Category: LGBTQ

Introduction

Bias is present in a significant amount of modern news coverage as society has become increasingly polarized on a variety of socio-political issues. In the context of increasing LGBTQ activism and recognition, transgenderism faces the greatest controversy and public backlash. Transgender individuals refer to people who either identify or express with a different gender than the one assigned at birth.

The public debate centers around either acceptance and support of transgender people (liberal perspective) or denying it as a concept by declaring it unnatural, immoral, or biologically impossible (conservative viewpoint). In an investigation of online news publications, it is evident that both sides attempt to utilize emotional appeal in justifying their respective perspectives, and often rely on personal attacks and interpretations of sociology and science in building their case, both in reporter and reader bias.

Main body

The right article is by Joseph Brean of the National Post describing the backlash and abuse that Meghan Murphy, a feminist journalist and public speaker, faces in light of her stance on transgender ideology as being inherently anti-female and her planned lecture at a public library leading to condemnation from supporters of the LGBTQ community (Brean).

Online research on the news organization National Post which is based in Canada found it to be leaning right-center with a moderately conservative approach, but it scores high on factual reporting according to the website (National Post). Meanwhile, Brean is a relatively recognized conservative reporter who has been with National Post for more than a decade, with an internet search for the author finding him to be based on a number of issues with one website declaring his unfair coverage of mental health being the worst back in 2010 (Oaks).

At first, the article establishes Murphy as a credible figure, a journalist who has taken on a variety of feminist topics with much recognition. However, when opposing transgender acceptance, she is facing everything from boycotts to direct threats to safety. The reporter is establishing an emotional bias in this context, which he builds upon when he describes how pride supporters are addressing Murphys stance by highlighting quote words such as disappointed, consequences, betrayal (Brean).

The reporter then builds the case based on Murphys stance suggesting that transgenderism is biologically impossible, and it is a violation of womans rights. The issue is framed in a way that it references science in regard to biology, and an aspect of human rights that is in direct opposition to LGBTQ groups that also state that their rights are violated by not allowing for the legalization of transgenderism. It is a common tactic among conservative groups to utilize scientific references to support their point, but liberal groups often condemn this as a cherry-picked and fallacious approach to the dehumanization of trans individuals (Sun).

Reader commentaries largely agree with the article and Murphys perspective, suggesting that without clear definitions of genders, it is dangerous to assume anything, as well as emphasizing the hypocrisy and double standards of Pride supporters in regard to a tolerance of opinions. This article bias could impact the discussion on the issue by presenting transgenderism as a topic focused on individuals lacking experience in the LGBTQ community and stating beliefs with the little scientific or social foundation to base their facts upon, which highly distorts objectivity and resorts to emotional condemnation.

An article by Gillian Branstetter in Newsweek is an opinion piece that discusses the opposition on the issue of transgenderism in society and policy. It suggests that the concept is becoming mainstream in public view with the support of various medical and mental health organizations as well as other support, which is leading anti-trans groups to become aggressive in their stance (Branstetter). Newsweek has been identified as a strongly leftist liberal news source, associated with emotional influence on its audience and mixed record in factual reporting (Newsweek). Branstetter is a media relations manager at a Transgender Equality organization and commonly writes articles and opinion pieces on the topic in support of the transgender movement, which may indicate strong bias (Gillian Branstetter).

Factually, the article seems to be correct by indicating overwhelming support for the issue from court cases, scientific and medical communities, and human rights organizations. Branstetter furthermore accurately highlights the opposition arguments, some of which were seen in the right-wing article. While being an opinion piece, the article uses highly emotional appeal by portraying transgenders as victims of prosecution, having to face court battles, and societal pressure to fight for their rights. Furthermore, Branstetter demonstrates report bias by directly attacking the opposing side through aggressive language such as, cast of reactionaries, fundamentalist zealots and conversion therapy hucksters (Branstetter).

The title of the article suggests that the opposition on the issue is a battle royal  a deadly fight for survival. It has a double-edged meaning as the author is both implying that conservative groups are running out of arguments while also suggesting that the discrimination against transgenders can be deadly and is rooted in complete rejection our existence (Branstetter). Although emotionally charged, her claims are relatively true as the anti-trans campaign has gotten increasingly violent both on social media and in real life, leading to an 81% increase in attacks.

Conservative channels are using highly inappropriate and repulsive language in relation to sex-change surgery that many transgenders choose to undergo (Fairchild). Readers in the commentary under the article largely agree with this notion of fear-mongering and highly aggressive stance. However, a debate erupted as well suggesting that the article itself is an aspect of liberal propaganda and that political correctness is being chosen over objective truth and science.

This type of language and approach can have severe repercussions socially, as discussions on the issue are being turned into attacks on the beliefs of the other group. Meanwhile, each side is utilizing a more aggressive stance such as correlating transgenderism to completely unrelated concepts or focusing on forcing acceptance towards those individuals that may not recognize or, worse, not understand the issue. That is dangerous on its own and creates even greater polarization and anger in society.

Conclusion

Both liberal and conservative news sources utilize emotional appeal and attacks against the opposition in coverage of transgenderism while relying on respective interpretations of scientific and social aspects regarding the issue.

The polarization of the issue finds reporting on the topic highly biased and often framed for readers to sympathize with the viewpoint each article supports. This approach to reporting bias from both sides on the issue is highly derogatory in an objective and peaceful discussion to promote a level of agreement and compromise. The context around transgenderism will continue to remain tense and volatile, resulting in everything ranging from boycotts to violence. This is unfortunate as the reporting bias fuels it as demonstrated by evident reader bias, and neither socio-political part of the population is attempting to find a solution in terms of policy or discourse.

Works Cited

Brean, Joseph. Meghan Murphy, The Woman Behind Trans Wars Breaking Out at The Public Library. National Post. 2019. Web.

Branstetter, Gillian. Anti-Transgender Activists Are Suiting Up for What They Believe Is Their Battle Royal | Opinion. Newsweek. 2019. Web.

Fairchild, Phalen.  Heres Why Hate Crimes Against Transgender People Spiked 81%. Medium. 2019. Web.

Gillian Branstetter. Transgender Equality, n.d. Web.

National Post. Media Bias/Fact Check, n.d. Web.

Newsweek. Media Bias/Fact Check, n.d. Web.

Oaks, David. Worst Mental Health Media Of 2010: Canadas National Post Biased Articles by Joseph Brean. MFI. 2010. Web.

Sun, Simon D.  Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia. Scientific American. 2019. Web.

Many scholars have investigated the portrayal of the LGBTQ+ population in the media, noting that it does not always reflect reality. Seif (2017) provides an analysis of several characteristics of gay and lesbian characters in the media. They include gendered stereotypes, victimization, representation as villains, a sexual depiction, or a complete absence of such, and depicting equality rights concerning marriage and children (Seif, 2017). Looking at the aspect of gendered stereotype in detail, one can notice a tendency of presenting one person in a gay or lesbian couple as feminine and the other as masculine. Another example, victimization, refers to portraying gay and lesbian characters as victims, often in contrast to heterosexual people depicted as happy, independent individuals. Finally, either an excessively sexual representation of gay and lesbian couples, or a lack of sexual context constitute another characteristic of the phenomena at hand. As can be seen, the authors analysis highlights the adverse aspects of gay and lesbian characters portrayal in the media. This approach emphasizes heterosexuality as a standard, while the LGBTQ+ population is viewed as a deviation.

The idea of gender binary lies in the assumption that only two categories of gender exist: in forms of masculine and feminine. According to Seif (2017), the US media actively promotes gender binary by, for instance, depicting gay males in a stereotyped feminine manner, like dressing well, exaggerated extravagance and high-pitched voices. (p. 17). In doing so, the media intends to make it easier for the heterosexual audience to accept a character. Another example is a lack of representation of gay or lesbian couples raising children (Seif, 2017). Hence, heteronormativity is promoted and set as a standard for society. It is a concept that perceives many aspects of life through the prism of heterosexual norms, with which gays and lesbians do not comply. For instance, depicting traditional families in TV shows identifies the importance of child-raising, marriage, sharing property, and other conservative values for the audience. Another example is portraying gay and lesbian characters as villains, hence, sending the message that homosexual identity is bad. Overall, the examples show how the media often aims to show that the LGBTQ+ population does not fit in the heterosexual society.

Zombie TV shows and movies are among popular and financially successful projects in the media. In their article, Cady and Oates (2017) studied zombie narratives to determine the role of a nuclear family and traditional values in such movies. The plot usually focuses on the survivors after infection spreads and institutional collapse, often identifying their desire to recreate a conventional family if they successfully avoid contamination and death. Cady and Oates (2017) came to the conclusion that neoliberal ideological representations of heteronormative family relations play a crucial role in the modern zombie media (p. 308). Besides, despite being open to multiracialism and anticonsumerism, zombie TV shows and movies still primarily rely on the assumption that a traditional family is a standard of societal form. Hence, they add to the promotion of traditional gender roles, as other examples are hardly depicted. Presenting a nuclear family as the only solution to survive and avoid threats emphasizes conventional gender roles and cultivates more bias against gay or lesbian characters. At the same time, zombie narratives could be a new way to restructure society and broaden its view of a traditional relationship.

