homosexuality essay brainly

How Are LGBT Youths Affected by Discrimination and What Can Schools Do to Help?

This essay shows how discrimination leads to increased high school drop out rates for LGBT youths and, of greater concern, increased rates of suicide and substance abuse.

Gaell Jocelyn-Blackman

In this paper, I will discuss the different types of discrimination that LGBT youths are faced with and the effects on these youths. The paper will elaborate on the severe impacts on LGBT youths not only caused by discrimination but also due to lack of support and guidance. The paper will also discuss the roles of the parents and schools in helping minimize discrimination against LGBT youths. This paper will also hopefully instruct schools and parents to accept and support gay students rather than add to the discrimination that they already face. Doing so will reduce the high school drop out rate and most importantly the youth suicide rate. In essence, the purpose of this research paper is to identify the different effects on LGBT youths due to discrimination and to explore various actions that can and should be taken by schools and parents to help these youths live a normal and happy life. Therefore, my target audience is the school system as well as the parents of LGBT youths.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youths. Gay and lesbian youths are 2 to 6 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth. Over 30% of all reported teen suicides each year are committed by gay and lesbian youths. . . . Gays and lesbians are at much higher risk than the heterosexual population for alcohol and drug abuse. Approximately 30% of both the lesbian and gay male populations have problems with alcohol. Gay and lesbian youth are at greater risk for school failure than heterosexual children. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

Substantially higher proportions of homosexual people use alcohol, marijuana or cocaine than is the case in the general population. (McKirnan & Peterson, 1989, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

Approximately 28% of gay and lesbian youths drop out of high school because of discomfort (due to verbal and physical abuse) in the school environment. (Remafedi, 1987, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

Gay and lesbian youths’ discomfort stems from fear of name calling and physical harm. (Eversole, n.d, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

M any people are guilty of discrimination against LGBT youths, whether consciously or unconsciously. LGBT youths are faced with daily discrimination from society, peers, family and even school teachers and administrations. The above statistics not only show that LGBT youths lack support and guidance but also prove how much these youths are clearly affected, in more ways than one, by discrimination. Cole (2007) mentions that there is a higher rate of abuse, neglect, and discrimination against LGBT youths than straight youths. I believe that most parents would prefer their children to be straight than to be gay, and most school officials also prefer straight students over gay students. This preference could be a contributing factor in discrimination against LGBT youths. This paper will hopefully capture the attention of parents and schools and perhaps help modify their outlook on LGBT youths. Fundamentally, I will attempt to answer the following questions throughout the paper: What are the effects of discrimination against LGBT youths? What is the role of the parents? What is the role of the schools? How can parents and schools work together to help minimize discrimination against LGBT youths? What more can be done? Before answering those questions, I will start by addressing the types of discrimination that LGBT youths are faced with.

Types of Discrimination

Some of the comments that LGBT youths are faced with are as follows: “I hate gays. They should be banned from this country;” “Get away from me, you faggot. I can’t stand the sight of you;” “These queers make my stomach turn.” Those are only a few of the biased statements that LBGT youths are faced with in society. According to Cole (2007), the word “faggot” is often used by anti-gay peers to terrorize LGBT youths. Words such as “faggot” or “gay” are sometimes used in a negative sense to express something either stupid or uncool (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p.35). When that occurs, it shows an even greater sign of discrimination against LGBT youths. I noticed that these words are not only used in the real world but also in movies and TV shows which makes it harder for LGBT youths to deal with. In addition to the discrimination from society and their peers, LGBT youths also endure discrimination from home/families and particularly schools.

“Today’s Gay Youth: The Ugly, Frightening Statistics” (n.d.) reports that one half of LGBT youths are neglected by their parents because of their sexual preference and approximately a quarter of LGBT youths are mandated to leave their homes. Cole (2007) explains that rejected LGBT youths generally do not learn how to build a relationship with peers or families. As a result, it creates a state of loneliness and isolation for them. Some LGBT youths are both verbally and physically abused by parents (“Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d.). In addition, roughly about 40% of youths that are homeless are classified as LGBT youths. The same article shows 27% of male teenagers who classified themselves as gay or bisexual left home due to quarrels with family members over their sexuality. Needless to say, parents and families play a big part in discrimination against LGBT youths and the effects that it has on them.

Nevertheless, it appears that the majority of the discrimination against LGBT youths emanates from the schools that they attend. Are schools taking any actions to minimize discrimination against gay students? What are they doing to help these adolescents? The following quote is an explicit example of how schools can contribute to discrimination against LGBT youths:

I took a call from one sixteen-year-old who came out to his counselor. The only other person he’d told was his friend in California. The counselor said, “I can’t help you with that.” After he left, the counselor called his mother to make sure she knew. The youth went home that night not knowing that he’d been outed to his parents. Sitting around the dinner table, his mother said to him, “I got a call from the school counselor today. We’re not going to have any gay kids in this family.” His father took him outside and beat him. (as cited in Human Rights Watch, 2001, p.106)

Human Rights Watch (2001) also reports that the same youth was harassed by his peers once they found out about his sexuality. At this point he turned to suicide, but was fortunately taken in by a family member who lived out of state where he finished school (p. 106). In the mentioned quote, the sixteen-year-old student did not get any support from his school guidance counselor or his parents. If his own school and parents would not give him any guidance or support, who else could he turn to? What is the alternative? This example could be a common concern throughout the world, where LGBT youths are not comfortable with their gender at school at home. Consequently, they are faced with an alternative which is rarely a positive one. The alternatives that they face may include depression, substance abuse, violence, and even suicide.

Effects of Discrimination

LGBT youths endure hostile verbal and physical harassment that can be excruciating for them (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 35). Human Rights Watch (2001) also states that although the youths that were interviewed emphasized their fear of physical and sexual assault, being called words like “faggot,” “queer,” or “dyke,” daily is still destructive (p.35).

One young gay youth who had dropped out of an honors program angrily protested, “just because I am gay doesn’t mean I am stupid,” as he told of hearing “that’s so gay” meaning “that’s so stupid,” not just from other students but from teachers in his school. (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 35)

Over 25% of LGBT youths are high school drop outs because of the discrimination they are faced with in the school atmosphere (“Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d.). The article also states the LGBT youths have a greater risk of academic failure than heterosexual students. Furthermore they don’t get involved much in student activities and have very little dedication to the school’s agendas because school isn’t a safe, healthy, or productive learning environment. Therefore, LGBT youths make an attempt to live, work, and learn with continuous fear of physical assault at school (“Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d.).

Physical abuse against LGBT youths usually occurs due to disregarded harassment (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 42). Human Rights Watch (2001) says that the number of physical assaults that were reported by interviewed LGBT youths had an enormous psychological impact on them, mainly because the physical abuse followed constant verbal and non-physical harassment that was overlooked by school officials (p. 42). For example, a lesbian student reported that several months of harassment and verbal threats grew to physical abuse. “‘I got hit in the back of the head with an ice scraper.’ By that point, she said she was so used to being harassed. ‘I didn’t even turn around to see who it was’” (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 42). Another incident mentioned by Human Rights Watch (2001) involved a tenth grade gay youth who was hit in the back of the neck with a beer bottle. He literally had to crawl to the nearest friend’s house for immediate assistance. The same youth was beaten up in the seventh grade by a couple of anti-gay kids (p. 42). One last example entails another gay youth who first suffered from verbal assault and students throwing items at him. Subsequently, a group of anti-gay students strangled him with a drafting line so bad that it cut him. Later that school year the youth was dragged down a flight of stairs and cut with knives by his classmates (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 42). Fortunately, he lived to talk about it.

Human Rights Watch (2001) implies that verbal and physical violence is a tension that LGBT youths have gotten accustomed to; however, it is damaging to their psychological wellbeing (p. 68). Many of the LGBT youths interviewed by Human Rights Watch (2001) reported signs of depression such as: “sleeplessness, excessive sleep, loss of appetite, and feeling of hopelessness”(p. 69). One reported incident involved a gay youth who could not take it anymore. He started to skip school so that he would not have to put up with the harassment anymore. He stayed at home all day and ended up missing fifty-six days of school. The youth explained, “‘It was mentally and physically stressful for me to go to that school. I remember going home and waking up in the morning just dreading it; dreading the fact that I would have to go back to that school’” (as cited in Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 69). Other youths reported that even when the harassment was not addressed directly toward them, they were affected by it. One youth implied that discrimination and harassment makes him feel like he is backed up into a corner and so sad that he wants to cry (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 69). It is no wonder LGBT youth turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide.

Cole (2007) claims that discrimination against LGBT youths can create repression along with a deficiency in their natural growth. Discrimination also has a social and emotional impact on them. Instead of being social individuals, LGBT youths remain in the closet and hide. The loneliness that they bear can turn into depression which often leads to substance abuse or even suicide. LGBT youths have greater chances of alcohol and substance abuse than heterosexual youths (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d.). Also, roughly about one third of LGBT youths have a drinking or drug problem. Human Rights Watch (2001) interviewed some LGBT youths who say that they drink to the point of passing out or to feel good and normal (p. 69). The lack of support from parents or schools can possibly make them feel like there is no hope of ever living a happy life and being productive (Human Rights Watch, 2001, p. 68).

Roles of Parents

50% of all gay and lesbian youths report that their parents reject them due to their sexual orientation. In a study of male teenagers self-described as gay or bisexual, 27% moved away from home because of conflict with family members over sexual orientation. (Remafedi, 1987, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

26% of gay and lesbian youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts over their sexual orientation. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

In a study of 194 gay and lesbian youth, 25% were verbally abused by parents, and nearly 10% dealt with threatened or actual violence. (D’Augelli, 1997, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

Approximately 40% of homeless youths are identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. (Eversole, n.d., as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

Service providers estimate that gay, lesbian and bisexual youths make up 20-40% of homeless youth in urban areas. (National Network of Runaway and Youth Services, 1991, as cited in “Today’s Gay Youth,” n.d., n.p.)

