HomosexulaityEssay Preview: HomosexulaityReport this essayThe term homosexuality was created by 19th century theorists to describe a sexual and emotional interest in members of ones own sex. Homosexuality dates back to ancient pagan religious practices and until the thirteenth century the Christian tradition was ambiguous in its attitude toward homosexuality. But with the recodification of English canon law new attitudes set in and thereafter homosexual behavior was condemned as a heinous sin. The English brought these beliefs to North America and the power of religion in early America defined colonial attitudes. By making homosexuals the object of scorn, the hostility kept much homosexual behavior hidden (Brittannica.com).
Since then, homosexuality has always been a target for many forms of social and political condemnation and many psychiatric theories have attempted to explain the biology of homosexuality. Biomedical researchers, health care professionals, activists, advocacy groups, people with AIDS or HIV infection, health educators, social scientists, politicians and public health officials, government agencies and advisory committees, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, writers, journalists, and institutions of mainstream and alternative media have had their hand in the pot of struggle for credibility claims.
Steven Epstein, an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego, has published many articles and written a book on the sociology, biology, and politics of sexuality and gay identity. His book, Impure Science, is his most well-known and criticized piece of work that is based on his sociology thesis at the University of California. His work reflects his interest in the construction of expertise, the democratization of science, and the perpetuation of medical controversies. His areas of interest include social theory (classical and contemporary), sociology of medicine, sociology of science, social movements, sexuality, and lesbian/gay studies (Epstein’s Bio).
The biology of homosexuality has always been and will be a loaded controversial subject with questionable evidence, infinite research, and studies that has resulted in numerous opinions and hypotheses along with a multitude of political issues. Epstein’s work clearly illustrates how he effectively addresses issues of the biology of homosexuality with fairness, objectivity, factual and informative information, and by providing solid support for his conclusions and opinions.
Throughout his work he poses questions in response to his findings and demonstrates that there still are so many unanswered questions. For example, in response to his own findings of how scientists try to exert their power in the scientific field, he asks, “What is the nature of power wielded by experts?” (Impure Science 2). And when he explored the possibilities of how laypeople involve themselves in the scientific field of HIV/AIDS, he asks, “What possibilities are there for laypeople to involve themselves meaningfully in the process of “doing science,” and what are the consequences of such incursions?” (Impure Science 2).
He sees society as being divided into two groups, essentialists and constructionists. Essentialists believe that the biological factor is a major contribution to the sexuality of homosexuals and that homosexuality is due to some fundamental nature, genetics, or a gay core of their being exists. Constructionists believe that sexuality is a product of social constructions, not biology, and that “homosexual”, “gay”, and “lesbian” are labels constructed by society that homosexuals put on themselves. Epstein thinks that society’s understanding of homosexuality consists of the two views and that sexual theory has been preoccupied with that debate (Epstein, Identities 79). Homosexuals seek to justify their forms of sexual expression through explanations, strategies, and defenses that are articulated on an individual and collective level (Epstein, Identities 79). The search for a biological basis for homosexuality is a common thread that runs through most of Epstein’s work. Since this issue has not been concretely proven and or a single scientific study conducted that everyone finds conclusively proven, the argument is perpetuated and research continues. He points out that if there was a biological basis for homosexuality then the attacks on homosexuals for having chosen a sinful life would be dismissed and the courts would have to look favorably upon the claims of homosexuals that they deserve protection from discrimination on the basis of unchangeable characteristics (Epstein .
Epstein states that each finding comes with moral and political consequences and different people draw on different lessons from the very same studies. He reviewed Michael Bronski’s article The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom and agreed with Bronski’s opinion that society needs to bring homosexuals into the mainstream of society to promote politics of respectability. “Homosexuals are your neighbors, your co-workers and your relatives, and they are non-threatening ordinary folks” (The Pleasure Principle).
Heated debates and arguments will continue until a biological basis for homosexuality can be solidly proven and wholly accepted by the dominant culture, heterosexuals, or when the dominant culture can wholly accept and respect individual’s choice of sexual orientation. Epstein’s work fairly presents facts and analyzes the many facets of debate surrounding this issue and he does it in a way that left me more educated about the issues and brings attention to issues I never would have thought about.
HIV/AIDS has been a controversial subject since it was first recognized in 1981. Prior to the 1970s, a silent period, it is not know how many people developed AIDS, for HIV was unknown and transmission was not accompanied by symptoms transparent enough to be noticed. In the mid to late 1970s rare sporadic cases of people infected with HIV were documented. By 1980, HIV had spread to at least five continents. Along with the emergence of this new fast-growing epidemic were the issues of HIV, its origins, how it emerged and evolved, developing a vaccine against HIV, and prevention and treatments. These issues are laden with political controversy and competition that goes beyond pure academic interest. Since the discovery of HIV/AIDS, scientists, activists, the media, and the government tried to come up with a single unified answer to the question about the cause of AIDS. This single question began heated controversial struggles for credibility, recognition, influence,
Sensitivity to information about HIV that can lead to a person’s development of AIDS, as we all must, or not to pursue the full challenge of living life to achieve a “safe” life, led to a growing national attention on AIDS. We all now have a responsibility to learn and grow about how a disease can infect our health as an individual. If we don’t do something to prevent AIDS, why should we? In this century of the Internet, we are now more often than ever exposed to, and exposed to, HIV, both in our home and around the world.
For generations the only way to “preserve” our health in the long run was to give up on a natural natural environment, like the Earth. That way it was impossible to protect us or create the right conditions for the future. It will lead to our isolation and denial of our natural life, and make it impossible to maintain a healthy human family, a health care system, or a free flow of information.
The issue of the safety of the environment in which we live remains urgent, as is shown by the recent deaths of seven children in a Texas school. An article by J.B. Schulze describes this as an “obsolete dilemma” of the 21st Century which has become increasingly obvious in the recent past. The health effects of prolonged exposure to pollution, contaminated water for the environment, pollution of our homes or the environment itself have caused serious human health problems, leading to more infections, which could take many lives among any given group of people. The global warming crisis threatens to result in severe social harm, and many people are worried about that.
In a country like China, people are still living with symptoms from what they know by the sounds of their own voice, not by conventional medical advice. This health crisis is no more about those with symptoms than it is about the people who suffer from AIDS, who are on the outside with only a low IQ, without any information from their doctor about their health and are experiencing the symptoms which are not coming from conventional medical advice. In fact, there are now an estimated 200 million in the US whose only family experience with AIDS is that of a man who smokes during the day when he is in the office due to low vision and headaches. The cost associated with such a situation is much higher than having “all-in-one health insurance (with free dialysis, free dental care, and free immunizations).”
Finally, the issue of the consequences posed by increased environmental contamination of society is an urgent one, and it has already been seen in our own communities. In the last few years scientists have begun to identify a set of issues which may in the long run pose a significant hazard to society at large. With that in mind, many people, particularly families and those with families with people over the age of 55, feel that it is unacceptable to let their children live in a city where it is considered safe to leave their children unattended for the remainder of their lives. This is an issue which seems to be most prevalent in America, especially when these young, middle-class families of college-educated people are concerned about what their community and their friends may experience during the day as they choose to leave their children behind with the world in which they have come to live.
The main problem that AIDS represents cannot be addressed only by increasing and maintaining the public and the health system at large, but also by bringing more people together and doing more to protect both themselves and their children. This is because the future of that future means the same as the present: the elimination of AIDS in the same way as we eliminated it and with the same standard of living as we do today. Many people believe that that future will be worse for life and the environment than with the same “sudden death”