In the previous posts we have seen how certain social factors affect the gay society. There are many more factors not used in this paper that bring up other social problems. The fact that gays have a choice between social separation or social integration is evidence that the gay society is evolving. One key aspect is how the gay society has created its own sub-culture. Most large towns have an area, which can be considered “gay friendly”. In that area there will be gay bars, restaurants and shopping that homosexuals will frequent. In these divisions the gay person can be open and even openly hold hands with their partner. The fear is that the sub-culture rightly created by those who would likely experience odd stares or even derision, should not seek to continually separate themselves from the society as a whole. To be accepted by society, one must become an open member of that society. It is understandable that being constantly aware of your homosexuality makes one feel that others are aware of it as well. This, however, is not always the case. As society continues to awaken to the acceptance of homosexuality, the homosexual society should also awaken to the knowledge of their acceptance.
Homosexuals should be deeply invested in this unfinished work. The gay society can achieve total acceptance, but never without total openness. The moment a gay man or woman seeks to be considered separate from the greater society, the path to total equality becomes a few steps longer and narrower. Society is continually being reconstructed. The movements of groups in that society are fluid, and sometimes without noticeable motion. Yet, each group is interactive and invested. Soon the gay society will achieve total acceptance and those who follow after will be thankful for all those who came before and forged the path upon which they travel freely.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The Gay Society / Social Reconstruction
Just as a building or a house is constructed, society is constructed by culture, words, values, knowledge and power. With the diversity of society there can be a multitude of tenets and beliefs about how society should be constructed. For the “true believers” there can be no alternative to how society is built. Just as the framers of the constitution believed that the truths therein were “self evident” the social theorist will see the essentials of society as self evident and laced with the effects outlying from their practice. There are two different accounts of the construction and origin of homosexuality. The first is called “Essentialism”. This belief states that “orientation is deeply rooted in the persons psychological / genetic makeup. This orientation is a given fact of the human species, ergo it shows up in both ancient and modern societies” (Mohr, 1997). The other account is “Constructionism”. This belief has also been touted as postmodernism. The “gay / straight” identities of our own society are meaningless when applied to past history. The lightning rod of both ideas is the acceptance and prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece. The use of references to a gay societal construction in ancient texts has been used as a current justification for the homosexual lifestyle. Yet, in reading the texts such as Sappho, Homer and Plato the reader is faced with a completely different social construction than our current social makeup. Greek homosexuality was pederastic in nature. The relationships were between adult males and slaves or boys. The use of these relationships was more for power than for love. This understanding begs the question for the homosexual community. Can they honestly connect themselves to the pederastic relationships of the ancient greeks? The answer is a simple no. Though some men of ancient Greece may have been homosexual, the belief that it was overall deviant caused many of those men to live in the ancient closet. The society of that time was more repressive and marriage was more for convenience than actual love. “While some same-sex couples might have described themselves as married, as Clement of Alexandria, Ptolemy of Alexandria and Lucian of Samosata all claim, these ancient writers condemn or ridicule this appellation” (Mohr, 1997). Homosexuality has come a long way since the time of the Greeks. Gay citizens can live an open life with the hope of acceptance. The current social construction for homosexuals is more advanced than in the past, yet the meaning of “gay / straight” still causes friction within society.
Mohr, R. (1997). The Perils of Postmodernism. In Schneider, R. (Ed.) The Harvard Gay &
Lesbian Review (pp. 334-346). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mohr, R. (1997). The Perils of Postmodernism. In Schneider, R. (Ed.) The Harvard Gay &
Lesbian Review (pp. 334-346). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
The Gay Society / Social Response
Civility creates compassion. When one person is hurting, the whole community is hurting. The personal experiences of pain, heartache and tragedy bring about a social response. One of the social factors facing homosexuals is how society responds to these personal experiences. As we have seen in past history, usually the reply is slow. This was most evident in the AIDS health crisis of the 80’s. This disease claimed the lives of tens of thousands of homosexuals throughout the decade. With the homosexual community being the most affected, the AIDS ailment became known as the “Gay disease”. The government was slow to respond to the threat. As gay men lost their partners and their friends, society responded with fear, not compassion. Once the 80’s ended enough was scientifically known about the disease that it no longer was just a “gay disease”. It was shown to affect society as a whole. Over time the social response has mellowed and the gay community is no longer maligned or blamed for bringing this pandemic to America
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Gay Society / Social Requirement
To live in a society, there are certain requirements that must be equally met. Some of the requirements have been placed into our law codes. It is a requirement that you refrain from murder. It is also a requirement that the citizen observes and respects private property. For most citizens this type of requirement is easily met. The prisons of our society are filled with only those who could not meet the legal boundaries. The picture of social requirements gets blurry when the obligations are not so clear or fashioned by certain moral codes. In society, the obligations of morality demand action. Those who fall outside the moral lines are considered immoral and should be ultimately “converted”. This creates the dichotomy in social requirements, because moral demands reveal not only social requirements but also social prohibitions.