It appears that the lack of support, protection, and guidance from family also has a major effect on LGBT youths. Perhaps, if their families were more supportive, the suicide and depression rates of LGBT youths would be moderately less. I believe that parents should embrace their children no matter what their sexual preference is. For an adolescent, I think that family should be the primary source for seeking support and guidance. When parents reject their gay or lesbian adolescent, I feel that it can possibly set him or her up for failure. This era is the time when adolescents would need their parents’ love and support the most. I also sense that when LGBT youths don’t get the love and support that they are looking for from parents, it contributes to their state of depression and suicidal phase. Therefore, parents of LGBT youths should take time to reflect on the circumstances before they make the wrong decisions.

One way of showing support would be for the youths’ parents or family to intervene with the school or at least make an attempt like the mother in the following quote:

“The more I talked to teachers, the superintendent, and the principal, the more they just kept throwing up brick walls and trying to convince me I would have to let my son go through this,” Ms. Cooper said. “But no child should have to go through this, whether he’s gay or not. When [bullying] gets to the point where a kid wants to quit school and give up his future, something has to be done.” (Browman, 2001, p. 3)

In the above case, the parent was being supportive to her gay son while the school officials were not. Like many other schools, they choose to ignore the fact that the gay student is being bullied and discriminated against. As mentioned earlier in the paper, that kind of response from schools also contributes to the effects of depression on LGBT youths.

Roles of Schools

“Educators cannot ignore the risks faced by homosexual students, but deciding how to deal with the issue should be a matter of local concern” (Archer, 2002, n.p.). In his article, Archer is stressing that educators must address discrimination against gay students and must put aside their personal views to create a safe environment for these students. In her article, Browman (2001) also talks about the lack of attention from school teachers and administrators toward gay discrimination and harassment. Browman (2001) acknowledges the educational effect on LGBT youths due to constant harassment in school. A very interesting point that was made in this article is, if a student makes a racial comment in school, he or she gets punished. So why should remarks like “dyke,” “fag,” or “queer” be acceptable? Are those words equal to the same level of discrimination as making a racial comment? The article advises that the problem of discrimination or harassment can be addressed at the verbal stage before it gets to the physical point or causes the youth’s academic learning to be harmed (Browman, 2001). The article continues to imply that teachers and administrators often fail to cease discrimination or harassment against LGBT youth. They are either afraid of facing prejudice from others or perhaps even because of their own prejudice (Browman, 2001). The article also suggests a way to express to all students that harassment or discrimination against LGBT students will not be tolerated. Consequences such as school conduct codes and discipline policies should be established as well as anti-harassment rules (Browman, 2001).

Browman (2001) reports that Human Rights Watch completed a two-year study on the topic where an immediate response was obtained from educational groups such as: The National Education Association, The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Alliance, and The American Federation of Teachers. The three groups adhered in influencing the Education Department to defend and protect gay and lesbian students from discrimination. They add that schools are making an effort to create a safe environment for all students where they can all be treated with equal respect and dignity. Accordingly, the department fights to provide the schools with information and guidance to help solve the problem of discrimination against LGBT youths (Browman, 2001).

Furthermore, New York City has made an attempt to come up with a solution that they thought would possibly reduce discrimination against LGBT youths by opening an all-gay school. I see this movement as a possible increase in discrimination against LGBT youths. If they are all put together in one school, how is that helping them deal with discrimination from society, peers and others outside of the school? And how is that teaching anti-gay students not to discriminate against LGBT youths? I don’t think isolation from the rest of the world is the best solution for LGBT youths. They are human beings just like the rest of us and they should be treated accordingly. I agree with what is stated in Browman’s (2001) article about the schools accomplishing all they can to stop discrimination against LGBT youths.

The two primary sources that have the power and ability to diminish discrimination against LGBT youths are schools and parents. In my opinion, they are the ones who have the greatest influence on LGBT youths and in turn have the ability to reduce substance abuse, educational failure, and suicides. Parents and schools need to realize how much they can help diminish the effects of discrimination against LGBT youths if they work together and productively. Clearly, if they remain on the same page they can ease the agony for LGBT youths and help them live a normal and happy life. One method that can be exercised in schools is a homosexual sensitivity training for anti-gay students and school officials. The training would benefit both students and school officials. I think that it would help the school officials manage whatever prejudices they may have against LGBT youths. Since anti-gay bullying students are perhaps ignorant to the subject, schools should modify a system where all students can be educated on the subject. It would probably help the students get a better understanding if homosexuality was compared to other subject matters such as culture and religion. Students should be provided with a full view of the subject just like any other. If this method helps only two out of ten anti-gay students cease discrimination against LGBT students, I am sure that it will make a difference. An additional scheme that should be established is monthly meetings between school officials and parents to review the progress of measures that are already in place.

Before writing this research paper, I never imagined how immensely affected LGBT youths were by discrimination. It is awful what they go through and how most people are clueless or even careless about what these youths endure. LGBT youths are faced with discrimination, torture, and sometimes even execution because of who they love, how they look, or who they are. I believe that sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of ourselves and should never lead to discrimination or abuse. Doing this research not only made me realize the intense discrimination suffered by LGBT youths but also had an impact on me. This research has made me want to advocate for more laws and policies to help protect LGBT youths. I have gained a ton of information and knowledge during this process. However, if my readers obtain half of the valuable information that I have obtained, I know that I have accomplished my task.

Archer, J. (2002, February). Local schools must address safety for gays. Education Week, 21 (23), 3. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from EBSCO Host database.

Browman, D. H. (2001, June). Report says schools often ignore harassment of gay students. Education Week, 20 (39), 5. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from EBSCO Host database.

Cole, S. (2007, April). Protecting our youth. Edge . Retrieved October 31, 2007, from www.edgeboston.com

Human Rights Watch (2001). Hatred in the hallways. NY: Human Rights Watch.

Today’s gay youth: The ugly, frightening statistics (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from www.pflagphoenix.org

Consumer Information Diversity and Compliance Employment Public Safety

Directory Accessibility Website © 2024

York College / CUNY 94 - 20 Guy R. Brewer Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11451 P: 718-262-2000

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Homosexuality

The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19 th century by an Austrian-born Hungarian psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. Although the term is new, discussions about sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, have occasioned philosophical discussion ranging from Plato’s Symposium to contemporary queer theory. Since the history of cultural understandings of same-sex attraction is relevant to the philosophical issues raised by those understandings, it is necessary to review briefly some of the social history of homosexuality. Arising out of this history, at least in the West, is the idea of natural law and some interpretations of that law as forbidding homosexual sex. References to natural law still play an important role in contemporary debates about homosexuality in religion, politics, and even courtrooms. Finally, perhaps the most significant recent social change involving homosexuality is the emergence of the gay liberation movement in the West. In philosophical circles this movement is, in part, represented through a rather diverse group of thinkers who are grouped under the label of queer theory. A central issue raised by queer theory, which will be discussed below, is whether homosexuality, and hence also heterosexuality and bisexuality, is socially constructed or purely driven by biological forces.

2. Historiographical Debates

3. natural law, 4. queer theory and the social construction of sexuality, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ (e.g., Foucault, 1980). There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium , to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros , while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption about sexual orientation, at least by ancient Greek authors, is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5 th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what biological sex one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch’s Erotikos ( Dialogue on Love ) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail” ( ibid ., 146). Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20s or 30s, known as the erastes , and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika . In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos , which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium , argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Ancient Rome had many parallels to ancient Greece in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality , that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as “unnatural” the meaning is more akin to ‘out of the ordinary’ rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). Yet others have criticized, sometimes persuasively, Boswell’s scholarship, arguing that the conventional contemporary reading is more plausible (see Greenberg, 1988, ch.5). What is clear, however, is that while condemnation of same-sex attraction is marginal to the Gospels and only an intermittent focus in the rest of the New Testament, early Christian church fathers were much more outspoken. In their writings there is a horror at any sort of sex, but in a few generations these views eased, in part due no doubt to practical concerns of recruiting converts. By the fourth and fifth centuries the mainstream Christian view allowed only for procreative sex.

This viewpoint, that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding of permissible sexual relationships leads to a concern with the gender of one’s partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian’s Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards homosexuality, although there were again important regional variations.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) for homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9).

The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one’s partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime (Crompton, 2003, ch.6).

For the next several centuries in Europe, the laws against homosexual sex were severe in their penalties. Enforcement, however, was episodic. In some regions, decades would pass without any prosecutions. Yet the Dutch, in the 1730s, mounted a harsh anti-sodomy campaign (alongside an anti-Roma pogrom), even using torture to obtain confessions. As many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial (Greenberg, 1988, 313–4). Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the most restrictive view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. In the 19 th century there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon’s conquests that Code spread. Furthermore, in many countries where homosexual sex remained a crime, the general movement at this time away from the death penalty usually meant that sodomy was removed from the list of capital offenses.

In the 18 th and 19 th centuries an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology. This discourse, in turn, linked up with considerations about the state and its need for a growing population, good soldiers, and intact families marked by clearly defined gender roles. Doctors were called in by courts to examine sex crime defendants (Foucault, 1980; Greenberg, 1988). At the same time, the dramatic increase in school attendance rates and the average length of time spent in school, reduced transgenerational contact, and hence also the frequency of transgenerational sex. Same-sex relations between persons of roughly the same age became the norm.

