You would seriously use that kind of language?
Many Christians believe that homosexuality is immoral and abominable. But is it really? No. Out of the Bible's 31,173 scriptures there are 11 scriptures which can even remotely be tied to homosexuality. In the old testament people often refer to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus though was meant for the Levites, the priests of Israel. Beyond that, it is a part of the holiness code that was done away with when Jesus died. Acts 15:25-30. Deuteronomy 23:17, 1Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 all refer to prostitution which was equally wrong in the case of women. Many people point to Sodom and Gomorrah as God's disapproval of homosexuals. This is erroneous for several reasons. Firstly as the residents wanted to have *** with angels it is hardly a case of homosexuality. If we ignore that major flaw though, would the outcome be any different than if women had wanted to have *** with them? Luke 10:10-13 and Ezekiel 16:49 and 50 points to Sodom and Gomorrah being an issue of being inhospitable. Finally, God was tired of Sodom and Gomorrah and their lack of hospitality, in addition to their eagerness to fornicate led to their destruction.
Can an individual understand the significance of a Trojan horse without understanding the history behind it? No. The same is true of the bible. During the apostle Paul's lifetime Greco-Roman culture promoted *** with the same gender as a secular activity done simply for fun, even when the participants were married with spouses of the opposite gender.It is therefore highly plausible that Paul was referring to these individuals in Romans 1:26 and 27 and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 , and 1 Timothy 1:10.
I would ask why? And in that case, should we get rid of heterosexual marriage, after all there are infinitely more heterosexual couples that can get married that homosexual couples.
Also I don't mean to be inflammatory so if you could read my opinion
Should the Government be Able to Deny Gay Citizens the Right to Marry?
Over the past few years there have been several hot button issues. One in particular is the rights of gays, particularly their right to marry. The 14th amendment guarantees that states will not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, yet in several states it is illegal for homosexual couples to marry. The legalization of rights for the LBGT (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender) communities is not strictly a legal matter, but entails matters of morality, and for years has suffered from being entangled with religion. These matters have been debated on, and states have passed and retracted laws on legalization of gay marriage. Though the United States Constitution does not specifically speak on marriage especially marriage of the homosexual variety, it does provide certain laws and principles to which America should abide by. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, and it is upon that amendment that the United State Supreme Court’s decision, regarding there being a separation between church and state, is derived. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Logically if a person can choose what religion they want, they must also be able to choose which religions they don’t want. By guaranteeing freedom of religion the amendment also guarantees freedom from religion. Additionally, the United States Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and are endowed with “unalienable rights”, one of which being the “pursuit of happiness.” One tool of pursuing happiness is marriage. Often an argument made to counter the denial of marriage for gays, is that they should simply marry someone of the opposite ***. When taking that argument into consideration, one must ask would a person not attracted to the opposite ***, be happy in a marriage with a partner of the opposite ***? When the situation is reversed the fallacy of the argument is seen. If one were to argue “if heterosexuals want to get married they should just marry a person of the same ***“, heterosexuals would deem that solution impractical. Some will argue that by granting homosexuals marriage they are granting them “special” rights, considering the accepted statistic for the amount of homosexual individuals to be 1 out of every 10 persons, homosexuals would be a minority. Considering marriage is a viable action for the 90% of people attracted to the opposite ***, it would hardly be a special right for the excluded 10%. The aforementioned fourteenth amendment dictates that all persons receive equal protection of privileges. Then, it seems the fourteenth amendment would suggest that homosexuals are entitled be able to marry persons to whom they are attracted, just as their heterosexual counterparts are. Furthermore section two of Article IV in the United States Constitution states that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” This again reinforces the statute that the rights of homosexuals should be identical of heterosexuals. The goal of the 15th amendment was to ensure that citizens were not denied of rights due to a condition of how a person was born. It prohibited the curtailing of rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude though it could be expanded to include sexual orientation. Several studies conducted by scientist insist that homosexuality is often trait given