Category: LGBTQ

New Laws pertaining to Homosexuals in the U.S. military service were put in place in 1993, This was to reflect on negotiations in the policy. It was referred to as dont ask, dont tell, and it did hold that an individual in the armed forces who did reveal the intentions of engaging in Gay acts would create an undesired risk to the high set of standards based on morals. Hence the army personnel was not required to discuss their homosexuality nor allowed to converse with others including Service members and this issue brought about controversy in the political aspect. According to President Clinton on July 19, 1993, he did announce that the new policy consisted of essential elements concerning the military personnel who were homosexuals in that an army officer will only be judged based on their conduct and not on the idea of sexual orientation.

Also on the issue of enlistment procedure would continue to take effect without asking about their sexual orientation. In the event or case a service member does declare that he/she is homosexual they will generate a rebuttable presumption but one can be able to contest the presumption. Lastly, under the Military Justice all requirements of the Uniform Code will be enforced in a manner that will not discriminate in regard to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Hence the policy announced by the Clinton administration largely dwelled on sexual orientation and it had problems pertaining to its practical definition thus bringing in the issue of non-behavioral manifestations.

On November 30, 1993, Congress did act in the sense that National Defense Authorization Act was signed by President Clinton which positioned the grounds for discharge that included; if one did attempt to engage or did engage, or tried to solicit another person for acts of homosexuality. Also in case one did express that he or she is a homosexual and either tried to marry or did actually marry persons of the same sex they were grounds for discharge. Furthermore, the law did state that the inquiry of new recruits about their sexuality would probably resume for it had been initially been halted based on discretion. Thus Sexual orientations is being attracted or having a strong preference to persons of the same sex with intentions of engaging in sexual acts (U.S. Department of Defense, 2008).

Maria Zoe Dunning was not discharged by the navy tribunal when she made it clear that she was a lesbian at a rally in January 1993, for her attorneys did argue that she was simply acknowledging her sexual orientation and not merely wanting to broadcast her intentions to the public of her homosexuality. Within the scrutiny of the reviewing officers, the presumption had been successfully rebutted hence it was now clear that she could engage in homosexual acts. The judgment was way consistent with the law hence it did create a way where the homosexuals make it public of the status of their sexuality without being discharged. As a result of the attempts to implement the statute, sexual orientation has only resulted in more confusion and ambiguity than the desired effect (Presidents News Conference, 2009).

The reason why personnel from the military did make voluntary statements as in regards to their status did come out a this led to speculation that some service men did this in order to terminate their employment from the military because prior to 1993 compromise on homosexuality was on the decline but since the later the number has been steadily increasing. The result of this is because of the many changes instituted in the Clintons administration. As a result the advocacy groups have claimed that invasive and discharging of the gay in the high ranks has increased tremendously resulting to harassment. According to the activist the general number of discharges has decreased due to the fact that manpower is needed for the war in Iraqi and that a majority of homosexuals were found to be linguists who came in handy from the fact that there were in a foreign nation.

Legal Issues

In 1993 it brought about the challenges in a constitutional point of view and military policies which did concern the homosexuals. Since 1986 the military has always discharged personnel found to have engaged in homosexual sodomy. This policy is founded in the famous court ruling in the Bowers-vs.-Hardwick case. This policy later came to be known as dont ask dont tell policy. The high court has continuously turned down cases to review this policy. The last of this case was in 1999 where the court refused to hear an appeal by former service members. Nevertheless this was complicated in the case of Lawrence v. Texas which nullified the decision that was made in the Bowers case which was unconstitutional as for the fact that under the Texas law which did outlawed sexual acts that concerned the same sex (Presidents News Conference, 2009). Justice Kennedy did rule that the 14^th Amendment did protect adults of their confidentiality which included gay conduct but he stated that status dont go inconformity with ones personal relationship or recognition in law so long as its at liberty for the people who are chosen without being punished as criminals.

Bowers case has crumbled because after Lawrence constitutional embankment concerning the dont ask, dont tell, where an argument did arise in that the existing military policies abridge the due the element of privacy of homosexual members. Most of the institutions of higher learning do have rules that govern or do offer the protection to homosexuals. Protection is offered against discrimination thus resulting in institutions of higher learning to ban recruiters of the military within their campuses to do away with Reserve Officer Training Corps. In the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights On March 6, 2006, where an appeals court of law ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court, it was held that constitutionality under the Solomon Amendment it did which prohibit federal funding to educational institutions of higher learning denying them admission to military recruiters in order to be able to view students which was equally attributed to other employers (U.S. Department of Defense, 2008).

While much effort is being put in place in order to allow marriage of persons of the same sex, this has not affected the military. This is because homosexuals are barred from taking up in military.

References

Presidents News Conference, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, William J. Clinton, Book, 1993.

U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force,and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2008.

Introduction

The article, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling, by Peralta Eyder, explores the controversial 2013 ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the US Supreme Court. In the tradition of most countries, marriage is considered a legal, religious, or traditional union between a man and a woman. This law prevented the recognition of same-sex marriages. This meant that same-sex couples could not receive federal benefits. DOMA also gave states the authority not to recognize gay marriages that had been performed in states that had legalized gay marriages. According to DOMA, the word marriage only refers to a union between one man and one woman who live as husband and wife. Under the DOMA, the word spouse is only used in reference to a person of the opposite sex who is either a husband or a wife (Peralta, 2013).

Gay Marriage Is Moral

The state of Massachusetts was the first to legalize gay marriages in 2004, and since then, it is estimated that there are at least 71,165 legal gay marriages in the US. A research conducted by Gallup in May 2012 indicated that 50 percent of Americans support gay marriages (Schulzke, 2013). The legal landscape on gay marriages is still changing, but several states have legalized gay marriages. These states include Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. These states also grant same sex couples full benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy (Schulzke, 2013).

In order to determine whether gay marriage is morally upright under utilitarian approach, then it should be assessed in terms of the benefits in brings to society and the possible harms that accompany it. If gay marriage is legalized in the US, it will bring numerous benefits to society. One of the benefits of legalizing gay marriages is that gay families will provide homes for children who have no parents. Statistics indicate that there is an increase in the number of gay couples adopting children across the US. This is a positive thing even though the current legal landscape may make their children to enjoy similar protection like those granted to heterosexual families. Moreover, gay couples still face legal challenges when they want to adopt children (Willis, 2013).

Markedly, adoption agencies and social workers in America, who considers gay families as an important resource for providing homes for children under the care of government, have recognized the important role that gay couples play in the society (Gary, 2009). Furthermore, the Obama administration has also admitted that gay couples do play a crucial role in adopting children. Social workers have also found that most gay couples have successfully raised children, and in some instances, they have been preferred over their heterosexual counterparts. Most gay couples who adopt and raise children also tend to be more educated and richer than most Americans (Gary, 2009).

