Free Issue of “Same Sex” Versus “Identity” Essay Sample
Buy Cheap Issue of “Same Sex” Versus “Identity” Essay
The purpose of this assignment is to critically analyze and evaluate the conflict that arises within the “same sex” communities. I will go ahead to expound on this issue that has taken centuries to figure out: the issue of either being gay or lesbian. Going further, the argument or rather discussion will involve a distinct examination on the issue of “same sex” as perceived by the society and its subjects. I will then describe the major changes that have faced this issue by highlighting examples from ancient times that approved on the same issue.
I will also include an extensive explanation on the plight that the gay boy child faces as well as the need for marriages within the gay community. This discussion will entirely be based upon two readings provided for prior to the commencement of the course. The last section of the assignment will put the motion at rest by a paragraph depicting my personal opinion concerning the case or rather task at hand.
An Analysis on the Issue of “Same Sex” Versus “Identity”
The issue of lesbianism and gayness has been a subject of discussion for a very long time and there are two theories put forward to acclaim the possibility of including this same sex dilemma into a befitting societal sex identity. The two theories put forth for discussing this phenomenon are derived from the Essentialists and Constructivists. While Essentialists depict lesbianism and gayness in a rather thinner way, their counterparts the Constructivists depict this issue in a rather thicker way so that an explanation is given of their historical and medical backgrounds. According to an article by Abraham (2000), she claims that during her times the only women who were never married were only nuns and the ones that subsequently remained at home to look after their old parents. It took her another full decade to realize that women could live and establish by themselves. Calhoun (1993), on the other hand proclaims that a fundamental gay identity cannot be described by its phenomenal ‘same sex’ desire but rather on a platform that breaks the heterosexual laws.
There are substantively two heterosexual laws that lesbians and gay people break. The first law is that of engaging in same sex which is considered culturally wrong. The society holds that sex should only be performed between individuals of the opposite sex, that is, a male and a female. The second heterosexual law broken is the deeper emotions depicted between members of the same sex, that is, either between males or females. The society does not acknowledge members of the same sex portraying this kind of feelings. It’s therefore imprudent to base the issue of gayness and lesbianism as a “same sex” issue since there is more than sexual activity that is culturally ignored. As Abraham (2000) puts it the issue of gayness and lesbianism has been politicized by a conflict that comes out of the fact that there is a difference existing between the subject of homosexuality and the one that involves the politics of sex. She continues to argue that these aforementioned concerns are rather complicated and would only be understood through a critical way of looking at the plight challenging the “same sex” community. The difference being that there is a clear split between those individuals who desire to be defined by sex and those who are practicing homosexuality out of the fact that they possess an urge to resist heterosexual laws. In addition to this, there are two assumptions that have been clearly examined for the sake of understanding the reasons behind why gay man and lesbians are not considered as normal identities. This assumption stipulates that a fundamental identity must be in essence natural so that factors such as cross-cultural and cross-temporal are understood to be the natural course of measuring identities. The second assumption holds that the desire to engage in same sexual activity is usually normal. Biological sex, biological eunuchs’ and biological motherhood are the natural cross-cultural phenomenon that describes the lines between men and women. According to Calhoun (1993) these assumptions are considered false since the desire to engage in same sex activity is a natural fact rather than a societal fact. Both universalistic and naturalistic essentialist’s factors out the existence of natural facts that is responsible for determining sexual desires. The assumptions also deny the hypothesis that sex should be determined by biological factors. The belief that gayness is an inherent character as held by essentialism has refuted claims that it does not vary across history and culture. This basically means that when a gay person is moved from his usual surrounding and transferred to a completely new surrounding he would still be gay and that nothing is going to change at all. This phenomenon indicates that gayness does not completely depend on the availability of cultural openings and so forth: it’s entirely normal to be gay in and out of any given culture. On the other hand, universalistic essentialists proclaim that gayness is not refuted out of its inherent character. They argue that there has never been a clear and stable source for determining identities and thus goes ahead to assume that gayness and lesbianism exists either out of trans-cultural and trans-historical identifiable social fact or natural fact. This invariance was the main reason as to why “Americans in the 1990’s preferred to keep lesbians and gay me out of the military” (Calhoun 1993). The decision to classify people as either males or females is completely referenced to the societal definitions of what really is being a male or a female which in most cases is determined biologically by the existence of natural facts. For instance, in the ancient times hermaphrodites were considered to be sex-less the reason being that the existence of both reproductive organs in their anatomy refuted natural biological fact. Come the nineteenth century, sex was determined by sexual anatomy. In the recent years, sexual anatomy has been discarded as a mere way of determining individual’s sex and rather factors such as tastes, aptitudes, satisfactions and dressing preference were and still are considered as the proper determinants for sex. This paradigm shift has proved essential in the sense that transsexual individuals are now able to assert that the instincts of their body is being held captive by the wrong sex.