at birth, or is a trait that cannot be removed. The American Psychological Association created a task force on “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation”. In 2009 the task force said, “Enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-*** attractions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not report significant change to other-*** attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-*** sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other *** was rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-*** attractions or increase other-*** sexual attractions through SOCE”. This quotation from The American Psychological Association (The world’s largest association of psychologists) states that there test done by the task force, appear to indicate that persons cannot be rid of their homosexual desires through psychological means. The American Psychiatric Associations website states: “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation, nor is it included in the APA's Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders. More importantly, altering sexual orientation is not an appropriate goal of psychiatric treatment. Some may seek conversion to heterosexuality because of the difficulties that they encounter as a member of a stigmatized group. Clinical experience indicates that those who have integrated their sexual orientation into a positive sense of self-function at a healthier psychological level than those who have not. 'Gay affirmative psychotherapy' may be helpful in the coming out process, fostering a positive psychological development and overcoming the effects of stigmatization. A position statement adopted by the Board in December 1998 said: The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/ her homosexual orientation.” This statement released from The American Psychiatric Association is in accordance with that of the findings of The American Psychological Association’s task force’s findings. It further goes on to state that reparative therapy or “conversion” therapy has not shown any exceptional breakthroughs in curing people of homosexuality. Additionally, The American Psychiatric Association states in the 1998 position statement “ The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient”. This statement by The American Psychiatric Association says that it quite possible that religious and secular attempts at ridding homosexuality from a person may cause them more psychological harm. All this said to convey the point that sexuality is a trait deeply ingrained that cannot be changed, and an attempt at change can be harmful. Thus homosexuality is equally as much of a person as race is, and therefore sexual orientation should not be discriminated against. As race and sexual orientation are to be considered equal then the court’s decision in Loving vs. Virginia (Warren), in which it was deemed unconstitutional for a state law to limit the right of an African American citizen to marry a Caucasian citizen, it would unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry, because they would have no more choice over orientation than they would over their own race. The largest opponents of gay marriage are orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christian's beliefs state it is immoral for “man to lie with man”. With this principal in mind they protest that same *** marriage is unnatural and is sacrilegious to the establishment of marriage. The idea that marriage between gays is unnatural is completely unfounded, as natural refers to what is found in nature. In nature more than 1,500 species of animals have been observed engaged in homosexual practices. Male lions for example may have sexual relations with each other to strengthen their bonds and insure that none who lead the pride will betray one another. In Chimpanzees society fellatio toward other members of the same *** is not only a common activity but also a social activity. Scientist Petter Bockman explains that female apes share homosexual activities as well. He has been quoted saying “Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having ***. Among many of the female apes the *** organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other.” Another striking phenomenon occurs with geese and ducks. They choose life partners, it has been estimated that four percent to five percent of these animals that choose life partners, choose partners of the same ***. Some groups stretch the reasoning that gay relations are not natural because they cannot result in childbirth. If then, the only purpose of sexual relations was to procreate then use of sexual organs for other purposes would thus be unnatural. The problem Petter Bockman “Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure again points out this reasoning bears. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have *** to procreate. But there are plenty of animals that will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark.” If then, nature deems sexual relations outside the purpose of procreation acceptable; it must then be a natural occurrence. If one then argues that granting homosexuals the right to marry violates the sacred bond of marriage then they must take into account all the ways heterosexuals disrespect their sacred vowels. Brittany Spears for instance, was married for a mere fifty-five hours. According to the Bible the only way that a marriage was dissolved was if party committed adultery or your spouse died. The interesting thing to note was at the time for the law the punishment for adultery was death. If one wishes to protect the sacredness of marriage then divorces should be illegal. There are also couples such as Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith that have non-exclusive marriages. When, according to the New Testament in the bible marriage and sexual relations are to be with one and only one person. Additionally, the view that Gay marriage is an immoral disrespect to marriage is only a view shared by some religions. A sect of Buddhist in Hawaii made it clear that they were in full support of gay marriage in the Baehr vs. Lewin court case in which Baehr had been denied his marriage certificate due to being homosexual. Mormons made the over sweeping statement that they represented religion. Some argue that gay marriage will threaten the institution of marriage. If anything, the institution will be improved as it will have sparkling exemplars of couples that fought to be together, and continue to fight to stay together. In formal logic there are logical fallacies. One such fallacy is reductio ad absurdum with this fallacy claims are exaggerated and barely resemble the original argument. Such false logic is used when opponents of gay marriage say that legalization of gay marriage will lead to forms of perversion and debauchery. Others may feel that by allowing gay marriage, homosexuality is being promoted. The presentation of this argument is in fact a “straw man argument”. In formal logic a straw man argument is when the responding group takes an argument or facts and omits certain key points made by the original group and presents a superficially similar argument, and attacks their new argument because it’s easier to do so. No one ever mentioned the promoting of homosexuality, nor would there be measures put in place to recruit heterosexuals to “join the other side”. If denial of rights is tolerated however, that says it’s ok to treat people as though they are subservient because they are different. Some offer as an alternative to gay marriage civil unions. Civil unions fail to offer all the advantages of a traditional marriage, in addition to being a slap in the face to homosexuals. Because the union is not a marriage, if a couple were to move or are traveling in another state, the state is not bound by any legal means to honor that union as valid. States are constitutionally required to honor all legal marriages. There are over 1400 state and federal benefits that homosexuals are denied by not being able to marry. These include spousal veteran benefits, welfare, social security, automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, status as “next-of-kin” where medical decisions are involved, joint adoption and parental rights. Furthermore, a marriage is a legal contract that must be recognized not just by the government but by the people they represent. By denying homosexuals the right of recognition the message given is that homosexuality is a blight that is best “swept under the rug”. The following are excerpts from interviews with one homosexual individual and three bisexual individuals. The age range between individuals is between fourteen and eighteen. Due to the request of some teenagers to remain anonymous, only the age of each individual, sexual orientation, and gender will be given. The first person is a bisexual female age 15.
In your experience was being attracted to women a decision you made? I’m not sure. I just started noticing myself always staring at females and wanting to touch them so I figured I was bi How long have you had those feelings? 3 years. Do you think laws forbidding gay marriage are just? No I don’t Why? Because gay marriage is just as loving and important as regular marriage and they are still people and should be able to marry who they love as well as other people whether the person they marry is the same *** as them or not. Would you ever marry a person of the same ***? Maybe...I’m not exactly sure. How would you feel if a group of people told you because you like males too, you should only be with the opposite ***? I would feel that they have a point but if I find myself attracted to girls as well then that’s how I will. How would you respond to someone calling your bisexuality, a phase? How would you respond if a group told you were simply following a fad? I would tell them that I didn’t become bi or realize I was because I was following somebody I realized it by the feelings I was having inside of me and by realizing that I was being attracted to female. Would you say homosexual relationships are just a cheap thrill and lack sustenance? No I would not because if that’s what you’re attracted to then that’s what you’re attracted to it’s the same as opposite *** relationships. The next person answering the questions is a 14-year-old bisexual male. In your experience was being attracted to men a decision you made? No! How long have you had those feelings? About four years. Do you think laws forbidding gay marriage are just? No! Americans or anybody else should have the right to love whomever they choose! Would you ever marry a person of the same ***? Yes! How would you feel if a group of people told you because you like females too, you should only be with them? I’d be angry because I believe I can with whomever