Clearly the rise in the prestige of medicine resulted in part from the increasing ability of science to account for natural phenomena on the basis of mechanistic causation. The application of this viewpoint to humans led to accounts of sexuality as innate or biologically driven. The voluntarism of the medieval understanding of sodomy, that sodomites chose sin, gave way to the prevailing though contested modern notion of homosexuality as a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation. The idea of a ‘latent sodomite’ would not have made sense, yet under this new view it does make sense to speak of a person as a ‘latent homosexual.’ Instead of specific acts defining a person, as in the medieval view, an entire physical and mental makeup, usually portrayed as somehow defective or pathological, is ascribed to the modern category of ‘homosexual.’ Although there are historical precursors to these ideas (e.g., Aristotle gave a physiological explanation of passive homosexuality), medicine gave them greater public exposure and credibility (Greenberg, 1988, ch.15). The effects of these ideas cut in conflicting ways. Since homosexuality is, by this view, not chosen, it makes less sense to criminalize it. Persons are not choosing evil acts. Yet persons may be expressing a diseased or pathological mental state, and hence medical intervention for a cure is appropriate. Hence doctors, especially psychiatrists, campaigned for the repeal or reduction of criminal penalties for consensual homosexual sodomy, yet intervened to “rehabilitate” homosexuals. They also sought to develop techniques to prevent children from becoming homosexual, for example by arguing that childhood masturbation caused homosexuality, hence it must be closely guarded against.

In the 20 th century sexual roles were redefined once again. For a variety of reasons, premarital intercourse slowly became more common and eventually acceptable. With the decline of prohibitions against sex for the sake of pleasure even outside of marriage, it became more difficult to argue against gay sex. These trends were especially strong in the 1960s, and it was in this context that the gay liberation movement took off. Although gay and lesbian rights groups had been around for decades, the low-key approach of the Mattachine Society (named after a medieval secret society) and the Daughters of Bilitis had not gained much ground. This changed in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, rioted after a police raid. In the aftermath of that event, gay and lesbian groups began to organize around the country. Gay Democratic clubs were created in every major city, and one fourth of all college campuses had gay and lesbian groups (Shilts, 1993, ch.28). Large gay urban communities in cities from coast to coast became the norm. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental disorders. The increased visibility of gays and lesbians has become a permanent feature of American life despite the two critical setbacks of the AIDS epidemic and an anti-gay backlash (see Berman, 1993, for a good survey). The post-Stonewall era has also seen marked changes in Western Europe, where the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and legal equality for gays and lesbians has become common. In the 21st century, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has become widespread.

The increasing acceptance of same-sex relations has prompted new theoretical debates, such as whether a “post-gay” culture will emerge due to widespread assimilation of gays and lesbians (Anderson, 2016). Generally what is meant by the term “post-gay” is that if LGBTQ persons have full legal and social equality, that level of acceptance makes it so sexual orientation is no longer a defining aspect of one’s identity or social position. While it seems unlikely that gay, lesbian, or queer persons of color, or who live in rural areas, or are otherwise in a marginalized position will achieve such assimilation in the foreseeable future, the debate is still of theoretical interest. For instance, post-gay can be conceptualized as either a specific political order, characterized by equality across sexual orientations, or it can be seen as a specific type of identity, where persons understand and accept themselves as same-sex oriented but as not in any way defined by that. Post-gay can also be a time, an era marked by widespread assimilation, or a space, where persons are fully treated as equals. Some regard the variety of meanings given to the term as evidence of confusion (Kampler and Connell, 2018). A better understanding, however, is that the term is being used to rival ends. For some, post-gay marks the culmination of the gay rights movement, which all along, they contend, was an effort to be treated as equals. For others, it opens a space where sexual labels can be resisted, renegotiated, and made fluid and non-binary (Coleman-Fountain, 2014).

Broader currents in society have influenced the ways in which scholars and activists have approached research into sexuality and same-sex attraction. Some early 20 th century researchers and equality advocates, seeking to vindicate same-sex relations in societies that disparaged and criminalized it, put forward lists of famous historical figures attracted to persons of the same sex. Such lists implied a common historical entity underlying sexual attraction, whether one called it ‘inversion’ or ‘homosexuality.’ This approach (or perhaps closely related family of approaches) is commonly called essentialism. Historians and researchers sympathetic to the gay liberation movement of the late 1960s and 1970s produced a number of books that implicitly relied on an essentialist approach. In the 1970s and 1980s John Boswell raised it to a new level of methodological and historical sophistication, although his position shifted over time to one of virtual agnosticism between essentialists and their critics. Crompton’s work (2003) is a notable contemporary example of an essentialist methodology.

Essentialists claim that categories of sexual attraction are observed rather than created. For example, while ancient Greece did not have terms that correspond to the heterosexual/homosexual division, persons did note men who were only attracted to person of a specific sex, hence the lack of terminology need not be taken as evidence of a lack of continuity in categories. Through history and across cultures there are consistent features, albeit with meaningful variety over time and space, in sexual attraction to the point that it makes sense of speak of specific sexual orientations. According to this view, homosexuality is a specific, natural kind rather than a cultural or historical product. Essentialists allow that there are cultural differences in how homosexuality is expressed and interpreted, but they emphasize that this does not prevent it from being a universal category of human sexual expression.

In contrast, in the 1970s and since a number of researchers, often influenced by Mary McIntosh or Michel Foucault, argued that class relations, the human sciences, and other historically constructed forces create sexual categories and the personal identities associated with them. For advocates of this view, such as David Halperin, how sex is organized in a given cultural and historical setting is irreducibly particular (Halperin, 2002). The emphasis on the social creation of sexual experience and expression led to the labeling of the viewpoint as social constructionism, although more recently several of its proponents have preferred the term ‘historicism.’ Thus homosexuality, as a specific sexual construction, is best understood as a solely modern, Western concept and role. Prior to the development of this construction, persons were not really ‘homosexual’ even when they were only attracted to persons of the same sex. The differences between, say, ancient Greece, with its emphasis on pederasty, role in the sex act, and social status, and the contemporary Western role of ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ are simply too great to collapse into one category.

In a manner closely related to the claims of queer theory, discussed below, social constructionists argue that specific social constructs produce sexual ways of being. There is no given mode of sexuality that is independent of culture; even the concept and experience of sexual orientation itself are products of history. For advocates of this view, the range of historical sexual diversity, and the fluidity of human possibility, is simply too varied to be adequately captured by any specific conceptual scheme.

There is a significant political dimension to this seemingly abstract historiographical debate. Social constructionists argue that essentialism is the weaker position politically for at least two reasons. First, by accepting a basic heterosexual/homosexual organizing dichotomy, essentialism wrongly concedes that heterosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is, strictly speaking, abnormal and the basis for a permanent minority. Second, social constructionists argue that an important goal of historical investigations should be to put into question contemporary organizing schemas about sexuality. The acceptance of the contemporary heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy is conservative, perhaps even reactionary, and forecloses the exploration of new possibilities. (There are related queer theory criticisms of the essentialist position, discussed below.) In contrast, essentialists argue that a historicist approach forecloses the very possibility of a ‘gay history.’ Instead, the field of investigation becomes other social forces and how they ‘produce’ a distinct form or forms of sexuality. Only an essentialist approach can maintain the project of gay history, and minority histories in general, as a force for liberation.

Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention. The development of natural law is a long and very complicated story. A reasonable place to begin is with the dialogues of Plato, for this is where some of the central ideas are first articulated, and, significantly enough, are immediately applied to the sexual domain. For the Sophists, the human world is a realm of convention and change, rather than of unchanging moral truth. Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis . Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws , Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus . In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838–839d). Probably the best way of understanding Plato’s discussion here is in the context of his overall concerns with the appetitive part of the soul and how best to control it. Plato clearly sees same-sex passions as especially strong, and hence particularly problematic, although in the Symposium that erotic attraction is presented as potentially being a catalyst for a life of philosophy, rather than base sensuality (Cf. Dover, 1989, 153–170; Nussbaum, 1999, esp. chapter 12).

Other figures played important roles in the development of natural law theory. Aristotle, with his emphasis upon reason as the distinctive human function, and the Stoics, with their emphasis upon human beings as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, both helped to shape the natural law perspective which says that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature,” as Cicero put it. Aristotle, in his approach, did allow for change to occur according to nature, and therefore the way that natural law is embodied could itself change with time, which was an idea Aquinas later incorporated into his own natural law theory. Aristotle did not write extensively about sexual issues, since he was less concerned with the appetites than Plato. Probably the best reconstruction of his views places him in mainstream Greek society as outlined above; his main concern is with an active versus a passive role, with only the latter problematic for those who either are or will become citizens. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was, according to his contemporaries, only attracted to men, and his thought did not have prohibitions against same-sex sexuality. In contrast, Cicero, a later Stoic, was dismissive about sexuality in general, with some harsher remarks towards same-sex pursuits (Cicero, 1966, 407-415).

The most influential formulation of natural law theory was made by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Integrating an Aristotelian approach with Christian theology, Aquinas emphasized the centrality of certain human goods, including marriage and procreation. While Aquinas did not write much about same-sex sexual relations, he did write at length about various sex acts as sins. For Aquinas, sexuality that was within the bounds of marriage and which helped to further what he saw as the distinctive goods of marriage, mainly love, companionship, and legitimate offspring, was permissible, and even good. Aquinas did not argue that procreation was a necessary part of moral or just sex; married couples could enjoy sex without the motive of having children, and sex in marriages where one or both partners is sterile (perhaps because the woman is postmenopausal) is also potentially just (given a motive of expressing love). So far Aquinas’ view actually need not rule out homosexual sex. For example, a Thomist could embrace same-sex marriage, and then apply the same reasoning, simply seeing the couple as a reproductively sterile, yet still fully loving and companionate union.