One social factor that separates gays from the rest of society is found in gender norms. Historically, the man, woman relationship is considered acceptable. Marriage and dating relationships are seen as the “seedbed of virtue” (Seidman, 2003). The homosexual community naturally works against the gender norms accepted and established by society. Men with men and women with women are not socially seen as normal. The gender roles are deemed as skewed and therefore the requirements are unwritten. The easy way for society to overcome this confusion is to claim the actions and lifestyle as wrong. Socially, history never defines its requirements without revealing its prohibitions. In the past, black persons could not marry white persons. This was not only the law, but also a moral requirement. Marriage between a white man and a white woman were not only accepted but also encouraged. Interracial marriage was prohibited in the United States until 1967. Spiritually, many claimed that the law against interracial marriage was biblically correct by using certain scriptures as the justification. One scripture in Leviticus states “thou shalt not let they cattle gender with a diverse kind…”(Leviticus 19:19, King James Version). The use of cattle in an argument for racism shows at what level the social requirement lay during the Civil Rights period. The same type of scripture justification has been used against homosexuality.
Society “has a vested interest in gender stereotypes: a society which is appalled at the thought of men sewing or a woman construction worker, a society that cannot accept gender fluidity…” (Parent & Spencer, 1997). Fulfilling created roles has been a hallmark of society, but the structure of social requirements is changing. Many gay couples now adopt children. Other gay couples are acting out familial roles with one man going to work and the other staying home with the children. Other cases of women having children as men and gay men and women using surrogates have helped society adjust and change its requirement boundaries.
Parent, M., & Spencer, C. (1995). Homosexuality in History. New York: Knopf
Seidman, S. (2003). The Social Construction of Sexuality. New York: Norton
One social factor that separates gays from the rest of society is found in gender norms. Historically, the man, woman relationship is considered acceptable. Marriage and dating relationships are seen as the “seedbed of virtue” (Seidman, 2003). The homosexual community naturally works against the gender norms accepted and established by society. Men with men and women with women are not socially seen as normal. The gender roles are deemed as skewed and therefore the requirements are unwritten. The easy way for society to overcome this confusion is to claim the actions and lifestyle as wrong. Socially, history never defines its requirements without revealing its prohibitions. In the past, black persons could not marry white persons. This was not only the law, but also a moral requirement. Marriage between a white man and a white woman were not only accepted but also encouraged. Interracial marriage was prohibited in the United States until 1967. Spiritually, many claimed that the law against interracial marriage was biblically correct by using certain scriptures as the justification. One scripture in Leviticus states “thou shalt not let they cattle gender with a diverse kind…”(Leviticus 19:19, King James Version). The use of cattle in an argument for racism shows at what level the social requirement lay during the Civil Rights period. The same type of scripture justification has been used against homosexuality.
Society “has a vested interest in gender stereotypes: a society which is appalled at the thought of men sewing or a woman construction worker, a society that cannot accept gender fluidity…” (Parent & Spencer, 1997). Fulfilling created roles has been a hallmark of society, but the structure of social requirements is changing. Many gay couples now adopt children. Other gay couples are acting out familial roles with one man going to work and the other staying home with the children. Other cases of women having children as men and gay men and women using surrogates have helped society adjust and change its requirement boundaries.
Parent, M., & Spencer, C. (1995). Homosexuality in History. New York: Knopf
Seidman, S. (2003). The Social Construction of Sexuality. New York: Norton
The Gay Society / Social Reasoning
How does society think about itself? “Conceptual structures or schemas—internalized knowledge or information—are assumed to play a central role” (Britton, 1990). Previous experiences also provide a framework from which certain attitudes about society and those within that society are derived. Further, the naming or identification of the group in question can bring greater clarification to the thoughts about that group. In the past the group known as “blacks” were thought to be less than human. The derision and discrimination placed against that group was the result of “the certainty that white human beings were innately superior to human beings of black African descent” (Packard, 2002). Another group that recently has become the focus of marred Social Reasoning are those in the homosexual community. The use of religion, science and past history against gays, have caused the homosexual community to create its own sub-culture from which they can live in relative peace and openly live their lifestyle. Within the context of social cognition and social acceptance the most popular and controversial issue facing homosexuals today is in the matter of marriage.
There are many different definitions of marriage. Some see it as a religious rite garnered and advocated by the church. Others see the act of marriage as a social contract. In the view of religion, most would see the government’s involvement as unnecessary. Within the social contract view the government is needed to validate the contract and the church is just a place in which the ceremony or “signing” of that contract is fulfilled. Religion has defined homosexuality as “sinful” and against God’s law. Because of this belief, the ability for gay couples to get married in the eyes of religion is absolutely forbidden. The government has not deemed homosexuals as a protected social group; therefore the unification of gay couples is not protected or acknowledged under government law. This can be extremely confusing to homosexual couples that have been together for decades and desire to publicly commit themselves. “When people define marriage as only the religious rite or only the civil contract, they deny the validity of two of the most important components of the historical institution of marriage, the personal bond and the community recognized relationship” (Snyder, 2006).
