Category: LGBT

Should same-sex relations have equal rights in the society? These days, the majority of people in the world are loyal towards the homosexual relationships. Within last decades, our society became more conscious about gay and lesbian couples. They can feel free in the streets and have special recreation spots. However, they do not have the equal legal rights, in other words they are banned to get married in the majority countries of the world.

Moreover, even people who are loyal towards gay relations, are often oppose gay marriages. Isn’t it a paradox? So what is it all about? And why many people are so negative about same-sex marriages? The purpose of the essays is to cast light on the essence of the gay marriages and provide evidences that same-sex marriages have right to be legalized. In order to provide these ideas, we are going to analyze two articles which promote and ban gay marriages.

Thus, as it has already been mentioned, many people support same-sex relationships, but, at the same time, they are against one-sex marriages. What is the reason of it? First of all, there are thousands misunderstandings, misconceptions and prejudices that surround gay relations.

First of all, the first prejudice that has a long history is that gay relationships are not natural and cannot be characterized by strong commitment to each other. Second, gays are considered to be unable to build long-lasting relationships. Third, some people consider non-traditional sexual orientation a psychological defect that should be treated. Thus, gays face many difficulties when trying to build relations.

However, why are there so many negative reactions concerning gay relations, especially, gay marriages, then? It is widely known that there were different types of gay relations in ancient times. It was common among Roman emperors and in Sparta. There were even gay wedding records performed in small chapels among monks. The ban on the gay relations has its history in every country. In Europe, this ban is related to the establishment of the Catholic Church. In The Middle Ages, gay relations were considered to be sinful and were strictly punished.

Fortunately, modern society is not often regulated by religious dogmas, and people can feel freely and choose any lifestyle. However, the echo of the last decades is still can be heard. Recent events in the world prove that our society becomes more conscious and open-minded. Thus, many countries have already legalized gay marriages and this tendency seems to expand over the world.

The two articles under consideration discuss the problem of the gay weddings and provide opposite points of view on the issue. The first article, “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We don’t Need a Constitutional Ban” by Kathy Belge promotes the legalization of the gay marriages and provide convincing evidences while using various rhetorical modes of persuasion, such as logos, ethos and pathos. In order to attract the reader’s attention and persuade the audience, the author of the article relies on logos and ethos for the most part.

As opposed to the article by Kathy Belge, the Eric Young’s article, “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” provides the same idea and claims that many people who vote for the same-sex marriages should be supported. In order to support this idea, the author also makes uses of different methods of persuasion, but the majority of his arguments are based on ethos. He offers the evidences supported by facts and citations taken from speeches of famous people.

As it was said, the purpose of this essay is to convince the reader that legalization of the gay marriages in important and these people should have the same right as people who live in two-sex families. In this light, the article by Kathy Belge is more convincing, as it is more persuasive.

The author put the reader into the rhetorical situation of the gay family Carla and Miriam and illustrates the problems that these women face. In fact, it is a strong persuasive technique as the reader is involved and can feel himself/herself in the same situation. Using pathos, the author appeals to the reader’s emotion and depicts the injustice towards the couple involving bright examples and explanation. For example, we can read that:

“When they returned, they felt like a married couple. They moved in together, opened their gifts and started talking about having a baby. Even though, the couple feels committed to each other, they have none of the legal rights that protect other married couples” (Belge n. pag.).

The author also reveals to the readers common sense asking a rhetorical question: “Gay Marriage: What’s the Big Deal?” She also addresses human feelings and sense of equity while telling that “marriage is an institution that much of our culture revolves around. And preventing a loving same sex couple from making a legal commitment to each other can only hurt their children” (Belge n. pag.)

Thus, we can see that the author is much beyond the prejudice and misconceptions, and successfully uses the rhetorical techniques to convince the reader in her point of view.

The author of the second article “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” uses more formal language and bases his writing of ethos. He provides vivid citations of people who fight for the equal rights of all Americans appealing to the self-esteem and sense of equity of the reader. He makes use of strong and emotional statements to motivate the readers protect their faith:

“We will work for a majority ‘yes’ vote this November 4th to hold a state constitutional convention and will fight to get a direct initiative law out of the convention” (Young n. pag.)

However, the author also turns to pathos in citing such claims as:

“With today’s ruling the Supreme Court has said to the people of Connecticut that ‘No, even this victory will be denied to you. We, your robed masters, will decide the big questions of politics and you little people will have no choice but to bend to our will,’” Wolfgang stated Friday” (Young n. pag.)

Thus, we can conclude that the society moves towards the legalization of the gay marriages and it is a considerable step forward. We can also see that modern society becomes free of the prejudices about one-sex relationships.

In this light, there is nothing blameworthy in gay marriages. Moreover, the facts show that the countries that legalized gay marriages felt the improvement of the society, moreover, it prevented the expansion of the sexually transmitted diseases. For example, in the Denmark, the majority of the clergy was against the legalization of the same-sex marriages. However, after having seen all advantages of this decision, they recognized the benefits that it can provide.

Moreover, there is an ethical and moral aspect of this process. For instance, why two loving people cannot make their relationships legal and share the same rights as other couples: have children, right for belonging and being on each other’s health plans. The world is fighting for equality, but often “close eyes” on very important issues. Why old prejudice have such influence on modern people that claim to be free, open-minded and seeking to live in equal society.

Thus, if we want to correspond with notion of free, equal and modern society, we should be opened for new norms and way of thinking that provides the freedom of choice to every individual. At the same time, there are still debates on the psychological aspect of the gay marriages. For example, if a one-sex family has a child, who this child will feel itself among children from the traditional families. This question also needs urgent consideration and fast solution.

Thus, there is still much debate on the legalization of the gay marriages. The ban on the legalization of such marriages is based mostly on prejudices and misconceptions. However, countries that have already made stet towards the legalization, recognize the benefits to individuals and society that it brings.

The articles “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We don’t Need a Constitutional Ban” by Kathy Belge and “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” by Eric Young are very convincing in supporting gay marriages.

The persuasiveness of the articles is specified by the use of the rhetorical persuasive means: logos, pathos and ethos. However, the authors still live open some questions to debate. For example: how can society defend its point of view and overcome fear and prejudice concerning one-sex relations.

Works Cited

Belge, Kathy. “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We Don’t Need a Constitutional Ban”. About.com Guide. Web.

Young. Eric. “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling”. The Christian Post. Web.

“It is better to be black than gay because when you are black you don’t have to tell your mother” (Barbetta 6). This is the type of attitude that has defined homosexuality for years. There have been debates on whether homosexuality is natural or learnt. Since then, there have been several developments on the issue of gay relationships.