Aquinas, in a significant move, adds a requirement that for any given sex act to be moral it must be of a generative kind. The only way that this can be achieved is via vaginal intercourse. That is, since only the emission of semen in a vagina can result in natural reproduction, only sex acts of that type are generative, even if a given sex act does not lead to reproduction, and even if it is impossible due to infertility. The consequence of this addition is to rule out the possibility, of course, that homosexual sex could ever be moral (even if done within a loving marriage), in addition to forbidding any non-vaginal sex for opposite-sex married couples. What is the justification for this important addition? This question is made all the more pressing in that Aquinas does allow that how broad moral rules apply to individuals may vary considerably, since the nature of persons also varies to some extent. That is, since Aquinas allows that individual natures vary, one could simply argue that one is, by nature, emotionally and physically attracted to persons of one’s own gender, and hence to pursue same-sex relationships is ‘natural’ (Sullivan, 1995). Unfortunately, Aquinas does not spell out a justification for this generative requirement.

More recent natural law theorists, however, have presented a couple of different lines of defense for Aquinas’ ‘generative type’ requirement. The first is that sex acts that involve either homosexuality, heterosexual sodomy, or which use contraception, frustrate the purpose of the sex organs, which is reproductive. This argument, often called the ‘perverted faculty argument’, is perhaps implicit in Aquinas. It has, however, come in for sharp attack (see Weitham, 1997), and the best recent defenders of a Thomistic natural law approach are attempting to move beyond it (e.g., George, 1999a, dismisses the argument). If their arguments fail, of course, they must allow that some homosexual sex acts are morally permissible (even positively good), although they would still have resources with which to argue against casual gay (and straight) sex.

Although the specifics of the second sort of argument offered by various contemporary natural law theorists vary, they possess common elements(Finnis, 1994; George, 1999a). As Thomists, their argument rests largely upon an account of human goods. The two most important for the argument against homosexual sex (though not against homosexuality as an orientation which is not acted upon, and hence in this they follow official Catholic doctrine; see George, 1999a, ch.15) are personal integration and marriage. Personal integration, in this view, is the idea that humans, as agents, need to have integration between their intentions as agents and their embodied selves. Thus, to use one’s or another’s body as a mere means to one’s own pleasure, as they argue happens with masturbation, causes ‘dis-integration’ of the self. That is, one’s intention then is just to use a body (one’s own or another’s) as a mere means to the end of pleasure, and this detracts from personal integration. Yet one could easily reply that two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual union does not necessarily imply any sort of ‘use’ of the other as a mere means to one’s own pleasure. Hence, natural law theorists respond that sexual union in the context of the realization of marriage as an important human good is the only permissible expression of sexuality. Yet this argument requires drawing how marriage is an important good in a very particular way, since it puts procreation at the center of marriage as its “natural fulfillment” (George, 1999a, 168). Natural law theorists, if they want to support their objection to homosexual sex, have to emphasize procreation. If, for example, they were to place love and mutual support for human flourishing at the center, it is clear that many same-sex couples would meet this standard. Hence their sexual acts would be morally just.

There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999a). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

Natural law theory, at present, has made significant concessions to mainstream liberal thought. In contrast certainly to its medieval formulation, most contemporary natural law theorists argue for limited governmental power, and do not believe that the state has an interest in attempting to prevent all moral wrongdoing. Still, most proponents of the “New Natural Law Theory” do argue against homosexuality, and against legal protections for gays and lesbians in terms of employment and housing, even to the point of serving as expert witnesses in court cases or helping in the writing of amicus curae briefs. They also argue against same sex marriage (Bradley, 2001; George, 1999b). There have been some attempts, however, to reconcile natural law theory and homosexuality (see, for example, Lago, 2018; Goldstein, 2011). While maintaining the central aspects of natural law theory and its account of basic human goods, they typically either argue that marriage itself is not a basic good (Lago), or that the sort of good it is, when understood in a less narrow, dogmatic fashion, is such that same-sex couples can enjoy it. Part of the theoretical interest in these arguments is that they allow for a moral evaluation of sexuality, still requiring it to realize the basic good of friendship if it is to be permissible, while avoiding what seem to be the various problematic aspects of contemporary natural law theorists’ denigration of same-sex sexuality in any form.

With the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-Stonewall era, overtly gay and lesbian perspectives began to be put forward in politics, philosophy and literary theory. Initially these often were overtly linked to feminist analyses of patriarchy (e.g., Rich, 1980) or other, earlier approaches to theory. Yet in the late 1980s and early 1990s queer theory was developed, although there are obviously important antecedents which make it difficult to date it precisely. There are a number of ways in which queer theory differed from earlier gay liberation theory, but an important initial difference becomes apparent once we examine the reasons for opting for employing the term ‘queer’ as opposed to ‘gay and lesbian.’ Some versions of, for example, lesbian theory portrayed the essence of lesbian identity and sexuality in very specific terms: non-hierarchical, consensual, and, specifically in terms of sexuality, as not necessarily focused upon genitalia (e.g., Faderman, 1985). Lesbians arguing from this framework, for example, could very well criticize natural law theorists as inscribing into the very “law of nature” an essentially masculine sexuality, focused upon the genitals, penetration, and the status of the male orgasm (natural law theorists rarely mention female orgasms).

This approach, based upon characterizations of ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ identity and sexuality, however, suffered from three difficulties. First, it appeared even though the goal was to critique a heterosexist regime for its exclusion and marginalization of those whose sexuality is different, any specific or “essentialist” account of gay or lesbian sexuality had the same effect. Sticking with the example used above, of a specific conceptualization of lesbian identity, it denigrates women who are sexually and emotionally attracted to other women, yet who do not fit the description. Sado-masochists and butch/fem lesbians arguably do not fit this ideal of ‘equality’ offered. A second problem was that by placing such an emphasis upon the gender of one’s sexual partner(s), other possible important sources of identity are marginalized, such as race and ethnicity. What may be of utmost importance, for example, for a black lesbian is her lesbianism, rather than her race. Many gays and lesbians of color attacked this approach, accusing it of re-inscribing an essentially white identity into the heart of gay or lesbian identity (Jagose, 1996).

The third and final problem for the gay liberationist approach was that it often took this category of ‘identity’ itself as unproblematic and unhistorical. Such a view, however, largely because of arguments developed within poststructuralism, seemed increasingly untenable. The key figure in the attack upon identity as ahistorical is Michel Foucault. In a series of works he set out to analyze the history of sexuality from ancient Greece to the modern era (1980, 1985, 1986). Although the project was tragically cut short by his death in 1984, from complications arising from AIDS, Foucault articulated how profoundly understandings of sexuality can vary across time and space, and his arguments have proven very influential in gay and lesbian theorizing in general, and queer theory in particular (Spargo, 1999; Stychin, 2005).

One of the reasons for the historical review above is that it helps to give some background for understanding the claim that sexuality is socially constructed, rather than given by nature. Moreover, in order to not prejudge the issue of social constructionism versus essentialism, I avoided applying the term ‘homosexual’ to the ancient or medieval eras. In ancient Greece the gender of one’s partner(s) was not important, but instead whether one took the active or passive role. In the medieval view, a ‘sodomite’ was a person who succumbed to temptation and engaged in certain non-procreative sex acts. Although the gender of the partner was more important in the medieval than in the ancient view, the broader theological framework placed the emphasis upon a sin versus refraining-from-sin dichotomy. With the rise of the notion of ‘homosexuality’ in the modern era, a person is placed into a specific category even if one does not act upon those inclinations. It is difficult to perceive a common, natural sexuality expressed across these three very different cultures. The social constructionist contention is that there is no ‘natural’ sexuality; all sexual understandings are constructed within and mediated by cultural understandings. The examples can be pushed much further by incorporating anthropological data outside of the Western tradition (Halperin, 1990; Greenberg, 1988). Yet even within the narrower context offered here, the differences between them are striking. The assumption in ancient Greece was that men (less is known about Greek attitudes towards women) can respond erotically to either sex, and the vast majority of men who engaged in same-sex relationships were also married (or would later become married). Yet the contemporary understanding of homosexuality divides the sexual domain in two, heterosexual and homosexual, and most heterosexuals cannot respond erotically to their own sex.

In saying that sexuality is a social construct, these theorists are not saying that these understandings are not real. Since persons are also constructs of their culture (in this view), we are made into those categories. Hence today persons of course understand themselves as straight or gay (or perhaps bisexual), and it is very difficult to step outside of these categories, even once one comes to see them as the historical constructs they are.

Gay and lesbian theory was thus faced with three significant problems, all of which involved difficulties with the notion of ‘identity.’ Queer theory arose in large part as an attempt to overcome them. How queer theory does so can be seen by looking at the term ‘queer’ itself. In contrast to gay or lesbian, ‘queer,’ it is argued, does not refer to an essence, whether of a sexual nature or not. Instead it is purely relational, standing as an undefined term that gets its meaning precisely by being that which is outside of the norm, however that norm itself may be defined. As one of the most articulate queer theorists puts it: “Queer is … whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers . It is an identity without an essence” (Halperin, 1995, 62, original emphasis). By lacking any essence, queer does not marginalize those whose sexuality is outside of any gay or lesbian norm, such as sado-masochists. Since specific conceptualizations of sexuality are avoided, and hence not put at the center of any definition of queer, it allows more freedom for self-identification for, say, black lesbians to identify as much or more with their race (or any other trait, such as involvement in an S & M subculture) than with lesbianism. Finally, it incorporates the insights of poststructuralism about the difficulties in ascribing any essence or non-historical aspect to identity.

