Recent orders
Homosexuality has been a highly controversial subject since time immemorial
Author
Institution
Date
Homosexuality has been a highly controversial subject since time immemorial. In essence, quite a lot of data and information has been written pertaining to the subject with each and every person expressing his or her opinion. In this case, there has been a wide variation of the opinions expressed by different individuals. One opinion that captured my attention was in the New York Times newspaper on January 28 2012 by Frank Bruni.
In the article titled, “Genetics or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away”, Frank acknowledges that, for decades, homosexuality has been widely ostracized, undergone moments of patchwork acceptance before experiencing a heady triumph in the recent times. He acknowledges that homosexuals have invoked homosexuality as a way of explaining why discrimination is senseless and homophobia unwarranted. The main theme in his article is that homosexuality is wound in an individual’s genetic make up rather than a matter of choice. Frank goes on to quote scholars like Clinton Anderson, who says that the dynamics via which an individual becomes gay are not yet known. He builds a thesis that substantial evidence indicates that there are connections between hormones, sexual identity, brains and genes. In addition, he borrows from the study which shows that 52% of identical twins are gay compared to only 22% of fraternal twins or 11% of adoptive brothers who turned out to be gay. This, he posits, shows that heredity and not the environment, called the shots as far as determining an individual’s sexual orientation.
In addition, more research has identified common chromosomal and anatomical traits among homosexuals in which case, homosexuality is a result of a set of genes. In this case, he likens sexual orientation with skin color and therefore, an unchallengeable biological matter.
While he may be having quite valid arguments and invoking the opinions of scholars on the issue, I find his opinions quite warped. Homosexuality is not a genetic issue but rather a matter of choice, which is mostly influenced by the environment in which one lives. In making up his thesis, Frank mainly focuses on the high number of identical twin brothers who have turned out to be homosexuals as compared to the fewer number of fraternal twins and adopted brothers who have gay sexual tendencies. While he may take this as an indication that genes play a pivotal role in determining an individual’s sexual orientation, it is ironical that adopted brothers would have gay tendencies having in mind that their genetic make-up is not similar. Is it not more logical to explain this percentage as having been influenced by their socialization (Paul, 1986)?
Socialization refers to the process by which animals (or more aptly human beings) learn how to recognize other species, which it cohabits with. In learning the interaction process, the human beings would learn communication techniques and how to communicate but also how to recognize as well as respond to other people’s intentions (Kenneth, 1988). This is exactly the same thing that happens as far as homosexuality is concerned (Jeffrey et al., 2001). As research has shown, the number of people who ascribe to homosexuality has risen in the recent times. Is this truly an indication as to changing genetics or hereditary composition (Paul, 1986)? That is definitely not the case. Many people have come up in support of homosexuality thereby triggering curiosity amongst the young people, who have gone ahead and become inducted into homosexuality. This is definitely not a case where homosexuality genes were present but suppressed. It is a case of straight individuals socialized into a particular habit thanks to their curiosity.
In essence, many people will acknowledge that technological advancement has contributed immensely to the rise in homosexuality. While internet has marked a giant technological leap, it has also created avenues where homosexuality can be nurtured. Pornographic sites have cropped up stirring and shaping these feelings, with many young people experimenting on them and eventually getting hooked into homosexuality. If it was actually a matter of biology, does it not beat logic why and how people were more capable of suppressing such a thing in the past (Paul, 1986)? This is a clear indication that most people who have come up as homosexuals or gay have had these feelings shaped or awaken by their socialization and especially by the influence of the media and other contemporary forms of socialization (Erik, 2004).
Homosexuality has also been explained as emanating from sexual abuse in the childhood of an individual (Jeffrey et al., 2001). Research has shown that young boys who were sexually abused by adult males may grow to doubt their own sexuality and conclude that they were actually homosexual. In essence, such confusion about one’s sexuality in male children who underwent sexual abuse in their childhood would lead to homosexuality (Jeffrey et al., 2001).
In addition, homosexuality has been shown to be more likely to occur in children who had absentee or distant fathers (Erik, 2004). In essence, many kids who did not enjoy the presence of their fathers in their childhood would yearn to be close to their fellow men in order to compensate for the fatherly love that they lacked in their childhood (Kenneth, 1988). Quite a lot of evidence points out that a high percentage of homosexuals or gays had distant, less loving and attentive fathers compared to heterosexuals (Erik, 2004).