Many children in the US and the entire world lack parental care; therefore, legalizing gay marriages will enable gay couples to provide parental support, care and love to such children. Moreover, marriage among heterosexual couples is not based on legality but love that brings two people together, and makes them commit to be with one another (Willis, 2013). Hence, as long as two individuals deeply care for each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together, it does not matter whether their commitment conforms to societal expectation. Legalizing gay marriages will make gay people to embrace family values and help them to stop engaging in risky sexual behaviors. This will benefit society by preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases from the gay community to the rest of the population (Willis, 2013).

Gay couples lack legal recognition and can never be financially supported by their partners in the process of owning a home. Another argument against recognizing gay marriages and granting gay couples full rights, for example, the right to adopt children is that children being raised in gay families will be harassed and teased by their peers, which can interfere with them psychologically (Gary, 2009). Gay people have been subjected to prejudice and discrimination throughout their lives, and this gives them the ability to prepare their children to cope with negative attitudes. Moreover, the American society has made tremendous gains in terms of accepting gay people and treating them with dignity, and it is only a matter of time before Americans fully accept gay marriages (Gary, 2009).

Opponents of gay marriage have also opposed it based on Judeo-Christian ethics that condemns homosexuality. Moreover, opponents of same-sex marriage have also argued that it will weaken the institution of marriage. However, the institution of marriage in America is already weak with a divorce rate of 50 percent. Therefore, one way of strengthening the weak institution of marriage is by allowing gay people to marry (Willis, 2013).

Conclusion

Gay marriage is morally upright under utilitarian approach to ethics and should be legalized in the US. Gay marriage is morally upright because it brings certain benefits to society. First, adoption agencies, social workers, and even President Obama have praised gay marriage for providing homes to homeless children. Evidently, this is beneficial to society. Legalizing gay marriages also has the benefit of preventing sexually transmitted diseases both in the gay community and among heterosexual couples. The arguments put forward by opponents against gay marriages are based on myths and not facts.

References

Schulzke, E. (2013). Supreme Court tackles DOMA, Prop 8; legal experts lay odds on decisions. Web.

Willis, K. (2013). Supreme Court DOMA Ruling Doesnt Affect Kentucky Law. 

Gary, M. (2009). Same Sex, Different Politics: Success and Failure in the Struggles over Gay Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Web.

Peralta, E. (2013). Court Overturns DOMA, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling. Web.

Over the years, the Canadian LGBT community has managed to achieve its ultimate goal: official recognition of their rights, including the right to legal marriage in 2005 (Gallagher par. 17). Their dedication, hard work, and commitment to the issue yielded results that nobody could even have dreamt of several decades ago. According to Smith, the Canadian LGBT movement might be considered the strongest social initiative in the world (73).

The successful struggle of the Canadian LGBT community throughout the years has revealed certain aspects of social evolution in Canada. It is indicative of the nations active position towards social change in the country. Gallagher emphasizes that their persistent efforts have changed the way Canadian society perceives homosexuals (par. 8). Although there are authors who challenge this standpoint by indicating the crucial role of political institutions in this historic transformation (Miriam 74), it is undeniable that the LGBT communitys fight has shaped Canadian society.

The struggle of LGBT people over the years yielded excellent results. The year 2016 saw the endorsement of equal rights by conservatives in Canada. These changes in Canadian society entail the important role of self-knowledge, as indicated by Symons (13), as well as the critical approach regarding this very knowledge. With the contradictory character of the development of Canadian society, it is important to take into consideration the concept of critical nationalism.

Critical nationalism is crucial because the multifaceted character of Canadian society makes it difficult for a national identity to be determined (Geneviève 4). Critical nationalism is a concept that defines nationalism based on action, rather than the identification of so-called national traits. It is a critical attitude that helps explain the contradictory evolution of society, inform a strategy for the future, and describe the nature of changes.

Kennedy claims that the purpose of critical nationalism is to encourage members of society to evaluate their actions and values objectively and improve them whenever they are unsatisfactory (par. 14). Over the years, Canada has evolved in a manner that could be described as following the principles of critical patriotism, and the LGBT community provides an excellent example. Their struggle managed to modify societal perceptions and bring about significant change that altered the countrys overall system of values.

Given the complex nature of Canadian identity and Canadians deep sense of internationalism (Berdahl and Rayney 1), the studies of Canadas development are of utmost importance. The most remarkable feature is social activism, which is the driving force in this process. Studying Canadian social initiatives provides insights into the various aspects that compose Canadian identity. The history of this process is an important lesson, determining the need to study Canadas path of development.

Gallaghers perspective reveals another crucial issue. The prospect of the further development of social movements is what makes the studies necessary. Canadian studies should be seen through the prism of the past but with an eye toward the future.

Works Cited

Berdahl, Loleen, and Tracey Raney. Being Canadian in the World. International Journal 65.4 (2010): 995-1100. Print.

Gallagher, Bob. LGBT Progress Is a Canadian Success Story. 2016. Web.

Geneviève, Richard. Nature and National Identity. Contradictions in a Canadian Myth, Ottawa: Capstone Seminar Series, 2012. Print.

Kennedy, David. The Truest Measure of Patriotism. 2000. Web.

Smith, Miriam. Canada: The Power of Institutions. The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship. Ed. Manon Tremblay, David Paternotte, and Carol Johnson. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. 73-89. Print.

Symons, Thomas Henry Bull. To Know Ourselves. The Report of the Commission on Canadian Studies, Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 1975. Print.

Introduction

Transgender is not a new concept and people have discussed the issues associated with it since the 19^th century. First, it is necessary to provide a definition of the term. Stryker (2009, p. 1) notes that transgender is the movement across a socially imposed boundary away from an unchosen starting place. In other words, transgender is a persons desire and decision to be a representative of another gender. Interestingly, researchers agree that gender does not have a biological basis as people can or cannot feel comfortable within their biological gender.

The History of Transgender

As has been mentioned above, the concept of transgender has quite a long history. The term androgyny appeared in the middle of the 16^th century. However, attention to transgender issues was drawn in the second part of the 19^th century. Thus, in 1870, the behavior of Fred (Fanny) Park and Ernest (Stella) Boulton was discussed during a trial (Whittle, 2010). The two people were prosecuted for their transvestite behavior. Importantly, they were not accused of sodomy but they were accused of an attempt to commit some sort of felony disguised as women (Whittle, 2010). The public came to the conclusion that these people should be treated and a new discipline (sexology) appeared.

The Development of Transgender

This was a start of clinical research and study of the issue. In the 1930s, Dr. Felix Abraham performed the first operation on the sex change. One of the operations was not successful and the patient died two year after it because of complications (Whittle, 2010). In the 1940s, Sir Harold Gilles performed a successful sex change operation and the patient Michael Dillon even worked as a ship doctor. The case of Christine Jorgensen was a real celebrity and she draw attention of people to the issue.

Thus, in the 1950s, many people started addressing doctors concerning sex change operations. People understood that those were not exceptional cases and a wide discussion started. Numerous psychiatrists and therapists were trained to help transgender people. Sex change operations became quite common but people were still hostile to transgender individuals.