In most states, discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation has been outlawed. This paper intends to argue that legalization of homosexuality does not negatively affect the societal moral fabric or cause any imbalance in relationships. This is because homosexuality is inborn and hence cannot be reversed, it is just like any other expression of love and interest and finally, it cannot be discouraged by law.

Most religious organizations have based their arguments on religious writings and argued that legalization of homosexuality has contributed to moral decay within the American society. This ethical approach has played great roles even during political campaigns where family values have over ridden the desire to legalize homosexuality especially in school boards and religious organizations. In their arguments, religious bodies argue that marriage is holy union and sacred.

They therefore argue that God created man and commissioned him to fill the earth through his union with a woman and not people of the same gender (Ayers and Brown 15).

Secondly, anti homosexuality lobbies argue that marriage between two people of the same gender beats logic because it lacks purpose and objective. They argue that marriage between man and woman has a principle purpose of procreation. Marriage between people of the same gender does not have this objective. In addition to procreation, same marriage can be done for the major purpose of property sharing and companionship.

The anti-homosexuality groups argue that these can be achieved without having to get married. There are laws that would comfortably address the issues of property sharing and inheritance (Sherman 14). These arguments however, have not been able to convince pro-homosexuality groups. The latter have also their arguments for homosexuality.

First, they argue that homosexuality is natural and inborn. While anti homosexual lobbies argue that this is a behavior learnt from the environment. Science has proved that homosexuality is an inborn affair (Garber 16). Le Vay’s 1991 study pointed out that there are structural differences within the brain of homosexual men and their heterosexual counterparts. According to the study, it was identified that interstitial nuclei situated in the anterior hypothalamus of human brain showed structural differences in the two groups of men.

In homosexuals, the structure was smaller as compared to the heterosexuals. He concluded that the size of this structure had a role to play in determination of a person’s sexual orientation. This means that homosexuality is not a learnt behavior but a natural phenomenon. It is therefore necessary that such people are given freedom just like other people with genetic deformations that lead to physical disabilities.

For instance, should there be rights to protect autistic people, and then there should be rights to protect people with homosexual tendencies because the root cause of these two is similar. In other words, if policy makers come up with rules to discourage people from inclining towards homosexual tendencies, then there should be developed rules to discourage people from being born autistic. This would be a sure expression of inconsideration.

Just like heterosexual relationships can be immoral when abused, homosexual relationship become immoral if abused (Garber 53). When two grown ups come up with a mutual consent to honestly and sincerely set up a family, there is no tangible or visible form of immorality. Any relationship that is founded on love, understanding, consensus and monogamy is moral. Branding homosexuality immoral is immoral in itself.

What would be the verdict in a case where two families are brought before a judge where one family is made up of people of same gender while the other is made up of a man and woman. In the case of the family made up of man and woman, the man is accused of beating up the woman, drinking silly until he forgets to uphold his responsibilities, bedding any woman where opportunity avails itself and doing all sorts of ugly things.

On the other side, the homosexual couple is accused of engaging in an illicit and unholy union of people of the same gender. On questioning, it is discovered that the homosexual couple lives peacefully with each member performing his obligations without strain. They love each other completely and are faithful. If the judge has to imprison or tag one of the two families as immoral and a bad example to the young generation, which of the two will bear the tag?

Will the homosexual family bear the tag just because it is believed to be unholy while the family where the father commits all forms of crime is taken to be moral? The truth is that morality can only be defined by the ability of the action to be replicated elsewhere and lead to happiness. Every moral action must lead to general happiness. This leads to the issue of law and homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a natural and irreversible process that cannot be discouraged by restrictions. Criminalizing and discriminating against homosexuals is a counter productive venture. Criminal penalties are imposed on an act so as to discourage continual participation in this act (Kamiat 230; Borg 33). Therefore, imposing penalties and discriminative laws in relation to homosexuality is meant to discourage people from engaging in this act.

However, is it possible to reverse autism? Can a child born with autistic genes be reformed into a normal human being undertaking his roles normally? The truth is no. once a person is born with certain genetic deformations; he remains with the deformations forever. There is no way that these could be reengineered to become normal. Similarly, homosexual tendencies are inborn and cannot be reversed.

If an individual is born with relatively small interstitial nuclei, there is no way he can reengineer himself to enlarge this structure of the brain. That means that it is the society that should adjust towards accommodating this individual because once born a homosexual, one will remain a homosexual forever. Regardless of how many laws and regulations discriminating them, homosexuals cannot change.

Putting up laws against them is like discriminating people with other physical disabilities. Specifically, putting a notice at the gate of an organization reading “no vacancy for homosexuals” is similar to saying “No vacancy for the physically disabled.” This is discrimination and should be banned.

In conclusion, it has been argued by conservatives and religious organizations that homosexuality should not be legalized. Sadly, this article argues against this position. It has argued that legalization of homosexuality does not negatively affect the societal moral fabric or cause any imbalance in relationships. Instead of incriminating homosexuals, the society should look for ways to understand them and make use of this productive group of people in economic development of the country.

One Christian woman who sought to understand why his son turned to gay practices found out one thing that could be of great importance to the society (White 18). She said that the only way people can understand the gay people is not through looking for solutions from legal sources or spiritual books. Neither can their solution be found in science. One can only understand homosexuals by speaking to them. Giving them an ear and understanding their every sentiment.

Instead of running up and down arguing from a position that heterosexuals do not really understand, it would be more constructive if we all accepted that homosexuality is structural deformation or inclination with which an individual is born. This means that it is impossible to reverse what has already been made. Instead of trying to force them to desist from the activities, we should encourage them to construct moral families bound together by love, honesty and responsibility.

As a society, we should aim towards constructing a positive picture of homosexuals so just like we have constructed a positive picture of other physically disabled people. Policies and laws discriminating homosexuals should be considered retrogressive and be abolished so that these people fit in the society and contribute positively to the attainment of personal, family, society and nationwide goals and objectives.

Works Cited

Ayers, Tess, and Paul Brown, The Essential Guide to Gay and Lesbian Weddings. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994. Print.

Barbetta, Francine. A Pebble in his Shoe – The Diary of Straight Spouse. New York: Xlibris, 2008. Print.

Borg, Marcus. Reading The Bible again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.

Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Kamiat, Arnold. “A Psychology of Asceticism,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23 (1928): 223-231.

Sherman, Suzanne. Lesbian and Gay Marriage : Private Committments, Public Ceremonies, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992. Print.

White, Mel. Stranger at the Gate – To be Gay and Christian in America. New York: Plume/Penguin Group, 1995. Print.