This central move by queer theorists, the claim that the categories through which identity is understood are all social constructs rather than given to us by nature, opens up a number of analytical possibilities. For example, queer theorists examine how fundamental notions of gender and sex which seem so natural and self-evident to persons in the modern West are in fact constructed and reinforced through everyday actions, and that this occurs in ways that privilege heterosexuality (Butler, 1990, 1993). Also examined are medical categories, such as ‘inverts’ and intersexuality, which are themselves socially constructed (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, is an erudite example of this, although she is not ultimately a queer theorist). Others examine how language and especially divisions between what is said and what is not said, corresponding to the dichotomy between ‘closeted’ and ‘out,’ especially in regards to the modern division of heterosexual/homosexual, structure much of modern thought. That is, it is argued that when we look at dichotomies such as natural/artificial, or masculine/feminine, we find in the background an implicit reliance upon a very recent, and arbitrary, understanding of the sexual world as split into two species (Sedgwick, 1990). The fluidity of categories created through queer theory even opens the possibility of new sorts of histories that examine previously silent types of affections and relationships (Carter, 2005).

Another critical perspective opened up by a queer approach, although certainly implicit in those just referred to, is especially important. Since most anti-gay and lesbian arguments rely upon the alleged naturalness of heterosexuality, queer theorists attempt to show how these categories are themselves deeply social constructs. An example helps to illustrate the approach. In an essay against gay marriage, chosen because it is very representative, James Q. Wilson (1996) contends that gay men have a “great tendency” to be promiscuous. In contrast, he puts forward loving, monogamous marriage as the natural condition of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality, in his argument, is an odd combination of something completely natural yet simultaneously endangered. One is born straight, yet this natural condition can be subverted by such things as the presence of gay couples, gay teachers, or even excessive talk about homosexuality. Wilson’s argument requires a radical disjunction between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If gayness is radically different, it is legitimate to suppress it. Wilson has the courage to be forthright about this element of his argument; he comes out against “the political imposition of tolerance” towards gays and lesbians (Wilson, 1996, 35).

It is a common move in queer theory to bracket, at least temporarily, issues of truth and falsity (Halperin, 1995). Instead, the analysis focuses on the social function of discourse. Questions of who counts as an expert and why, and concerns about the effects of the expert’s discourse are given equal status to questions of the verity of what is said. This approach reveals that hidden underneath Wilson’s (and other anti-gay) work is an important epistemological move. Since heterosexuality is the natural condition, it is a place that is spoken from but not inquired into. In contrast, homosexuality is the aberration and hence it needs to be studied but it is not an authoritative place from which one can speak. By virtue of this heterosexual privilege, Wilson is allowed the voice of the impartial, fair-minded expert. Yet, as the history section above shows, there are striking discontinuities in understandings of sexuality, and this is true to the point that, according to queer theorists, we should not think of sexuality as having any particular nature at all. Through undoing our infatuation with any specific conception of sexuality, the queer theorist opens space for marginalized forms of sexuality, and thus of ways of being more generally.

The insistence that we must investigate the ways in which categories such as sexuality and orientation are created and given power through science and other cultural mechanisms has made queer theory appealing to scholars in a variety of disciplines. Historians and sociologists have drawn on it, which is perhaps unsurprising given the role of historical claims about the social construction of sexuality. Queer theory has been especially influential in literary studies and feminist theory, even though the dividing lines between the latter and queer thinking is contested (see Jagose, 2009; Marinucci, 2010). One of the most prominent scholars working in the area of gay and lesbian issues in constitutional law has also drawn on queer theory to advance his interrogation of the ways that US law privileges heterosexuality (Eskridge, 1999). Scholars in postcolonial and racial analyses, ethnography, American studies, and other fields have drawn on the conceptual tools provided by queer theory.

Despite its roots in postmodernism and Foucault’s work in particular, queer theory’s reception in France was initially hostile (see Eribon, 2004). The core texts from the first ‘wave’ of queer theory, such as Judith Butler’s and Eve Sedgwick’s central works, were slow to appear in French translation, not coming out until a decade and a half after their original publication. Doubtless the French republican self-understanding, which is universalist and often hostile to movements that are multicultural in their bent, was a factor in the slow and often strenuously resisted importation of queer theoretical insights. Similarly, queer theory has also been on the margins in German philosophy and political philosophy. In sum, it is fair to say that queer theory has had a greater impact in the Anglo-American world.

Queer theory, however, has been criticized in a myriad of ways (Jagose, 1996). One set of criticisms comes from theorists who are sympathetic to gay liberation conceived as a project of radical social change. An initial criticism is that precisely because ‘queer’ does not refer to any specific sexual status or gender object choice, for example Halperin (1995) allows that straight persons may be ‘queer,’ it robs gays and lesbians of the distinctiveness of what makes them marginal. It desexualizes identity, when the issue is precisely about a sexual identity (Jagose, 1996). A related criticism is that queer theory, since it refuses any essence or reference to standard ideas of normality, cannot make crucial distinctions. For example, queer theorists usually argue that one of the advantages of the term ‘queer’ is that it thereby includes transsexuals, sado-masochists, and other marginalized sexualities. How far does this extend? Is transgenerational sex (e.g., pedophilia) permissible? Are there any limits upon the forms of acceptable sado-masochism or fetishism? While some queer theorists specifically disallow pedophilia, it is an open question whether the theory has the resources to support such a distinction. Furthermore, some queer theorists overtly refuse to rule out pedophiles as ‘queer’ (Halperin, 1995, 62) Another criticism is that queer theory, in part because it typically has recourse to a very technical jargon, is written by a narrow elite for that narrow elite. It is therefore class biased and also, in practice, only really referred to at universities and colleges (Malinowitz, 1993).

Queer theory is also criticized by those who reject the desirability of radical social change. For example, centrist and conservative gays and lesbians have criticized a queer approach by arguing that it will be “disastrously counter-productive” (Bawer, 1996, xii). If ‘queer’ keeps its connotation of something perverse and at odds with mainstream society, which is precisely what most queer theorists want, it would seem to only validate the attacks upon gays and lesbians made by conservatives. Sullivan (1996) also criticizes queer theorists for relying upon Foucault’s account of power, which he argues does not allow for meaningful resistance. It seems likely, however, that Sullivan’s understanding of Foucault’s notions of power and resistance is misguided.

The debates about homosexuality, in part because they often involve public policy and legal issues, tend to be sharply polarized. Those most concerned with homosexuality, positively or negatively, are also those most engaged, with natural law theorists arguing for gays and lesbians having a reduced legal status, and queer theorists engaged in critique and deconstruction of what they see as a heterosexist regime. Yet the two do not talk much to one another, but rather ignore or talk past one another. There are some theorists in the middle. For example, Michael Sandel takes an Aristotelian approach from which he argues that gay and lesbian relationships can realize the same goods that heterosexual relationships do (Sandel, 1995). He largely shares the account of important human goods that natural law theorists have, yet in his evaluation of the worth of same-sex relationships, he is clearly sympathetic to gay and lesbian concerns. Similarly, Bruce Bawer (1993) and Andrew Sullivan (1995) have written eloquent defenses of full legal equality for gays and lesbians, including marriage rights. Yet neither argue for any systematic reform of broader American culture or politics. In this they are essentially conservative. Therefore, rather unsurprisingly, these centrists are attacked from both sides. Sullivan, for example, has been criticized at length both by queer theorists (e.g., Phelan, 2001) and natural law theorists (e.g., George, 1999a).

Yet as the foregoing also clearly shows, the policy and legal debates surrounding homosexuality involve fundamental issues of morality and justice. Perhaps most centrally of all, they cut to issues of personal identity and self-definition. Hence there is another, and even deeper, set of reasons for the polarization that marks these debates.