I choose! How would you respond to someone calling your bisexuality, a phase? I'd try my best to convince them otherwise How would you respond if a group told you were simply following a fad? I'd tell them that I was "bi" before the latest "trend"! Would you say homosexual relationships are just a cheap thrill that lack sustenance? No! If you wanted to, do you believe you could stop yourself from being attracted to the same ***? No not at all. The next the response is from an 18-year-old bisexual male. Firstly, in your experience was being attracted to men a decision you made? Yes, it was a decision I made. How long have you had those feelings? Two years Do you think laws forbidding gay marriage are just? I don’t think those laws are just. Those laws enforce religious beliefs that can not exactly be restated without any doubt. Would you ever marry a person of the same ***? I would. I have no problem with that type of marriage because marriage is sacred, and to me it should be honored if the feelings are mutual and indisputable How would you feel if a group of people told you because you like females too, you should only be with them? I would say it is my choice that I shall see whether that person is male or female How would you respond to someone calling your bisexuality, a phase? Well I would explain it cannot be a phase if I've been acting on my sexuality for quite some time. I'm sure puberty is over for me. If it was a phase it should have left with puberty. How would you respond if a group told you were simply following a fad? I would say it’s not a fad because this type issue has been around for over twenty years. Would you say homosexual relationships are just a cheap thrill that lack sustenance? Homosexual relationships are not a cheap thrill. A homosexual relationship is no different than a heterosexual relationship. It takes a substantial amount of energy and effort to sustain it. So if a homosexual relationship lacks sustenance so do a heterosexual relationship. If you wanted to, do you believe you could stop yourself from being attracted to the same ***? If I wanted to I could, but it would take effort from the opposite *** as well as effort from me to accomplish that task. I would still be a normal person with those urges to lust after the same *** just as the self proclaimed "heteros" do. It would be hormones running its course in that situation. The following is from a 17-year-old homosexual male. In your experience was being attracted to men a decision you made? No, it was not. It was more a less a process of self-discovery and self-acceptance. How long have you had those feelings? 9 years. Do you think laws forbidding gay marriage are just? Not at all, I am not at all attracted to women and the very idea of being intimate with a woman is disturbing to me. Yet, I wish to be married and adopt children. Would you ever marry a person of the same ***? Absolutely. How would you respond to someone calling your homosexuality, a phase? I would be livid honestly. I fought with my sexuality for eight years before I grew comfortable with it. The fact that I’ve been dealing with homosexual desires so long before the entrance into puberty should speak volumes in and of itself. Would you say homosexual relationships are just a cheap thrill that lack sustenance? Gay marriages are the same as heterosexual ones. At a youthful age promiscuity is prominent, but people eventually settle down and commit themselves to one person for a lasting relationship. If you wanted to, do you believe you could stop yourself from being attracted to the same ***? No, I’d tried that when my former religious views contradicted the feelings I have. All my attempted change did was brought me depression, self-hatred and a lower self- esteem.
The previous testimonies all have varying answers. It is interesting to note that only one individual suggest that he chose what gender attracted him. Another interesting thing to be aware of in the eighteen year old bisexual’s statement is that while he believes he can change his sexual orientation he admitted that he’d still lust after the same ***. His answer also seems to indicate that he believes heterosexuals secretly lust after the same ***, thus he can be a heterosexual. The fourteen-year-old individual still in the “bloom of youth” is evidently very emphatic about his stance on his sexuality, and rights to protect it. The young lady at this point seems very puzzled as to where she lies on the aspect. The seventeen-year-old individual seems to be adamant that he does not have a choice in attraction and states that prior attempts to change orientation has left no benefit, but caused pain instead.
It is has been made evident through not only legal means but also through scientific and moral means that homosexuality is not an act that should be condemned. Furthermore, the legal evidence in this matter leads to a resounding explanation that failure to provide homosexuals with the ability to marry is unconstitutional. Most arguments that reject the idea of marriage between homosexuals are based on religious beliefs and personal feelings. Through the “separation of church and state” religious beliefs should not dictate public policy. Personal feelings should not impede progress a nation. Thus, the only legal, the only moral, the only fair course of action is to legalize homosexual marriage and extend equal privileges and immunities to all.