Introduction

This paper discusses homosexuality in the light of the opinion of Young. A personal opinion of the topic is also given. More views on homosexuality by different scholars are incorporated in this article.

Homosexuality

Definition: homosexuality has been defined as “feeling and manifestation of sexual attraction for individuals of the same sex” (Barbera 93). This definition captures both the psychological as well as physical aspect of the homosexual. Moore pointed out that homosexuality is a complicated issue and can not be limited to only having sex to with a person of the same sex. He argued that it incorporates doing all the things that people in love do, for instance kissing, caressing and looking pleasantly into each other’s eyes among other things (Moore 39).

The Role of Religion: although homosexuality has gained a lot of publicity in the recent past, Young argued that the practice is not new to humanity. Homosexuality has been practiced in the past and a number of religions have been noted to accept different forms of homosexuality as normal. Baum in his study, as quoted by Young, showed that many traditional African cultures were receptive to homosexuality.

The study by Baum associated homosexuality in the African cultural context with religious roles: “in the religion of the Ila of Zambia, the male mwaami (prophet) might dress as and live among women” (Young 18). I tend to feel that this thought by Baum seems to be farfetched because most of the African cultures hold bearing of children as a sacred and therefore it could be hard to encourage homosexuality.

The Chinese society is also said to have encouraged homosexuality. Even among the Japanese there has been recorded some instance of homosexuality in the past: ‘the most famous expression of male homosexuality in Japan was the pederasty common in the samurai class during the Kamakura period (1192-1336)’ (Young 390).

Young further recorded that, ‘Shoguns and samurai often kept young male lovers for emotional support as well as sexual expression’ (Young 390). Most of the Christian denominations do not accept homosexuality. The western religions are generally opposed to homosexuality.

Religion has a great influence on the way people view different issues on the society. If a given religion views a behavior as a normal issue, then the adherents of that religion will take that issue to be normal. Due to the influence that religion has on the society, if it denounces a practice then such a practice becomes highly looked down upon.

Personal Opinion: Personally, I believe that homosexuality is actually a misuse of faculties. Arguing from the biological perspective, a male is meant to relate intimately with a female. I do believe that men and women are meant for companionship as well as for procreation. In as much as homosexuality might provide companionship it does not make procreation possible. Other scholars have similar views (Corvino 289)

Conclusion

Homosexuality is an intimate relationship between two people of the same sex. In the past, different religions have advocated for homosexuality. The Japanese, some African cultures among others religions are some of the examples of cultures which have not have an issue with homosexuality.

Religion has a huge influence on how people value different aspects. If a religion scorns on some issues then the adherents will most likely look down upon that issue and if a religion upholds a given practice the followers will equally uphold that practice.

Works Cited

Barbera, Domenico. The Spirit World. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Corvino, John. Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Print.

Moore, Gareth. A question of truth: Christianity and homosexuality. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Print.

Young, William. The World’s Religions: Worldviews and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.

My argument here is that the churches and Australian families were very right to carry out an event last month concerning support on natural marriage and to deny gay the right to marry. This is because according to the Bible and other religions rules, it is very wrong for people of the same sex to get married.

Although the number of people supporting same sex marriage is increasing, the practice is very wrong as it violates the virtues of Christians. This means that in the coming years, this practice will have to be legalized in Australia no matter what since the percentage of the supporters will be.

This also shows that although marriage of the same sex has a minority population in comparison to natural marriage, the population will hike in the near future (Thomas 99). The best thing is that politics and politicians of Australia are also against gay practice, and the urge of gay marriage is less inducing than the advantages of doing so. This makes it hard for even a conscience vote on gay marriage to go through both chambers.

Although there is the pressure to standardize the situation, I honestly feel that same-sex marriage should not be legalized, and I am happy that the parliament contains more mature people who do not support the marriage because statistics shows that less than 50 percent, actually 46 percent support same-sex marriage while the rest are against (Chase & Aggleton 2004).

My only worry is that the number of individuals supporting this kind of marriage is rising gradually and besides, leadership is now coming to the youths who majorly support this practice meaning that they will eventually legalize the marriage (Miller 102).

How will the churches, Christian leaders and decent families feel when such marriage is legalized? The virtue and the notion that marriage should always be between a man and a woman will fade away, and a new subject will take over. There are several reasons as to why natural marriage should be enhanced and gay marriage remains illegal.

First, natural marriage was a command from God who ordered people to multiply and feel the world meaning that this kind of marriage ensures there is the survival of species. Gay marriage is only for pleasure, no any kind of multiplication proving that the gay couples are only a threat to procreation but it is still hard to expect them to refute their personal trends and to marry heterosexually (Chase & Aggleton 98).

This argument is significantly supported by John Howard who also opposed gay marriage. Besides, Howard’s government amended the 1961 Marriage Act in 2004, New York to make sure legally married same-sex couples overseas do not acquire legal recognition in Australia or anywhere else.

This Act has been on the stand for many years down the line, and it is but one of several adjustments to the institution of marriage. However, the Bible and traditions are used as the background for the argument opposed same sex marriage. Therefore, the reader should appreciate this concept and support it.

Moreover, it is clearly indicated in the Bible, the Old Testament that Abraham, Jacob and David married multiple wives, as did many others in those days but there is nowhere written that people married people of the same sex, that is breaking the principles of the Bible and the virtues of Christians. Note that these men mentioned in the Bible had multiple wives for the procreation of children and that was the common practice in those days (Miller 459).

This is because they followed the word of God that commanded them to multiply and fill the world. Therefore, marriage is not for sensual gratification but for siring children. It is clear that it is indeed right to deny gay people the right to marriage because other than sensual pleasure, there is no other benefit of such behaviors rather lots of demerits.

There have been lots of stories and histories concerning marriage in the US where blacks were not allowed to marry whites and in Australia, it was vice-versa where Aboriginal women in Northern Territory were permitted to marry non-Aboriginal men although with permission from the Chief Protector (Chase & Aggleton 111).

Divorce was not allowed especially in the Western communities with women having little formal rights in marriage, as they were obliged to obey their husbands. However, the most notable thing to note is that long time ago; marriage was only a religious institution where marriage took place in churches only (Thomas 213).

This is exceedingly opposed to what we see today where marriage is conducted outside the church with most marriages being “come we stay” that are not legal while other groups like the gay societies claiming to be given the right to marriage. This is actually abusing the rights of the church. If specific churches want to decline to marry same-sex couples because they believe doing that is going against their religious teachings, that should remain their right and nobody should interfere with that.

In as much as the same-sex groups claim that they are being denied their rights, they should understand that it is not their right and that indeed they are attempting to violate the rights of churches and other religious institutions. Therefore, it is extremely correct for the gay couples to be denied the right to marriage because it is illegal and violation of religious rights (Miller 470).

