Not only can homosexual couples—or, worse, lone homosexual individuals—adopt children today, opposition to such adoptions from the biological parents of children who have been taken into care is also ignored. Much of this appears to many to be intent on creating a minority of people privileged by the state by dint of their statistically deviant behaviour.
How should libertarians view these matters? As far as the adoption of children is concerned, the forgotten subjects of state intervention are the children. There is little evidence that raising children in novel and innovative household units is good for them: I am not denying that where one parent dies, the surviving spouse often remains a good parent.
But to go out of our way to create family units where adopted children have a lone parent seems quixotic in terms of public policy. Given that men and women are different, and fathers and mothers bring something different to the family and the child-rearing process, I pity the child who is adopted by order of the state by two men or two women, simply to make a political point.
Many of these children will grow up with no ill effects, but it seems more sensible to give all adopted children the natural family environment of a father and a mother. There is nothing libertarian about extremist policies to the contrary.
As far as civil partnerships are concerned, it is argued that taxation and inheritance systems treat married couples differently from single people, and so men in long-term relationships need ways of avoiding being treated as single people.
Once marriage was taken out of the hands of the church and made a preserve of the state—which is what civil marriages in registry offices amount to—arguably, heterosexual marriage was downgraded to the status now occupied by civil partnerships.
Although not originally related to each other, matrimony makes them one flesh, relatives of each other, a suitable state in which to approach the bearing of children. Similarly, marriage is a vow in the sight of God. A solemn vow binds the individual for life and I include here the Coronation Oath and judicial and political oaths of office.
I would like to abolish divorce too and go for a dual-track approach: Such civil partnerships should not contain solemn vows, and could therefore be dissolved by the state. I will later in this article argue, however, that libertarians should not officially take a position against gay marriage for tactical reasons.
One area where libertarians must take a clear view is the use of state power to crush opposition to homosexuality, which seems many times more determined than the rare use of the law against homosexual acts before People must be free to express their views on homosexuality.
People, including libertarians, who are instinctively averse to homosexuality, as I am to lesbianism, should feel no compunction about saying so, although, as stated above, support for state sanctions for homosexuality is another issue entirely, well beyond any reasonable turf for any real libertarian.
Not only do people have to be careful at work nowadays how they express themselves on the subject—the authorities are only too eager to destroy the careers of those who step out of line—laws against freedom of association are also being used to crush dissent. Anti-discrimination laws are a fundamental plank in a coercive approach to creating a multi-cultural society. Nevertheless, particularly in the case of family-run businesses, the owners have the right—the moral right, not the legal right—to offer their services to customers on whatever basis they choose.
In the case of large hotels or other non-family-run businesses, I think the principle still applies, that the owners of the business have the right to specify who they will serve. I think it highly unlikely the shareholders of any company would demand discriminatory policies, as companies have an interest in expanding their customer bases, and so the issue only really crops up with small family-run businesses, giving the lie to the claim that laws against discrimination are required to enable gay men and other favoured minorities to function in society.
Finally, equality before the law should be re-established. An interesting question is homosexuality in the armed forces. As male-dominated organisations, the armed forces are, like the church, a historic focus of homosexual employment. Homosexual activity between sailors is nothing new. What should the official policy on homosexual employment in the armed forces be?
Firstly, I think it important to state that, in extreme situations, such as wartime, all members of society have to be prepared to defend that society. That is what membership of society means. Maybe some libertarians would claim that conscription should not be implemented in a free society.
Warfare, especially when the nation is under attack, and not attacking other countries, is an extreme event, and many of the social niceties disappear overnight. Consequently, I am opposed to allowing conscientious objectors to absent themselves from the armed forces while others are being conscripted.
But, by the same token, homosexuality cannot be a sufficient reason to avoid the draft either. It is absurd for any society to hold that gay man cannot fight for the country: I will address ecclesiastical homosexuality in passing here. As the church, if it is to be a church, and not just a conveyor belt for political propaganda, has to be faithful to its teachings dating back millennia, I see no why priests should publicly proclaim their homosexuality without being defrocked—if they are gay, why are they trying to subvert the church by joining it in order to flout its commands?
The preaching of homosexual rights from the pulpit should lead to the rapid defenestration of the vicar. As with the armed forces, if public decorum is maintained, there is little reason to launch witch-hunts. Interestingly, as sexuality becomes politicised, it has also become more fluid. The women of England seem to be getting less feminine as the men of England become less masculine.
One example of this is the metrosexual phenomenon, of which the football player, David Beckham, is one example. When I was a teenager, such things would have been seen as effeminate.
Looking around my local gym, it is clear that many of the younger men are rather feminine, or even effeminate, in appearance.