• Alderson, David, 2016, Sex, Needs & Queer Culture: From liberation to the Postgay , London: Zed Books.
• Bawer, Bruce, 1993, A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society , New York: Poseidon Press.
• –––, 1996. Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy , New York: The Free Press.
• Berman, Paul, 1993, “Democracy and Homosexuality” in The New Republic , 209(25): 17–35.
• Boswell, John, 1980, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1994, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe , New York: Vintage Books.
• Bradley, Gerard V., 2001, “The End of Marriage,” in Marriage and the Common Good , Kenneth D. Whitehead (ed.), South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
• Butler, Judith, 1990, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1993, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” , New York: Routledge.
• Kampler, Benjamin, and Catherine Connell, 2018, “The Post-gay Debates: Competing Visions of the Future of Homosexualities,” Sociology Compass 12:e12646.
• Carter, Julian, 2005, “On Mother-Love: History, Queer Theory, and Nonlesbian Identity,” Journal of the History of Sexuality , 14: 107–138.
• Cicero, 1966, Tusculan Disputations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Coleman-Fountain, Edmund, 2014, “Lesbian and Gay Youth and the Question of Labels,” Sexualities , 17: 802–817.
• Crompton, Louis, 2003, Homosexuality and Civilization , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dover, K.J., 1978 [1989], Greek Homosexuality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Eribon, Didier, 2004, Insult and the Making of the Gay Self , Durham: Duke University Press.
• Eskridge, Jr., William N., 1999, Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Faderman, Lillian, 1985, Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present , London: The Women’s Press.
• Fausto-Sterling, Anne, 2000, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality , New York: Basic Books.
• Finnis, John, 1994, “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’,” Notre Dame Law Review , 69: 1049–1076.
• Foucault, Michel, 1980, The History of Sexuality. Volume One: An Introduction , Robert Hurley (trans.), New York: Vintage Books.
• –––,1985, The History of Sexuality (Volume Two: The Use of Pleasure), New York: Pantheon Books.
• –––, 1986, The History of Sexuality (Volume Three: The Care of the Self), New York: Pantheon.
• George, Robert P., 1999a, In Defense of Natural Law , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1999b, “‘Same-Sex Marriage’ and ‘Moral Neutrality’,” in Christopher Wolfe (ed.), Homosexuality and American Public Life , Dallas: Spence Publishing, 141–153; reprinted in Kenneth D. Whitehead (ed.), Marriage and the Common Good , South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 646–655.
• Goldstein, Joshua D., 2011, “ New Natural Law Theory and the Grounds of Marriage: Friendship and Self-Constitution,” Social Theory and Practice , 37(2): 461–482.
• Greenberg, David F., 1988, The Construction of Homosexuality , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Halperin, David M., 1990, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and other essays on Greek love , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1995, Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jagose, Annamarie, 1996, Queer Theory: An Introduction , New York: New York University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Feminism’s Queer Theory,” Feminism and Psychology , 19(2): 157–174.
• Lago, Pablo Antonio, 2018, “Same-Sex Marriage: a defense based on foundations of natural law,” Revista Direito GV , 4(3): 1044–1066.
• Macedo, Stephen, 1995, “Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind,” Georgetown Law Journal , 84: 261–300.
• Malinowitz, Harriet, 1993, “Queer Theory: Whose Theory?” Frontiers , 13: 168–184.
• Marinucci, Mimi, 2010, Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory , London: Zed Books.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 1999, Sex and Social Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Phelan, Shane, 2001, Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Plato, The Symposium , Walter Hamilton (trans.), New York: Penguin Books, 1981.
• –––, The Laws , Trevor Saunders (trans.), New York: Penguin Books, 1970.
• Rich, Adrienne, 1980, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” in Women, Sex, and Sexuality , Catharine Stimpson and Ethel Spector Person (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sandel, Michael J., 1995, “Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration: Abortion and Homosexuality,” in New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities , Amitai Etzioni (ed.), Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
• Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 1990, Epistemology of the Closet , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Shilts, Randy, 1993, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Spargo, Tasmin, 1999, Foucault and Queer Theory , New York: Totem Books.
• Stychin, Carl F., 2005, “Being Gay,” Government and Opposition , 40: 90–109.
• Sullivan, Andrew, 1995, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality , New York: Knopf.
• Weitham, Paul J., 1997, “Natural Law, Morality, and Sexual Complementarity,” in Sex, Preference, and Family: Essay on Law and Nature , David M. Estlund and Martha C. Nussbaum (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wilson, James Q., 1996, “Against Homosexual Marriage,” Commentary , 101(3): 34–39.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Queer Theory Reading List , compiled by the LGBTQ Center, Brown University

Aquinas, Thomas | ethics: natural law tradition | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on the self | Foucault, Michel

Copyright © 2020 by Brent Pickett < bpick @ uwyo . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality

MED prof speaks tonight on whether sexual orientation has genetic basis

Kimberly cornuelle.

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness when Richard Pillard was in medical school. It was the 1950s and the School of Medicine professor of psychiatry was at the University of Rochester. At the time, the American Psychological Association still listed homosexuality as a disorder and psychologists and psychiatrists were trained on ways to treat it.

The first psychological test undertaken to determine whether there was a biological explanation for homosexuality was in 1957. With a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health , Karen Hooker studied the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals—matched for age, intelligence, and education level. The subjects were then given three psychological tests: the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Make-a-Picture-Story Test (MAPS). Hooker found no major differences in the answers given by the two groups. Because of the similar scores, she concluded that sexuality is not based on environmental factors.

In 1973, based on Hooker’s findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders and in 1975, released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

There have been numerous studies designed to determine whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. Among the most notable were a series of studies Pillard and J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, conducted in the early 1990s that found that homosexuality is largely biologically determined, not environmentally influenced. In their findings, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry , they argued that decades of psychiatric research into social and cultural causes show “small effect size and are causally ambiguous.”

Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal twin brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality. They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Pillard and Bailey’s findings have been debated in the intervening decades.

Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say? And the answer is: not a lot.”

BU Today caught up with Pillard to talk about the lecture he will deliver tonight, titled Born This Way: The Biology of Sexual Orientation. The talk is part of the OUTlook Lecture series , sponsored by the LGBTQ ministry at Marsh Chapel.

BU Today : Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined? Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.

Can you talk about the twin research you’ve conducted? What we did was to recruit groups of twins, identical and fraternal twins. And the theory is if a particular trait is genetic, the identical twins would be more alike than the fraternal twins. The results were that they were more alike. The identical twins were far more similar than the fraternal twins.

Is there evidence that life experiences play a role in sexual orientation? It’s a hard question to answer, because by “experience,” we’re talking about when kids are in the very first years of their life. If you’re going to do research about it, you’re doing research on people 20 or 30 years later, so it’s really hard to look back with certainty on what happened to them in those early years.

But a lot of people have tried, and have said things like, ‘Well, it depends on the fact that your mother was overprotective or that your father was distant or absent.’ You have to reconstruct those theories from events of long ago. And how do you know the mother really was overprotective—you have to depend on what the subject in your study is remembering about his early years. And that could be easily falsified.

Your research suggests that there is often a familial pattern in homosexuality. Yes. It seems to us that being gay runs in families much more frequently than you would expect by chance alone. And the pattern is hard to specify: that is, in some cases they’re brothers and sisters, in some cases it’s parents and children, or aunts and uncles. So it’s hard to put that into theory given what we know about genes and behavior, which is to say, not a lot.

What made you decide on this research? What was your motivation? Well, because there are so many gay people in my family, including me. It just seemed like a logical thing to do. At the time that I was searching for a problem, that popped out.

I think that the future of this kind of research belongs to people who are geneticists, people who are expert in gene mapping. These are the sort of bench scientists, where I am more interested in clinical things. I would be very interested if something came of this—that is, when the day comes where genes are mapped, I’d be very interested in that. But, it’s not something that I’m equipped to do.

Do you think that because attitudes are changing and acceptance of the LGBT community is becoming more prevalent, people are more willing to accept the possibility that sexual orientation is determined biologically? It’s hard to say. Insofar as people look at evidence, it’s clearly biological. The objection to homosexuality comes exclusively from the conservative religious streak, who say, ‘Well, the Bible forbids it, therefore we must be guided by what the Bible says.’ But there’s no other evidence. Lesbians and gay men don’t do worse at their jobs, they are just as good as friends and citizens. As more gay people are out and open about their orientation, the general population realizes, ‘Well, they’re pretty much the same as everybody else.’

When I was in my medical school training in the 1950s, the only places you heard about gay people being were in prison or a mental hospital. So the assumption was, well they’re all quite bizarre. Then in the late 1960s, when civil rights were being granted to people of color and to women and finally to gays, it was realized that they’re like everybody else. I think most people now have friends or acquaintances who are gay. The average college student doesn’t think much about it.

Are you amazed at how far attitudes have changed? Yes, but it’s taken a long time—50 years is a long time. But it absolutely is changing. Even so, there are people who think that gays shouldn’t be teachers or who are against gay marriage.

Since we don’t really know all the answers, people can have any opinion that crosses their mind. But I think most scientists, most people who are familiar with the science of the area, would say it’s very likely that something genetic is afoot here.

Will you be talking about sexual orientation in any kind of religious context? I have to say I’m a hard-core atheist. I’m the last person who is qualified in any way to comment on theological matters. But I wonder what college students at BU think. Because I’m on the Medical Campus, I just don’t get the chance to rub shoulders with those on the Charles River Campus. It’ll be interesting to exchange views with them.

Because you’ll be presenting your evidence, and there’s no guesswork. It’s just the facts, ma’am.

Richard Pillard will discuss Born This Way: The Biology of Sexual Orientation at 7 p.m. Tuesday, November 16, in Stone Science Building, 675 Commonwealth Ave., Room B50. Questions will follow the presentation. At 7 p.m. on November 18, Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics, will talk about Where Did We Go Right: Children Raised by Same Sex Couples, at the School of Education, 2 Silber Way, Room 130. Charles Morris, a Boston College professor of communications, will talk about Queer(ing) Public Memory: LGBTQ Pasts and Their Presence at 7 p.m. December 7, in SED 130. The events, sponsored by the LGBTQ Ministry of Marsh Chapel, are free and open to the public. For more information, contact Liz Douglass at [email protected] .

Kimberly Cornuelle can be reached at [email protected] .

Explore Related Topics:

• Share this story
• 33 Comments Add

Kimberly Cornuelle Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 33 comments on Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality

Maybe you should also present the viewpoint of some notable researchers who believe homosexuality is NOT necessarily biologcallh predetermined. Because there is overwhelming evidence that points the other way too.

Personally I think it falls out somewhere in the middle between 100% nature and 100% nurture.

Christianity takes a lot of hits for being anti-gay but I have to say that in my Catholic high school the students were by far more supportive of gays than my public high school friends and especially my non-religious friends.

Doesn’t research that shows that family members are more likely to be gay if another is equally lend itself to the conclusion that “nurture” is the root cause? (seems this research could lead to either conclusion if they are not involving genetics, etc…_

That is exactly what I was thinking, if you have 2 kids and they both grow up in the same household (assuming how they are raised causes being gay), if one is gay than the other would most likely be gay as well since they are both in the same conditions

To “Maybe you should also”:

The speaker is not saying that it is 100% nature or nurture. I think he is saying that nature plays a big role, and now we have stronger evidence to confirm this. This does not imply that it is all nature. It only implies that the evidence we have for saying nature is now stronger. This is natural, because our tools for gathering and examining evidence have improved many fold over the past few decades.