The reader need to understand the fact that same sex marriage is illegal according to religious values and it should not be practiced at all. After going through it, the reader should share this information with a friend or two in order to eliminate this evil practice from our nations.

Works Cited

Thomas Caramagno, C. Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger. 2002. Web.

Miller E. Gorge. Prentice, Hall Reader, 10^th Edition. Prentice Hall Publishers. 2010. Web.

Chase WarWick I, E & Aggleton P. Homophobia, Sexual Orientation and Schools: a review and implications for action. London; University of London, 2004.

A common trend in most societies has been to segregate athletes using the sex/gender variable with the view to ensuring fairness in sports and other physical competitions (Bialystok, 2016). However, this perception is increasingly losing currency as transgender and intersex individuals are now competing in sports and other recreational activities more than ever before (Oakleaf, 2015). The case example provided underscores the importance of drafting a policy aimed at directing the participation of transgender individuals in recreational sports leagues in Los Angeles.

The best way to go about drafting the policy is to relax perceptions of sex segregation in recreational sports leagues by virtue of the fact that these sports are more about fun than about ensuring fair competition. Available literature underscores the “growing recognition that strict sex segregation threatens to exclude from competition those who are transgender, transsexual, or intersex, which is itself a form of unfairness” (Bialystok, 2016, p. 605). Drawing from this elucidation, the proposed policy statement on transgender participation in mixed leagues will not require transgender athletes to prove their gender identity through the testimony of professional experts and psychologists; on the contrary, the policy will aim to address the rights of transgender players by adopting a more inclusive approach to participation in recreational sports leagues. Specifically, the proposed policy will encourage transgender players to participate in the recreational sports leagues based on how they identify with their respective genders in order to reduce any perceptions of discrimination or unfair treatment (Bialystok, 2016).

In instances where the decision to participate based on how transgender players identify with their respective genders may conflict with the interests of other “normal” players, the proposed policy will follow a set of predetermined standards to decide the issues on a case-by-case basis. This will entail making a determination on whether the sex change is a result of hormone treatments or surgery, the length or duration of hormonal treatments, and the inspection of birth certificates to determine gender at birth. Under the proposed policy, male-to-female or female-to-male transgender players under medically prescribed hormonal treatment for the desired sex change will be allowed to participate in mixed leagues at any time since the games are not competitive in nature (Wahlert & Fiester, 2012). Lastly, the proposed policy will underscore the need to not only preserve the medical privacy of transgender players within the community but also to treat them with kindness, dignity, and respect (Bialystok, 2016). As such, the policy will have educational and awareness-creation components to ensure that these needs are successfully met.

The factors that need to be considered in drafting the policy include making a determination of how the transgender status was reached, exploring the possibility of holding several “mixed” sports disciplines to deal with the issue of fairness, identifying ways through which safe and healthy recreation opportunities could be provided to all citizens regardless of their sex/gender, and reaching out to the local members of the transgender community to understand their needs and expectations (Wahlert & Fiester, 2012). In resources, it is important to evaluate how the locker rooms and restrooms in the parks are able to handle the needs of transgender individuals during recreational competitions (Oakleaf, 2015). It is also important to make a consideration of how transgender athletes will be accommodated in competitions and what educational materials may be used to address the issue of gender stereotypes.

References

Bialystok, L. (2016). Transgender inclusion in single-sex competition: The case of beauty pageants. Social Theory & Practice, 42(3), 605-635. Web.

Oakleaf, L. (2015). Social equity in parks for the transgender community. Parks & Recreation, 50(10), 46-49. Web.

Wahlert, L., & Fiester, A. (2012). Gender transports: Privileging the natural in gender testing debates for intersex and transgender athletes. American Journal of Bioethics, 12(7), 19-21. Web.

Introduction

I chose this discussion topic for I wanted to explore why we have a high homosexual marriage rate while other families lives in difficult, and how all these affects children’s involved. In addition, the topic will cover support for the gay marriage and reasons against homosexuality in our society and look at the attitudes, beliefs, values systems and behaviors that unify a family.

Union in marriage

Marriage as a union between two people from different sex, who are in love, makes one another commend each other for the rest of life. It is also defined as interpersonal relationship with governmental, social or religious recognized union of a different sex who promise to live together.

A good number of Americans believes that marriage is a personal life goal, which last for lifetime. In marriage institution, the couples are tied by vows to live strong together in times of difficulties and goods and be a companion to each other. Nevertheless, the actual behavior of the American is diverging sharply from these beliefs.

Therefore, marriage has declined primarily because we do not respect and value the institution as highly as it should be. Our cultures have become dubious of marriages and other social institution and instead we put a much higher value to individual life, choice and unlimited personal liberty.

Responsibility of homosexuals

However, homosexual parents have understood themselves and in the twentieth century, around ten million gay and lesbian parent families in United State were raising more than fourteen million children, mostly in recognized gay families.

Majority of these kids were born in either heterosexually married parents whom of them later become a gay or a lesbian. Although by the end of twentieth century, numbers of same sex couples children have increased and they are really facing many challenges in forming and securing their families.( Sullivan 406)

Despite the facts that “heterosexual marriage is more recognized in American society, homosexuals are capable of proving that they can also be as responsible to their families as it is to the normal one.” (Sullivan 405) They have bid their sacrifice, commitment and responsibility to the marriage and their children.

It is very odd to learn that “some of the American cities have already set their by-laws to protect legal gay marriage and their domestic partnership. These domestic partnership laws allow the homosexuals couples to register with them and be able to access the benefits that a heterosexual marriage enjoys. “(Sullivan 405)

Although Andrew argues that there is “no evidence that shows that deleterious impact on a child brought up by two homosexual parent”, children needs to be brought in a sober environment to make their future brighter also conservatives will never value homosexuality in our society.( Sullivan 406)

Reversing homosexual unions

Despite the barriers, increasing number of homosexuals began raising children through donor insemination performed at both homes and hospitals by medical experts. In early twenty first century, increasing number of lesbian and gays began using other means to have children such as foster parenting, adaptation and even surrogacy means.

This according to me acted as a major challenge to the heterosexual marriage, for it limits the need to form a straightforward marriage in a mission to raise your own children as provided by the law and religious teachings

As early as 1980s the gay, lesbians, and bisexual groups has formed a number of local and national organizations to protect, support and advocates for the homosexual parents and their children.

For example in 1982, The Sperm bank of California was established as the only nationwide nonprofit sperm bank aiming to serve lesbians and bi-sexual women and by 2001 more than one thousands children had been born through their services.

