Societies need to be reproduced, and should not be based purely around sexual urges, and so homosexuality cannot be thought of as a potential building block of society, but homosexuality is a human foible that will always exist in society. It is an interesting question whether a more open social attitude towards homosexuality will lead to its greater prevalence, as people who would otherwise repress their urges do not feel the need to do so.
The reason why some men—and homosexuality seems to be much more prevalent among men than women—are attracted to other men is ultimately unclear. But in fact no one really knows: The Christian church has long railed against homosexuality, whilst being a notable organisation in which homosexual activity has always flourished.
Before the Christian church embedded itself into the culture of Western Europe, homosexual behaviour was much more widespread in ancient Rome and ancient Greece, tending to show that genetic factors are not the key to understanding homosexuality, and that social and cultural factors are the main drivers of human sexuality. I tend to believe that the genetic instinct gives us the sexual urge, without specifying in detail the kinds of human beings that are to be regarded as sexually attractive.
There are many ramifications of this, but I wish to stick to theme of homosexuality here. Greek and Roman homosexuality appear to have been connected to the warrior culture: There was no gay identity, and it is interesting to see that the main form that homosexual relations took in ancient Greece was of relations between an older warrior and a adolescent of years of age. Such relationships between people of different age groups are not really the intention of modern laws decriminalising homosexuality, where adolescents under 16 years of age are not seen as capable of giving consent to sexual activity despite being almost universally engaged in it.
Clearly, relationships between men and older youths in ancient Greece were not unmanly; neither did they detract in any way from masculinity. There is a problem for conservatives here, in that England was traditionally a free country in most respects, and so we generally call for a restoration of our traditional cultural norms, and yet it is undeniable that the Christian narrative on sexuality had a deep impact on English culture.
One could argue, however, that despite the mainstream nature of heterosexuality throughout English history, some degree of homosexuality was part of the social norm. There always has been an undercurrent of homosexuality, and any attempt, legally, to create a society where all men adhered to heterosexual norms would in itself be a rejection of the realities of traditional England.
Quite apart from homosexual attractions in the upper echelons of society Richard the Lionheart, Edward II and James I spring to mind , there has for centuries been widespread practice of homosexuality among public schoolboys.
Maybe this is why Roger Scruton in his England: An Elegy spoke of the homosexual nature of English culture. It would be a gross misunderstanding to state that homosexuality has always been accepted, but England would not have been England without its undercurrent of relationships or sexual activity between men.
Given that the Christian church is widely seen, even by its supporters, to have erred in many of the details of its teachings e. Whatever eventually emerges from genetic search on the reasons for homosexuality and whatever the rights and wrongs of church teaching on the subject, libertarians could not support the criminalisation of homosexual acts, giving the state, as it would, the right to investigate what is going on in private bedrooms and behind closed doors.
It is not necessarily something a cultured person would engage in, but we are talking about the laws of a free country here. Sex behind bushes in known gay cruising grounds is not at all the same thing as similar behaviour out in the open in a way that would offend most people. It is interesting to note that England did not always have laws against homosexual acts.
Of course, in mediaeval times, people depended on their children in older age, and in a largely agrarian society without pensions and other modern financial instruments, homosexuality as a public lifestyle, in contradistinction to furtive acts conducted by people who otherwise adhered to the general norms of family life, was unthinkable.
The number of people put to death for buggery was necessarily small, as evidence would generally have been lacking. The death penalty for buggery was abolished in , and an Act of Parliament extended the sanction of imprisonment to all homosexual activity between men and not just sodomy. Not all English conservatives seem to realise that homosexual acts the broader definition thereof were only illegal for 82 years, and so there is nothing really traditionalist about regretting the demise of the Act.
It is sometimes claimed that one cannot be a libertarian without supporting homosexuality. Is that really so? Surely libertarians should oppose attempts to criminalise homosexuality and vocal opposition to homosexuality in equal measure.
The right of others to deprecate homosexuality was mentioned during the Parliamentary debate on decriminalisation of homosexuality in , where the Earl of Arran, a sponsor of the bill, said. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity.
This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done.
Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity.
We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are. Decriminalisation did not mean that homosexuality was to be promoted in all arenas of life, much less than opposition to homosexuality was to be criminalised.