On reflection, I can say that after completing both readings, I see the effect of the media on the Americans perception of the LGBTQ+ population quite clearly. For instance, even the TV shows and movies that portray gay and lesbian characters can, in fact, be demeaning and biased, and, hence, promote an adverse image. The media is a powerful tool for social consciousness, and forming the wrong opinion of the issue can be critical for the present and future generations. The representation of gay and lesbian characters is often guided by the standards and beliefs of heteronormativity, imposing its values and not considering those of the LGBTQ+ population. For example, presenting a gay male whose voice is high-pitched and who cares for his appearance too much will likely make many people believe all the gays in real life are similar to him. At the same time, it is not valid, and a more comprehensive approach is needed to identify and avoid all the issues the media presents in the wrong light.

This assignment was informative for me as it made me more aware of the issues in contemporary media. It helped me better understand that the promotion of binary gender and heteronormativity creates social problems, primarily due to emphasizing the role of a traditional and demeaning the role of an odd family. The belief in heteronormativity is currently prevailing over the idea of the existence of identities outside the gender binary. When this tendency is represented in the media, it aggravates the ongoing inequity in society in real life. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the medias role and the changes that can be made in social consciousness through it.

References

Cady, K.A. & Oates, T. (2016). Family splatters: Rescuing heteronormativity from the zombie apocalypse. Womens Studies in Communication, 39(3), 308-325.

Seif, R. (2017). The media representation of fictional gay and lesbian characters on television: A qualitative analysis of US TV-series regarding heteronormativity [Masters thesis, Jönköping University].

Introduction

Recently, there was a sharp increase in cases of suicides committed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth. Councilman Joel Burns of the Fort Worth City Council delivers a speech on the subject, connecting the growing rate with the bullying of LGBTQ and adults neglect of the issue. In particular, the Councilman highlights that his story is meant for young individuals rather than their parents and teachers. He shares the experience of coming out as a gay, urging LGBTQ to wait because the better times of happy memories will someday come. Asher Brown, Billy Lucas, Justin Aaberg, and Seth Walsh killed themselves as a result of continuous harmful and violent harassment on the part of their classmates. Throughout the oration, trying to convey the seriousness of the matter, Burns becomes emotional and cannot hold back the tears. The following essay will attempt to examine the possible responses of LGBTQ and close-minded adults to the video, as well as changes in both perspectives.

Responses

Intolerant adult (IA), in this context, refers to parents, school health professionals (SHP), and teachers who reject their children and students identity with respect to gender and sexual orientation. It can be expected that LGBTQ would feel relatable to the issue and sympathize with the Councilman. Indeed, homophobia, biphobia or transphobia is one of the major reasons for LGBTQ suicidal tendencies (McDermott, Hughes, & Rawlings, 2017, p. 246). Youth might find themselves nodding in agreement with Burns, recalling their own bullying experiences. Moreover, the message can improve their mental health and prevent fatal mistakes. Thus, the video would inspire LGBTQ to live and understand that they are not alone in their struggles.

It can be expected that IA would feel overwhelmed by the severity of the issue and how it is disregarded. Their strong beliefs and prejudices might be broken since the lives of their children are at a stake. Guilty of ignorance and lack of attention, parents would blame themselves for tragic losses. As for the teachers and SHP, watching the video, they would remember examples of inaction and bias towards LGBTQ students. Hence, the regret of irresponsible behavior is a common feeling uniting IA.

The reaction of both sides would be sentimental and aspiring to new changes and beginnings. Similarly to IA, LGBTQ would sense the connection to the matter since either of the parties had to deal with bullying from different angles. I might become helpless and lacking control, scared of losing or harming their children. On the other hand, LGBTQ would believe in their value, growing stronger self-esteem. Therefore, IA and LGBTQ would be poignant in receiving the message.

Changes in Views

IA might be motivated to take action with regard to LGBTQ suicidality. Some of the parents would perceive the video as a pivotal point of upbringing techniques. They may reconsider societal stereotypes and stigmas for the sake of their children. As for SHP, whose role in attending to LGBTQ bullying has been under-examined, would develop a more accountable attitude towards the matter (Earnshaw et al., 2019, p. 282). Their current practice of carelessness and inattention would fall under question. SHP might ponder whether their failure as a counselor is an outcome of deaths. Burnss life example would act as an ample case that social norms and standards should not decide LGBTQ living. LGBTQ could consider school bullying as a temporary struggle, hoping for social changes. The Councilmans emphasis on the eventual end of times of trouble would facilitate a positive outlook on the future of LGBTQ. Thereby, the youth may be stimulated to discuss mental state expect radical transformation within society, while parents and teachers may listen, understand, and accept their feelings.

Paradigm Shift

Fundamental changes happen with time and an increase in awareness of the issue. Firstly, statistical data must be provided as evidence of great concern for school safety for LGBTQ students (Abreu et al., 2016). Information on suicidal rates and bullying of heterosexual and non-heterosexual people has to be compared to build a strong link to bigotry. Names of children who committed suicide as a consequence of constant bullying must be revealed. Their painful stories should be uncovered and serve as a motivation for actions. Additionally, parents need to learn how to have a conversation about sensitive topics without judgment or partiality. They might take courses or receive a special consultation with a professional psychologist. LGBTQ youth need to talk to and engage with adult ones so as to ensure that happier days will come. Whenever they feel vulnerable to suicidal thoughts, children need to be able to speak to grownup LGBTQ. Thereupon, facts and practical examples will help radical alterations to translate into reality.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the speech made by Joel Burns would lead to the disclosure of the LGBTQ childrens burdens of bullying to death. They might be encouraged to discuss the school problems and reconsider their life choices, anticipating progressive changes. On the other hand, parents and teachers may rethink their narrow-minded opinions on gender and sexual orientation. Nonetheless, it must be supported by factual materials and real-life illustrations of the existence of a healthy LGBTQ environment.

References

Abreu, R. L., Black, W. W., Mosley, D. V., & Fedewa, A. L. (2016). LGBTQ youth bullying experiences in schools: The role of school counselors within a system of oppression. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11(3-4), 325-342.

Earnshaw, V. A., Menino, D. D., Sava, L. M., Perrotti, J., Barnes, T. N., Humphrey, D. L., & Reisner, S. L. (2019). LGBTQ bullying: A qualitative investigation of student and school health professional perspectives. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(3), 280-297.

McDermott, E., Hughes, E., & Rawlings, V. (2017). The social determinants of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth suicidality in England: A mixed methods study. Journal of Public Health, 40(3), 244-251.

Gay marriage is a union that is characterized by the joining together between spouses of similar sex and which is acknowledged legally like the vows of a conventional marriage (Boswell, 1993, p. 215). Gay rights advocates have been aggressively pursuing for years the entitlement to have their homosexual relationships legitimized in the court of law. This theme has been analysed from media units to the legislative branch, with an imminent decision from the Supreme Court in the probable future (Adam, 1992, 98). Liberal nations and metropolitans like San Francisco have brought about an excursion of homosexual couples making the most of the opportunity to have their relationships legitimized, consequently legitimizing the couples bond. Only rulings from diverse state laws have stopped different municipalities from pursuing their acknowledgment of these same sex marriages. Passionate debates are only aimed at turning into a much-heated debate as gay rights advocates swear to contend with and struggle to end their entitlement to have their relationships acknowledged like those of traditional marriages (Donoghue, 1993, p. 115). They consider acknowledgment in the court of law would be the foremost initial step in relieving unconstructive predisposition that gay relationships is accepted in society altogether. A lot of hardcore conservatives look at this as an effort at legitimizing the homosexual subculture to the public.

Same Sex Marriage, Ethics and Law

In 1996, states approved the defense-of-marriage laws, and in 1998 voters in Hawaii and Alaska dully reversed pro-marriage judicial decisions (Drucker, 1998, p. 22). A law that is truly unparalleled, at least in this country: the civil unions law that gives same-sex couples all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law&as are granted to spouses in a marriage. This achievement has led to howls of protest from religious leaders, politicians, and conservatives who favour traditional marriage. That was expected, but the lesbian and gay community have also criticized the civil unions law.

The law is admittedly a political compromise, but that does not necessarily mean that it is homophobic. Although it is often profitable to second-guess a legislatures motives, all the evidence suggests that the civil unions law was passed by a legislature with the best of intentions (Drucker, 1998, p. 25). In creating a parallel system, the legislature was not trying to prejudge gays and lesbians; rather, it was building a valiant and significant effort to be aware of the reality and worth of lesbian and gay families.

Couples in a civil union have the same rights and responsibilities as couples in a marriage, though the lesbian and gay community can keep and nurture a little of what is uniquely its own with the new institution (Boswell, 1993, p. 216). Some might argue that only marriage is worth fighting for, since the term marriage carries with it so much status and tradition, but the newness of civil unions is one of their strengths. Why borrow every term and tradition from heterosexual culture? Why not create a new language of marriage?

Equality between marriage and civil union continues throughout the course of the respective relationships (Drucker, 1998, p. 26). The law mandates that parties to a civil union are to be included in any definition or uses of the terms spouse, family, immediate family, dependent, that signify the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law. The parties are accountable for the support of each other to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.

Cases of Same Sex Marriage

The standard meaning of marriage in English law is by Lord Penzance in the lawsuit of Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 P & D 130,133. It states that marriage is, the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Given that this case was determined in 1866 positions and moral insights have turned out to be more liberal (Drucker, 1998, 28). Traditionally, the Church of England Book of Common Prayer of 1662 affirmed that the first reason for which matrimony was established was, the procreation of children, something which had been announced at marriage ceremonies in the past years. Nonetheless the more contemporary approach now provides more stress on mutual society, help and comfort that one should have of each other.