Conclusion
Homosexuality as a subject has been quite controversial since time immemorial. There are divergent views as to what is the root of homosexual tendencies. It has been believed that homosexuality is rooted in individuals’ genetic make-up. However, quite a substantial number of people have come up and stated that they are homosexuals by choice and not by chance. In addition, research shows that many homosexuals developed the tendencies from their childhood either due to socialization or as an effort to compensate for the affection of distant fathers (Jeffrey et al, 2001). Alternatively, they could be influenced by abuse in their childhood to believe that they are homosexuals. Either way, the insinuation by Frank Bruni that, homosexuality is a wound in an individual’s genetic make-up is not only warped but also ignorant of the fact that there is no conclusive and comprehensive explanation as to what causes homosexuality.
References
Bruni, F. (2012). Genetic or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?ref=opinion
Holland, E. (2004). The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right. New York: Universe.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: families of choice and other life experiments. New York: Routledge.
Rosenfels, P. (1986). Homosexuality: the psychology of the creative process. New York: Ninth Street Center.
Lewes, K. (1988). The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in Our Genes New York: Pantheon
Witt, K. (1992). Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology. The New York Times, September 14, 1992, p. A17
Homosexual Bill in Uganda
Topic:
Name of Student:
Name of Institution:
Homosexual Bill in Uganda
Introduction
Homosexuality has become a global controversial issue of the years. The term sexual orientation has been particularly favored to denote a non-chosen condition that cannot be harmful in any direct sense. Critics of homosexuality in which religious, political and conservative groups are represented term it as a detrimental issue in the well being of society, in which it occurs and a threat to the social fabric. Those in favor of homosexuality present arguments on the basis of need to strengthen and protect the millennia of traditional family.
Many countries have presented legislation bills that are meant to present homosexuality as a sexual offence punishable by imprisonment and in some extreme cases, by the death penalty; while others have presented bills in favor of the protection of citizens with a homosexual orientation or preference. It is against this background that this paper seeks to analyze the homosexual bill in Uganda and critically evaluate the basic arguments in the bill. Further, the paper shall in essence outline the extent to which society believes in punishment for homosexuals. It shall evaluate the factors that influence such decisions in society.
Literature Review
The Practice of homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda and is listed in the penal code, but a proposed Homosexual Bill has expands on it. By criminalizing homosexuality, the Uganda penal code already violates the International Human Rights Obligations. The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in Uganda endure harassment which ranges from verbal insults, physical and sexual harassment, arbitrary arrests and torture and public humiliation. On account of one’s sexual orientation, many victims of correctional rape, blackmail and arbitrary detention have denied health care, housing and even education. The introduction of this Homosexual bill has seen reports of death threats against LGBT citizens and police raids and arbitrary arrests on some human rights activists.
Jeffrey Gettleman in an October 15th 2009 The New York Times Issue laid out the details of the Uganda Homosexual Bill as presented by David Bahati, a Member of Parliament for Ndorwa County, West Kabale, in April 2009. The objective of the bill is the establishment of a comprehensive consolidated legislation that protects traditional family. The bill will execute this mandate by one, prohibiting any form of sexual relations between same sex persons among Ugandan citizens and two, promoting or recognizing such relations in public institutions by the government or non-government organization either inside or outside of Uganda.
Gettleman observes that like in earlier drafts, the bill reiterates a lifetime imprisonment in the event of a conviction of homosexuality. The offence is defined in a new category referred to as “aggravated homosexuality” and presents provisions of a death penalty upon conviction. One partner being HIV positive is another factor apart from homosexuality which as the bill postulates, can lead to aggravated homosexuality.
Further, the bill imposes a complete ban on all LGBT activities which as such could be construed as “promoting homosexuality”. There is also an infringement on free speech, assembly and redress of grievances for LGBT Ugandans. This is an elimination of fundamental human rights (Amnesty International October 15, 2009).. The ban also covers all organizations advocating on behalf of LGBT citizens whose violation could lead to fine or imprisonment for up to seven years.
There are provisions in the bill that require citizens to report any persons they are aware that is engaging in homosexuality. They are required to report to the police within a twenty four hours period. Failure to give such information could lead to up to three year imprisonment or fines.
The bill also extends jurisdiction to gay relationships outside the country by either one or both parties being Ugandan citizens. Upon return to their country, such persons will risk imprisonment and if HIV positive, death penalty. International treaties and obligations which violate “the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act” are viewed as null and void in the bill.
This bill has some new provisions over the earlier draft. A penalty of seven years imprisonment is provided by the new category referred to as “attempted homosexuality”. A case of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” attracts a life sentence penalty. There are provisions for the compensation of homosexuality victims. Julius Kaggwa, a director of the Support Initiative for People with a Typical Sex Development observes that this law if passed will inevitably result in partners turning against their partners as a safe resort to avoiding these draconian legal penalties. The law also seems attractive in these “victims” seeking compensation.