The 1960s and 1970 were the time of the feminist movement. Feminists advocated the right of women (and men) to choose the gender as they stressed that people had the right to be a part of the group, which is the most appropriate for them in their opinion (Stryker, 2009). People of art contributed greatly to development of the movement for the rights of transgender people. The fashion of the second part of the 20^th century (especially, the 1970s) shows that androgyny became more common as women were wearing pants and men had quite long hair. At present, transgender is not a stigma for people.

However, the rights of these people are still violated as the rest of the society (in many or even in the majority of cases) is quite hostile to them. At the same time, the discussion is still in place and people are more accustomed to the concept.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to state that transgender is a concept that was first addressed at the end of the 19^th century. Transgender people were (or even have been) seen as ill individuals who needed medical aid. Now, transgender people have an opportunity to take their stand and fight for their right to live the lives they want. The discussion is not over and these people have achieved a lot. Although there is still certain discrimination and lack of understanding, transgender people are better integrated into the society.

Reference List

Stryker, S. (2009). Transgender history. Berkley, CA: Seal Press.

Whittle, S. (2010). A brief history of transgender issues. The Guardian. Web.

People who identify as transgender are those that subscribe to a gender that is different from the one that was assigned to them at birth. In such a group meeting of marginalized individuals, one of the common shared topics would be acceptable.

Everybody wants to be accepted just the way they are; the same goes for transgender individuals. They would discuss how their lives would stop feeling like a burden if society accepted who they were without judging and making them feel like they did not belong (Oprah Winfrey Network, 2011). Another topic would be the mental health problem they all struggle with. Transgender individuals, in general, have a higher prevalence of psychiatric issues. It is not because transgender individuals are terrible or wrong. It is only because transgender persons are often subject to stigmatization and discrimination. These events have been linked to a higher incidence of emotional stress.

The type of group well suited for the members in the YouTube clip would be a specialty group. Specialty groups focus on issues or subjects that are particular to distinct populations and environments. Adapted to the customers needs (transgender), the goal of the group and the topics covered will change. Specialty groups have a therapist as the leader of the group. The therapist should have excellent interviewing and counseling techniques and a good understanding of group dynamics concepts. Good opening remarks would be something like, It is an honor and privilege for me to welcome you, to this Transgender Support Group Meeting, where you are free to speak your mind. Doing this will make them feel free, valued, and welcomed.

In comparison to the general population, the suicide prevalence and suicidal inclinations among transgender people are significantly higher. However, the exact rate of successful suicide reported among transgender individuals is uncertain. Gender-based marginalization has hindered them from pursuing education, making it hard for them to have a livelihood, or housing, forcing them to live on the street and succumb to begging and sex work; these deplorable conditions have caused them to crumble and resort to committing suicide. Transgender support groups allow people to connect and talk about issues that they have faced in their lives (Oprah Winfrey Network, 2011). When one is a member of a minority group, it can be beneficial to speak with others who will comprehend their situation without needing a justification.

Reference

Oprah Winfrey Network, 2011. Transgender Support Group Meeting | Our America with Lisa Ling | Oprah Winfrey Network. Web.

Introduction

The study of social movements has evolved over time due to the frame theory. Various social movements have occurred in the past and others are expected to emerge in the future. Similarly, these changes in social movements can be attributed to the shift in theoretical frameworks, which explains the social movement phenomenon. Nevertheless, theoretical frameworks play the role of transmitting social, political, psychological, and economic ideas as integrated into a social movement. The main aim of this paper is to address the mobilization of resources as one of the frameworks that explain social movements.

Resource mobilization entails perceptions concerning people as rational actors, who are responsible for securing and marshaling resources within a social movement. Although the resource mobilization theory has gained popularity over time, the increment in the usage rate in analyzing social movements has not been without challenges. First, resource mobilization framework comprises two parts, thus making it difficult for researchers to cover them comprehensively.¹ The framework reveals social movements as organizations resulting from peoples rational decisions and as a marketer of its products through preserving its functions.²

With reference to the rational actor theory, people are motivated by benefits to join a social movement.³ From this analysis, it is evident that corporate aspect of cost-benefit analysis comes in with people joining the movement whose benefits outweigh the costs. Social movements work to achieve collective benefits for an organization and its members. In such a case, members have individual responsibility to bear the cost of achieving the benefits, hence the need for a cost-benefit evaluation. In circumstances that require collective efforts, a person may decide to take advantage of others and relax as they work toward achieving a common goal. According to the doctrines of resource mobilization, members of social movements should focus on the incentives among other benefits that motivated them to join the movement.⁴

In addition, members must be flexible enough to appreciate additional benefits other than those coming from the movements ultimate goal.

Social movements cannot be formed in the absence of sufficient resources. Therefore, people come together in a movement to pull their personal resources together for the groups use. In the course of aggregating resources, the process requires proper coordination for the movement to succeed.⁵ Cultural aspects such as cohesion mechanisms or grievances cannot contribute to the rise of social moments. Similar to the corporate set up, the elite who contribute most of the resources assume the role of mobilization to ensure that members incur personal costs, hence effective aggregation of resources for the movement. Success of social movements depends on the flow of the resources within and outside the organization. The distinct factors that can contribute to success or failure of a social movement include cultural, human, moral, material, and socio-organizational resources.⁶

Material resources comprise the liquid and long-term assets such as the physical and financial capital. Financial capital is used for funding the movements initial activities among other financial needs. Similar to the material resources, human resourcefulness falls into three categories, viz. expertise, experience, and skills. Through peoples decisions to participate in a social movement, they get the opportunity to control proprietary labor in the movement.⁷

Nevertheless, the movement should have a diversified pool of human resources to enhance efficient mobilization of resources. For example, in an environmental movement, climate expert may not be helpful in analyzing the movements security details or restoring a website after hacking. Socio-organizational resources include a movements social networks, groups, and coalitions that help in strengthening its structure. Differential access to these infrastructures contributes to inequalities amongst members. Cultural resources entail behavioral norms, values, and beliefs by which members of a particular movement can associate with in the process. However, cultural resources differ depending on a groups ultimate goal and the purpose for which it was formed. For example, human rights groups can be characterized by holding protests and news conferences as they seek to condemn actions or policies that violate peoples rights.⁸

Additionally, social movements cannot succeed in the absence of moral resources that include legitimacy, solidarity, sympathetic support, and authenticity. Nevertheless, these resources motivate members to acquire moral values and implement ethical practices to influence societies.⁹

Case study: LGBT Social Movement

The LGBT movement was formed in the 1970s, but it gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s. Initially, the social movement aimed at challenging social constructs in relation to femininity and masculinity in a bid to eliminate homophobia from society. Additionally, the movement had political motives that included pressuring the government to implement a policy aimed at protecting the rights and benefits of the LGBT persons. Although there has been a conflict concerning composition of this movement, the leaders maintain the spirit of common interests by encouraging members to work together. Unlike in the 1970s and 1990s when there were divisions within the LGBT community as members tried to hide their identity from the public, in the recent times, the group is open to the public. Such openness accounts for strengthening the communitys unity.¹⁰

With reference to resource mobilization, the framework emphasizes collectiveness among social movements. Close analysis of the LGBT community indicates the existence of collectiveness within the group as members work in unity toward achieving the set goals. Furthermore, for the collective benefit of the LGBT persons, the movement pursues political goals in a bid to seek government support. In the recent past, the society has depicted high levels of homophobia. In most cases, minority groups face rejection and victimization from the mainstream society due to unfounded stereotypes. Therefore, in a bid for such individuals to be heard, they have to create a forum to air their grievances and this assertion explains the formation and functionality of the LGBT community. With the formation of the LGBT community, the situation has become better as compared to how it was in the 1970s.¹¹

However, the community is yet to eliminate homophobia from society. Nevertheless, the movement through the mobilization of resources has garnered support of the federal government with some states implementing laws in recognition of gay marriages in addition to protecting the benefits, interests, and rights of the LGBT persons.