Additionally children brought up in these families suffer from psychological trauma trying to associate with the other kids and might suffer from the role played by the non-biological parenting.( Bennett 437)

On the hand, allowing gay and homosexual marriage is believed to be a major challenge that affects the marriage institution today. “By allowing homosexual marriage, it would do and have noticeable long-term social harm” (Sullivan 404) to the current generation and future of our society. Recognizing the legal marriage of gay and lesbian would define the meaning of the term marriage and indeed would be the most drastic step to be taken in deformation of our society’s most significant institution. (Sullivan 404)

With the fragility of the institution, adding of homosexual marriage in the list would stretch it to unrecognizable state where even brother and brother; sister and sister marriages would be experienced. It is our responsibility as the society that value culture, integrity and good will to stand up and shout a big no against legalizing homosexuality

If today happens and homosexuality is legalized, there will be numerous repercussions in many areas. To be precise lets take learning institution curriculum for example the sex education would have to be altered with and expected to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal and this will equally confuse our children.

Secondly, gay and lesbians will have equal rights with heterosexual couples when claiming children adoption. I think it will be better for a child to be brought up by mother and a dad rather than being raised by two male or women homosexuals.

Conclusion

Marriage has been and should remain to be the paramount segment of every society and by denying it the value and integrity that it poses will make no good to our society and nation as whole. Marriage institution is already in a mess because of what you call sexual revolution, numerous divorce and children out of the wedlock.

It is therefore required for all of us to volunteer and conduct civil education on morals and integrity of an individual to safe guard our future.

Works Cited

Bennett, William. The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family. Crown publishing group, 2003. Print.

Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality.Knopf; 1995. Print.

Today, more than ever before, the fundamental issue of homosexuality has attracted great interest from academics and mainstream commentators, with no end in sight to the million-dollar arguments elucidated by both advocates and critics of homosexuality (Satinover, 1996). This essay aims to highlight germane arguments for and against the practice of homosexuality from a civil rights and liberties perspective.

In many countries globally, the convention of civil rights and liberties demands that each individual is entitled certain fundamental and inalienable rights and freedoms under the Constitution, such as the right to life, right to equal treatment in a court of law, freedom of speech and association, right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Armstrong, 2011). This rights should not be denied on the basis of “…the citizen’s sex, race, creed or religious belief” (Lewis, 2009, p. 670).

Advocates of homosexuality argue that authorities go against the very Constitution they seek to protect when the prevent homosexuals the freedom of association, right to liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness (March, 2010). To the advocates, these are fundamental rights that should not be denied on the basis of the citizen’s sexual orientation as framed in the Supreme law, which is the constitution.

Another stand of advocates suggest the fundamental rights of homosexuals are trumped upon by its critics as they do not have control over their homosexuality just as heterosexuals do not posses control over their heterosexual behavior (Lewis, 2009). Consequently, it becomes difficult to force homosexuals to have control over their own sexuality as it is difficult to force an individual to change his/her ethnic background.

Advocates of homosexuality also argue that the government’s role as prescribed in the Constitution should be to defend the rights of the people rather than denying them the right to be equal citizens based on their sexual orientation.

Still, some advocates questions the legality of critics who rely on traditional beliefs to say that homosexuality is unnatural, suggesting that there is no where in the American Constitution, or any other Constitution for that matter, is the preservation of traditional beliefs cited as a power or intention of the prevailing government (Satinover, 1996).

The practice of homosexuality is opposed equally, with some critics suggesting that individuals engaging in it fail the threshold of getting their fundamental rights because they engage in unnatural acts that cannot naturally produce children through such relationships (Lewis, 2009).

Another strand of critics posit that allowing homosexuality to prosper in society will have negative ramifications for the already struggling institution of marriage, while yet another strand argues that allowing homosexuality will precipitate the emergence of other sociopathic behaviors that may strain the very fabric that holds society together (Satinover, 1996).

In conclusion, it is important to note that the above arguments have their own strengths and weaknesses, but the advocates have more muscle if the evaluation is done from a purely civil rights and liberties perspective. The American Constitution is very clear that each citizen is allowed certain inalienable rights and freedoms and, as such, no law should supersede the Constitution in its quest to grant citizens the right to association and the pursuit of happiness (Armstrong, 2011).

It is indeed questionable whether homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture variables as no research has been conclusive on the issue (Lewis, 2009). Consequently, those who support homosexuality on the basis that it is a innate, just as heterosexuality, should be allowed the benefit of doubt until such a time when objective research studies will prove otherwise.

Additionally, it is wrong for the critics of homosexuality to criticize the practice on the basis of the fact that homosexuals do not procreate. If such criticism holds water, according to Satinover (1996), then sterile, impotent or postmenopausal women should never be allowed to marry under the Constitution.

Lastly, it can be argued that to bar any group of individuals from marrying as they choose merely because they may degrade the already struggling institution of marriage is an astonishing deprivation of fundamental rights as it is wrong to withhold the rights and freedoms of individuals merely because of the mistakes of others (Armstrong, 2011).

Reference List

Armstrong, D.A. (2011). Stability and change in the freedom house political rights and civil liberties measures. Journal of Peace Research, 48(5), 653-6652.

Lewis, G.B. (2009). Does believing homosexuality is innate increase support for gay rights? Policy Studies Journal, 37 (4), 669-693.

March, A.F. (2010). What lies beyond same sex marriage? Marriage, reproductive, freedom and future persons in liberal public justification. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(1), 39-58.

Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. New York, NY: Hamewith Books.

Introduction

Homosexuality draws mixed reaction from across the globe. Issues like cultural values, religious context, atheism, political stability, and economic empowerment of the people in a particular setting would play a pivotal role in accepting this sexual orientation. These factors determine homosexual acceptability in the society, although other forces would have a significant role in the determination of its acceptance.

This topic is common in most popular cultural setting although there is little literature work on the same to dissect adverse opinion and ways of embracing diverse opinion on the same. In this context, the conservatives draw their arguments from religious teachings whereas the atheists or the liberals embrace the need to have a society of diverse cultural orientation.

The debate experiences opposing views from philosophers, most of whom are Christian and Muslims. These conclusions come from their spiritual perspective and thus do not clearly stipulate the desire to accommodate diverse religious inclinations on the same ground.

Literature review

A decade ago religion was the most important predictor in defining the attitude of homosexuality in the society, Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) bring an elaborate diverse opinion on the debate. They believe that acceptance of homosexuality depends on the existing laws that regulate the same sex marriages, possible penalties when viewed as social misfit, and diversity in national or cultural orientation.

