Homosexuality from a Sociological Perspective Essay

I understand that we do non behold eye to eye on most of the issues I brought up in my previous letter. I also understand how you wish for me to convey that I understand what we control discussed in class over the past twin months from a sociological perspective. I would like to go ahead and exempt that now and then perhaps further explain where I was plan of attack from originally.There argon two basic centerings to view the realness of homoeroticism through the essentialist model and through the social constructionist model. The essentialist argues that queerity is a natural, universal category that exists independent of culture, time, or situation. (David Greenberg) They regard the heavy reality of crotchet as residing in sexual orientation. Sexual manner is secondary in nature. Concisely their goal in animation is to buzz off out what causes soul to prefer corresponding-sex partners.Social constructionists however believe that homosexuality is not a concrete reali ty, but instead a phenomenon that exists because of the way it is defined socially, culturally, and situationally. (David Greenberg) They are interested in the recognition of separate categories of adult male based on sexual orientation, as well as give-and-take based on that f coif. They think that being a homosexual is experience differently between different people, according to the social context at bottom which it takes place, and that what it means to be a homosexual can vary across the board.From what youve taught us this semester so far Ive come to the understanding that on that point is no underworldgle infallible measure of homosexuality. I mean what really defines a homosexual. Just the thought or desire to be with some unity of the same sex, or is it perhaps a kiss with Madonna on MTV. Does one actually live to commit a sexual act behind closed doors with someone of the same sex to be tagged a homosexual? These are some of the questions we take a shit discusse d in class, which founder led me to the conclusion that homosexual sex is multidimensional.Throughout my readings in the Reader, I have well-educated that male and femalehomosexual expression are very different in nature. They have dramatically different homosexual styles. For example, males tend to act on homosexual desires more so than women do, plot of ground women tend to have their feelings and desires about homosexual deportment brew interminable before they act upon them.Ive learned that numerous homosexuals claim that they have no more choice in becoming gay than heterosexuals did in being straight. Ive learned that a gene or make out of genes could predispose men to becoming homosexual from the on start of their life. Which of take to the woods begs the question of whether or not this gene can be placed before a child is born, to allow the child to leave a normal life.I brought up the gene issue to my good friend Ryll and asked about her brother, who is a homosexu al, and asked her if it were possible did she think her brother would choose to have his gene altered in order to make him straight? She answered no, because that was the life he was used to, and to change it now would be more baneful to him then just staying the way he was.Bottom line is homosexuality is a form of deviant behavior barely because most members of our social club do not approve of it, and because this disapproval takes the form of condemnation and punishment of homosexuals and strained, difficult relations betweens straights and gays.I would like to clear up one issue if you have time the difference between deviance and sin as I see it. Not all deviant behavior falls under the category of sin. However, all sin is deviant in my opinion. I do not believe sin to be socially constructed as deviance is. I believe people interchange the quarrel more often than they should. I still hold true to my ad hominem semi-absolutist perspective of sin. I believe that in that lo cation is a sense of reproach that is not tied in to culture or society I believe that this sense of wrong is because there is indeed an absolute when it comes to slump and wrong. I further believe that we, as a human race, never achieve at keeping any standard of right and wrong, often less the absolute standard that Ive referred to.Sin is anything that we do that does not please perfection. This is not due to an arbitrary set of rules that we follow, instead it is significative of the character of God. I know I have done many things wrong I have sinned. How do I know this? I feel a conviction in my heart when I do something that I know is wrong. It pains me when I sin. However, even if I have become calloused to the wrong that I do, it does not mean that the things I do are no longer wrong. So the most fundamental indication of sin is judging against the character of God. Where can the character of God be found? In the Bible of course. Ill stop there because I doubt you want to be preached to in this letter. I simply wanted to attempt to show you how I see sin as not being socially constructed at all, but at the same time showing that I understand how deviance is socially constructed. I do hope this short explanation of what I have learned thus far in your class will be competent for this assignment. I will continue, of course, with new material when the next letter is due.