This condition of the above stated case states that the marriage has to be one of a heterosexual character. Section 11(C) of the Nullity of Marriage Act 197 states that a marriage is invalid unless the parties are correspondingly, male and female. In the milestone lawsuit of Corbett v Corbett (1970) 2 All ER 33, the petitioner wanted a statement that a ceremony of marriage involving himself and the respondent is not binding and of no consequence for the reason that the respondent, at the occasion of the ritual was an individual of male sexual category (Bauman, 1993, p. 46).

The judge stated in the verdict that the question which is required to be asked is the connotation of woman in marriage (Bauman, 1993, 48). The decisive factor has to be biological. This means that the law has to take on, in the first place, the initial three of the doctors condition, specifically the chromosomal, gonadal and genital experiments. If all three match, decide the sex for the point of marriage for that reason, and pay no attention to any operative intercession. He concluded that the respondent is not a female for the point of marriage but is a natural male and has been so ever since birth. Thus, he declared the marriage void.

This standard was complied within the recent case of Bellinger v Bellinger. The respondent is a post-operative trans-sexual who has undergone marriage with the other party. This had occurred months following an operation to get rid of her testicles and penis and she had a mock penis produced (Drucker, 1998, p. 32). She was unimpeded by the said party in asking a statement from the Court that the marriage was legitimate under English law. The House of Lords collectively rejected the applicant, as English law does not acknowledge any alteration of gender. The petitioner similarly demanded, in the alternative, for a statement, under s4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, that s11(c) of the MCA 1973 was unable to coexist with Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

The House of Lords did award the appealed statement of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act of 1998. This decision in Bellinger followed the verdict in Goodwin v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 447 on this concern (Drucker, 1998, 35). The European Court of Human Rights stated that, an examination of matching biological features can no longer be influential in refuting legal acknowledgment to the change of gender of a post-operative trans-sexual. It discovered that no good reason for excluding the trans-sexual from taking pleasure from the right to get married under any conditions. This verdict stated that s11(c) of the MCA 1973 is not compatible with Articles 8 and 12 of the HRA 1998.

Gay rights organizations are also united in a counteroffensive against the state-by-state extent of bans on same-sex marriages. In addition to the proposed constitutional amendment in Texas, voters in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee are projected to decide on the issue in 2006. Proposed constitutional and legitimate bans are also moving through legislatures in at least seven states. (Montgomery, 2005) This research shall attempt to examine the rights of the homosexual in Texas politics. Specifically, this paper shall discuss the sodomy laws in the state of Texas.

Current political dealings in Texas have done a good job of showing the Christianity Meme in action. The Texas Republican party is mostly controlled by the Religious Right, who will stop at nothing to keep homosexuals under their thumb. Each religious war needs an enemy and homosexuals are among their favorites. At question is the Texas state Sodomy law (Section 21.06), making private consensual sex between members of the same sex illegal since 1974. The law does not reprimand heterosexual acts. In 1998, a couple penalized under the law challenged its legality under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment (Magers, 2005).

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage has long been a bone of contention between the American government and its people. Despite how liberated and open-minded law and society may be, there are still large bodies of conservative thinkers out there. Conservative thinking isnt necessarily a bad thing. But most of the time, conservative thinking becomes the knife that these people use to sever another persons freedom of choice. There was an outcry from the opposition against same sex marriage. It is immoral and a threat to the family. Supporters of same sex marriage retaliate with a cry of their own: isnt forcing to rule a man or womans choices on which they can or cannot be with, a violation of free will? Isnt that the greater sin? Initially, the Government reacted to this furor by implementing a no same-sex marriage policy. Same sex marriage was banned from most states. When that didnt work because gay and lesbian couples performed their own marriages, they decided not to grant legal recognition for gay marriages. Critics of same-sex marriage nodded their heads in approval. To them, marriage is defined as the union involving a man and a woman, not between women, or men. Any marriage that does not follow the traditional definition is a deviation. It should therefore be illegal. Having it stated as a public policy is the only way for people to get in line and follow it. But advocates of same sex marriage wont give up, and they were willing to go to court for it, if need be. This seems to strengthen the policy against legal recognition of gay marriage. It doesnt get any better when they asked for personal opinions. Less than half the nations population approved; the rest who didnt disapprove didnt give a solid standing. Again, we ask, what does it matter if gay people are allowed to get married, anyway? Who cares if people approve with legal recognition or not? But it does matter. It is not enough for gay people to be allowed to get married, their marriage should also be seen as legal, and as such, they should be entitled to the same rights as the more traditional married couple. This policy takes its substance from the fact that most of its supporters are ostensibly defending the family. Same sex marriages cannot be expected to produce children. The gay and lesbian couple can opt to adopt, but then, what kind of security and influence can they provide their children. A number of issues arise from this policy because there are about 1,049 laws in which marital status plays a key role. If a same sex marriage is denied legal recognition, then the couple will also be denied the benefits that are granted to any other marriage. Sexual preference must not be a reason for inequity; just like skin color cannot be used as an excuse to set a person apart from the rest. The government should be an advocate for personal freedom, provided, of course, that said freedom does not hinder the choices of others. To stop an individual from declaring his or her vows to his or her loved one simply because the loved one belongs to the same sex is equivalent to denying these people their free will.

Works cited

1. Adam, B.D. Sex and Caring among Men, in Plummer, K. (ed.) Modern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience, 1992. London: Routledge. p.98.
2. Bauman, Z. Postmodern Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell. 1993. pp.45-70.
3. Boswell J. Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe, New York: Villard Books. 1994. pp.215-225.
4. Donoghue, E. Passions between Women: British Lesbian Culture 1668-1801, London: Scarlett Press.1992. pp.115-120
5. Drucker, J. Families of Value: Gay and Lesbian Parents and their Children Speak Out, New York: Insight Books/Plenum Press.1998. pp.20-45
6. Magers, Phil. Analysis: Texas closer to ban on gay marriage. The Washington times, 2005
7. Montgomery, Dave. Texas vote on gay marriage grabs national spotlight. Knight Ridder Newspapers. 2005

In the United States, married couples receive many legal benefits that couples who live together but are unmarried do not. More and more, gay couples are insisting that they receive the same legal rights that the traditional, heterosexual married couples receive. Gay rights advocates believe that it is inequitable and biased to refuse to give certain privileges to any couple, gay or not. For example, marriage enables spouses to receive insurance through their partners employers. They are also allowed many other rights such as the ability to make decisions for their partner who is being hospitalized, have the right to sue on their partners behalf, and cannot be forced to testify against them in court. Married couples also pay less in taxes and receive many other social and financial benefits. But because gay couples are legally prevented from marrying, they are excluded from receiving the same considerations that married heterosexual couples enjoy.

In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported that heterosexual married couples enjoyed more than 1000 benefits and protections. These marriage incentives range from survivor benefits through Social Security, the ability to take sick leave from work to care for a sick partner, federal and state tax breaks, and veteran and insurance benefits. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to (Belge, 2006).

Those opposed to gay marriage believe that these relationships do not serve the best interest of the state. Since they cannot bear children that would ultimately add to the tax base of a community, there is no incentive for the state to recognize their union and provide them the benefits of marriage, an expensive burden to the state. Advocates of gay marriage have not been able to show what financial benefit their marriage would be to the state. If sexual love alone becomes the primary purpose of marriage rather than procreation, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos (Kolasinksi, 2004). The marriage laws, established by the state, ensure that the couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who benefit the state by having children.

Those that oppose gay marriage have yet to provide evidence those children of gay couples whether biological or adopted are harmed by this living arrangement. Some have expressed fears that these children will be more likely to become homosexuals suggesting that it would be appalling if that were the situation (Sullivan & Baques, 1999). In todays world, the fact is that most children do not live in Leave it to Beaver type households with a housewife and a father who works at the office from nine to five. Half of all marriages end in divorce and traditional married couples with children comprise just 26 percent of U.S. families. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past. (Social Norms, 1999).

Americans evidently cannot or will learn from examples prominently set before them by more civilized countries. The new President Barack Obama has stated he is for civil unions, the legal recognition of gay couples. He and a slowly growing number of Americans seem to understand the facts about gay marriage and are in favor of equality. Gay couples exhibit similar family and societal values as those the traditional couple does while engaged in the activities of their daily lives. They cherish and are involved in family life, abide by the law, and are committed to making their communities a better place for all to live. The legalization of gay marriage benefits society because the very obligations of marriage itself discourage promiscuous sex which carries the advantage of decelerating the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage also encourages a family-type atmosphere in the house, neighborhood, and community. All citizens of the U.S. as well as the entire planet should expect to be treated with respect and equality. This remains the goal but the fact is, it should already be a reality.

Works Cited

Belge, Kathy. The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions. (2006). About Lesbian Life. Web.

Kolasinksi, Adam. The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. The Tech. Vol. 124, N. 5. (2004). Web.

Social Norms and Judicial Decision-making: Examining the Role of Narratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases. Columbia Law Review. Lexis-Nexis. (999). Web.

Sullivan, T. Richard & Baques, Albert. Familism and the Adoption Option for Gay and Lesbian Parents. Queer Families, Common Agendas. New York: Haworth Press. (1999), pp. 80-82.

Gay marriages are rather common affairs in the modern world. Many countries began to think about the legalization of same-sex marriages. The problem is up-to-date as more people fight for their rights in the global democratization movement.