This last aspect shows the importance of religion in explaining the attitude on the debate. In fact, macro and micro support survival and personal beliefs that carry weight in defining the attitudes of homosexuality (Olson et al., 2006; Yip, 2005). It is from this context that one draws the importance of opinion as the best alternative in formulating law, shaping the direction of cultural inclination and thus religion.

Homosexuality, in respect to religion, is unnatural in the eyes of the Supreme Being; the same philosophy holds this as an impure act. The fear of divine punishment shapes the cultural orientation concerning the direction of a community. Deep rooted-ness to religion would draw disapproval attitudes as opposed to those not deeply rooted in a religion.

Muslims are the worse in making such opinions concerning the debate; they have a strong disapproval attitude, unlike members from other religions. This holds true to the cultural orientation in which atheists from this background would disapprove strongly homosexuality than atheists from other cultural background (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009).

Some perception on gays and lesbians evoke different judgments, the survey by Norris (2008), came up with assertion that conservatives were the most judgmental on the perception that sought to allow these people freely mingle with others in the church. This supports several opinions, from this work, some people do not find any reason for branding an individual in that state of action.

For instance, when one asserts that there are lesbians, rapists, and gays in the church and that they are decent people, though, living in sin, conservatives do not acknowledge the act of niceness as being polite yet rude to social context. Acknowledgement of homosexuality as impure and dirty is the most vocal opposition from such community.

Moral judgment from the liberal and the conservatives are under the influence of different forces in the societal context. This is largely because of their different daily life orientation. While liberals’ demands for openness, inclusivity, and diversity that do not seek to harm any person in the society, counterparts view this as uncouth and punishable by law.

The findings from this work elicit different views of liberals and the conservatives on this topic. The conservatives do not imagine how such acts could go free in the society by drawing their argument from their spiritual orientation in Supreme Being.

They also believe that it represents cultural decay in the society in which punishments must take place to restore sanity, although they also offer room for repent in case of reform. These opinions are the fundamental framework of enacting laws.

Depending on the majority, their way shall take centre stage and dictate the acceptable. This will automatically lock out different views from various groups with diverse sexual orientation in the community (Norris, 2008).

According to Edgell et al. (2006), atheists face strong resistance from across corners of the world. The debate in this work is whether the act of the same sex marriage and other related sexual orientation is acceptable in the society or not. Findings from this work show that their acceptance in the community becomes questionable in different perspectives.

It is therefore, true to assert that these finding support multiple views on the debate. The gap that exists between the believers and the nonbelievers defines the extent of this acceptance. If there is deep concern of community, some perception on their sexual inclination would define the root of acceptance.

In this context atheist, unlike other religious orientations do not easily gain acceptance, either in public, or private domain. This distrust gets its drive from religion prediction factors, social location, and extensive values of orientation. From this context, it is clear that although there is extensive acceptance of various religious contexts, the same does not happen with nonreligious grouping.

This study, however; goes an extra mile in helping to describe that increasing acceptance of various cultural inclinations and sexual orientation does extend to the levels of known religion.

The study’s findings on the role of religion and believes provide sound moral guidance for any membership in cultural acceptance. Clinging onto the religion allows and gives on a better position of acceptance in the societal domain as opposed to lack of religion (Edgell et al., 2006).

The attitude plays a significant role in young men and their religious perception in homosexuality. Besen and Zicklin (2007), explore the variations of attitudes on people clinging to same sexual marriages from the complexity of religious definitions, mainly in the young people and how these could support or put to jeopardy on the rights of gays.

This research supports multiple views on the perception of gays in the societal context. Its findings show that young men do not have particular attitudes about the homosexuals, but their counterparts in religions do, these varied perception emanates from religious inclination.

However, one notable difference in the youth is the varied attitudes on gender, whereas young male showed significant concern and attitude toward the homosexuality, their female counterparts show little concern.

The latter seems to support a diverse cultural perspective. Although the data obtained in this research had multiple study sites, for instance whereas in the military more young men showed their support for and positive attitudes toward these sexual orientation multiple views emerge from without this context.

The role of religion is playing a significant role in shaping the youth in taking a certain sexual step, more so it defines the virtues and values for accepting and developing a positive attitude of a given sexual orientation. It is from this perspective that the youth find it hard to go against the norms and virtues of religion in doing contrary to their teaching of sexual orientation.

The unsupportive trends by religious group are the basis upon which the youth find solutions and directions of denouncing the homosexuals. This is true because many of them cling to religions that have positive attitudes on the act (Besen & Zicklin, 2007).

In his work on understanding the different views of homosexuality debate, Sprigg (2011), notes that many people do not consider two important views in an effort of understanding same sexual marriage. The first paradigm shift is the identification of gay identity.

This shift is under several believes it states well that when one is born a gay, it makes it hard to change the state; it also states that gays have fewer options of becoming heterosexual. This paradigm also defines sexual orientation as innate feature by likening it to races, it goes ahead to assert that the act is not different from being straight. Finally, the shift stands firm that there is no harm in one adopting gay.

The second view defines the practical aspect of sexual orientation. Unlike what many people perceive, this work shows the importance of going out of the cocoons that enslave many conservatives who believes that sexual orientation is purely a unitary phenomenon. The study shows that sexual structure is a three thing affair; this comes from attraction, conduct, and self identity (Sprigg, 2011).

One may get attraction to people of the same sexual orientation, opposite sex, or both. The second part gives liberty of choosing the type of conduct one gets attracted, while the last segment seeks to draw the attention of one’s thought as straight, gay, bisexual, and lesbian.

Findings from this studies show that although some people may feel attraction from the same sex, they would otherwise choose the opposite (heterosexual) because if fear of publicity and possible implications. This denies them the option of choosing their desired sexual partners.

Study on the debate reveals issues of concern depending on development, industrialisation, and economic powers (Chike, 2007). While in countries like Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands the homosexuals easily go about their culture, in developing nations the act of homosexuality is unthinkable.

African Christian leaders are the most conservatives in condemning this act; they strictly follow biblical teachings that condemn the act of same sexual orientation. From this perspective, it is true that economic empowerment has a major role in shaping the way people think and make decisions.

This does not give them room to look at the Bible as historic book that offers alternative teachings that require evaluations and considerations in a contextualization perspective, but rather as a book that offers nourishment that needs integration into their traditional way of life to define their every step. It is very difficult to integrate diverse views and attitudes of accepting homosexuality in the community.

This stiffens the possibility of smooth swaying of wave and tides for those having attractions for same sexes. Similarly, philosophers in Europe and North America share the same sentiments with African religious leaders. These are mainly those with imprints of Christianity in the African continent. Contrary to this, industrialized countries assess these issues in different perception; a god number of religious leaders would allow liberal view.