Bibliography Page Kathy Belge “Difference Between Marriage and Civil Union” lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionmarriage.htm The New York Times. Web. November 29, 2010 Kathy Belge “What are the legal benefits of marriage” lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm The New York Times. Web. November 29, 2010 Austin Cline “Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Gay Couples are Unnatural” atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/GaysUnnatural.htm The New York Times. Web. November 29, 2010 Austin Cline “What is Marriage Between a Man and a Woman?” atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/OneManWoman.htm The New York Times. Web. November 29, 2010 Ramon Johnson gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/apopulation.htm The New York Times. Web. November 29, 2010 Bidstrup, Scott. "Gay Marriage, The Arguments and the Motives" November 29, 2010
You must be registered for see links
Department of General Psychology, Northwestern University
You must be registered for see links
Archives of General Psychology. Web. November 30, 2010 The Medical News
You must be registered for see links
Medical Science News. October 23, 2006. Web. November 31, 2010
Warren, Earl. "Loving v. Virginia." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 12 1967. Web. 25 OCT 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html>.
United Nations. United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. Web. <http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html>.
That's idiotic. Hitting a child does not teach them to behave properly. What it teaches them is subconsciously the way to correct behavior when all else fails is with violence. Which begets more violence. That is what is wrong with people. It seems to me that hitting children does nothing positive for their psyche nor character development.
What I've learned growing up, is that we are raised to the best abilities of our parents. But sometimes they make mistakes. And its our job to improve of the mistakes of those around us and those before us.
Then you shouldn't take the risk of being a parent.
But flame is not equal to gay. To flame is to behave extremely flamboyantly and femininely.
You realize the first part of your statement is quite ignorant. That said, it seems that you're more progresses than others. But I am curious as to what you mean by natural.
I've written on the subject before so allow me to copy verbatim from my papers. I will bold the relevant section.
In the senate report titled “Employment of Homosexuals and Other *** Perverts in the U.S. Government,” the Appropriations Committee defined two separate terms at the beginning of the essay in order for the report to use the established terms repeatedly. The problem with the defined terms is the language used to define these terms is ambiguous and inaccurate. In using ambiguous terminology, the government was able to systematically encourage fear and hatred of those considered unnatural and those considered *** perverts. By referring to the natural, the Subcommittee on Investigation makes certain claims as to what is natural. This paper will investigate these claims to determine what we can learn from them.
The term “*** pervert” (Blasius 242) is defined as “those who engage in unnatural sexual acts” whereas “homosexuals are perverts who may be broadly defined as ‘persons of either *** who as adults engage in sexual activities with persons of the same ***’.” The Subcommittee has given no context in which the term “unnatural” can function under the definition of “*** pervert.” Rather the Subcommittee carelessly applied the term unnatural as a blanket term in hopes that each individual’s idea of the state of unnatural is a universal. The problem therein would necessitate that all Americans shared the same exact experiences, if this were the case though, then either everyone would be *** perverts or no one would be a *** pervert.
Pushing aside the blanketed use of the term unnatural, the wording in the definition of homosexuals gives us more insight into what the Subcommittee considers natural and unnatural. The Subcommittee refers to homosexuals as *** perverts. Yet, somehow, the latent homosexual is not by definition a part of the homosexual category. But the latent homosexual still is lumped into the “*** pervert” category though the definition of “*** pervert” is “those who engage in unnatural sexual acts.” If a latent *** pervert then can be free of engaging in sexual activity and still be a “*** pervert” then the provided definition is faulty. What did the Subcommittee mean by *** pervert then? I find it most likely that this definition is more accurate to the intentions of the report’s writer. A “*** pervert” is one who engages in unnatural sexual acts or has desires to engage in unnatural sexual acts. Now that the definition is fixed another problem arises, the Subcommittee in repeated use to define a state of being is using the unclear term unnatural. Therefore, in order to clarify in meaning of unnatural and to see if these definitions hold true we must define unnatural.
The prefix “un” is interchangeable with the word “not”. The word natural often refers back to its root word nature. So then the first definition of unnatural we will look at will be “not done or found in nature”. In order to for anyone to say whether any action is not done in nature that person must have a full account of what is done in nature before any action can be deemed unnatural. But, perhaps the writers were not being so literal and they meant that homosexual acts are rarely present in nature. Even after attempting to understand unnatural in this more forgiving context, the same problem persists. Scientist have observed over 1,500 species of animals engaged in homosexual activities. In fact, Scientist have known some animals such as penguins and ducks to form monogamous relationships with others of the same ***.