The bill also imposes a ban on same- sex marriage. A life sentence in prison is the penalty for any Uganda either in his country or abroad who enters into a homosexual marriage. There are also charges of any citizen who aids and abets homosexuality or conspires to engage in homosexuality. Operating a brothel carries a prison sentence of up to seven years. Critics however assert that the definition presented in the bill is too broad as to include any hotel owner.
Provisions of the proposed Homosexual Bill are compared by many critics to the Idi Amin’s rule where he called for the expulsion Asians from Uganda with regard to their colour. Jacqueline Kasha a lesbian human rights activist seems to represent many of human rights activists’ views in Uganda when she asserts that close to about half a million LGBT Ugandans are likely to flee their country for fear of prosecution. She is especially aggravated that the official figure of LGBT Ugandans is unknown since one’s sexual orientation is not part of the national census questionnaire (BBC, 2009). The extraterritorial jurisdiction clause if enacted, gives the government an upper hand since it can call for extradition from another country in order to face prosecution in Uganda.
These sentiments are shared by Solome Nakawesi of the Akina Mama Wa Afrika (AMWA) organization, with regard to prosecution of citizens who fail to report homosexual acts by other citizens. She dismisses this as a creation of a fascist-style society where family members, service providers and colleagues are made to spy on each other. She terms the Bill as inhuman if passed into law since it assumes that family members and the society as a whole is readily aware of their fellow members’ sexuality which is not a fact. It will be definitely a promotion of blackmail, false accusation and intimidation in the society.
Rubaramira Ruranga an executive director in a HIV/AIDs guidance and empowerment organization views homosexuality as practice not acceptable by society but explains that prosecution and imprisonment is not the right path in the correction of this practice. She goes further to suggest that homosexuals need to be treated and educated on prevention strategies because criminalization of the practice will only cause stigma, discrimination and denied knowledge on HIV/AIDS and its treatment.
Religious conservatives are in favor of this Bill and reject very strongly to genetics being the cause of homosexuality. They view it as an abnormal, unnatural, chosen and changeable disorder, condemned by God, which has serious negative moral implications and therefore ought to be criminalized and punished.
Discussion
The Uganda Homosexual Bill is a perfect example of opinions, attitudes and ideals of societies who strongly oppose and even criminalize homosexuality. The factors that cause people to view homosexuality as a crime punishable by law are varied and range from religious conservatism, need to protect traditional family, invalid criticism to change in society and the fear of taking a minority standpoint.
Many of those who criticize homosexuality do so, on a moral standpoint. They are not ready to accept all sexual orientations as equal (Pattison & Pattison, 1560).
. They regard heterosexuality with superior and supreme status and therefore condemn homosexuality.
The fear of breaking the social fabric is very real among anti homosexuality societies. They feel that there is a need to protect the traditional family constituting the marriage of a female and a male. Marriage, in their view is a special privilege only for opposite sex couples. They believe that encouragement of homosexual lifestyle will only make marriage meaningless since they cannot produce and therefore threaten survival of a society (Pattison et. al, 1559).
Conservative Christians oppose homosexuals’ adoption of children on grounds of risk of “abnormal” upbringing. They fear that the parent(s) will train their children to accept homosexuality as a normal “lifestyle” and may even influence them to choose homosexuality later in life.
A society fictitious belief that homosexuality causes AIDS makes members of that society fear the practice. They are socialized to believe that “abnormal” sexual relations rather than high-risk behavior cause HIV infection.
When homosexuals present their grievances to governments, the larger society may view this as a demand for different things in the political realm. They do not view it as a call for equality on the basis of marriage laws and government equal treatment.
Conclusion
Homosexuality has become a global controversial issue of the years. Many countries have presented legislation bills that are meant to present homosexuality as a sexual offence punishable by imprisonment and in some extreme cases, by the death penalty; while others have presented bills in favor of the protection of citizens with a homosexual orientation or preference.
The objective of the Ugandan Homosexual Bill is the establishment of a comprehensive consolidated legislation that protects traditional family. Many critics view this bill as a violation of International Human rights, on the basis, of discrimination, harassment and equality.
The factors that cause people to view homosexuality as a crime punishable by law are varied and range from religious conservatism, need to protect traditional family, invalid criticism to change in society and the fear of taking a minority standpoint.
References
Amnesty International (October 15, 2009). “ HYPERLINK “http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uganda-%E2%80%98anti-homosexuality%E2%80%99-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-de” Uganda: ‘Anti-Homosexuality’ Bill Threatens Liberties and Human Rights Defenders” Retrieved on January 7, 2010.
