serious incidents than before the laws were passed. This is the only solution.

In conclusion, currently in the United States LGBT people are discriminated against in many aspects of life. To end this discrimination, we must create a law to protect them from this injustice. The Equality Act is a law that includes people in the LGBT community in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act would be a stepping stone to true equality. To bring a halt to this inequality, I encourage you to write your senators. I mean, it only takes a few minutes to draft an email. We have the power to make this change. Inform them of the good that this will bring to people who are currently facing discrimination. Tell them to pass this law!