Furthermore, the LGBT community is a worldwide movement that does not restrict its membership to a particular race. Resource mobilization framework advocates multiplicity of movements through collective identities, thus facilitating diversity within the movement. Such diversity accounts for the movements unity especially in enculturation as members from different cultural backgrounds interact.¹² By overcoming cultural stereotypes in relation to the LGBT persons, the community can attribute this success to civil collectiveness.

The framework of resource mobilization emphasizes the significance of cultural resources in highlighting identity of a social movement. The LGBT community believes in the innate aspect of gender and sexual identity, which has led to society terming the members as religiously immoral persons, whose perceptions can be changed. Nevertheless, the community has maintained its stance concerning innate perceptions regarding gender and sexual orientation, thus marking their identity. Holding public demonstrations entails a way of highlighting the groups solidarity. For example, in the 1970s, the gay rights members took to the streets of New York as they sought recognition and respect of their rights and interests.¹³

Limitations of resource mobilization

Social movements incorporate socio-political aspects of the group. An effective framework aimed at explaining the movement must focus on the movements various components. On the contrary, it is evident that resource mobilization focuses on collective behavior and organizational factors, as opposed to the political aspects. Furthermore, the framework ignores social problems that could arise in the course of forming a group. In addition, by focusing on traditional organizational factors in the formation of a movement, the framework could be irrelevant especially in addressing some of the recent social movements formed in the 21^st century. Movements change their structure with the changes in society, but they maintain their initial goals.

Conclusion

Resource mobilization framework focuses on organizational factors in addition to psychological aspects in explaining the various aspects of social movements. Nevertheless, the framework emphasizes the importance of collectiveness as demonstrated in the case of the LGBT community. Being a worldwide movement, the LGBT community embraces cultural collectiveness, thus enhancing diversity that accounts for the communitys unity. However, a resource mobilization framework fails to address political aspects of social movements with equal measure as the organizational factors.

Bibliography

Goodwin, Jeff, and James Jasper. The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2014. Web.

Kuumba, Bahati. Gender and Social Movements. London: Altamira Press, 2001. Web.

Larson, Jeff, and Sarah Soule. Sector-level dynamics and collective action in the United States, 1965-1975. Mobilization 14, no.3 (2009): 293-314. Web.

Melnds, Kane. LGBT religious activism: predicting state variations in the number of metropolitan community churches, 1974-2000. Sociological Forum 28, no.1 (2013): 135-158. Web.

Roggeband, Conny, and Bert Klandermans. Handbook of Social Movement across Disciplines. New York: 2007. Web.

Travaglino, Giovanni. Social sciences and social movements: The theoretical context. Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Science 9, no.1 (2014): 1-14. Web.

Footnotes

1 Bahati Kuumba, Gender and Social Movements (London: Altamira Press, 2001), 54.

2 Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper, The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2014), 12.

3 Giovanni Travaglino, Social sciences and social movements: The theoretical context, Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Science 9, no.1 (2014): 2.

4 Conny Roggeband and Bert Klandermans, Handbook of Social Movement across Disciplines (New York: 2007), 53.

5 Jeff Larson and Sarah Soule, Sector-level dynamics and collective action in the United States, 1965-1975, Mobilization 14, no.3 (2009): 295.

6 Ibid, 296.

7 Roggeband and Klandermans, 75.

8 Travaglino, 6.

9 Goodwin and Jasper, 195.

10 Kane Melnds, LGBT religious activism: predicting state variations in the number of metropolitan community churches, 1974-2000, Sociological Forum 28, no.1 (2013): 135.

11 Melds, 139.

12 Larson and Soule, 298.

13 Melds, 140.

Introduction

It goes without saying that personal development throughout a lifetime is inevitably influenced by multiple factors, and the development of the LGBTQ identity that presuppose several milestones is not an exception. While the factors that contribute to its formation remain unclear, further steps are substantially impacted by social and cultural norms, values, and belief that exist in a particular society and shape peoples attitude to homosexuality and non-traditional gender identity. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate factors that impact the development of the LGBTQ identity from the position of sociocultural theory.

Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural theory plays a particular role in developmental psychology as it determines the presence of connection between human development across the lifespan and the environment. It was created by psychologist Lev Vygotsky who believed that parents, caregivers, peers, and the culture at large are responsible for developing higher-order functions (Cherry, 2022, para. 4). Sociocultural theory emphasizes the role of society and social interactions with others in an individuals general development and its multiple aspects. In particular, it identifies learning as a predominantly social process and the formation of cognitive functions as a result of environmental sociocultural factors influence. While personal growth may be guided, people in mentor-type roles determine it at the initial stages of life. Subsequently, an individual may develop his own values and beliefs on the basis of dominant culture and his social groups perceptions.

Development of LGBTQ Peoples Identity

In general, the development of sexual or gender identity among the members of the LGBTQ community refers to particular processes and changes that may involve exploration, awareness, commitment, appraisal, communication, and integration. This development presupposes several stages  for instance, according to Hall et al. (2021) who examine several studies dedicated to identity development, common milestones of sexual minorities include becoming aware of queer attractions, questioning ones sexual orientation, self-identifying as LGB+, coming out to others, engaging in sexual activity, and initiating a romantic relationship (p. 1). While the sequences of stages may be different, attraction and subsequent self-identification traditionally appear first. Although the stages of gender identity may differ, the milestones of becoming aware and coming-out remain similar.

At the same time, while the specific patterns of the LGBTQ identity may be defined in practice, there are multiple perceptions that aim to describe this process as well. Thus, according to the model of identity development created by Vivienne Cass that is frequently applied to explain non-traditional identity development, major milestones include identity confusion, comparison, tolerance, acceptance, pride, and synthesis (Gay Alliance, n.d.). All in all, regardless of the peculiarities of multiple studies dedicated to this topic, the process of identity development implies a persons awareness, acceptance, self-identification, and coming out. At the same time, there are sociocultural factors that may impact it on various stages.