Because marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, the natural social reasoning behind denying gay couples the same benefit is shrouded in moral and political reasoning. Ultimately it is fully expressed in the reasoned perception of others. Stereotypes and categorical assumptions create an atmosphere of distrust and misconceived perceptions. Morally, the code of ethics creates a principled dilemma marred within categorical assertions. If God states the sinfulness of homosexuality, then the religious act of marriage is forbidden to that social group. Politically, the authority structures and processes have never allowed for the government to accept homosexuals, much less gay marriage. These social constructs force the will of the majority upon the wants of the minority. Alexis de Tocqueville (1988) in his book Democracy in America, wrote “What therefore is a majority taken collectively, if not an individual who has opinions and most often interests contrary to another individual that one names the minority? Now, if you accept that one man vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not accept the same thing for a majority? Have men changed in character by being united?”(p. 240). Naturally, people will disagree on the proper way to live and carry out their lives. Ultimately, they will look to authorities and powers from which to gauge civility and social norms. This creates a problem for those who choose to live outside the norms, but have full acceptance from society as a whole.
Thankfully, many in society have adjusted to the homosexual road to full marriage. Many states have enacted marriage and many churches have accepted homosexuals into their congregation and have expressed acceptance with such actions. This issue is far from a conclusion, but it is true that the overall social reasoning toward gay marriage has changed and will continue to evolve.
Britton, D. (1990). Homophobia and Homosociality. The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 31,
Number 3, 423-439.
Packard, J., (2002). American Nightmare. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, R., (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy. New York: Knopf Books
Tocqueville, A., Mayer, J., & Lawrence, G. (1988). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf
There are many different definitions of marriage. Some see it as a religious rite garnered and advocated by the church. Others see the act of marriage as a social contract. In the view of religion, most would see the government’s involvement as unnecessary. Within the social contract view the government is needed to validate the contract and the church is just a place in which the ceremony or “signing” of that contract is fulfilled. Religion has defined homosexuality as “sinful” and against God’s law. Because of this belief, the ability for gay couples to get married in the eyes of religion is absolutely forbidden. The government has not deemed homosexuals as a protected social group; therefore the unification of gay couples is not protected or acknowledged under government law. This can be extremely confusing to homosexual couples that have been together for decades and desire to publicly commit themselves. “When people define marriage as only the religious rite or only the civil contract, they deny the validity of two of the most important components of the historical institution of marriage, the personal bond and the community recognized relationship” (Snyder, 2006).
Because marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, the natural social reasoning behind denying gay couples the same benefit is shrouded in moral and political reasoning. Ultimately it is fully expressed in the reasoned perception of others. Stereotypes and categorical assumptions create an atmosphere of distrust and misconceived perceptions. Morally, the code of ethics creates a principled dilemma marred within categorical assertions. If God states the sinfulness of homosexuality, then the religious act of marriage is forbidden to that social group. Politically, the authority structures and processes have never allowed for the government to accept homosexuals, much less gay marriage. These social constructs force the will of the majority upon the wants of the minority. Alexis de Tocqueville (1988) in his book Democracy in America, wrote “What therefore is a majority taken collectively, if not an individual who has opinions and most often interests contrary to another individual that one names the minority? Now, if you accept that one man vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not accept the same thing for a majority? Have men changed in character by being united?”(p. 240). Naturally, people will disagree on the proper way to live and carry out their lives. Ultimately, they will look to authorities and powers from which to gauge civility and social norms. This creates a problem for those who choose to live outside the norms, but have full acceptance from society as a whole.
Thankfully, many in society have adjusted to the homosexual road to full marriage. Many states have enacted marriage and many churches have accepted homosexuals into their congregation and have expressed acceptance with such actions. This issue is far from a conclusion, but it is true that the overall social reasoning toward gay marriage has changed and will continue to evolve.
Britton, D. (1990). Homophobia and Homosociality. The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 31,
Number 3, 423-439.
Packard, J., (2002). American Nightmare. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, R., (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy. New York: Knopf Books
Tocqueville, A., Mayer, J., & Lawrence, G. (1988). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf
The Gay Society
Sociology is the science of society, concerned with understanding human behavior (Kirby, 2000). Though the study of society is largely divided into external forces, which affect behavior, there is also a serious need for constant academic introspection. Since outside forces, such as religion, media and family are extreme in their effect on society; the singular person living within their social group must be viewed as a part of the whole, not the whole. This is the result of academic honesty. Sociology focuses on many different factors. One basic function is the myriad of interactions one has throughout life. These points of contact are maintained and guided by established rules. The natural interface processes deemed as acceptable help to maintain the patchwork of diversity that exists in society. Conflict happens when the rules are bent or broken to the will of those thought to be outside the norms of society. These posts will focus on the social factors that help affect and define the Homosexual community. Another facet will be the differences that create a gay sub culture outside the norms but still within the greater society. The four points of this particular blog section will focus on:
1. Social Reasoning
2. Social Requirement
3. Social Response
4. Social Reconstruction
Kirby, M., (2000). Sociology in Perspective. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)