Yet the gay agenda has developed along more or less extreme lines that Lord Arran indicated would have made the sponsors of the Bill regret their actions. Not only can homosexual couples—or, worse, lone homosexual individuals—adopt children today, opposition to such adoptions from the biological parents of children who have been taken into care is also ignored.
Much of this appears to many to be intent on creating a minority of people privileged by the state by dint of their statistically deviant behaviour. How should libertarians view these matters? As far as the adoption of children is concerned, the forgotten subjects of state intervention are the children. There is little evidence that raising children in novel and innovative household units is good for them: I am not denying that where one parent dies, the surviving spouse often remains a good parent.
But to go out of our way to create family units where adopted children have a lone parent seems quixotic in terms of public policy. Given that men and women are different, and fathers and mothers bring something different to the family and the child-rearing process, I pity the child who is adopted by order of the state by two men or two women, simply to make a political point. Many of these children will grow up with no ill effects, but it seems more sensible to give all adopted children the natural family environment of a father and a mother.
There is nothing libertarian about extremist policies to the contrary. As far as civil partnerships are concerned, it is argued that taxation and inheritance systems treat married couples differently from single people, and so men in long-term relationships need ways of avoiding being treated as single people.
Once marriage was taken out of the hands of the church and made a preserve of the state—which is what civil marriages in registry offices amount to—arguably, heterosexual marriage was downgraded to the status now occupied by civil partnerships. Although not originally related to each other, matrimony makes them one flesh, relatives of each other, a suitable state in which to approach the bearing of children. Similarly, marriage is a vow in the sight of God.
A solemn vow binds the individual for life and I include here the Coronation Oath and judicial and political oaths of office. I would like to abolish divorce too and go for a dual-track approach: If it was not for the interests of the Christian Church many things would have been different and especially that number of homosexuals. The more they prohibited one-sex relationships the more they appeared a simple social reaction.
The attitude towards homosexuality has always been highly influenced by social, economic and political factors without the conscious analysis of the society.
For a very long time the Christian Church was the strongest ruling party and its positions were formed the position of the whole society and changed its perception of this phenomenon. For many centuries people of Japan, China and France lived with homosexuality and did not know it was something unmoral. Yes, homosexuality cannot give start to a new life, but nevertheless it can give a start of a new love and that is what the Christian Church forgot about.
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. How to write an essay Types of Essay. Essay Examples New Essay Examples. Example of a Analytical essay on Social issues about: How to write a Analytical Essay. Homosexuality Example of a Analytical essay on Social issues about: Homosexuality throughout the history The word homosexuality has as its base a Greek word homo meaning the same and therefore implies affectionate relations of the members belonging to one sex.
Christianity — or the period of execution It is necessary to mention that the Church had the ruling power at many times and was the social, cultural and economical engine for many courtiers. The truth about the attitude towards homosexuality Million of people throughout the human history were homosexuals. Conclusion The attitude towards homosexuality has always been highly influenced by social, economic and political factors without the conscious analysis of the society.
So, why can they not be happy with a person of the same sex who loves them as well? There are many things people do but the bible can change a person's mind. Also in the bible, it states in some way or form that every homosexual act is a sin and they will go to hell for it. Why can they just accept that this nation is free and people can do whatever they want in relationship to sexual orientation?
Thirdly, there are many places that legalized homosexual marriages already. Why can people not even take that? I mean, people get all worked up about it and try to drive homosexuals in the ground so they feel bad about themselves.
That is a hate crime if you ask me. Hate crimes have been about many of things Colored people, homosexuals, evolution vs. People have not learned yet to accept homosexuals and their ways of life. Lastly, I think that homosexuals should live their life the way they want to live it. If hetrosexual couples can live their lives perfectly why can homosexuals not? But when it comes to homosexuals, they are saying it is an act against God.
When was a cousin and unlce or aunt an act of God? I never see anything about the cousin thing in the bible but homosexuality is a big thing. That should change if people really care about things like this. All in all, I think that people should stop hating against homosexuals for their difference. After all, they are just humans as well as you and I. Editorial and Opinion opinion murderoussweettart homosexuality.