The opinions about the problem are rather different and even opposite. People, who support same-sex marriages, give their arguments that everybody has his/her right to confirm their love by marriage. The opponents insist that gay marriages can destroy the ancient canons of marriage. (Same-Sex Marriage 2009)

Oliver Thomas in his article in USA Today offers two ways out of the present position, Put marriage and civil unions on the proper sides of our church-state divide (Thomas 2008). The civil laws and religious ones differ greatly. It is a different field of life. The authors opinion is that the civil legalization of gay marriages has nothing in common with a religious one. Let people have civil marriages, and the religious question will fall out. (Thomas 2008)

The question of church opinion about same-sex marriages is given in the article Church Week, Our church has always been entirely clear that the definition of marriage involves the life long commitment of a man and a woman and the enormous importance of marriage and the family as the basic building block of society. (Henschel 2001)

The articles in The New York Times and USA Today describe such problems as an ethical understanding of same-sex marriages, the political items in the discussed topic as people are talking about democracy and the marriages for some people are forbidden. The personal values of people are also stated here as everybody deserves happiness and an only veto on gay marriages prevents it. Of course, marriage is not evidence of love but it is discrimination, in some opinions, when people cannot do what they want only because of some peoples prejudices.

But sill some churches allow same-sex marriages, like the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, a church known for its support of the gay and lesbian community.

The question about same-sex marriages is still opened, even though the law of some states and churches allow it.

Works Cited

Gay couples wed in Canadian first. 2001. BBC News.

Henschel, Kelly. Church conducts same-sex marriages. Christian week. 2001.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships 2009. The New York Times. Web.

Thomas, Oliver. Gay marriage: A way out. 2008. USA Today. Web.

Introduction

Obtaining acceptance and special recognition marriages and unions is only one of a series of intensely contested factors that have arisen since the American gay and lesbian rights movement increased to fame in the heated political atmosphere of the 1970s. Today, the political implications of gay marriage do not concern the perceptions of others. Gay marriage directly implicates the citizenship of gays themselves. Through a legal disability created by the states denial of a legal framework for committed same-sex relationships, the state produces gay men as a peculiar class of second-class citizens. Thesis Constitutionally these men have the same rights as other citizens and should be protected by the state from negative social image and violation of rights.

Literature Review

From historical perspective, early activism focused more on trying to wrench some acceptance from the mass culture and community than on dreaming of achieving legality for forbidden homosexual relations. The early homosexual movement for gay marriage that preceded the advent of gay rights organizing hoped to defuse hatred of rescue hatred of homosexuality and to unknot such malignant myths about homosexuals as those that imagine them preying on children.

George Chauncey describes that gay marriages took place in New York during the 1920s and 1930s; the use of the term fairies for partners is linked with a wider terminology that stressed gender differences between fairies or effeminate gay people and the real men who sought them out as sexual partners. Critics also reports the use of marriage terminology by gay men in the same period to evoke their relationships with other men and play off the satirical convergences between gay life and the natural categories of heterosexual family (Bidstrup 2004).

Thus, calling someone sister marked that person as an inappropriate sexual partner, removed from the group of possible love by injunctions against incest. With similar approach, gay couples who believe their relationships are marked by a division of labor reminiscent of gay marriages might call each other husbands and wives (Chauncey, n.d.). Gender-based marriage laws have a different type of productive effect on those who resist their terms, who forgo marriage rather than allow the state to take over their bodies, their psyches, and their emotional lives. These resisters will often be gays who are sexually oriented toward others of the same gender.

When such people resist stereotyped gender roles by pursuing a homosexual relationship involving meaningful intimacy, the state denies them the means for making a legally binding commitment in that relationship. In this way, the law produces and imposes another stereotyped identity: the identity of the isolated and outcast homosexual, whose deviant sexuality is incompatible with committed familial relationships (Woog 87).

Activists from the 1950s and 1960s argued that homosexuality was not necessarily a form of psychological illness and certainly not rebellious or criminal behavior; to demonstrate that gay people are upright citizens who deserved respect, activists dressed neatly and conservatively in public and tried to downplay images that disrupted normal gender expectations.

The main driven forces of gay marriage included new perception of the world and self, new interpretation of freedom and humans rights, new science and industrial innovations in comparison with the previous age. The historical evens influenced the society during the 19th century changed political viewpoints on the notions of freedom and diversity (The case for gay marriage 2004). Gay people should have a legal right to marry and have official registration of their union.

Analysis of the Issue

Gay marriage movement coincided with civil right movement and became a part of it. In early 1970s, gays have challenged the legal restriction of marriage to men, though none of these earlier efforts received serious judicial attention. While the constitutional issues raised in these situations have varied, the responses to them have ranged from bewilderment to outrage as judges cited most probably commonplace understandings that official marriage is naturally the union of a man and a woman, and therefore cannot be entered into by people of the same sex (Chauncey n.d.). Union between gay people is morally right as it is based on human needs of homosexual individuals.

As other homosexual issues have achieved importance, and perhaps particularly as the AIDS pandemic has brought many people face-to-face with the homosexual community and gay individuals for perhaps the first time, legalization of marriage has emerged as the shock demand of the 1990s, generated not by a top-down solutions but rather by a grass-roots permission. Unlike the issue of homosexuals in the military, chosen by homosexual activists in the Democratic Party as a problem that could efficiently dramatize the predicament of patriotic homosexual citizens, marriage has simply appeared as something that gays want.

For instance, on March 25, 1996, 175 couples came in tuxedos and wedding dresses, clutching flowers and each others hands for confirmation and acceptance of their same-sex union. The mayor of San Francisco, pronounced them domestic partners under the citys same-sex marriage law (Smith 54). Law should protect gay people from discrimination and violation of their human rights.

The de-gendering of marriage has two issues for the inquiry. First, it reveals that the mere longevity of the prohibition of gay marriage is a particularly weak justification for its retention, because the fundamentally gendered legal order that long sustained this prohibition no longer exists. Second, it suggests that present-day justifications for the prohibition of same-sex marriage will inevitably exaggerate the one remaining aspect of marriage that does remain gender-coded: its sometime connection with the biological act of procreation (Seidman, 135).

Today, there is not legally granted rights for gay men in America which allow them to marry another man and receive a marriage license. Only two countriesBelgium and the Netherlandshave given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships (The case for gay marriage, 2004). Gay people should be equally protected from rights abuse and possible state interventions in their interpersonal relations.

In general, the right to gay marriage should be pursued as a political strategy to attain general equality for gay men. Marriage is thought to be so privileged in society that participation in it would legitimate all gay relationships and the individuals who prefer them. Under the present day conception, the states recognition and regulation of marriage does not privilege this institution, but merely makes it available to those who wish to structure their relationships in accordance with it (Eskridge and Spedale, 2006).

Ideally, the benefits and disadvantages associated with marriage reflect the differences between the situation of a legally couple and the situations of couples and individuals without such legal commitment. Many quarters of American society still view marriage as blessed and noble. Unfortunately, gay couples must reckon with the possibility that the recognition of their right to marry may lower the status of marriage as much as it raises the status of gays (Woog, 1999).

Taking into account ethical arguments it is possible to agree that homosexual unions are also less likely to fulfill reproductive social interests than heterosexual unions. Opponents of gay marriages suppose that legalizing gay marriage would foster the creation of a new class of disadvantaged children, produced by medically assisted procreative techniques and intended to be born as part or full orphans and reared without both a mom and dad. Legalizing gay marriage would sanction, and therefore increase, rearing of children without mothers (Wilson, 1996; Padgett 2007). Gay people should have a right to adopt and up bring children similar to other married couples.

On the basis of what people know about the tremendous disadvantages of children who grow up without both a mother and father in the home, it would not be wise public policy to encourage the deliberate procreation of intentionally orphaned, parentally deprived children (Graff 1996).

To endorse and thus encourage the nurture of children in an environment in which there is the deliberate rejection of not just the other procreative parent, but all parents of that gender, does not seem very wise or prudent (Smith, 2009). The potential for increased social disorder if same-sex marriage is legalized is profound. Sexual relativism would reign supreme with no lines drawn and moral distinctions made between traditional and nontraditional, same gender marriage relationships (Smith 54).

The most important difference between heterosexual unions with regard to procreation is that most heterosexual couples can for many years exist as a couple (unless age, illness, infirmity, or intervention has deprived one or both parties of fertility), but no gay couple can ever have children. Gay couples are unable to procreate as unions. This difference relates directly to the social interests in procreation that justify the exclusive legal preference for heterosexual marriage (Harris, 3).

The individual members of both heterosexual and gay unions may be capable of procreating outside of the couple union (e.g., a gay man in a gay relationship may have children with someone of the opposite sex who is not his relationship partner), but those relational procreations generally do not advance the social interest in responsible procreation; rather, they impair the integrity of the institution that has best been able to further the social interests in responsible procreation (Smith, 1998).

Domestic partnership offers limited legal protections to gay couples without seeking outright to make legal their unions; registration as household partners is not in most cases limited to gay couples, but is also offered in some jurisdictions to straight couples who do not wish to marry but want some sort of official recognition of their situations. Critics suppose that discrimination against gay men is most marked when a couple decides to live together and that the choice to form a joint household is thereby a courageous stand against bigotry. In everyday life, The values that gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors (Bidstrup, 2004).

Homosexual activists acknowledge that family is a complex term that must be understood in all its multiple and situated meanings before an attack is mounted against it; in couching her argument in this nuanced sympathetic, Critics underline the views of those who have attested to the lasting and multifaceted meanings of family for many gay people, particularly for those with roots in communities of color. Today, the homosexual movement retains a powerful antipathy to heterosexist norms, especially the straitjacket of enforced gender roles and partnerships, in favor of a more fluid vision of personal and sexual freedom. Indeed, many gay idealists dont want to join mainstream culture so much as have mainstream culture join them.