Obviously then the writers of the Senate report did not mean that homosexual acts did not occur in nature. A deeper investigation must then reveal their intentions behind the use of the word unnatural. Perhaps by natural the writers were assuming that one of the mandatory side effects from sexual intercourse was impregnation. This methodology makes more reasonable sense than did its predecessors as under this definition homosexuals are indeed performing an “unnatural” act. But, then if having sexual intercourse must necessarily result in impregnation why weren’t condoms outlawed as they oftentimes seem to stop women from getting pregnant? And surely, if this definition was to be acceptable official investigations would have been launched into government workers who were incapable of reproducing due to being sterile. After all it would have been the duty to protect the government from these “other *** perverts”. Speaking of other *** perverts, the government would have had to keep track of when a woman underwent menopause so that her bosses could fire her afterwards for no longer being able to produce children. And as longing for *** that is not natural results in one being a pervert. Which means even if the sterile person or the post-menopausal women is not having *** as long as they have a desire to have sexual relations with someone they are considered perverts. Thus, they would weaken morale, become of weak moral fiber, and try to recruit others to sterility and menopause. Something is dissatisfactory with this definition as well. How does society take into account masturbators? The purpose of masturbation is not to impregnate, yet police arrested “homosexuals” on the pretext of mutual masturbation. Therefore, masturbation must be a form of ***. Because one cannot bear children from masturbating, masturbating must be unnatural and the government must therefore remove all masturbators from a position of responsibility. If sterile individuals, post-menopausal women, masturbators, and people who had *** without the intent of bearing children where all “*** perverts” then historically there should be some record of a systematic attempt to discover these people in order to protect the rest of the population.
The previous two inquiries into the intent of unnatural have failed. It is possible that in the usage of the term “unnatural” they were speaking in a religious context. However, even within the religious context, the term “unnatural” is has a gray definition. When reading the New World’s Translation of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that men kept for unnatural purposes and men who lie with men will not inherit god’s kingdom. That passage differentiates between unnatural and homosexual. Therefore, this cannot be the intent of the writers of the Senate report as they obviously included homosexuality as being unnatural. Furthermore, it would make no logical sense for them to use a religious definition as the United States’ first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and in doing so it guarantees freedom from religion as one is not fully capable of honoring their religious beliefs if they are held captive to another’s religious beliefs.
That last conclusion I can draw is when using unnatural the Subcommittee on Appropriations meant not common. Reviewing America’s history with those who are uncommon, this seems to be the most logical conclusion. As America once persecuted people with red hair, left handed individuals, African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Asian Americans, Blacks, Muslims, and Irishmen.
The term pervert then would apply to any person who does not fit the statistical norm within America. There must then be racial perverts, religious perverts, ethnic perverts, and economic perverts. The committee in no way established in no way how one form of perversion was worse than any other. It did not establish the correlation between the state of being a “*** pervert” and the accusations in the state of character of “*** perverts”. Therefore for the lack of proper investigation their entire report is defunct.
What then can we learn from the claims made about what is natural and what is unnatural? We learn that people in power use the term unnatural without proper regard for nature. Rather it would seem that the idea of what is natural comes into play as a fear tactic that while it serving no logical means acts as an emotional catalyst. Given how easily this paper did hunt through the assumptions made by the Subcommittee for the Senate’s Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments we know the Subcommittee did not spend a large amount of time hunting assumptions that they used nor did they take an in-depth look at their use of the term natural or unnatural. It would seem by their failure to take into full account their argument that hangs on the clause of naturalness that the terms natural and unnatural when dealing with human behavior is a moot point. The idea that a human can behave in an unnatural manner does not follow, as humans are a part of nature.
Works Cited
Blasius, Mark. Employment of Homosexuals and Other *** Perverts in the U.S. Government . New York: Routledge, 1997. 241-251. Print.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Watchtower and Bible Tract Society, 1950. Web.
look at this.
You must be registered for see links
It's not by any means concrete and much more study will have to be done on the matter. But would you screw your chilrd over on the chance that you are wrong and it is genetic?