Impact of Sociocultural Factors

In general, the factors that may impact the development of the LGBTQ identity may be regarded as a highly controversial question. On the one hand, a considerable number of experts suppose that the identity cannot be chosen as it is determined by inherited factors. Thus, according to Cook (2021), whilst people can choose to have sexual relationships (or not) with others, and can perhaps choose to adopt a particular gender or sexual identity socially, they cannot choose their sexual orientation as defined in terms of sexual attraction or arousal (p. 3). However, there is particular evidence that demonstrate that some individuals, especially women, change their sexual orientation and gender identity over a lifetime.

That is why other experts expect the development of the LGBTQ identity as the combination of biological and environmental factors. In this case, the interaction with people in mentor-type roles may determine the formation of non-traditional sexual orientation or gender identity, especially at the early stages of life and when inherited characteristics create predisposition. However, in relation to social factors, there is no common agreement concerning their influence. In other words, according to Cook (2021), potential environmental factors may include the raising of males as females or by homosexual parents, child-parent relationship issues within families, seduction by homosexuals, and childhood sexual abuse. The impact of parents is supported by Hall et al. (2021) who claims that male homosexuality [is] caused by boys having a possessive and overly involved mother, as well as a hostile or distant father; these dynamics [lead] boys to bond with their mother and prevented them from developing their masculinity, which [lead] him to effeminate homosexuality (p. 2). In turn, female homosexuality is caused by overly rejecting mothers, the absence of affection and warmth from them, and the promotion of defeminizing behaviors. At the same time, none of these factors may be regarded as significant as factors that genuinely impact the identity.

Nevertheless, the LGBTQ identity may develop even if its causes remain unclear. However, sociocultural factors play a crucial role on the stages of acceptance and coming out as the cultural values and beliefs in relation to homosexuality and transgenders substantially affect these processes. In other words, the members of the LGBTQ community have more opportunities for expressing their identity if they live in more accepting and tolerant society, while in homophobic society, LGBTQ people have to hide their sexual or gender identity.

There are multiple factors that determine social attitudes to the LGBTQ community. For instance, the research conducted by Gomes et al. (2020) shows that individuals living in rural areas, older people, individuals who consider themselves religious, those who do not have contact with LGBT, those with lower academic qualifications, and, lastly, individuals working in a secondary sector are more homophobic (p. 3). Moreover, gender roles that prevail in society influence the development of the LGBTQ identity as well. In other words, LGBTQ individuals are forced to oppress their orientation or the perception of their gender if they do not correspond with expected social roles.

At the same time, sociocultural factors that lead to the necessity of LGBTQ individuals to hide their identity have more severe consequences for peoples emotional well-being. As a matter of fact, the acceptance of a persons peculiarities is highly import for his inner peace that determine the quality of his life while discrimination and stigmatization that cause the inability of coming-out are devastating for a persons mental health. According to Ong et al. (2021), for LGBTQ people, self-acceptance and coming out to others improves ones positive sense of self and health (p. 2). In turn, as homophobia limits these opportunities, it is associated with increased stress that lead to other negative consequences for human mental health. Thus, delayed acceptance or its absence presupposed by social norms, religious values and beliefs, and personal characteristics that were formed on the basis of social attitudes and perceptions impact the harmonious development of the LGBTQ identity and causes stress, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide attempts.

In turn, the acceptance of society contributes to harmonious development of LGBTQ individuals identity as they do not feel that they are stigmatized and rejected on the basis of this criterion. Thus, family support, connection to the LGBTQ community, the inclusion in a safe virtual environment, and individual relationships facilitate a persons acceptance of his gender- or sexual orientation-related peculiarities. In this case, it is possible to state that sociocultural factors may influence personal development and determine a persons psychological stability.

Conclusion

The development of the LGBTQ community presupposes the existence of several important milestones that traditionally include awareness, self-identification, and coming-out. While the influence of sociocultural factors on the formation of non-traditional sexual orientation and gender identity is unclear, child-parent relationships within families may contribute to it as well. In particular, homosexuality may depend on the raising of males as females or by homosexual parents, child-parent relationship issues within families, seduction by homosexuals, and childhood sexual abuse. At the same time, while the impact of sociocultural factors on the formation of the identity may be regarded as ambiguous, these factors play a crucial role in its development. Thus, age, social norms, religious values and beliefs, education, occupation, and the acquaintance with LGBTQ individuals determine others attitude to the LGBTQ community. While accepting and tolerant society leads to the harmonious development of LGBTQ individuals identity, homophobic society characterized by discrimination and stigmatization of LGBTQ people forces them to hide their identity.

References

Cherry, K. (2022). What is sociocultural theory? Verywell Mind. Web.

Cook, C. C. (2021). The causes of human sexual orientation. Theology & Sexuality, 27(1), 1-19. Web.

Gay Alliance. (n.d.). The Cass model of identity development [PDF document]. Web.

Gomes, M., Assunção, S., Azevedo, S., & Teixeira, C. M. (2020). The influence of sociocultural factors on attitudes towards homosexuality: Comparative study. PsychTech & Health Journal, 2(2), 3-16. Web.

Hall, W. J., Dawes, H. C., & Plocek, N. (2021). Sexual orientation identity development milestones among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(753954), 1-19. Web.

Ong, C., Tan, R. K. J., Le, D., Tan, A., Tyler, A., Tan, C., Kwok, C., Banerjee, S., & Wong, M. L. (2021). Association between sexual orientation acceptance and suicidal ideation, substance use, and internalised homophobia amongst the pink carpet Y cohort study of young gay, bisexual, and queer men in Singapore. BMC Public Health, 21(971), 1-11. Web.

Introduction

Deviant behavior is behavior that violates rules that are formally enacted or formal social norms. The concept includes any behavior that differs from formal and informal norms and standards set out by society (Bader & Baker, 2019). Homosexuality  sexual attraction between the members of the same sex  is a deviant behavior because it violates the informal social norms of American society. It opposes the traditional views of relationships between men and women. Several social theories can help gain a better understanding of the history of homosexuality, including structural functionalism, conflict theory, and social interactionism. This paper will discuss the history of homosexuality from the perspective of three theoretical lenses.

History of Homosexuality in the United States

From the earlier research, sexuality existed long ago in the 1960s, but it was never discussed in open forums like it is today. The topic attracted minimal discussion during the 20th century, and it became more rampant in the late 20th century. In Europe and North America particularly, gays and lesbianism came in the knowledge of the heterosexual population for the first time late in the 20th century (Bader & Baker, 2019). Early before this, offenses such as lesbianism, gays, and sodomy were considered criminal offenses and were punishable by corporal punishment. In some states, even cross-dressing was a capital offense whose punishment was imprisonment.

The first case of heterosexuals in North America came to public notice in 1566, and it was considered deviant behavior; a death sentence punished it. In the 1960s, there were transitions; young gays and lesbianism adopted the liberation philosophy struggled with a broader perspective which aimed at dismantling racism, sexism, western imperialism, and traditions regarding sex and drugs (Fisher, 2019). This saw movements such as the civil rights movement, black power movements, feminist movements, and anti-war movements come into place.