During the eighties the tension between the radical and opposite camps argues around the marriage issue (Stanley, 2000). In case gay marriage is recognized officially, that institution will ever after stand for human choice. Today, the simplest way for a gay couple to marry in a state like Texas, where the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such unions, is to fly to Hawaii, get married, and then return to live in Texas as lawfully wedded (Wilson, 1996).

The most forceful advocates for gay marriage are religious leaders. In Hawaii itself, leaders of many faiths have been at the forefront of the pro-marriage campaign (Gay-Rights Movement 2007). And whereas most progressive national groups have yet to take a strong stand in favor of gay marriage rights, religious groups have been faster on the draw. Both the Reform branches of Judaism have now formally endorsed gay marriage, as have many Quaker and Buddhist denominations and many Protestant congregations, Episcopal bishops and high-ranking clerics of many faiths (Kurtz 1).

Sexual liberation is a factor which had a great influence on the national idea during the XX century. Men paid particular attention to the role of sexual relations and sexual freedom in the society and their role in formation of self and universal order. But gay marriage does more than just fit; it announces that gay marriage has changed shape. As with any social change, there will be more consequences, which look pretty progressive to me (Graff, 1996).

Marriage allows gay people commitment, to job, spouse, society, religion invented from the inside out. Making homosexual men more visible lawfully will insist that there is no traditional escape: that community survives not by rote but by heart. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special (Bidstrup, 2004),

And since many have already take efforts to ban recognition, it now seems likely that a small but significant core of states will allow them to stand. It does not seem unlikely that within two years there will be legally married gay couples in a handful of states across the nation. If this indeed comes to pass, it is difficult to overstate its importance for gay men, for the civil rights movement, for all those who favor a humane development of the definition of family.

It would certainly amount to the single greatest victory in all of gay civil rights, the division event in which homosexuality and the loving and committed relations it spawns finally began to take their place as recognized and fully legitimate (Polikoff, 2008; Richardson 2002). The legalization of gay marriage would amount to a pivotal event in the present day struggle. If it occurs without the enthusiastic support and involvement of major gay and civil rights groups, it would also amount to one of the most breathtaking lapses of organizational vision in the history of the modern left (Need a Cure for the Economic Crisis 2008).

The necessity of marriage is evident because marriage (and gay marriage as well) is an institution that supports society, defines how people think about one another, formalizes contact with families, neighborhoods, employers, insurers, hospitals, governments. Allowing two people of the male to marry will help to avoid numerous problems faced by gay people today. The main problem is that society cannot change these people, but it must help them to socialize and adapt to social institutions. The importance of marriage for societys general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriagea so-called civil unionis not enough (The case for gay marriage, 2004).

The possible solution for this problem is to allow gay couple to marry and receive license as an official reorganization of their union. It is possible to agree with activists which suppose that gay marriage is a fundamental challenge to the status quo. When the state withholds law, it acts on peoples lives in an entirely different way than when it withholds funding (Snyder 71). By permitting gay marriages, society reaffirms its hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions (Smith 54).

There are practical benefits of homosexual marriage: the ability to share insurance and pension funds, care for ill partners, inherit repeatedly, protect our children from desperate custody battles. It is surprising that proponents of such a radical social reordering as redefining marriage to include same-sex couples have offered virtually no evidence of the social benefits of that proposed social reform. Individual freedom means much more than the absence of physical coercion but an equal social status and sexual liberation (Heath, 2009).

The gay movement should become an independent movement aimed to grant gay people the right to marry. It is important because: marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract (The case for gay marriage, 2004), but without this contract gay people deprived their rights and privileges (Padgett 2007). Gay marriage should be legally protected in order to eliminate violation of human rights, freedoms and unconstitutional treatment of homosexual individuals.

Conclusion

Gay marriage should be accepted and legally approved as it helps many people to satisfy their life needs and expectations. Still, there are still many modern people who regard gay intercourse as simply a recreational act, like playing tennis or swimming. They look for different gay partners, as a surfer seeks the perfect wave, hoping that the next one will be better, that the blast will be bigger. Amoral in the true sense of the word, and reckless, his name is synonymous with casual sex.

So, too, is the name of Casanova, an Italian adventurer, gambler and lover. The only rule some immoral individuals seem to be governed by is that as long as it makes you feel happy theres no problem. Gay marriage can be fun, even if people are not in love. To suggest otherwise would be unfair, for sexual pleasure is one of the most exquisite of human experiences. But there is wide agreement that if gay people care deeply for each other as partners.

Two gay people who are attuned to each others feelings cannot help getting more enjoyment out of anything they do together, not just sex. Critics know how it feels to make someone you like happy by giving them a gift theyve wanted for a long time. Or how it feels to receive one yourself from a special individual. Since so much has been written in support of legalizing gay marriage, the absence of substantial credible evidence of social benefit stands out in stark contrast to the abundance of passion and intensity offered.

Because advocates of same-sex marriage should carry the burden of proof to justify the proposed legal reform, the paucity of evidence is a serious failing in their campaign to persuade men and women of reason. Gay people should have the right to marry because constitution is aimed to protect social and sexual rights of all people and all citizens of the USA.

Works Cited

Bidstrup, S. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. 2004. Web.

The case for gay marriage. The Economist. 2004. 

Chauncey, George Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940. Web.

Eskridge, William, N. and Spedale, Darren R. Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? :What Weve Learnt from the Evidence. Oxford University Press US, 2006.

Graff, E.J. Retying the Knot. Isnt it time marriage was gender-blind? 1996. Web.

Harris, Lee. The Future of Tradition. Policy Review 131 (2005): 3 Gay-Rights Movement. The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Ed.

Heath, Mike. Gay Rights Groups Say Battle for Same Sex Marriage Is Over. The Record. 2009.

Kurtz, Stanley N. What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage. Commentary, Vol. 110, 2000, p. 1.

Need a Cure for the Economic Crisis? Give Gay Marriage a Try! My Life, My Muse. 2008. Web.

Padgett, Tim. Gay Family Values. TIME Magazine. 2007.

Polikoff, Nancy, D. Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Beacon Press, 2008.

Richardson, Diane and Seidman, Steven. Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. SAGE, 2002.

Seidman, Louis, M. Gay Sex and Marriage, the Reciprocal Disadvantage Problem, and the Crisis in Liberal Constitutional Theory. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 31.1 (2008): 135.

Smith, George P. Family Values and the New Society: Dilemmas of the 21st Century. Praeger Publishers. Westport, CT. Publication Year: 1998.

Smith, Sebastian. NY Governor Introduces Gay Marriage Law. YahooNews. 2009. Web.

Snyder, R. Claire. Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

Welch, Chris. Economy Enters Same-Sex Marriage Debate. CNN. 2009. Web.

Wilson, James Q. Against Homosexual Marriage, Commentary, Vol. 101, 1996, p. 34.

Woog. D. Friends & Family: True Stories of Gay Americas Straight Allies. Alyson Publications, 1999.

Origin of Homosexuality

Homosexuality can be explained in three main dimensions: biological, behavioral and psychodynamic dimensions of homosexual orientations. Homosexuality is defined as an act of having a sexual relationship between two individuals of similar gender (PFLAG 2). The societal understanding of the term, however, is centered mainly on sexual attractions and activities between members of similar biological sex.

It is also used about emotional, romantic and identity based on a same-sex phenomenon (Ekwo 1). Individual sexual orientation is determined at a younger age, and homosexuals must have sensed that something was wrong with them when they were the age of four or five years.

In Canada, the story of homosexualism came to light in the year 1965 when a confessed homosexual was charged for indulging in dangerous sex, but since then, homosexuality has been tolerated when the laws against homosexuality were relaxed through Trudeaus amendment to the Canadian criminal code. Quebec as a province incorporated homosexuality in its laws in the year 1977 making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals (CBC News 1).

The Trudeau bill was tabled by the minister of justice, and it sought to introduce major amendments into the Canadian Criminal Code, and it was referred to as an omnibus bill. The bill introduced various changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. Among the changes is the decriminalization of homosexuality and the legalization of abortion.

The bill was described as a revolution to the criminal and penal law. The adoption of sexual offenses Act in British parliament influenced the climate of legislative changes in Canada with regards to homosexuality. Though it was widely opposed, it secured a parliamentary majority, and it was made into law. Abortion was also legalized under certain conditions, and they were illegal before the introduction of the bill (CBC News 1).

Homosexuality  by birth or by choice

In the past, conservatives have argued that homosexuality is an unusual behavior that is caused by either influence from the environment or as a result of personal choice. To the conservatives, homosexuality is an abnormality and homosexual as a sexual orientation is a disorder, and homosexual behavior should be considered harmful. However, gay society holds that homosexuality is as a result of dominant biological genes.

The view is held by the homosexuals as a means of obtaining acceptance in society. However, it is evident that those who support this fact have not supported further research into the biological development of sexual orientation. Furthermore, it is evident that scientists have not taken much interest in the issue, and therefore, it makes the society wonder, whether homosexuality is or is not viewed as unusual behavior in society.

Therefore, for a start, it is important to highlight the history of homosexuality, what media have said about homosexuality and the achievements of homosexuals. But before that, the question is whether homosexuality is by choice or by birth. Claiming that people are born gay has been considered a myth, but it has been widely acknowledged in learning institutions and the media meaning it is being taken seriously as a reality.

There is no research however that has broadly demonstrated that people are born gay, but it is only a belief (Sprigg 4). The religious views hold that homosexuality is a sinful practice that should not be encouraged. However, psychologists like Heinrich Ulrich before 1970s pointed out homosexuality as one of the mental disorders that were treated and, which could be diagnosed.