It shows it is largely genetic because the experimenters used a control group. The control group, adopted siblings who are gay, had only a 5% correlation – the nurture made little impact and the genomes were utterly different. Furthermore, fraternal twins, who have genes as different as siblings but the same basic nurture, are 22% correlated, while nonfraternal twins, ones with much closer genetics, are 52% correlated. So nature plays a big role.

That is not a control group. A control would be identical twins raised together versus identical twins raised apart, in sufficient numbers so as to form a usable sample.

Using identical twins and fraternal twins raised in practically the same environment isn’t a control. It’s very interesting, but it makes no case for biological determinance. Twins are treated very differently from non-twin siblings. This really can’t be controlled for in a non-longitudinal study.

A person is no more born a homosexual than they are born a heterosexual. If my sexuality is genetic, then there also has to be a gene that explains the behavior of those involved in beastiality and sex with children (even infants). It is substantially more reasonable that a person is born sexual, period; and for any number of reasons, chooses how to act on that sexuality. This also explains how people’s views on how to “act out” their sexuality change over time.

Christian or not — sin or not — legal or not — people will act out their desires. Making this a genetic issue suddenly makes this “not my fault”. If I’m a drug addict, chances are somewhere along the line, I made a decision. If I’m a practicing homosexual, same thing. I choose.

If it’s genetic, then it isn’t my choice. My eyes are blue. That’s genetic.

wrong. first, the a priori “reasonableness” of your position is debatable. the notion that anyone chooses whom to be attracted to seems eminently unreasonable. second, even if the nurture side were more reasonable than the nature side, science does not answer questions by adverting to reasonableness. if it did, the earth would still be flat and an electron would be either a particle or a wave. while homosexuals do make the decision to have gay sex, that hardly implies that they decided to be attracted to same-sex partners. finally, because one element of sexuality is genetically determined, that does not mean that all elements of sexuality are. your eyes may be blue but mostly they just appear to be closed.

Sorry, nothing is debatable about it. If something is sexually genetic, then what makes incest wrong? Besides, the only reason people are against incest is because of deformations, but science and technology has invented… Wait for it… Birth Control and Condoms. OMG don’t say it is so?!

Besides, you seem to forgotten how we get over our ex’s.

Nothing in the results of this study are definitive and the “reasonableness” on both sides of this issue are about equally valid at this point in time. What should be obvious to every one though is the gay community is desperately looking for science to back them up that: they were born that way. It is about equally true that conservative are equally determined to have supporting evidence that being gay is environmental. The real scientists have yet to weigh in with any factual data that proves things either way. The Pyschologist leader of this study rightly said he is unqualified to make a genetic statement on the subject. Meanwhile both sides of this issue should be a little more humble and kindly toward each other. They have only anecdotal information and minor correlations. And that is not science.

This is a free country. Everyone is free to identify themselves with any gender they want, express themselves the way they want and sexually orient themselves to any gender they want, as long as they are not imposing their views on other adults.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www) ***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf ***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ ***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html ***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html ***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

Sure I can choose who I am sexually attracted to. Example: My ex’s.

Ah, but why are you not attracted to a person you once were before? The answer: the personality of the other person. At first, you were attracted to your “ex.” Over time, that attraction dissipated as you learned more about them, and no longer wanted to be with that person. What difference does the person’s scientific sex make? Not very much. Every person has their own distinct personality, which is where (I believe) the nurture element of this debate comes into play. For instance, does one choose to be viewed as annoying for telling the same stories over and over again? No. Most likely, that is the type of person they were raised around; however, that does not change the fact that for some reason, they were initially attracted to you. Surely, you’ve met someone who was attracted to you but you were not at all attracted to them. Maybe they were a normal person with no real “deformities,” mental or physical, you just simply did not want to be with that person on a more intimate level. Why? That’s just how you were wired. You do not choose who you want to be friends with if the other person does not want to be your friend as well. Love is not a conquest to be chosen; it is a treasure to be found.

the nature/nurture distinction is one that is increasingly irrelevant in current biological work, with the advance of epigenetics and the advanced understanding of developmental biology. framing this debate and most other discussions in these terms is not very fruitful… let’s say you have a whole array of genetic dispositions – what your physical and cultural environment exposes you to will have an enormous effect on which genes get turned on and off. this starts in the womb and never stops. nature or nurture? exactly.

I’m sorry. I know this type of argument encourages critical thinking and the mind in general, but your comment is simply stupid.

Of course it isn’t. It is logical, but you disagree with the conclusion. Either there are genetic elements to sexual preference or there are not.

The choice isn’t necessarily the attraction, as gay people and pedophiles will tell you. The choice is to act upon the attraction. If one isn’t religious and doesn’t believe homosexuality is immoral, it shouldn’t matter if a person acts on that attraction, as long as it is legal. If it is not legal, then regardless of one’s predilictions, one should not act on it.

We should not conflate the individual moral and biological arguments with societal decisions about what makes a society “work.”

There is nothing wrong with making a genetical sexual case for all matters of attraction. What is the difference between sexual attraction and those who can’t stop gambling? Or hoarding cats? Or addiction? The same reinforcing pleasure mechanisms in the brain are at work. That isn’t a causal argument, but there is no reason to exclude that premise because if one accepts that, one must accept a marriage argument for siblings and multiple partners. There is simply no biological distinction.

Policy matters should be argued on a basis of societal worth, not individuals’ preferences.

I agree entirely with this post. Especially the part about the comparison with bestiality and pedophilia; it logically makes sense. Reason triumphs in your argument…however, you will most likely be met with hostility…that is the way of the “emotionally driven”.

I agree with Pillard completely in that I believe homosexuality is a function of the way you’re wired; you’re born with it. No one would willingly choose to be a minority that society has ridiculed and deemed less than equal. I’m not gay but I am a middle-aged woman and I’ve dealt with discrimination from men my entire life. It is very difficult to be a minority – so why would anyone choose that if they could avoid it? I believe that Pillard’s work will be supported soon and there will be additional evidence brought forward to corroborate it.

What I found disturbing about the interview though was his assertion that he is a hard-core atheist. I would like to appeal to Pillard’s scientific side and ask that he read the book: “The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus” by Lee Strobel. It is written by an ex-atheist who set about making a case to debunk Jesus as the Christ. Instead he found, after extensive scientific and legal analysis, that it was impossible to draw that conclusion. As a result of his research Strobel is no longer an atheist.

It was Evelyn Hooker.

Ah Richard — what a delight to read your comments. Brought back so many wonderful memories of our work together at HCHS! Guess at our mutual age of 80 we are both still in there working to end discrimination toward GLBT persons. I have used the twin study in lectures here in Florida and found the audience excited about the results. I have no doubt orientation is genetic – how it is expressed, lived is nurture. That is no different than heterosexual orientation. It is curious how in the 21st century homosexuality still scares the hell out of people. Fear then brings corrupt theology and philosophy, and pseudoscience. Keep up the good work dear friend.

My 16 yr. old daughter recently “came out” to me. She expressed having felt “different” for quite some time and was only now able to understand what she was feeling. I held off telling my husband because I didn’t think he would accept what she was telling me. I finally did tell him and sure enough his response was, “let’s see how she feels in a few years”. I was speechless. We are at complete opposing sides on whether she was “born this way” or whether she is “choosing” to be gay. I’m so saddened by his response and I’m not sure how I deal with him going forward. I love and support my daughter 100% and want her to know that (I have told her so) If she knew how my husband felt I believe it would push them even farther apart (she chose not to tell him herself and told me I could)Do you have any advice?

You should know, Evelyn Hooker, not Karen Hooker, did the 1957 study.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html http://dsmistory.umwblogs.org/dsm-iii/case-studies/ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspx

Anne Heche chose a man after being with a woman…Seems happy to me

Would this just be an anomaly?

To say that being attracted to the same sex is a choice is simplifying the debate to a fault. Like, I choose to have mashed potatoes over fries…REALLY? Ask most gay men about the earliest memories. Mine is typical. When I was 5 years old, I “knew I was different”… could I define “that” then (?), of course not. I didn’t know didly about sexuality then, much less morality. It wasn’t until I was 8 that I started acting out my sexuality, being only attracted to boys, and still, not really attaching “morality to it”…. then, as I hit my teens, I started noticing it as being anti social behavior, and not until then did I realize that society would treat me differently, thus, the struggle began. Please don’t inject into the fray terms like beastiality as a genetic phenomenon, and link it too sexual preference. We are discussing attraction to men or woman here.

1. Epigenetics: environmental factors and genes interact. 2. Abuse in childhood seems to be a pattern looking at my gay friends. I assume that often it feels safer to not become perpetrator themselves by abstaining from heterosexual sexuality. Have seen strong dissociative symptoms there and quite some violent behavior once sexuality switched from homosexuality to heterosexuality (yes, it did, in the gayest gay one can imagine). 3. Twin studies: it’s likely that identical twins identify more with each other than fraternal twins. From a psychological perspective it doesn’t make sense to believe twin studies to be indicator for genetic aspects. Then again: Epigenetics. 4. Fear and vulnerability: Gay people I know have a lot more of that than the usual heterosexual I know (who have a lot too). I don’t lie what stupid test this was for proving its not about environmental factors. There ARE differences. But it’s unlikely to detect them with a Rorschach test.

There are too many taboo topics intermingled. As long as researchers are not willing to look at these the findings won’t be anywhere near useful.