Liberalization movements for gay, such as gay liberation forum and gay activists alliance, also came into place. They spread rampantly throughout the world, an action which greatly influenced many of the modern-day rights organization. As a result of many movements and organizations that demanded homosexual people be treated like other people and have their rights, sexual relations between same-sex couples and the same gender was decriminalized for the first time in Illinois in 1962 by the state legislature. These organizations continued to get decriminalized from state to state over the next couple of decades, and by the 1970s, all the states had decriminalized homosexuality.

As a result of decriminalization, policies concerning homosexuality were put into place, and anybody who went against the policies would face criminal law. The Law also reinforced the longstanding prohibition of homosexual people to serve in the American military under Dont ask, Dont tell DADT. A congressional policy of 1993 allowed homosexual people to serve in the military on conditions they did not disclose their sexual directions. The activism of homosexuality came to a turning point in 2008 when the California state supreme court ruled that the policies that burned the legalization of homosexuality were unconstitutional under the US constitution. The election of President Obama as the first African American president marked the beginning of federal policies for LGBT citizens.

President Obama reversed the policies of President Bush and signed a UN declaration that called for the decriminalization of homosexuality. He also declared the month of June to be LGBT pride month in the United States. He also signed a presidential memorandum that declared that people of the same sex in federal employment should receive certain benefits and as well signed Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr acts that added sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in the federal hate crimes law. In 2011 the nonbinding declaration attracted the favor of more than 80 UN countries, which led to the UN endorsing the rights of transgender people, gays, and lesbians for the very first time in history of America (Byne, 2017).

Further, President Obama supported same-sex marriage in 2013, and laws were passed that fully recognized the existence of homosexuals. However, homosexuality was something that was not advocated for. The religion, too, has come to accept the religious gay men and women of faith. The United Church of Christ ordained its first gay minister in 1972. Many other churches and synagogues followed, and gays and lesbians received great support from the church, community, and homosexual rights movements. In the era of sexology studies, Roberts (2019) asserts that medical authorities also began promoting tolerance to the homosexual population. Although homosexuality is deviant behavior, it has been medically, socially, and religiously accepted in almost all parts of America. Though it was not a legal practice, it became legalized and became a legal practice that anybody can practice openly in American society.

Theories of Deviant Behavior

Different sociological theories have varying perspectives concerning the concept of sexuality. When studying homosexuality in the social context, it is essential to pay attention to the role of sex and sexuality in society. The first theory that can be used to review homosexuality is structural functionalism. Structural functionalists emphasize regulating social behaviors to achieve family stability and cohesion in marriages. Since the family is the basic unit of a stable society, functionalists emphasize maintaining a strict focus on the unit all the time. Further, they argue that maintaining good sexual behaviors in a family setup will preserve the family and favor social arrangements that support family cohesion.

Functionalists also argue that its the role of the family to regulate sexual activities and social norms that surround family traditions, that surrounds the believes that a certain family has, encourage sexual activities in a family setup, and discourage evil doings around the family setup such as premarital and extramarital sex. According to the functionalists, encouraging sexual activities within a family setup promotes good relationships between couples and makes sure that children are brought up in a legal and stable organization. This kind of a set brings offspring into s stable set up where they have access to fundamental resources and good chances for appropriate socialization (Jerónimo Kersh, 2020).

From the functionalist point of view, homosexuality cannot be permitted in a society on a large scale and cannot be accepted as a substitution for heterosexuality. They argue that if homosexuality was permitted, then eventually, procreation will decline. Additionally, if homosexuality is allowed to predominate a certain population, then there will be a dysfunctional society which eventually, the society will be dominant. However, the functionalism theory does not consider the increasing legal acceptance of same-gender marriages or the increasing number of lesbians and gay couples who have chosen to bear and bring up children through various resources at their disposal.

When it comes to conflict theory, its perspective of sexuality is that it is an area that has a power differential. Various dominant groups are constantly fighting to promote their economic interest and worldviews. The standpoint of the conflict theory is that there are two elements for debate over same-sex marriages. One is the economic dimension, and the other is the ideological dimension (Tay et al., 2018). The dominant group, which are the heterosexuals, is fighting for their worldview. They have embraced the nuclear family and the traditional marriage systems to win over what they see as an individual-driven view and an intrusion into the secular world.

On the other hand, homosexuals appreciate that a legal marriage is a basic unit that cannot be denied considering sexual orientation. Still, they also argue that marriage laws provide a percentage for change. An example of such is the legalization of long, forbidden interracial marriage. From the economic perspective, same-sex marriage activists argue that legal marriages come with many responsibilities, including medical insurance, benefits of social security, and financial entitlements (Ormerod, 2020). However, they argue that even if you arent a heterosexual, denying these responsibilities is wrong, and as long as both groups struggle to meet these responsibilities, there will always be conflicts in society.

When it comes to social interactions, the theory pays attention to the meanings associated with sexual interactions and sexuality. Davison (2021) and Lissitsa and Kushnirovich (2020) consistently note that considering felinity is devalued in American society, those who have such behaviors are subjected to ridicules, and this is the case, especially with men and boys. American psychology association defines homosexuality as deviant behavior or abnormal behavior (Drescher, 2020). Psychological association was powerful in the shaping of the social attitudes towards homosexuality by defining it as pathological.

Besides that, the interest of interactionist also focuses on how discussions concerning homosexuals often focus exclusively on the sexual lives of gays and lesbians. In most cases, men are considered to be hypersexual and, therefore, deviant (Macnow, 2019). They also focus on how many people perceive homosexuals and argue that people who are homosexual have high chances of getting depression, and most of them commit suicide.

According to the three theories, conflict theory seems to support the historical evolution of homosexuality. The theory argues that the two sides, homosexuals and heterosexism, are constantly fighting for their views to win. Homosexuals also argue that formal marriage comes with social security, insurance cover, and financial insurance, which homosexuals cannot be denied. Also, laws or marriage provide for a percentage of change, and therefore their behaviors should be accepted and practiced legally. This gives us a historical evolution of the deviant behavior (Slootmaeckers, 2018)

Interpretation of Homosexuality in Different Social, Cultural, and Political Contexts

Different cultural, social, and political contests interpreted homosexuality in varied ways. The social imagination of homosexuality in contemporary American society has changed over time. The social interpretation of this term changed from a mental illness perspective to deviant behavior between 1969 and 1974 and later shifted between 1987 and 1992 from deviant behavior to collective identity. Griffith and Wickham (2019) attribute these changes to the increased LGBT movements that championed homosexual rights.

The two changes mark a turning point in the social context. Initially, there was a misconception in society that people who were attracted to members of the same sex were mentally challenged. Many people in society believed that pro-gay movements were advocating for a deviant behavior that negates established social norms and values. Due to the rapid increase of institutionalized claims to the scope of influence and expertise, significant changes in how homosexuality was represented and established by the homosexual community caused the public imagination to shift. Through the medicalization of homosexual behavior, most American societies continued to view homosexuality as deviant behavior.