This led to the question of what caused homosexual behavior and whether it was that one was born with it, or it was a life choice (Sprigg 6). According to Heinrich Ulrichs, homosexuality is by birth. He argued that homosexuality has a biological character. Richard Kraft-Ebing was influenced by the idea of Ulrich and according to him; homosexuality is the deterioration of the brain.

Furthermore, homosexuality is learned or acquired through childhood. Studies have indicated that children who display a behavior that is the opposite of what is expected of their gender have a high tendency of growing up homosexuals. Sexologists John Money argued that children would only pick the sex which will, in turn, fix their gender.

This will make the boy grow as feminine and nurture with feminine behaviors; this is an indication that there are high chances of the boy becoming homosexual at most and transsexual at least. The anti-homophobia law was aimed at putting to notice those opposed to homosexual, and it was made mandatory that people migrating into the province of Quebec should be thought few moral lessons about homosexuality to put into them the fact that it is unethical and a common value in the province (United Families International Blog 1)

Theoretical Perspectives of Homosexuality

There are only two sets of theories that seek to explain the causes of homosexuality. The first theory explains that social orientation is a product of genetic or biological factors, and their line of argument is that people are born naturally gay. The other set of the theory is that homosexuality develops as a result of psychological and environmental influences (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 10).

In the early 1900s, a study found out that homosexuality was as a result of gene orientation and therefore, it is not a life choice. According to the research, the X chromosome that was from the mother and in most cases being passed to the male child was responsible for homosexual behavior. The study found out that both Y and X are responsible for homosexual behavior in males (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 20).

On the other hand, a research carried out by psychologists posited that homosexual behavior is neither genetic nor a life choice that a person chooses, but it is as a result of environmental influence (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 16). According to Sigmund Freud, homosexuality behavior is as a result of the home and family environment that one is brought in.

According to the psychologists like Heinrich Ulrich, if a child fears his father but ends up identifying with the mother in life, he is likely to develop a liking for men as an object of his love. Moreover, other psychologists like Kinsey and Hooker have argued that homosexuality is a result of either sexual abuse, which occurs in the neighborhood or the homes of the victims at the hand of neighbors, friends or the relatives.

These facts are important in analyzing the topic of the essay which is how homosexuals affect people around them (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 24). However, from everything that I have learned as a result of my cousins help and read from a number of books, newspapers and heard from the media, I can conclude that homosexual behavior is not only as a result of personal choice, but it is a combination of both biological and genetic factors, and choice has nothing to do with it.

This is the reason why my cousin, Vincenzo Blanco never adopted homosexual behavior, even though he had friends and still has friends who are gay. It is necessary therefore to first understand the history of homosexuality and its development to have an insight and an understanding of peoples attitude and beliefs about homosexuality (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 9).

From the behavioral perspective, homosexuality is a learned behavior and only takes place when an individual is exposed to it hence a person who has the first sexual experience with a person of similar sex will likely become a homosexual.

Consequently, if the sexual experience were in the negative then the individual would likely turn to the opposite sex, for example, a woman who has been molested by a man will have the likelihood of becoming a lesbian. Behaviorally, it is believed that sexual orientation has some consequences on the sexual status of homosexuality.

They argue that the acceptability of behavior is determined by the controllability of the same behavior. This implies that since people lack control over their biological inheritance, they cannot be held responsible for their homosexual behavior, which is biologically predetermined.

There are three main aspects of sexual growth that determine a sexual identity; these are the development of sex centers, growth of sexual preferences and development of brain center for sexual roles. All these define an individuals sexual orientation (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 11).

Arguments that genes are responsible for homosexuality have also been suggested. This argument was put forward by Hirschfeld, who was among the first sexologist. According to Hirschfeld, homosexuality is partially inherited, and that it repeats itself in families. To him, brothers or sons of homosexuals are likely to be homosexuals (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 19).

According to psychodynamic theory view of homosexuality, there is a relationship between Oedipus complex and homosexuality. According to this theory, in every family relationship, there are strong feelings of love and hate in an equal measure. This hostility can result in the protest of the superego, which is a personality structure hence turning down unwanted thoughts.

All happen during the early stage of development of a child which may lead to the focus and association by the child of one parent of the opposite sex and developing hatred and aggression towards the parent of a similar sex. Any parent who fulfills the basic needs of the infant will become the first object of love.

A childs response to this phenomenon will determine their sexual orientation in maturity. There is a postulation that in a scenario where the father will be weak while the mother is strong and unresolved situation arising from Oedipus complex, which is weak may lead to the development of a homosexual son and when it is vice versa, it might result to a lesbian daughter (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 23).

Societal Perception of Homosexuality

Traditionally, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the America Psychological Association (APA) but after undertaking a research about its origin, causes, and development, they realized that it was not a mental disorder, and consequently, it was removed from the list of their disorders in 1973 with a statement later released disapproving that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

According to APA, homosexuality is neither a mental disorder nor a moral evil, but it is an expression of human love and sexuality by a particular segment of the population (Craine 1). According to many people, no one can choose his sexual feelings or sexual attractions, but every individual has the opportunity to define the sexual behaviors that they wish to engage in irrespective of whether homosexuality is biological or an acquired.

The fact is that as a province, Quebec formulated a policy which made all cases of homosexual legal which was one of its kind in the North American continent. This policy was aimed at improving several cases of sexual minorities and a will to make it part of the academic course outline was publicized (Craine 1).

It has been argued that pain and rejection often lead people to make wrong decisions. Roston argued that when parents do not bring up their children in a loving manner, then the children are likely to opt to homosexuality and lesbian as a source of love (Roston 19).

There are also some arguments that biology and not choice defines the path of sexual orientation. The policy of homosexuality as a choice is slowly diminishing. The fundamental trait of homosexuality lies in genetic evidence and biology; these may be through genes or heritability, brain structure and hormones (Liberty Education Forum 14). No individual chooses the path of homosexuality since they risk being rejected by their families, relatives, and friends.

To address this problem of homophobia, the government of Quebec initiated a program that will take care of the elderly lesbians and gays as well as those suffering from the problem of transgender. This is to safeguard them from any form of homophobia and discrimination (BBC News).

Many homosexual people have been the subject of unjust treatment and harassment; others have been even tortured and murdered. They have been referred to by several names like faggots, sewer or sordid. Homophobia, which is the hatred for homosexual people, is becoming a reality and individuals who tend to develop love and compassion towards each other have been scared by the strong anger and feelings towards the homosexuals.

The treatment of the homosexuals, to some extent, is unfair since it is argued a majority of homosexuals did not become so by choice. Homosexuals believe that they cannot change, since, they lack the control over their situation, and they argue that God created them that way and heterosexuals have to accept it. This discrimination against homosexuals is called homophobia (Barnecka, Karp and Lollike 47).

Homosexuality has a lot of medical and behavioral consequences. Their sexual behaviors are tragic, abnormal and or immorality when compared with the straight. As such they suffer high risks of contracting HIV/AIDS since they minimally practice safe sex. They also experience a high rate of drug and substance abuse than the general population.

The problems of discrimination can lead to depression and stress. Programs similar to the ones necessary for treating patients suffering from substance abuse and alcohol have been applied to homosexuals by religious organizations and psychotherapists. There are also questions as to whether an individuals sexual orientation can be altered; it is argued that no one can change the sexual orientation of a homosexual individual.

Homosexuality is considered a threat to the existence of society and the institution of the family since they do not procreate. Homosexuals are the troubling segment of the society in that they go against the conventional traditional values and norms. Their mission for gratification at the expense of societal culture and religious ideas is often damned (Berggren1).

Conservatives and Liberals Views on Homosexuality

When the supporters of homosexuality claim their line of argument that they are born with the behavior, they take their arguments beyond genetic and environmental arguments. They suggest that homosexuality is the product of personal genes. According to them, a present at birth behavior is normal and natural, beyond the human control and cannot be changed and is acceptable and a product of Gods creation and more so morally legitimate.

The logic behind their arguments is that when one is born homosexual, it cannot, or there is no possibility for changing since it is natural. They argue that the church must abandon its stand and discrimination against homosexuals (Curtis 19).

There is also a liberal category of scholars who believe that homosexuality is not a choice but can only be a gift from God that is worth celebration or an involuntary and indifferent condition. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that homosexuality is a choice, but they disagree on its moral grounds.

The underpinning argument is that homosexuality is a given social orientation but cannot be a fate to be accepted or a power that one can submit to since we all have the freedom to make choices in life (Curtis 19). Liberals believe that homosexuality is an inborn character; God made them; they tend to question why God created homosexuals and then turn to criticize them.

Homosexuals, just like other heterosexual individuals can express their feeling and can also demonstrate it in relationships (Curtis 19). There seems to be a general understanding that homosexuality and the same sex orientation is given, but the big debate remains whether or not we should accept homosexual and recognize it as a sexual activity.

Accepting it does not however indicate that we approve their behaviors and activities. Conservatives base their arguments from the following dimensions:

First homosexual activities are unnatural: conservatives argue that homosexuality is wrong and according to the Christian perspective, homosexual acts are unnatural. Some verses of the bible term it as unnatural practices and consider it was degrading.

Homosexual acts are considered unnatural in the following ways: it is more theoretical and goes against the fact that bodies of men and women need to combine in order to produce the next generation or to procreate and based on this argument, homosexuality does not accord with the purpose and the intentions of Gods plan for our bodies.

