Sociology 论文代写 ：争议出现在西班牙同性恋婚姻的合法化了同性恋地下的坚持，这涉及到光时，它必须处理为全体公民的平等权利。在这种类型的婚姻的观点是科学的，具体而言，人类学，某些保守的行业。Â在这个意义上，本文试图回答两个具有讽刺意味的是，antropologycally来探讨基于分类的一种方法和分组的耻辱，一直至今没有对人口的重要部门下的个人和组。
The controversy arisen in Spain on the legalization of gay marriage highlights the persistence of homophobia underground, which comes into light when it has to deal with equal rights for all citizens. The arguments against this type of marriage are supposedly scientific, and specifically, anthropological, by certain conservative sectors.Â In this sense, this essay attempts to answer both ironically and antropologycally to the discussion based on a way of categorizing and grouping individuals and groups under the stigma that has served and still does to discriminate an important sector of the population.
Not long ago we came across a book titled “Understanding and healing homosexuality.Â Someone you know needs this book” (Cohen, 2004).Â This man, haunted by a “dark” and “unfortunate” past got out of the abyss thanks to his effort. This ex-gay feels mistreated by some of the gay community.Â He does not understand how, despite his love and good intentions towards those who are still sick, he has been threatened. His only aim is to cure those who want to find the ways, who do not feel well about themselves. He only asks for sympathy to homosexuals, but he only thing he finds is misunderstanding.
Â For those who still think that homosexuality is a disease, the first thing to do is to remove the treatment of homosexuals. Homosexuality should be healed analyzing the society that has created a category for those who feel different to the majority.
The “disease” of homosexuality is cured in the heads of those priests, scientists, legislators …who helped shaping the category where all deviations arise: heterosexuality. This other category has recreated reality making some assume certain out-of-common practices as a diversion, by others as different, and by most as an essence that makes up a being.
In the following pages we propose to “cure” the so-called gay, by starting healing another much more pernicious disease: heterosexuality.Â We will do it with affection, tolerance and respect.
How to deal with heterosexuality?
Heterosexuality is quite similar to viruses that are usually changing just to survive. In fact, the last years we are witnessing deep changes in this sense. Some authors like Oscar Guasch (2000) talk directly of crisis, but this explanation has lots of contradictions. There have been very important progresses in what refers to homosexual groups. Moreover, when forty years ago homosexuals could be in jail just for being homosexual.
Nowadays, there is no direct violence. Actually, the virulence of this virus has subsided considerably, especially in Europe. But it does not mean that the root would have rip out. Some new conservative groups keep on with their fierce attack. These groups have huge economic and politic influences in lots of countries.
However, the consequences of this illness can be seen in lots of examples. One of them is the specific homosexual areas created in some cities by homosexuals with a medium to high purchasing power (e.g. Chueca in Madrid). That way they get to be protected from the heterosexual virus. With this, we can see also how purchasing power is one of the most important factors to be protected from the effects of the virus, and consequently from heterosexual attacks.
There is not an unique sexuality. As Oscar Guasch says, heterosexuality is a myth. There is as much sexuality as individuals. It means that there are certain “homosexual” practices that heterosexual do too. An example is anal penetration. There are people too who would like to make these practices with people of the same gender, but they only have sex with people of the different gender. Moreover, there are people who like the tow genders but they don’t have any sexual relations.
There is not only one truth when we talk about sexuality, and even less if we consider only two realities (heterosexuals and homosexuals). This is a fact that homosexuals with heterosexual vocation who look for an unique real model of homosexuality. To create a frontier between homosexuals and heterosexuals is as absurd as establishing it between men that only like long blonde girls and the rest, or between those who prefer oral sex to penetration, or between those who prefer sharing their whole life with only one person to single life and maintaining different relationships. Where do we establish the limits?
In terms of sexuality there are not homogeneous groups, neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals nor transsexuals nor any other minority social group. Being homosexual does not mean that that person had a concrete characteristic. It does not entail a certain purchasing power, more or less sensitivity, more or less promiscuity, or a determinate ideology or religion, beyond any personal contradiction.
Sexuality almost never is linked with reproduction. It means that children and ancient people have sexuality although it were not reproductive nor were based on penetration. Lesbians can have children independently they like women to copulate. Moreover, lots of homosexual are already parents independently legal discussions. And, on the other hand, lots of women who have sexual relations with men do not want to have children and to be mothers. Fatherhood and motherhood, independently of being biologic facts, are basically social events. They do not have to be related with only one person or two people or more.
Men aren’t the complement of women, nor vice versa. The classic princess tale in which the princess asleep for the arriving of her blue prince to wake her up with a kiss, or that in which the prince look for the correct size of feet for the lost crystal shoe (Cinderella), they are only part of the legend that tells that everybody has a half orange in somewhere, and nobody will be happy until that person appear.
Human beings individuality is denied with these tales in pro of a new different unit called couple, consecrated in marriage. In the couple you can find some supposed specific human qualities, both masculine and feminine. They are considered complementary.
But, independently of the tales, marriage is basically a contract. One contract is not necessary connected with that thing called love. On the contrary, experience says that mixing love with business is not a good thing. Contracts are signed and violated depending on the parties. It means that any other justification for the contract is a very big fallacy. Moreover, it brings painful social consequences. As it was told previously, the recognition of marriage between people of the same gender can help to demolish one of the stronger arguments that certain heterosexual groups still keep on using against homosexuality.
Another matter is if the fight is in pro of marriage for every kind of people, independently of their sexual orientation, or if it is against the traditional concept of marriage. Anyway, sexual orientation mustn’t mean discrimination.
Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are not contagious. Children are not idiot. If heterosexuality were contagious, reproduction should be forbidden. Heterosexuality has legitimized a huge number of social vices like inequality between men and women. It also has prohibited that lots of people could show their real affectivity. It has generated violence and labor discrimination too.