In the cultural contests, people perceived homosexuality as a taboo, and there was no point in discussing such matters in public. Despite being practiced by some people, and this behavior was intolerable and punishable according to the cultural values of the community (Agovino, 2021). However, the increasing pro-gay movements and activism led to changes in attitudes towards same-gender marriages, a clear representation of a cultural shift. Though there is no clear consensus on the nature of the cultural shift, American society has increasingly adopted the practice and does not see it as deviant behavior anymore.

Many sociologists, however, have tried to explain public opinion based on the nature of cultural change. The increased interactions of gays and lesbians, especially in higher learning institutions, contributed to increased recognition and acceptance of homosexuality. In this case, sociologists explain that both human interactions and education bring tolerance to homosexuality. To expound on this cultural acceptance of homosexuality, we can argue that just as an individual imagination leads to the formation of an image, the process of social imagination produces a change in the way the society views things. This shift leads to concepts, prototypes, and categories that define cultural understandings. The cultural concept of homosexuality has changed due to this chain of imagination and has led to acceptance over time.

In the 1960s, the political interpretation of homosexuality was unwelcoming. They had no representation, and this behavior was treated with punishments. The gay community in American society faced rejection and sometimes faced brutality. For example, in 2016, there was a massive shootout at the purse gay nightclub, which led to the death of 49 people. This attack was described as the worst violent act against the LGBT community and the second deadliest shootout in America (Monroig, 2018). The attack was a clear indication of how politically the community was unwelcome.

However, over time the perception of homosexuality has changed as every state in America decriminalized the behavior and enacted policies that supported the LGBT community (Hall & Rodgers, 2019). President Obama signed several bills and policies that demanded homosexuals in federal employees receive benefits. With such political stands, it is evident that the political concept of gays and lesbians has changed over time, and American society has embraced political standings that support homosexuality.

The different interpretations of homosexuality were due to the values that the society believed in and practices. Also, formal marriage was the only institution that was recognized, and therefore any other form of marriage or attraction attracted different interpretations from different groups overtime.

My take on homosexuality is that gays and lesbians should be accepted and granted their rights. They are an identity and integral part of our lives and should therefore receive equal rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens. Since every individual has a right to choose what they want and practice what they believe, gays and lesbians sexual orientation should not form bases of discrimination, ridicule, or isolation from society. Also, the acts of homosexuals have been decriminalized and legalized in American society hence the privilege to practice what they believe is right for them.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper applies the three major social sciences theories to examine homosexuality and explore the historical transformation in terms of how the term is viewed. From the perspective of functionalism, homosexuality is in opposition to traditional family values and procreation, which benefit society. Conflict theory implies the existence of competition for resources between the heterosexual majority and homosexual minority. Finally, Social Interactionism allows one to review the lexicon such as feminine and masculine, the meaning of these words, and how they might shape peoples behavior and sexual orientation.

References

Agovino, M., Bevilacqua, M., & Cerciello, M. (2021). Language as a proxy for cultural change. A contrastive analysis of the French and Italian lexicon on male homosexuality. Quality & Quantity, 1-24. Web.

Bader, C. D. & Baker, J. O. (2019). Deviance management: Insiders, outsiders, hiders, and drifters. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Byne, W. (2017). Sustaining progress toward LGBT health equity: A time for vigilance, advocacy, and scientific inquiry. LGBT Health, 4(1). Web.

Davison, K. (2021). Cold War Pavlov: Homosexual aversion therapy in the 1960s. History of the Human Sciences, 34(1), 89119. Web.

Drescher, J. (2020). Queer Diagnoses Parallels and Contrasts in the History of Homosexuality, Gender Variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) Review and Recommendations Prepared for the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group. Focus, 18(3), 308-335. Web.

Fisher, K., & Funke, J. (2019). The Age of Attraction: Age, Gender, and the History of Modern Male Homosexuality. Gender & History, 31(2), 266.

Griffith, A., & Wickham, P. (2019). Tolerance, acceptance, or ambivalence? Changing expressions of attitudes towards homosexuals in Barbados. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(1), 58-69. Web.

Hall, W. J., & Rodgers, G. K. (2019). Teachers attitudes toward homosexuality and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer community in the United States. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 23-41. Web.

Jerónimo Kersh, D. (2020). Fighting for the right: A functionalist oralhistory analysis of conservative Brazilian women from the military dictatorship (19641985) to Jair Bolsonaros presidency (2018). Bulletin of Latin American Research.

Lissitsa, S., & Kushnirovich, N. (2020). Is negative the new positive? Secondary transfer effect of exposure to LGBT portrayals in TV entertainment programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(2), 115-130. Web.

Macnow, A., C. (Eds.). (2019). MCAT Behavioral Sciences Review 2020-2021: Online + Book (Kaplan Test Prep). New York, NY: Kaplan.

Monroig, A. (2018). Latino Parents with lesbian, gay, and bisexual children and the Catholic doctrine towards homosexuality. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. Web.

Ormerod, R. (2020). The history and ideas of sociological functionalism: Talcott Parsons, modern sociological theory, and the relevance for OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 71(12), 1873-1899. Web.

Roberts, L. L. (2019). Changing worldwide attitudes toward homosexuality: The influence of global and region-specific cultures, 19812012. Social Science Research, 80, 114-131. Web.

Slootmaeckers, K., & ODwyer, C. (2018). Europeanization of attitudes towards homosexuality: exploring the role of education in the transnational diffusion of values. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(4), 406-428. Web.

Tay, P. K. C., Hoon, C. Y., & Hui, J. Y. (2018). Integrating religious and sexual identities: The case of religious homosexual men in Singapore. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 337-353. Web.

The hostile attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people aggravated by the lack of proper legislation, explicitly prohibiting discrimination against those groups, result in human rights violations that go against the spirit of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (OHCHR par. 2). There are 77 countries that still treat homosexuality as a criminal offense and five countries that have capital punishment for those who engage in same-sex relationships (OHCHR par. 2). Canadas progress toward legal equality of LGBT community testifies to the deep belief of its citizens in the fundamental values of democracy and freedom.

After issuing Charter of Rights in Freedoms in 1982, Canada became a world leader in the struggle for the rights of LGBT people (Graupner and Tahmindjis 98). It also was one of the first countries that made same-sex marriage legal. However, this remarkable progress was a hard-won victory in an arduous battle rather than a natural change in attitudes over time. Social movement in 1971 put a beginning to the wave of protests against prejudice based on sexual orientation (Historica Canada par. 9).

Numerous organizations such as the University of Toronto Homophile Association and the Community Homophile Association of Toronto emerged at that time and helped to make a shift of public opinion on the issue (Historica Canada par. 9). Their efforts would have meant little without support from the countrys first homosexual publication The Body Politic that was printed in Toronto (Historica Canada par. 9).

There was a backlash from Canadian legal bodies resulting in police harassment and mass prosecution for indecent acts (Historica Canada par. 12). However, LGBT communities were ready to fight against the institutional injustices and systemic prejudice to change harmful attitudes and legislations. The story of Canadian progress in defeating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is the story of individuals who were not afraid to show active resistance to those who trampled human freedoms and desires (Gallager par. 14).