BBC (October 15, 2009). “ HYPERLINK “http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8308912.stm” Uganda MP urges death for gay sex”, Retrieved on January 7, 2010
E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, “Ex-Gays’: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980
Jeffrey Gettleman (January 7, 2010) “The Anti Homosexuality Bill, 2009”The New York Times Retrieved on January 7 and 10, 2010
Olukya, Godfrey (January 8, 2010). “ HYPERLINK “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010800560.html” Uganda lawmaker refuses to withdraw anti-gay bill”, The Washington Post. Retrieved on January 8, 2010
The Times (December 18, 2009) “ HYPERLINK “http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6960894.ece” Uganda’s Inhumane Bill”, Retrieved on January 8, 2010
Homo Faber Analysis
Homo Faber Analysis
Introduction
The importance of literary works cannot be gainsaid as far as shaping the views and ways of life of individuals in the contemporary human society is concerned. Indeed, literary works have been widely used by their composers to outline the ills that plague the societies within which they live, as well as plant the seeds or ideas of ideal societies that can be created through making some changes in the ways of living. It is, therefore, no wonder that literary works have influenced or triggered some of the most radical social changes in varied societies (Belasco, 2008). It goes without saying that different artists, poets, playwrights and even writers have varying degrees of success and popularity depending on the extent to which individuals can identify with the works. Of particular note is the fact that the works may have numerous themes, some of which can be controlled while others cannot. This is the case for the theme of death in Max Frisch’s novel, “Homo Faber”. The theme of death, in this story, is aimed at outlining the fact that death is always present and that individuals should weigh the things that they have and determine the things about which they should care about.
Homo Faber revolves around the life of a technologist and engineer named Walter Faber, who works with UNESCO in New York. However, Walter travels widely across South America and Europe in the course of his work, a situation that essentially drives the plot of the story as he never manages to get married. Indeed, the girl with whom he has been in love (and who is pregnant for him) is hesitant to get married to him. He leaves for work in Baghdad after which they split up with the girlfriend Hanna, who has agreed to abort the baby (Frisch, 1959). Some years later after returning to New York, Walter takes an unplanned cruise to Europe, and meets a young woman named Sabeth. His proposal to her at the end of the journey does not materialize as she is traveling with a male friend. Later on, Walter and Sabeth meet in Paris, upon which they take a road trip across Europe. When he asks her what her mother’s name was, she says its Hanna, upon which he hopes that Hanna aborted their child. It soon turns out, however, that Sabeth was indeed his daughter (Frisch, 1959). Unfortunately, Sabeth goes visiting her mother and is bitten by a poisonous snake and dies. Eventually, Walter ends up with Hanna after realizing the varied opportunities that he missed.
Indeed, death underlines the helpless nature of human beings to it and the fact that human beings have no option but to surrender to it. For instance, Walter Faber, when in a plane heading to Mexico is faced with the option of going to see his long lost friend Joachim, with whose brother they were sitting together in the plane (Frisch, 1959). Initially, Walter had feigned ignorance and did not want anything to do with the brother (Herbert). However, when the plane makes a forced landing in the desert, Faber decides to accompany Herbert who is going to visit his brother. Unfortunately, they find that Joachim had hanged himself, an incidence to which they cannot do anything other than resign themselves to it. The only thing that they could do was film the body, which had been preserved, and bury it. Indeed, Faber goes back to New York (rather than heading to Mexico), while Joachim stays behind to manage the plantation left behind by his brother.
On the same note, death is seen as present in almost every situation that man encounters. This fact is underlined by the numerous incidences with which Walter Faber grapples. First, there is the death of Walter’s long lost friend months before Walter and Herbert could go checking on him (Belasco, 2008). In addition, Walter becomes friends with his own daughter (unknowingly) and while on an adventure, she is bitten by a snake, in which case he really struggles to get her to hospital. While she does not die from the snake bite, she succumbs to a fracture she obtained when she fell down a cliff after being bitten by the snake. Underlining the ever-present nature of death is the symbolism of Hanna’s bathtub, which takes the shape of a coffin. This underlines the fact that human beings are faced by death in almost every circumstance and may have nothing to do other than surrender to it.
As much as human beings are wired to fear death, it also teaches them the things that they should value and the importance of maintaining connections with the important people around them. Of particular note is the reconnection that Walter made with Hanna after the death of Sabeth (Belasco, 2008). The grief and devastation that both of them shared after the death of Sabeth leads to their reconnection and causes them to forget all the things that they have done that could have hurt the other person. This is compounded by the prospects of death of Walter after the discovery of the stomach cancer from which he is suffering.
References
Frisch, M (1959). Homo Faber. London: Abelard-Schuman.
Belasco, J (2008), The Bedford Anthology of American Literature, Volume II: 1865-Present, Bedford-St.Martin’s Press, Boston