There is a distinct difference between gay and feminine. And females don't act a certain way just to clarify. Female is ***, woman is gender. Once again I'll use one of my relevant papers and Bold the important parts.
As human beings, we have innate desire to classify everything in order to make sense of everything. In most cases, this is harmless in itself. However, the question of how we identify gender, ***, and race arises and the effects of that process have larger societal impacts than we often give note to. What does the concepts of male and female mean? Is there a distinction between male and man, between female and woman? What does it mean to be African American? What does it mean to be Hispanic? These are complex issues brought up by our desire to classify the world. The question that seems relevant now, is how much of the classifications are cultural constructs and how much is innately so, if any? This essay will demonstrate that all classifications are cultural constructs, though some are so to a much higher degree.
Many will argue that race is a cultural construct, rather than being a biological construct, I would certainly agree. Race is an interesting thing. For instance, according the Center for Disease Control (CDC), ethnicity is an entirely separate entity in relation to race. For example, Hispanics or Latinos are not considered a race of people; rather they are considered an ethnic group or a cultural group. A Hispanics is “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.” According to the CDC’s website, the five official races are White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Why is this relevant? Hispanics are not considered a race but are considered an ethnicity based on where they came from or the culture practiced. Which begs the question, what happens if a white male begins to partake in Hispanic culture? What happens if one’s grandparents were white Americans but was born in one of the countries listed above, meanwhile they themselves was born in America and shares no cultural heritage with the birthplace of one of their parents. Does that mean they are Hispanic? “African Americans are people having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.” This definition of the Black or African American race seems a bit redundant as it used racial groups to describe a race. Moreover, as no one is truly black the problem arises of - how are there black racial groups? Whereas Whites have no color attached to their definition despite their name, their original ancestors must only have been “of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.” So then, logically by that definition, race is not bound by skin color, as there were also people who had a darker complexion in North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. In fact, it is entirely possible for the White race and the Black race to be the same thing under some circumstances. What then differentiates races? According to Race and Human Variation the Black race carries all genetic possibilities of all other races; however, the other races seem to have a more narrow field of genetic possibilities but having certain differences among themselves that would make then distinct for other races. For example, Asians, and Europeans seeming have very similar alleles but they are peculiar distinctions that separate them. Still these genetic differences cannot be what determines race, as the African or Black alleles can match all other races, and thus under this definition, Black or African would be the only race and all other current races would be reduced to ethnicities. Race and Human Variation (RHV) offer another definition of race, the population concept. It states, “A race is defined as a cluster of local populations that differ genetically from other clusters of local populations.” As the Race and Human Variation accurately points out, there is nowhere to draw the lines of when differentiation between genetics becomes moot for the sake of race, and everyone has a different genetic layout in some way. RHV then presents the essentialist viewpoint that separates people by physical traits. However, when going back with this theory humans would have evolved from very different races to begin with, which does not fit the data provided. In France, the concept of race does not exist, as all are supposedly equal within France (Gagnier). The fact that race fails to exist in France, points toward Race being a cultural construct. Even without the French as an example, the wide array of definitions that try to classify race speaks to the fact that there is no set definition of race and that all classifications occur as a cultural product.