The major argument would then be: biological facts are relatively inconsistent factors that can be used to determine sex of an individual. It’s therefore wise to conclude that the sex of any given person is directly linked to the societal facts that stipulate or rather identify individuals according to already laid down guidelines which distinguish in between sexes. It’s consequently unwise to think that just because someone possesses a penis he is automatically a male. Thinking on this basis will definitely leave a vacuum that will never be filled in explaining existence of conditions such as those of hermaphrodites. Some cultures allowed males to have sex with their fellow males on the condition that they were not to allow for any form of penetration. For instance in ancient Greece, males were given a choice to have sexual interactions either with young boys or women as it was considered a subject of ethical unresponsiveness. In cultures for countries like Nuer Africa and Japan, males were significantly allowed to have sex with other males so long as one of the two was a grown up man and the other a boy (Calhoun, 1993).
These examples portray the fact that the sexual orientation of persons cannot justly be determined by natural or social facts as there are far much other factors that are taken into consideration, that is, how frequent someone engages in sex with another person of the same sex, the distinctive difference in the ages of the two people having sex and the things that an individual does when performing the act of sexual intercourse. This is taken to mean that since time immemorial there has never been a worldwide taboo on the issue of same-sex desire as we have always made to believe by the society (Calhoun, 1993).
According to Calhoun (1993), the modern sodomy rules and regulations, the outlawing of both gays and lesbians in the American military as well as open discrimination practiced against gays and of their indulgence in same sex will never be justifiable at all. All this forms of discrimination arose out of the Christianity point of view of sinful sex. So this basically depicts that all doctrines and guidelines put forth for the purpose of containing “sinful sex” was out of the need to have a society controlled by religious views.
Both Abraham (2000) and Calhoun (1993) agree on one fact: lesbianism unlike gay men indulges in lesbianism out of the fact that they need to feel as “first class citizens”. They needed to break the heterosexual rule that views women as sexual properties for men. Another reason as to why they practice and advocate for lesbianism is for the fact that they desire to explore their erotic capabilities and by erotic it’s taken to mean the primary emotional intense. According to Calhoun (1993), marriage is an institution that both gays and lesbians purport to engage in for the purpose of diminish the shame they experience in conducting same sexual activities. But then the problem that arises is the fact that there cannot be marriage without women being involved as one of the other half. Other two reasons that refute gay marriages are the fact that the major purpose for marriage is for procreation of children and that marriage was considered to be the main way under which men became civilized. Gay marriages are considered incomplete out of the fact they lack the ability to sire a child but gays, on the other hand, claim that they can adopt children who desires the prospect of getting married in his future. The child put in the picture was to be a boy since gay marriages is meant for the purpose of domesticating as well improving on the lives of fellow men. The problem that a gay boy child is expected to experience outside a wedlock include the emptiness of his emotions, excessive sexual activities and a feeling of self destruction normally exhibited through the world societal facts that discriminates such identities and in order to tame the possibility of this conditions from happening then a gay boy child needs to get married (Abraham, 2000).
Its argued that lesbians solely are in dire need of marriage just because they are incompetent in doing anything and that they also do not need the societal institutions to survive: they already have the force of their accumulated femininity possessed by the female gender, on the other hand, their counterpart gay men desire to commit themselves in marriage out of the fact they are men and men were mean to get married. Gay men have always been known for their extreme conduct in conducting sexual intercourses, the gay society has persistently pushed for gay marriage since it’s the only remedy for this form of promiscuity. Marriage is therefore meant for the purpose of domesticating gay men as well. Gay sexuality is meant to be controlled through these marriages since the reality that portrays the existence of gay people do shock children and straight individuals, gay sex exhibits AIDS, and produces unhappy lot of men( Abraham,2000).
The denial of choice to marry for gay people is considered a fundamental reason as to why they are never going to be assigned their unique genders as matter of fact the gay boy child is born out of a heterosexual family which has facilitated an internal outburst as he is filled with shame and pain. He feels that he is locked up in a world where he does not belong.
The differences that exist between gays and queers is the fact that gays stay at home and cook and wash for their gay partners while queers basically meet in bars and in the streets where they engage in sexual activities. Gay counterparts are committed in providing charities to their respective communities. The thought that gay marriage should be conducted in urban modern cities and towns almost refutes the possibility of perceiving the likelihood of getting married altogether. The pro-gay marriages have continuously contested that urban life as a whole is in continuum a volatile let alone harsh environmental setting for any possible gay marriage. Both the gay and lesbian community is fighting to get married so that they could get to experience a form of lime light identification in their respective public domain (Abraham, 2000).
Unlike in the past, the world of today has allowed both the gays and lesbians to have a distinct urge of earning recognition to the public and the major way they have chosen to do this is by engaging in campaigns aimed at legalizing same sex marriages but then the problem arises when truly there is absence of public reception over which they can use to demand for their ever desired recognition. Although there has been persistent thrust –on for gay and lesbian marriages, they have consequently failed to realize that marriage is never meant to publicly showcase the love that two individuals exhibit towards each other but rather is meant to portray the commitment that lovers swear to maintain faithfulness and for that reason withdrawing for the world “lover’s market” altogether (Abraham, 2000).
It’s arguably right to indicate that both the gay and lesbians should understand that it will make no difference whether they are married or not so long as they hold onto their personal values and beliefs then they will be able to live a fulfilling social life. The issue of marriage should not therefore be taken as a platform over which to acclaim their identity to the public domain.