The peaceful revolution they made was the result of numerous demonstrations and legal battles rather than benevolence from authorities. LGBT community grew more politicized and strong over the years of struggle and was capable of taking proactive steps towards battling HIV/AIDS epidemic (Historica Canada par.13).

The emergence of public organization AIDS Vancouver in 1983 helped to implement a successful strategy for harnessing the rampant growth of incidence rates of the disease (Historica Canada par.13). This meant that country was on the course of transformation for the better. These and other victories marked the beginning of the tectonic shift of the Canadian culture (CBC News par.12). The long-standing tradition of stigmatizing same-sex relationships gradually gave way to their acceptance in the public sphere. Canada was motivated by a sense of true patriotism and was willing to change its cultural footprint. Because real patriots are not opposed to the idea of holding up the mirror of this nations better, ideal self so it would be able to see its wrongdoings and correct them (Kennedy par. 14).

The story of the evolution of the same-sex rights in Canada contains important lessons for those who are willing to study the country. It shows that every social issue contains a variety of angles that need to be considered in order to build a strong foundation for the future of the nation. Therefore, Canada should be studied from the perspective of different social groups and communities. It might help to understand that the countries defending human rights of their citizens will be on the right side of the history.

Works Cited

CBC News. Same-Sex Rights in Canada. 2012.

Gallager, Bob. LGBT Progress is a Canadian Success Story. 2016.

Graupner, Helmut and Phillip Tahmindjis. Sexuality and Human Rights. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press, 2014. Print.

Historica Canada. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Canada. n.d. Web.

Kennedy, David. The Truest Measure of Patriotism. 2000.

OHCHR. Combatting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. 2016. Web.

Introduction

While marriage has traditionally been prescribed as a union between heterosexuals, there has been a shift towards giving marriage rights to homosexual couples. This change has been brought about by the prevalence of homosexuality in the society and the widespread acceptance of gay relations.

While at the onset of the last century homosexuality was shunned and even criminalized, the 1960s saw many states making laws that decriminalized same-sex conduct and abolished discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Volokh 106). Gathering from this momentum, gay activists have been calling for the legalizing of gay marriages and the affording of gay couples the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Due to media popularization of gay rights, opposition of gay rights to marriage is normally equated to intolerance. However, this is not always the case and there are many legitimate and sound claims against legalization of gay marriages.

This paper shall examine several of the arguments raised both in favor of and against legalizing gay marriages. The paper shall then effectively demonstrate that an objection to gay marriage stems from not just moral grounds but also the need to protect marriage which is a fundamental and important institute in our society.

A Case Against Gay Marriages

Proponents of gay marriage argue that denying gay people a right to marry is a violation of their civil rights. To underscore this point, gay right activists draw parallels between denial of gay marriages and the discriminatory apartheid system that prohibited interracial marriages in the USA.

Blocher states that this is a misleading statement since homosexuality is not a natural condition and as such, it cannot be dealt with on the same level as skin color which is natural (1). Homosexual is a matter of personal preference and one makes a conscious decision to become gay.

Therefore, homosexuals should not be afforded the same legal protections as race since if this were to happen, the same legal protection would be demanded by other classes of people such as smokers or even pedophiles.

A troubling reality as with regard to gay marriage is that once gay people are afforded the rights to marry, it will invariably lead to legalization of polygamy and polyamory. Kurtz argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to a transformation of the marriage institute from its currently well defined form as a contract solely between a man and a woman to a union of undefined form (1).

This is a concern that is echoed by an ardent gay rights opponent, Blocher, who declares that if sexual preferences become a protected class, then it will be expected for the same protection to be offered to those who wish to marry blood relatives or even multiple partners (2). As such, the very legitimacy of marriage as a valuable unit on which our nation is build will be eroded if gay marriage becomes legitimized.

Gay marriage right activists view the lack of legal recognition of gay marriages as a denial of the gay persons right to enjoy a fulfilling life with his/her partner. This is because marriage is an institute that is fundamentally built on love and the need for companionship by the two parties involved. Gay activists suggest that the only difference between same sex and opposite-sex couples is the procreation ability of opposite-sex couples.

However, since procreation is never the basis of legal marriage, they argue that gays should not be denied marriage since they union is not unlike that of heterosexual couples. Crawford refutes this claim by revealing that gay couples are only encouraged to marry so as to undermine the significance of the marriage institute in our society (244).

The fact that gay rights advocate see gay marriage as a step towards the abolition of the marriage institute as they seek to reorder societys view of the family demonstrates the reality that gay people do not respect marriage but rather see it as a means to an end (Kurtz 4).

A case for Legalizing Gay Marriages

The notion that gay marriages are inherently evil and detrimental to the society can trace its root to the traditional American society whose functioning and principles were markedly different to those of the modern day society. Feldblum proposes that the world is changing significantly and as such, the principles which guide our society should also change towards a system whereby liberty for all is guaranteed (6).

Feldblum contends that since homosexuality has become acceptable and is not viewed as being harmful to the societys moral fiber, gay people should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals (10).

To reinforce his assertion, he reveals that according to surveys only 40% of the people object to legal recognition for same-sex couple (11). This is an important assertion since legal recognition of same sex marriages is mostly objected to on the basis that the general public is against such establishments.

Refusing gay couples the right to marriage is tantamount to unjustified discrimination and as a nation founded on the grounds of democracy and equal rights for all, the United States of America should not engage in this discriminatory behavior.

While the government is adamant that it protects all citizens equally in spite of their sexual orientation, this is not the reality since gay couples continue to be deprived of right to live together in consensual relationships (Volokh 106).

Feldblum agrees with this view by observing that while the government purports to be neutral in the gay marriage debate, it in essence takes a stance on the moral question every time it fails to take action to ensure that gay people can life openly and safely from harassment.

Conclusion

While the rights of gay couples should be respected, this should not extend to allowing them to marry with same privileges as heterosexual couples. This paper set out to demonstrate that objection to gay marriages is not fired by discriminatory attitudes but rather the desire to protect the marriage institute.

From this paper, it has been highlighted that for most gay right activists, the advocacy for marriage rights is only a step towards ensuring the collapse of the traditional marriage institute. Furthermore, this paper has shown that affording gay people the right to marry will only result in other groups such as polygamists demanding the same rights.

However, denying gay people the right to marriage should not be a basis for discrimination since as this paper has shown, there is more widespread acceptance for gay people today than was the case a few decades ago.

Bearing in mind that we are aiming to form a cohesive and undiscriminating society based on tolerance and mutual respect and understanding, gay couples should not be discriminated against even though marriage between them should not be legally recognized.

Works Cited

Blocher, Mark. A Case Against Gay Marriage. Christian Worldview Concepts. Vol 1. 2004.

Crawford, David. Liberal Androgyny: Gay Marriage and the Meaning of Sexuality in our Time. Communio: International Catholic Review, 2006.

Feldblum, Chai, Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion. Jan 2006.

Kurtz, Stanley. Beyond Gay Marriage. The Weekly Standard. Volume 008, Issue 45, 2003.

Volokh, Eugene. Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes. Hofstra Law Review, Vol 33.