Western churches would be comfortable to accommodate lesbians, rapists, and gays in their churches as opposed to what happens in African states. In this study, the author draws attention of some of the underrated predictors that define religious orientations toward homosexuality. Economic empowerment seems to play a significant role in shaping the way forward in accepting this issue (Chike, 2007).

Some researchers believe that the same way religions do not offer accomplishments like honorary degrees, issuance of passports, and academic accomplishments, they should not bother about branding some act as illegal and thus should leave the floor open for individual choices. Homosexuality is in fact, among the many issues that religions oppose.

Many religions assert that when one sees atheism in the society he or she sees homosexuality in the same magnitude. However, some religions like Christianity in some developed nations have rooms for these people. This came to live after several years of protest and stone throwing to make the field free for navigation.

As many would have expected that the church took an active role in ordaining active homosexuals, the move is still in darkness owing to conservative views on the same. Largely it faces resistance from lack of policies from the state to provide provisions that enable people of same sexual orientations to enter into a contractual arrangement.

This last aspect include issues like nationhood or citizenship, status of immigration, inheritance of insurance policy, and policies that govern visitations to the hospital (Chike, 2007; Sprigg, 2011).

Many states are facing resistance from policy makers in these sectors because people of the same sex marriages would be in a better position of enjoying significant returns from these policies if there is a legal protection of their sexual inclination.

This faces resistance from the religious leaders who on the same issues assert that protection of moral uprightness in the society is the most important aspect that needs protection than individual aspirations intending to bring down the strong mechanisms of social values and norms.

Just as religion is dynamic, homosexuality perception goes along this inclination in different views. The main determinant of religion among others is the age. As people grow older, they tend to cling closer to a religion, this must take into account their dynamic perspectives. This is the basis upon which many people keep changing from churches to churches.

This is mainly to find places where their faith in accepting other norms does not welcome rude rebuke. Conflicts in the narrowed thinking aspersions cause most people to move in various religions. Most people will, therefore, identify themselves with religions not against a certain sexual orientation. Embracing complex religious identity is the main predictor that embraces the wellbeing in most atheists.

This is contrary to their intent of aligning themselves to a religion; the aftermath of these wrangles is keeping away from such doctrines that tend to deny their rights. Even though all people under the universe will try as much as, they could identify themselves with spirituality in which many would derive resources, sexual orientation would shift this perception into a totally different point of view (Chike, 2007; Sprigg, 2011).

Conclusions

Some of these findings are consistent with the public opinions mainly because some studies draw their argument from the religious perspective. The evidence emerging stipulates the importance of this research in drawing the attention of progress in the debate. This implies that more is yet to draw the importance of liberating the society in allowing its people to take their different stand in cultural values.

The implications of these researches are that people with distinct sexes, different sexual orientations, and gender identities would not have a place in the society not until change covers the earth’s face.

This protects policy makers in the insurance, medical fraternity who believe that same sexual marriages would make certain individuals to benefit from the facilities and policies while disadvantaging their counterparts in straight marriages.

The research needs to find amicable issues of redress in carrying out their research and offers sound solutions to policy makers to champion methods to drafting policies in which everyone would find refuge.

References

Adamczyk, A., & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38, 338–351.

Besen, Y., & Zicklin, G. (2007). Young Men, Religion, and Attitudes towards Homosexuality. Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 1(3), 250‐266.

Chike, C. (2007). Beyond the homosexuality debate. Web.

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 211–234.

Norris, R.A. (2008). Some Notes on the Current Debate Regarding Homosexuality and the Place of Homosexuals in the Church. Anglican Theological Review, 90(3), 437-512.

Olson, R.R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J.T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 340–360.

Sprigg , P. (2011). Debating Homosexuality Understanding Two Views. Web.

Yip, A. (2005). Queering Religious Texts: An Exploration of British Non-heterosexual Christians’ and Muslims’ Strategy of Constructing Sexuality affirming Hermeneutics. Sociology BSA Publications Ltd, 39(1), 47–65.

The United States society has recently taken a significant step toward equality for its non-heterosexual citizens in a landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized the same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, while there have been some improvements as far as the civil rights of homosexual individuals are concerned, the LGBTQ population at large remains on the country’s political and social periphery. The present paper examines two prominent works on the topic that look at it from the social science perspective.

The first work is Shane Phelan’s book Sexual Strangers in which the author examines whether the United States is, in fact, a heterosexual regime that excludes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals from citizenship (Phelan 1). The central claim of her book is that the abovementioned groups are perceived as strangers in the U.S. society – ‘strangers’ being a point on the friends-enemies spectrum: seemingly similar yet strikingly different (Phelan 29).

Phelan deconstructs the notion of citizenship to include not only civil rights and privileges but also political participation and inclusion (13). Thus, even though there are virtually no laws institutionalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation, such individuals are nevertheless stigmatized, marginalized, and barred from being active members of the society (Phelan 19).

In my opinion, Phelan makes one of the most compelling arguments in support of the advancement of civil rights of the sexual minority groups. While she is certainly preoccupied with the problem, she employs a calm and matter-of-fact tone and further strengthens her point by looking at it from a social science perspective. By shifting the paradigm from discrimination to the issue of citizenship, she translates the problem into actionable terms and places it into an appropriate context at the policy-making and social levels. Moreover, she engages and considers the point of view of her opponents: thus, for instance, when Phelan discusses the issue of marriage, she not only cites the argument of marriage being a private affair but also looks at it as a public institution (22).

The second work, Cities, Queer Space, and the Cosmopolitan Tourist by Dereka Rushbrook, examines the interception of urbanism, tourism, cosmopolitanism, and queerness by exploring how the latter affects the first three concepts. According to the author, queer spaces, because of their otherness, have been widely popularized and commercialized as exotic urban niches (Rushbrook 185). The appearance of “cool places” such as gay bars and clubs gives a city a certain “sophisticated allure,” and the presence of gay villages in such cities as Portland and Austin is believed to represent their diversity and progress (Rushbrook 184). Queerness has been turned into cultural capital, and “queers became commodities, when straight spectators began to attend pride events and drag shows” (Rushbrook 191).

Thus, the issue discussed by Rushbrook borders on the phenomenon of cultural appropriation whereby the dominant group arbitrarily adopts the elements of another group’s culture without giving due respect to their meaning and context. The main weakness of such arguments is their seeming inability to reconcile the celebration of diversity and retention of certain cultural elements by the community that created them. In other words, the author does not argue for the segregation of queer and straight spaces yet does not suggest how the intersection between the two should take place so as to avoid the commodification of queerness.