Ok I see your arguement and hear you loud and clear. But your talk of the Bible is a little off. No mere person is the true writer of the Bible. Not to be offending, but being a Christian, I think the Bible is very correct. It states plainly that homosexuality is wrong, and all those who believe are equally right.
It is no hate crime, morals and understanding of right and wrong is what it is. So the monks did what they thought was right, but God clearly states that this is wrong. Man and women were created for a purpose. Not so that they can defile the human body by such outrageous acts. As you can see, the gay community is plagued with many problems. AIDs, and many other STD's came through the gay community and was spread throughout the nations by that of bisexuals.
Therefore you cannot deny that God is saying that homosexuality is wrong. He punished people in the old civilizations, and He will do the same now. The only difference, is that we can find repentance through Christ Jesus. Our nation was founded on God and the laws He established, not sick things that do nothing but defile and defy God's perfect law. Therefore, I am against homosexuality. Appeal in the opposite sex is not a problem, corruption and twisting in the minds of the people today are what is the problem.
Although you show a good arguement, homosexuality is highly opposed by all those who have atleast half a mind in their head. The one I had to read said almost that word for word.
I changed a bit of them. Yes, I am sorry if you are christian and I offended you in anyway. I am bisexual and been with plenty of women. Would you think I have stds or aids? I am sorry but that is extremely shallow of you to say that homosexuals are the main cause of aids and stds. I think low of anyone who says such a thing I have nothing else to say about your opinion Sorry, it disgusts me.
This is exactly the point that needs to be put across, if we all are are equal, why can't we live in such a way? You have clearly explained yourself, and I agree with you completely.
Someone that agrees with me. I can not answer your question for I do not know. But I tried to explain myself and I guess I did! Thank you for the comment hun. Very good essay and of course you know that I am a Christian and I reiterate the above mentioned comments. However, I truly believe that people have the right to do what they please. That is why God gave us free will. I believe that all homosexuals are going to Hell, but that doesn't change the fact that they have that right to choose.
Now, I am not anti-gay, I have friends who are and while I try to persuade them that they are wrong, I do not beat them over the head with it or do awful things to them hate crimes. Christianity is about love, not condemnation and so many of today's religious leaders stray from that key point of Christ's ministry.
Another key point to think about is that as long as the law of the land says that homosexuals cannot be married, I believe that they should respect it and work through legal channels to get said laws amended. Until then, like us heterosexuals, they can continue to live in sinful, promiscious relationships I know that religious people frown upon homosexuals along with me.
Homosexuality should not be a sin. If they live healthy and happy relationships then they should be accepted by people like that couple is. I am sorry but it is not right to ruin someone else's happiness so you feel better about yourself. I was quiet shocked that you are not anti-gay yet your view looks down upon them I am not a religious person, well, my beliefs are taboo to Christians. Firstly, I do not think that it is a question of rather or not homosexuality should be allowed in today's society.
There IS already homosexuality and there will continue to be, people do not change that easily. I do agree with your essay. Why should it matter if people want to be with their same sex, there's too many people living right now, what could it hurt. It seems that many people take morals and justice to extreme or none at all. Everything might as well be a sin. I do feel that homosexuality should be accepted. Continue fighting for your own beliefs. I do not really know how to reply to your comment.
But, I do agree that everything now a days should be sins. And you as well, fight for your own beliefs.
Free Homosexuality papers, essays, and research papers. Passive Male Homosexuality in Pre-Christian Scandinavia - “The love that dare not speak its name” truly .
Homosexuality is a widely discussed topic nowadays, which brings up an abundance of arguments and discussions in societies around the world.
Homosexuality has been a source of constant conflict among many organizations of today's society. Perhaps the most prominent disputes of this issue exist within the disagreement of same sex relationships from the views of society, homosexuals, the Christian church, and /5(9). Essay on Homosexuality by D.J. Webb Published on the Libertarian Alliance Blog 7th May Homosexuality is in many ways an awkward subject to write about. In the old days, such things were not mentioned in polite conversation.
Free Essays from Bartleby | The way people ultimately view homosexuality, whether in religion, politics or modern popular culture, is all determined by. Custom jctgkzv.ml custom essay writing services. Writing custom essays online. College and High school essay writing. Custom Essay - just for $ per page.