Consequently, homosexuality is contrary to nature. The fact that several parties detest it and that many people are against it is an indication that it is unacceptable behavior. The second argument of the conservatives is that it violates the structure: they are considered to be contrary to the norms of the scripture and the bible attacks it as evidenced in the holy book of Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 (Curtis 19).

The conservatives belief that homosexuality is highly criticized in the Bible, to them homosexuals are not born, but they are made. To them, no nature can produce homosexuals, but they are products of dysfunctional relationships and a corrupt world. They consider homosexuality as the worst and extreme form of sin.

There are some provinces and health institutions that still consider homosexualism as a mental disorder despite it being legalized by the countrys constitution; this has been largely due to lack of an updated information and communication system necessary to update or rather remove it for the list of disorders (Curtis 20).

Homosexual Parenting and Adoption

The debate and public opinion as to whether homosexual should be allowed to adopt children have been a hot one. The phenomenon of donor insemination has helped in combating homosexual discrimination, and it has presented them with an opportunity to parent children just like heterosexuals.

This is because sexual orientation is not a parameter that measures an individuals parenting capability. There have been exceptional cases of adoptive homes and heterosexual parenting as evidenced by Rick Martin and Michael Jackson (NCLR 1)

Marriages Rights

Homosexual marriages have been at the center of controversial debate, especially in North America, and it has developed to a hot and a complex topic. No middle ground has been found on the matter. In the USA for example, there are some states, which have authorized homosexual marriages, there are those who have completely banned it, and others have banned but recognize its existence.

Legal homosexual marriages are not recognized, and some countries have rendered it illegal. The main reason for this approach is that any change that threatens culture, especially a change in societal structure is considered stressful and disorienting. Canada went into the record as the number four country to permit homosexuality and homosexual marriages.

The country defined the rights of gays and lesbians, and it was included in the countrys constitution. This was contrary to the fact it was considered illegal and a crime in the year 1970s (Makarenko 1). Opinions regarding same-sex marriages vary depending on religion, geography, and age. There are two provinces in Canada (Quebec and Ontario) which have legally recognized homosexual marriages and have followed the path taken by Netherlands and Belgium, which have sanctioned same-sex marriages.

However, some countries allow homosexual domestic partnerships, which are not subject to legal or economic privileges (Roca 4). Homosexuality is considered biblically considered as evil since it is a fact that it is a relationship between a man and a woman who can give birth to a child, the definition of a family in Canada does not factor in a homosexual marriage, and this contradicts its legality (Robinson 1).

Conclusion

Psychologists like Nicolosis consider homosexuality just as another form of sexuality, and it is not in any way linked to the study of diseases. With the contemporary world, it is considered to acknowledge the variety in our societies. Since homosexual behavior is here to stay, it is only good to accept it and further to address the problems that face them like disgrace, which is associated with homosexual behaviors.

Homosexuality has triggered a lot of debate and controversies. There are gay activists and liberals on the one hand and the conservatives and religious organizations, on the other hand. Similarly, several different arguments have been proposed ranging from the fact that homosexuality is a natural behavior whereas others argue that it is an abnormality and abnormal behavior and outside the boundaries of normal and expected behavior.

With the advent of globalization and cultural differences that characterize the world, I believe that homosexual behaviors should be appreciated and acknowledged within different aspects by which emotions are expressed by human beings.

It is clear from the arguments that homosexuality is genetically carried and not learned after birth. This is due to the argument that our genes are composed of two separate sexual orientation systems, first is that there exists an attraction between two individuals, but two are conventionally available during conception: a man should be attracted towards women while women should be attracted towards a man.

Bibliography

Barnecka, Joanna, Karp Kinga and Lollike, Mie. Homosexuality. 2005. Web. 

BBC News. Quebec unveils guide to care of gay elderly people. BBC News 2011. Print. 

Berggren, Niclas. Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society? Web. 

CBC News. Same sex Rights; Canada Timeline. CBC News 2007. Print. Web. 

Craine, Patrick. Quebec pledges $7 million to combat negative attitudes against homosexuality. Life Site News, 2011. Web. 

Curtis, Barbara. Rethinking my Views about homosexuality. 2005. Web. 

Ekwo, Emmanuel. Homosexuality: Explaining the Zeitgeist. New York, NY: House, 2010. Print.

Liberty Education Forum. Is it a choice? The science of sexual orientation. Liberty Education, 2008. Web. 

Makarenko, Jay. Same sex marriage in Canada. MAPLELEAFWEB, 2007. Web. 

NCLR. Adoption by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents: an overview of current law. NCLR, 2011. Web.

PFLAG. When Sons and daughters come out. PFLAG Canada, 2010. Web.

Robinson, Ba. Same-sex marriages (SSM) in Canada. Religious Tolerance, 2011. Web. 

Roca, Encarna. Homosexual Families: Adoption and Foster Care. CIIMU, 2007. Web. 

Roston, Antoine. Kingdom Eunuch: A Dialogue about Sexuality and the Kingdom of God. New York, NY: Kingdom Eunuch, 2011. Print.

Sprigg, Peter. The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. Family Research Council, 2010. Web. 

United Families International Blog. Quebec Teaches Immigrants Respecting Homosexuality is Common Value. United Families International Blog, 2010. Web. 

Obtaining acceptance and special recognition gay rights movement is only one of a series of intensely contested factors that have arisen since the American rights movement increased to fame in the heated political atmosphere of the 1970s. Today, the political implications of gay rights do not concern the perceptions of others. Gay rights directly implicate the citizenship of gays themselves. Through a legal disability created by the states denial of a legal framework for committed same-sex relationships, the state produces gay and lesbian people as a peculiar class of second-class citizens. ACT UP struggle shows that gay men are deprived of human rights and have to fight against oppression and discrimination so they should be protected by the state from negative social image and violation of their rights.

The history of gay rights and the ACT UP struggle goes back to the 1960s-1870s and is closely connected with the human rights movement. In the USA gay rights were accepted in 2003 only. Taking into account ethical arguments it is possible to reject the benefits mentioned above and underline that homosexual unions are also less likely to fulfill reproductive social interests than heterosexual unions (Allen, 2006). Opponents of gay rights suppose that legalizing same-sex relations would foster the creation of a new class of disadvantaged children, produced by medically assisted procreative techniques and intended to be born as part or full orphans and reared without both a mom and dad (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002). In Hawaii itself, leaders of many faiths have been at the forefront of the pro- ACT UP struggle campaign. And whereas most progressive national groups have yet to take a strong stand in favor of the ACT UP struggle, religious groups have been faster on the draw (Alsenas, 2008). For the most part, their vision of what needs to be changed is extremely narrow: class, race, and gender structures, for example, and the attendant forms of oppression are often left virtually or completely unchanged. Not surprisingly, therefore, given this tradition, those who have historically been disempowered on precisely such grounds (e.g. for reasons of class, race, or gender) have written few actual utopias. In their poem, the authors create a unique account of feminism, its meaning, and its place in the modern world. The questions of HIV and AIDS origins have long bothered scientists and researchers in different areas. There are different opinions concerning the topic, but it is necessary to assert that it was finally proven in 2005 that HIV indeed originated in Africa. The study took ten years and it discovered that there was a strain of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) in some chimpanzee colonies in south-east Cameroon. This strain, in particular, appeared to be a viral ancestor of the virus HIV-1 which is the cause of the development of AIDS in humans (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002)

ACT UP groups fight for free medical treatment, state support, and fair legislation. The group is quite incapable of understanding the simple fact that, when it comes to dealing with the matters of life and death, no monetary cost can be too high. Moreover, we have a good reason to believe that, given Governments willingness to pay for underpowered people, it would also be willing to pay for their medicine. It is also important to state that such a spread of HIV / AIDS was quite often assigned to the sexual promiscuity of gay people, thus linking their sexuality to the spread of the diseases. But it is necessary to admit finally, that not behavioral or cultural issues have caused the epidemic, but socioeconomic conditions have. Due to this factor people have become predisposed to the epidemic. If the issue is contemplated from this angle, the good proof of it consists in the belief that HIV / AIDS develops according to different patterns in world countries. It is necessary to admit that gay men tend to be infected more often than heterosexual men. Furthermore, another aspect that contributes to the spread of HIV / AIDS is unemployment, underemployment as well as poverty as a result of the two. When politics is considered, it as well has influenced the spread of HIV / AIDS for the reason of denying the problem. It anyway is pleasant and reassuring to know that governments of developed and developing countries pay more attention to the problem and try to conduct initiatives and programs devoted to the education of people in their countries as well as to the prevention of the further spread of the diseases. Together with the involvement of supporters from other countries and international organizations headed by the WHO, local governments are supposed to find solutions to the problem of HIV / AIDS spread prevention and the improvement of quality of life of those who have already been infected with the diseases (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002)

ACT UP group was formed in 1987 in New York. The leader and founder of the goop, Larry Kramer, fight against Gay Men Health Crisis and political apathy towards gay people. Sexual liberation is a factor that had a great influence on the national idea during the XX century. Men paid particular attention to the role of sexual relations and sexual freedom in society and their role in the formation of self and universal order. The possible solution for this problem is to allow same-sex couples to marry and receive licenses as an official reorganization of their union. It is possible to agree with activists who suppose that the ACT UP struggle is a fundamental challenge to the status quo. When the state withholds law, it acts on peoples lives in an entirely different way than when it withholds funding. The legalization of gay rights would amount to a pivotal event in the present-day struggle. If it occurs without the enthusiastic support and involvement of major same-sex and civil rights groups, it would also amount to one of the most breathtaking lapses of organizational vision in the history of the modern left (Alsenas, 2008).