Overall, these works serve as a good example of how LGBTQ inequality can be examined through the prism of social sciences. By considering the concepts of citizenship and cosmopolitanism, the two works explain why inclusion, participation, and perception of the LGBTQ community in the United States is problematic.

Works Cited

Phelan, Shane. Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. Print.

Rushbrook, Dereka. “Cities, Queer Space, and the Cosmopolitan Tourist.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 8.1 (2002): 183-206. Print.

Introduction

It happens that nature fails to provide a person who feels like a woman with a female body and the one who is a man in mind with a male one. These people believe that they were born in the wrong way, and only the transition from one sex to another can make them feel most themselves. They are known to the world as transsexuals, individuals who need to travel a long way to a life they are looking for (Scutti para. 2).

In the majority of cases, people are born as males and females, which presupposes particular biological characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy. These things are beyond their control and cannot be altered by one’s will. As a result, individuals whose gender and sex identification do not coincide need to live in discount during their whole life. Fortunately, today the progress in the healthcare sphere allows doctors to help these people.

They can do a sex affirmation surgery and prescribe hormones to make one become recognizably male or female. Still, professionals treat such procedures with extreme caution, as a result of which the medical narrative of transsexuality has its own pros and cons. Even though transsexuality is a disorder that influences gender identity and requires special treatment, transsexual individuals should have a chance to become ordinary men or women.

Medical Narrative of Transsexuality

In the medical framework, this issue is known as gender dysphoria. In general, it deals with the situation when one’s brain got wrong ‘signals’ when it was formed due to the misbalance of hormones (“Gender Dysphoria” para. 3). As it is considered to be a disorder, people whose transsexuality is proved after special assessment can have a legal sex affirmation surgery, change their documents, and be treated as they always wanted. They can receive less invasive treatment and be taught how to live in their bodies. Being treated as a disorder, sex reassignment therapy became medically necessary, which allowed it to be covered.

However, the medicalization of transsexualism made it more difficult to receive the treatment as individuals have to prove that they have such problems, and it is not just a temperate state of their mind that occurred because of frustration and negative experiences in personal life. Except for that, people with gender dysphoria are often considered to be mentally ill by the general public, as they require psychotherapy. For the same reasons, these people tend to become vulnerable and afraid of admitting their transsexuality.

Psychotherapy

The requirement of psychotherapy should be maintained for people who desire sex change because “gender identity disorder can result in psychologic dysfunction, depression, suicidal ideation, and even death” (“Health Care for Transgender Individuals” para. 1). It is critical to remember that people who are willing to have a sex affirmation surgery did not arrive at such a decision at the same moment they realized that something is wrong.

Bornstein claims that the culture identifies the roles people will have in their lives, taking naturally-gendered individuals as the basis (12). As a result, those who are not naturally-gendered face problems in every-day life. They do not meet the requirements and expectations of society because the way they should live is not developed. These people feel like strangers who cannot adjust to the environment, which makes them confused and depressed.

Of course, they are likely to identify themselves as transsexuals over the course of time and to have surgery that will help them. But until that moment, transsexuals already have particular problems that require psychiatric care. For the invasive treatment to be successful and bring expected relief, individuals’ mental health is to be decent. Except for that, psychotherapy can make a person accept one’s body and reject the idea to change sex. It can also confirm that one has gender dysphoria and is not suffering from other problems, the solution of which can lead to satisfaction with a person’s gender.

Rights Claims

Today the position of transsexuals and transgender people in society is not clearly defined. That is why they tend to be treated as strangers who are living in their own world. Still, some prefer to adjust to the general public and behave as normal males or females after the sex change. The same diversity can be found in the views of transsexuals and transgender people. On the one hand, some of them want to be the opposite gender as ordinary man or woman so that no one can even presuppose that the issue existed. On the other hand, some feel gender binary is too restricting and want to open up and live in a ‘third space.’

Personally, I believe that it would be better for the whole society to keep the framework of the gender binary and let transsexuals and transgender individuals choose who they want to be. It may sound rather limiting, as those who would like to remain a ‘third space’ will not have such an opportunity, but I consider it to be the best way out. I can agree with Bornstein, who believes that “the culture may, in fact, be creating the gendered people” (12).

Yes, from early childhood, we are to decide whether we are girls or boys and to follow the guidelines prepared for us. Still, such an approach was not created out of thin air. It is based on the natural distribution that allowed people to procreate. Supporting this division, we are moving our world forward and prevent the extinction of humankind. Of course, it sounds exaggerating, but slight changes today may lead to enormous alterations in the future.

Encouraging the creation of a ‘third space,’ we are likely to let it become a part of our culture. As a result, it would become natural to see men dressed as women on the street or in the supermarket. Soon, children will start to imitate such behavior and will act as an opposite gender just because it is the thing everybody does. Having not stable psyche yet, the representatives of the youngest generations may subdue to the tendencies of the modern world and forget about the things that are more natural to them. Moreover, people’s sex presupposes one’s physical characteristics, while the rationale for the creation of a ‘third space’ is more mental.

Transsexuals and transgender people do belong to particular sex that is associated with the masculine or feminine gender. If they adjust to the majority, they would still have an opportunity to act as they want. Children should realize that they have a choice and are free to decide who they want to be, but it seems to be wrong to influence vulnerable populations creating one more gender. Bornstein believes that transsexuals and transgender people need acceptance and understanding, but these can be obtained without the status of ‘third’ (98).

Conclusion

Heterosexuals, transsexuals, and transgender individuals should be provided with equal opportunities and treatment. Still, it is important to be sure that a person is in a ‘wrong body’ before changing it definitively. Minorities should receive advantages that will allow them to have normal lives without stress and harassment, but these advantages should not have an adverse influence on the rest of the population.

Works Cited

Bindel, Julie. Tolerance Is the Last Thing Gays Need. 2014. Web.

Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.

Gender Dysphoria 2016. Web.

Health Care for Transgender Individuals 2011. Web.

Manalansan, Martin. “In the Shadows of Stonewall: Examining Gay Transnational Politics and the Diasporic Dilemma.” A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2.4 (1995): 425-438. Print.

McVeigh, Karen, and Paul Harris. U.S. Military Lifts Ban on Openly Gay Troops. 2011. Web.

Phelan, Shane. Sexual Strangers, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001. Print.

Rushbrook, Dereka. “Cities, Queer Space, and the Cosmopolitan Tourist.” A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 8.1-2 (2002): 183-206. Print.

Scutti, Susan. What Is The Difference Between Transsexual And Transgender? 2014. Web.

Sodomy Laws in the U.S. 2013. Web.