The days when heterosexuality meant raw masculinity are long gone. One could argue that a supine population that allows the state to determine their views on race, culture and sexuality is less manly that what went before. For this reason alone, I think libertarians could lament the decline of masculinity. But a glance at the gay club scene also turns up dungeons, leather and chains, and one could also question whether anal sex not the only form of gay sex, it should be added is really sissyish at all: Jack Donovan explained his ideas thus:.
The word gay has never described mere homosexuality. Gay is a subculture, a slur, a set of gestures, a slang, a look, a posture, a parade, a rainbow flag, a film genre, a taste in music, a hairstyle, a marketing demographic, a bumper sticker, a political agenda and philosophical viewpoint.
Gay is a pre-packaged, superficial persona—a lifestyle. Androphilia is a rejection of the overloaded gay identity and a return to a discussion of homosexuality in terms of desire. The gay sensibility is a near-oblivious embrace of a castrating slur, the non-stop celebration of an age-old, emasculating stigma applied to men who engaged in homosexual acts. Its cultural contribution is immense and also with a high homosexual signs.
The great names of Leonardo, Michelangelo and Donatello dedicated a large amount of their works to the Christian Church as the reflection of the influence it had of the social, economical and political life of the society. The more the Church oppressed homosexuality, the more wide spread it became and there was no royal palace without intrigues related to this theme with the most bright example of Henry III of France.
Christianity in this aspect revealed itself, as a rather cruel structure forgetting how important is to love. The reason Ancient Greece and Japan had a very special positive attitude towards one-sex relationship was their romantic background as it was considered to be love, too. Million of people throughout the human history were homosexuals. And this is the truth, which does not need any arguments. European Christians tried to eliminate every sign of homosexuality because they were so afraid of it that did not know what to do.
The majority of the population always had and always will be conformists and will be highly influenced by social, economical and political factors without analyzing their true essence. As homosexuality undermined the Bible readings and this became the moment the Europeans decided to change the positions for instance of Japan and China towards homosexuality.
They converted it into a show with burning bodies and hanging people. If it was not for the interests of the Christian Church many things would have been different and especially that number of homosexuals.
The more they prohibited one-sex relationships the more they appeared a simple social reaction. The attitude towards homosexuality has always been highly influenced by social, economic and political factors without the conscious analysis of the society. For a very long time the Christian Church was the strongest ruling party and its positions were formed the position of the whole society and changed its perception of this phenomenon.
For many centuries people of Japan, China and France lived with homosexuality and did not know it was something unmoral. It is difficult to be openly gay or lesbian in predominantly Islamic countries, but in the West, there are even a few gay imams. There are also support groups for gay and lesbian Muslims. Writers such as Scott Kugle Siraj al-Haqq try to reconcile Islamic identity with alternative sexual orientations.
The latter need not be short-term and may offer an alternative framework for co-habitation without formal marriage. Christian gays and lesbians have had to work hard for a measure of recognition among fellow-believers; their Muslim counterparts are just beginning that struggle. Write an article and join a growing community of more than 72, academics and researchers from 2, institutions. Peter Paul Rubens, Lot and his family escaping from the doomed city guided by an angel, circa Christopher van der Krogt , Massey University.
Homosexuality in the Bible Leviticus Sodom and sodomy Lot fleeing with his family, by Peter Paul Rubens, In the Qur'an, Lut says: Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. Reinterpreting the Islamic tradition Without actually endorsing homosexuality, some Muslims in Western societies have recognised a parallel between the religious acceptance they demand and the acceptance demanded by gays and lesbians.
The New Zealand Muslim MP Ashraf Choudary who did not realise that the Qur'an does not urge the stoning of homosexuals observed that, if the law allows one minority group in our society to be discriminated against then all minorities are vulnerable. Deducing that it may therefore be legitimate remains a step too far for most. The problem is with how people have interpreted it. You might also like The more the west recognises and protects gay rights, the more African and Asian nations such as Uganda and India seem determined to go in the opposite direction.
Members of a breakaway faction of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe protest against homosexuality. Uganda has come under pressure over its anti-homosexual laws. Expert Database Find experts with knowledge in:
This essay will discuss mainly liberal and conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible, including many verses that may support or condemn homosexuality. It will also discuss the political views and laws against same-sex marriage and the social activism in the homosexual community.
Homosexuality has been a source of constant conflict among many organizations of today's society. Perhaps the most prominent disputes of this issue exist within the disagreement of same sex relationships from the views of society, homosexuals, the Christian church, and scientist's biological theories/5(9).
Homosexuality is a widely discussed topic nowadays, which brings up an abundance of arguments and discussions in societies around the world. Free Essays from Bartleby | The way people ultimately view homosexuality, whether in religion, politics or modern popular culture, is all determined by.
Essay on Homosexuality by D.J. Webb Published on the Libertarian Alliance Blog 7th May Homosexuality is in many ways an awkward subject to write about. In the old days, such things were not mentioned in polite conversation. The truth about the attitude towards homosexuality Million of people throughout the human history were homosexuals. And this is the truth, which does not .