Gender and *** often times come up in the debate of nurture versus nature. For the sake of clarification, allow me to make distinctions between *** and gender. *** is typically determined based on primary *** characteristics such as genitalia and secondary characteristics like broad shoulders, a narrow waist, jaw shape, arm shape, etc. Gender, however, is determined by how one behaves (Weeks ). Whether people do more activities or have more personality traits that are considered masculine or feminine. People often think of *** and gender as binary devices that are always linked but that is not so. For instance, there are many genders in existence today including; man, woman, transgender, gender nonconforming, gender****s, gender queer, etc. This opposes the idea that there is only man and woman. In terms of ***, there is male, female, intersex, transsexual, and depending further upon classification herms, ferms, and merms (Fausto-Sterling 18-23). In terms of transsexuals, we need to determine, whether physical characteristics determine *** or not because through the wonder of modern medicine one’s morphology can now be changed. Some secondary characteristics can be altered, as can primary *** characteristics, DNA to an extent can even be altered with the help of hormone drugs. If gender is based on behavior, and those behaviors are not universally agreed upon, then it becomes obvious that gender is a social construct. Because of the problems presented by *** earlier in this paragraph and our ability to argue on whether some sexes exist, and how one defines a *** we can draw that *** too is a cultural construct. Essentially, we have many of the same problems with *** and gender that exist with race. Our deep desire to classify one another, leads to certain groups being excluded and at times oppressed. That is not to say that cultural constructs are bad. However, I would argue that divisive ones such as ***, gender, and race are bad as they try to cover an entire spectrum of possibilities without proper consideration to all the diversity that exists in between the neatly drawn lines.
What issues does race create? Here at Miami University, I have been able to see the distinction between races that persist. For instance, in my brief time here at Miami, I have been called a nigger five times. Which strikes me as particularly interesting given the connotation of nigger, namely an ignorant person of the black or African American race, is that the parties who referred to me as such had no way of knowing whether or not that criteria applies to me. This seems to suggest they consider the majority if not all black people ignorant according to their worldview. Recently, I was in my Microbiology class in which we were assigned a group project. I did not notice this at first, but once we began to present the project assigned to us, I became aware that the two black people in the group were assigned parts of the project that could not be botched and parts that made us easily replaceable. Again, I think the idea that black people are lazy, dumb, and unreliable went into that issue. However, Black people are not exempt from forming stereotypes. They have preconceived notions of White people and shun those Black individuals they perceive to behave in a White fashion. They attempt to stop unwanted behavior, namely fraternization between the races, with their glares when people of different races intermingle.
On the issue of *** and gender, Miami University needs a lot of work. For example, male men at Miami often say that women are dumb or incapable leaders. They blame logical fallacies that exist in the case of woman A on the fact that she identifies as a woman and therefore, all women use logical fallacies. However, there is the possibility that woman A is the only woman who uses logical fallacies. Male men are not safe from sweeping assertions made about *** and gender. When people talk about rape, we ignore that men can be raped too. We imply that women are the only victims of rape, by having women only info sessions on what to do should someone try to rape you. There is also the assertion, that the only rapist that exists is the male rapist. These over generalizations do not ring true. Granted, more rapes are committed by men, but that is not a valid excuse to identify a group of persons as more likely to be a rapist.
So then, how do we fix the problem that exists at Miami University? We can start by using gender-neutral pronouns institutionally. We can push for a program that my school briefly had, cross dress day, in which the purpose was to either experience what the opposite gender experienced on a given day, or to understand what a trans person went through and how because of their trans nature people made assumptions about their sexual orientation. A campaign to remove *** from the vernacular of students would go a long way in showing the institution’s ideals. I am a large proponent of a day in the life programs. I am not necessarily speaking here in this University setting. Perhaps, as a class for credit, one can spend a semester in a majority African American neighborhood with financial resources similar to that of their temporary neighbors and vice versa for minorities. Likewise, the same program can be initiated under the guise of sexual orientation. One only needs go to a foreign environment and try to experience life as an openly homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or other variety of queer people would experience it. In this way, the one learns about diversity issues in a way that helps students empathize with one another.
Bibliography Page
"Black or African American Populations." Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 2012. Web. 7 Nov 2012.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Sciences." Sciences. (2000): 18-23. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
Gagnier, Don, perf. "How Does Your Country Talk About Race." Talk of the World: A Global Conversation. NPR, 26 2009. web. 7 Nov 2012.
"Hispanic or Latino Populations." Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 2012. Web. 7 Nov 2012.
"Human Variation." Human Variation. (2011): n. page. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
Weeks, Linton. "Around the Nation." Around the Nation. (2011): n. page. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
"White Populations." Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Web. 7 Nov 2012.
For the most part I agree, I watch Glee, but it's not really family programming. Nor is it particularly good programming.