The gay rights movement and ACT UP struggle coincided with the civil right movement and became a part of it. In early 1970s, gays have challenged the legal restriction of ACT UP struggle to men, though none of these earlier efforts received serious judicial attention. While the constitutional issues raised in these situations have varied, the responses to them have ranged from bewilderment to outrage as judges cited most probably commonplace understandings that ACT UP struggle is naturally the union of a man and a woman, and therefore cannot be entered into by people of the same sex. Union between gay people is morally right as it is based on human needs of homosexual individuals (Marcus, 2002). ACT UP activists fight for officially accepted and recognized gay rights (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002). As other homosexual issues have achieved importance, and perhaps particularly as the AIDS pandemic has brought many people face-to-face with the homosexual community and gay individuals for perhaps the first time, ACT UP struggle has emerged as the shock demand of the 1990s, generated not by a top-down solutions but rather by a grass-roots permission (Marcus, 2002).

Another dimension of ACT UP struggle is reflected in politics, authority and poverty (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002). The uniqueness of ACT UP struggle is that it is more stable and happy than poverty because of true loving relations and sympathy (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002; (Polikoff, 2008). In general, the right to gay men should be pursued as a political strategy to attain general equality for gay men. ACT UP struggle is thought to be so privileged in society that participation in it would legitimate all gay relationships and the individuals who prefer them (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002). When prevention of HIV / AIDS is viewed, there are certain activities which definitely allow countries influence a decrease in HIV prevalence among adults. One of these is promotion of use of condoms which are distributed among adults in the area (Polikoff, 2008).

Under the present day conception, the states recognition and regulation of ACT UP struggle does not privilege this institution, but merely makes it available to those who wish to structure their relationships in accordance with it. Ideally, the benefits and disadvantages associated with ACT UP struggle reflect the differences between the situation of a legally couple and the situations of couples and individuals without such legal commitment. Many quarters of American society still view ACT UP struggle as blessed and noble. Unfortunately, ACT UP activists must reckon with the possibility that the recognition of their right to marry may lower the status of ACT UP struggle as much as it raises the status of gays (Shepard and Hayduk, 2002). Taking into account ethical arguments it is possible to agree that homosexual unions are also less likely to fulfill reproductive social interests than heterosexual unions. That could be turned around to say that many potentially good relations are based on mutual understanding and trust. If a ACT UP struggle has been based on a need for human rights, chances are good that it will work out (Polikoff, 2008).

In sum, gay tights and ACT UP struggle is a topical issue caused by different perceptions and understanding of human nature and interpersonal relations. The approaches towards ACT UP struggle are liberal and conservative. Liberals and progressives suppose that the state should accept and permits ACT UP struggle because of equal rights and freedoms granted to all individuals. Thus, conservatives suggest that too many people take advantage of this ease of entry before they look at the true implications of vowing to be together through sickness and health for many years.

References

Allen, D.W. (2006). An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 29 (3), 949-967.

Alsenas, L. (2008). Gay America: Struggle for Equality. Amulet Books; 1 edition.

Marcus, E. (2002). Making Gay History: The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights. Harper Paperbacks.

Polikoff, Nancy, D. (2008). Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Beacon Press.

Shepard, B., Hayduk, R. (2002). From ACT UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization. Verso; illustrated edition edition.

Introduction

Homosexuality is a sexual behavior that has generated a lot of interest throughout time. Some people are of the opinion that homosexuality is a deviant behavior while others see it as a natural phenomenon. This needs to be a more developed thesis statement which also needs to be restated in the conclusion. See above notes on thesis statement development. The views of homosexuality in the society have changed over the time in the psychology field and homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness on the other hand, in the religious front people have learnt to tolerate different people.

Main body

The Greeks considered sex as a pleasurable act of nature in the 4^th century BC. Sex could be enjoyed between members of either sex (Sarason, I and Sarason, E, 2005, p. 272). This means that homosexuality was allowed during this time. However, it is important to note, that in some regions such as Ionia same-sex relations were prohibited (Pickett, 2006, p. 1). Alcibiades a politician and an Athenian general in the 5^th century BC was a homosexual and it is said, in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man, the wives from their husbands (Pickett, 2006, p. 1). Alexander the Great, who was a Greek king during the 5^th Century BC, was a homosexual.

On the other hand, during the 4^th and 5^th centuries BC, the Roman society held a negative perception of sexuality; this was due to the turmoil experienced long before Christianity influences took root. The turmoil was economic as well as social that led to frustrations, these frustrations experienced by people at that time made people intolerant of the homosexuals. During this time, Christianity only allowed sex for procreation. All other sexual expressions were a sin. The law forbid homosexuality and those who engaged in it faced execution (Pickett, 2006, p. 1).

From the 12^th to 14^th centuries, the persecution of homosexuals rose sharply and many were executed among them were Muslims and Jews (Pickett, 2006, p. 1). Sex was only recognized within marriage institutions and therefore any kind of sexual activities was a sin. Homosexuals would be executed and denied burials because they were considered an abomination for their unnatural sexual behavior.

People were intolerant of those individuals who engaged in same sex relations. The Catholic Church used the concept of nature as a measure of morality. Homosexual behavior was unnatural thus, immoral (Pickett, 2006, p. 1).

Between the 14^th and 18^th centuries, people who engaged in homosexual behavior in Europe were burnt alive. Furthermore, people would be coerced into confessing their sexual or erotic thoughts and those who renounced these thoughts could be forgiven (Sarason, I & Sarason E, 2005, p. 272).

During the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the perception of homosexuality changed and people became more tolerant of homosexuals. This change occurred in the psychology field, due to the change of the perception that this sexual behavior was not a mental illness. Therefore, the severe punishments such as execution against homosexuals declined. The theological framework about homosexuality also changed and secular definitions became popular. In the psychology field, psychiatrists considered homosexuals to be suffering from a mental illness. However, this notion changed after various researches were conducted and they proved that homosexuality was not a disorder. This change of view of homosexuality in the psychology field led to the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1973. Later in 1975, the American Psychiatric Association did the same. The APA stated, Homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality (Johnson, 2003, p. 1).

The change in the view of homosexuality during the 19^th and 20^th century can be attributed to biological theories that affect personality. In medicine homosexuality was explained as natural and innate (Pickett, 2006, p. 1). Biological theorists noted that homosexuals brains are different from those of heterosexuals. This can only mean that homosexuals do not choose homosexuality. The homosexuality sexuality behavior is innate. rather it chooses them. Thus, people started to change their stance on homosexuality including the psychologists and psychiatrists.

Since the 1960s, there was a rise of movements fighting for the liberation of homosexuals. This was led by the discriminations that homosexuals were going through. For example, homosexuality was a ground for one losing his or her job in the federal employment (). The police often brutalized homosexuals not because they had committed illegal activities but for being homosexuals. The homosexuals also face the public wrath in forms of beatings and often times the police could not protect them. They also faced humiliations and movements had to come up and defend the people who had a different sexual preference. Groups such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (L.B.G.T) movement fight for the rights of people who have different sexual orientations from the heterosexual society. In addition, in November 2009, the Lesbians and Gays rallied in Washington to demand for equal treatments in all aspects of life such as serving in the military and marriage.

More recently, on May 28, 2010, the President of the United States, Barak Obama proclaimed May as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (L.B.G.T) pride month (The White House, 2010, p. 1). Our society has become more accepting of homosexuals in recent years. For example, Ellen DeGeneres, who is a popular television host, came out of the closet proudly and declared she was a lesbian in 1997. This revelation was accepted in our society and she has gone on to host major events such as the Grammys, Academy Awards, and the Emmys. She has also won various awards as an actor. Today homosexuals have made some significant gains in acceptance and they have been allowed to marry in some countries such as Canada and United States among others (Sarason, I & Sarason E, 2005, p. 275). This change in attitude towards homosexuality and the acceptance of people with different sexual orientations can be explained by the knowledge of behavioral theories that explain that an individuals behavior is shaped by the environment. On the other hand, this may also explain why some people see homosexuals as bad role models as they may influence people to imitate their sexual behaviors.

More and more states in the U.S. are changing laws to allow gay marriages. However, there is stigmatization and prejudice in the society and homosexuals continue to experience discrimination and a lot of stress. This means that revealing ones sexual orientation becomes difficult. Some homosexuals are now willing to come out of the closet and declare their sexual orientation, but still fear rejection by family and friends causing them a lot of stress and worry. They may also face discrimination, verbal abuse, and violence from intolerant people in the society (The American Psychology Association, 2002, p. 2).

Conclusion

The issue of homosexuality will continue to raise interest. This is due to the misconceptions that surround it. I agree with the changes overtime because all people are created equal regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, or ethnic background. Homosexuals are people first, have rights, and should be allowed to live free from discrimination and prejudice. Homosexuals should not have to feel the need for guilt, fear, or shame. After all, heterosexual or homosexual we all should be treated with respect as equals. This is because the views of homosexuality have changed overtime due to changes in the psychology field, religion and the society in general. People have become more tolerant of homosexuals. For instance, in some churches today like the Anglican Church, there are gay Priests.

References

Johnson, R.D. (2003). Homosexuality: Nature: Nurture. Web.

Pickett, B. (2006). Homosexuality. Web.

Sarason, I. E., & Sarason, B. (2005). Abnormal Psychology: The Problem of Maladaptive Behavior.11th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

The American Psychology Association. (2002). For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Web.

The White House. (2010). Presidential ProclamationLesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. Web.