So it must be comforting to think that children are not idiot. They can prefer have a father and a mother to having two fathers or two mothers, or even only one of them. Actually, this sometimes becomes a nightmare when family breaks. But they also prefer their parents to have a Ferrari to having a Fiat. They want to be the most beautiful of the class, the tallest, the richest, nicest, and the best football player in the break. They want a big house with pool and have holidays every year too. But it is not possible.
The important thing is that they learn how to live without all those things. Children finally get used to live with a Fiat, a normal flat, and with one week of holidays in the whole year. They learn how to live with glasses and without being the most beautiful ever. Moreover, they learn how to live even with non-regular families (two fathers, two mothers, one-parent families, etc). The most important thing for children is to be wanted by someone, to have affection. Actually, affection can be given even by heterosexuals.
Another option for heterosexuals would be to make these kinds of minority groups lose the custody of the children. Overall, when they are used to decide about the destiny of everybody. What they really want is keeping on being heterosexuals.
Anyway, different studies have given away that children growth in the bosom of homosexual families is not different than children growth in regular families. As González (2000: 54) points out:
“How is the personal and psychological development of those children who live with homosexual couples? We said at the beginning of this report that this is a question with lots of answers quite similar given in different studies from different countries. Ours goes in the same direction: boys and girls with live with homosexual couples show a good development and we hardly find differences with their age mates who live with heterosexual couples. We get to this point after observing that boys and girls we have studied show good academic results, regular social competences, good knowledge about roles of each gender, good emotional and behavioral development, self-esteem in their values, and reasonable social adjustment to their group”.
In spite of scientific evidences shown previously, the distrust of recognizing the same rights to everybody, independently of their sexual orientation, keeps on being strong for one important part of the society. Heterosexuality has been synonym of citizenship. However, behind this notion there is an absolutely exclusive model, not only for sexual orientation minority groups. Inside normalcy we can find several scales which create subtle ways of discrimination.
Sexuality in our culture
The fight started by some women and sexual liberation groups has resulted in a deep critic to dominant gender models and the questioning of myths around sexuality and the report of the of some sexual minorities.Â These reviews have revealed the sickening sight of a man who constantly must be proving his manhood, a submissive woman whose sole function is explained primarily on the basis of her reproductive image.Â Many people classified as heterosexuals do not recognize themselves in a model that is in crisis. However, unlike the label “homosexuality”, “heterosexuality” does not create stigma.Â The heterosexual transmission still does not have any negative connotation, but as we have seen throughout this essay it could have it.Â All our social universe is considered heterosexual, this is normal, therefore requires no explanation, those who will not publicly say that conform to the model are the ones who have a problem and the ones who create problems, and it is society that should establish the necessary measures toÂ correct them.Â The dominant model makes itself dominant just by pointing out all the ones that do not conform its “normal” ways.Â This signal helps making certain groups, which have no choice but to internalize the label, either to feel satisfied with it, to protect themselves or to reveal.Â The mark has not been chosen but is equally effective:
Â The “homosexual” person is forced, first, to merge all the elements that help him/her to be understood, forgiven and respected by the rest of society …Â On the other hand, is forced to seek recognition, to recognize himself / herself, in the labels imposed or appropriated with which society defines him / her as different.Â In individual memory a past of frustrated longings, disappointments, and shortcomings concealment is rewritten; early friendships become impossible loves and any fact becomes a sign.Â This false coherence transforms gay “just gays.”Â Any activity – labor, literary, business, its working, its relationship with the world is labeled with the definition of his / her sexual condition.Â Direct persecution or persecution based on “injury” in the undervaluation of certain groups, is a fact that people grouped under the label of “homosexuality” suffer.Â Minority groups according to their racial or sex role (ie, being female).The moving from isolated individuals to a collective means that needs to be identified because it has been previously done.
The prevailing models of sexuality have left a number of social victims. Homosexuals are just some of these victims, in which legal and social violence has emerged more strongly, but so are many women and “heterosexual” men who have not been reflected their ideal life in the intended model.Â The discussion on the rights of homosexuals should be that no one is discriminated because of his / her sexual preference, but should serve primarily to question the very model of heterosexuality, which has shaped so much inequality.
The paradox of heterosexuality, as we understand it now, is that homosexuality needs to remain.Â Homosexuality is one of the limits that citizens can not cross at risk of no longer being considered as such. Questioning the existence of the limit implies the need to rethink the parties that formed it.
If homosexuality and heterosexuality are recent notions, if sexual practices have different meanings depending on historical periods and cultural contexts, if there are multiple ways to live what we mean by sexuality …Â we can deduce:
First, that the stigma now for some groups is just unnecessary, therefore particularly painful.
Second, a question of hetero / homosexuality would release to certain minorities, but also men and women who are tired of the dominant models of masculinity and femininity in which heterosexuality is sustained.
Third, that the critique to heterosexuality means removing some of the myths that continue operating more in theory than in practice, for example, the ideal of patriarchal family, the traditional division of tasks based on gender or the wayÂ we understand the sexual and emotional relationships between humans.
The removal of stigma based on sexual preference is necessary if we want to build a world of free citizens.Â It is a fight that will benefit today called homosexuals, but also those that represent the norm and the normative, heterosexual.Â When society wants to heal both heterosexuality and homosexuality into social citizenship as equals, we will be able to say that things are really changing.Â Equality is not achieved only by providing all the rights to some of the sexual minorities, this equality requires essentially to dismantle the prevailing notion of sexuality. Heterosexuality, despite appearances, is only representing a minority of citizens, who refuse to remove a concept for maintaining a deeply unequal and hypocritical social hierarchy.