Um, plenty of researchers investigate sexual orientation. There is no evidence that child abuse causes male homosexuality, but instead that the early gender nonconformity that homosexuals usually show makes them targets for abuse and maltreatment. You can’t explain the fact that 2% of men are Fa’afafine in Samoa by claiming its a result of social influence, the Samoans (who are deeply Christian!) would laugh at you! They recognise this gender nonconformity early and put them into a third gender category (a man in the manner of a woman) because they do not approve of homosexuality. If you want to learn something I recommend the Bailey et al. review from 2016 which was authored by a number of leading researchers in this area: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637616

At the moment, however, I suspect that rather than biology being destiny, our sexual preference is shaped by a combination of early experiences, peer pressure, opportunity, circumstances and fate. Do the heterosexuals reading this ever wonder how they ended up straight, especially since so many of you will have had crushes on or even sexual contact with someone of the same sex at some stage?

A bit disturbing. How does one explain t-e human anatomy? Men having organs specifically designed for a particular purpose and so are women? What of the reproduction function? If born that way, would that mean the end of the human race?

In response to Mukasa ^ . . .most heterosexual sex is not practiced with regard to ‘procreation’ anyway but rather for ‘recreation’. Is THIS ‘against nature’?

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today

What’s hot in music this month: new releases, local concerts, the weekender: april 4 to 7, could this be the next snl bu student’s wicked smaht comedy troupe performs this weekend, determined to make the world a better place, giving day 2024: bu celebrates 10 years of giving back, your everything guide to landing an internship, building a powerhouse: how ashley waters put bu softball on the map, sex in the dark: a q&a event with sex experts, tips to watch and photograph the april 8 total solar eclipse safely, for cfa’s head of acting, huntington role required discretion, listening, biden’s biggest challenges to reelection—immigration, gaza, and even the economy, boston university drops five-day isolation requirement for covid, the weekender: march 28 to 31, bridge collapse creates conversation in bu structural mechanics class, terriers in charge: favor wariboko (cas’24), the bold world of marcus wachira, women’s lacrosse opens home patriot league play, comm ave runway: march edition, 10 memes that describe being a second semester senior, pov: was the francis scott key bridge disaster avoidable.

Read our research on: Abortion | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Section 3: religious belief and views of homosexuality.

Overall, the share of Americans who say that homosexuality should be accepted by society has increased from 47% to 60% over the past decade, while the percentage saying it should be discouraged has fallen from 45% to 31%.

A 62-year-old man said: “ My religious background taught me that this was something that was taboo and not accepted .” A 32-year-old woman described her reasons for why homosexuality should be discouraged this way: “ It clearly states in the Bible that it goes against God’s teachings. ”

Much smaller percentages cite other reasons, such as concerns that homosexuality is bad for the family or bad for children (mentioned by 13%), that a man and woman are needed to create life, that it’s not natural, or “just wrong” (10% each).

White evangelical Protestants, by about two-to-one (59% to 30%), think that homosexuality should be discouraged. Among black Protestants, as well, more say homosexuality should be discouraged (51%) than accepted (39%).

By contrast, wide majorities of Catholics (71%) and white mainline Protestants (65%) say homosexuality should be accepted by society. And those without religious affiliation favor societal acceptance of homosexuality by roughly five-to-one (79% to 16%).

Conflict Between Religious Beliefs and Homosexuality

Among those who attend religious services weekly or more, 66% say homosexuality conflicts with their religious beliefs, with 50% saying there is a great deal of conflict. Most people (59%) who attend religious services less than once a week see no conflict between their beliefs and homosexuality.

Fully 74% of white evangelical Protestants say there is a conflict between homosexuality and their religious beliefs, as do majorities of white Catholics (62%) and black Protestants (58%).

The tension between religious beliefs and homosexuality is closely associated with views about societal acceptance of homosexuality. Among those who see a lot of conflict between their own religious beliefs and homosexuality, a majority (53%) opposes societal acceptance. Those who see a little conflict between religion and homosexuality favor societal acceptance by 57% to 32%. And 80% of those who say there is no conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexuality support societal acceptance.

Fewer See Homosexual Behavior as a Sin

Among several religious groups, there has been relatively little change in these opinions over the past decade. Fully 78% of white evangelical Protestants view homosexual behavior as a sin; 82% said this in 2003. About as many black Protestants view homosexuality as a sin today (79%) as did so ten years ago (74%).

However, opinions among Catholics have changed substantially. In 2003, more Catholics said homosexual behavior was a sin than said it was not (49% vs. 37%). Today, a third of Catholics (33%) say it is sin, while 53% disagree.

People who attend religious services weekly or more continue to view homosexual behavior as a sin by a wide margin (67% to 24%). Nearly six-in-ten (57%) of those who attend less often think such behavior is not a sin, while 34% say it is; 10 years ago, opinion was divided (44% sin, 45% not a sin).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those who say engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin oppose same-sex marriage. An even larger percentage (84%) of those who say it is not sinful favor gay marriage.

The gap in opinions about gay marriage is nearly as wide between those who say there is a lot of conflict between homosexuality and their religious beliefs (67% oppose gay marriage) and those who see no conflict (71% favor gay marriage).

Similarly, those who say religion is very important in their lives are only half as likely to support gay marriage as those who place less importance on religion (36% favor vs. 72% favor).

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of Contents

About half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Homosexuals’ Right to Marry Essay

The topic regarding homosexuals and their right to marry has created widespread controversies. This has prompted scholars to identify and weigh the benefits and disadvantages regarding this practice. Being a sensitive issue, it requires thorough understanding before taking a stance. Based on the meticulous research conducted in this regard, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

The term homosexual refers to people of the same sex engaged in a sexual relationship. Some countries such as the US, prohibit the use of the word as it depicts a lot of negativity. Consequently, the accepted words in such countries are Gay, for man-man relationships, and Lesbian, for woman-woman relationship.

Different cultures have different definitions of marriage. All these definitions converge on the idea that marriage is a legal or societal union between two people for the purpose of extending family lineage. In general, marriage is an establishment in which sexual intimacy is acknowledged (May, 1995). This union concerns interpersonal relationships that vary from one person to another. There are several reasons why people marry. These include emotional and legal security, religious and societal obligation, and economical purposes.

A significant number of people prefer the heterosexual marriages which are widely accepted. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon. Its history dates back to the 19 th century. In fact, most countries in East of Asia have documented same-sex marriage for the last 1000 years. Some scholars who have developed interest regarding this topic argue that homosexuality is a present social construct perpetuated by the West.

However, on the contrary, science has proved that being gay or lesbian is not a individual’s choice. Parents bring up their children in a way that none of them should develop sexual attraction towards individuals of his or her sex. Even in schools, teachers discourage students against homosexual acts.

Homosexuals develop attraction towards individuals of their sex just as a man develops attraction towards a woman and vice versa. Love has no limit or boundary. When two people fall in love and decide to get married, it should not matter whether they are of the same sex or not.

Marriages are built on the pillar of love. This pillar does not prevent people of the same sex loving each other. Thus, it should not limit such people in matters of marriage. In this regard, it would be denying them their right to enter into a union which should not only apply to the heterosexuals.

Allowing gay marriages will not in any way affect the lives of other person in the society. The allegations that encouraging gay marriages will corrupt the moral of the society are unfounded. Every human being has the power of free will. The power to choose what one wants to do with his or her life, and in this case one’s believes, should not be controlled by the society. The few individuals who turn out to be gay or lesbian grew up knowing from their parents that being a homosexual is morally wrong.

However, they cannot get the fulfillment that they derive from homosexual relationships in heterosexual ones. Stealing, drug abuse and killing, are some of the vices that every parent teaches his or her children to avoid at all costs. These vices harm the society in a considerable manner.

Treating homosexuals as villains whose acts pose a considerable threat to the society is unfair. Every day, activists hold demonstrations in lobbying for the acknowledgment of human rights and recognition of minority groups. Most countries have laws acknowledging the right to freedom of association (Williams, 2012). Denying a gay or lesbian couple the freedom to enter into a marriage contract clearly violates their freedom to associate.

Homosexual should enjoy the same rights as anybody else without any restrictions based on their sexuality (Paul, 2012). The recognition of their rights should also include the right to marry. Prohibiting a lesbian or gay couple to marry has no ethical or rational basis (Paul, 2012). This is because the prohibition is just centered on the history that gays are a minority group, and allowing them to marry would give them recognition as important members of the society.

This notion is morally wrong and it should not be tolerated in the modern world (OJALVO, 2009). The majority of the opponents of homosexual marriage have been the religious community. Most religions view same sex marriages as morally wrong (Williams, 2012). Although the Catholic church regards the sexual intimacy between homosexuals as an abomination, no marriage can be complete without the aspect of sex.

The religious conviction that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is totally misguided. The claim from the religious fraternity is that the institution of marriage should solely be between a man and a woman. In this regard, legalizing gay marriages will make the whole idea of marriage and procreation to nurture future generations baseless. From the religious perspective, marriage is the foundation of a family (May, 1995)

This unit is supposed to bear children and bring them up in the belief that they will adopt the same moral principles as their parents. They believe that a gay or lesbian couple cannot procreate. Since God commanded man to multiply and fill the earth, supporting gay marriages amounts to disobedience and the tendency to prove God wrong. Religious doctrines also oppose the idea of child adoption by gay couples.

Adopting a child instead of bearing one undermines the institution of marriage. This scenario is only allowed if there are medical reasons as to why the woman cannot conceive.

A child adopted by a gay couple will have problems differentiating between the role of a father and those of a mother in a family. Thus, the child will grow up confused concerning the role that individuals play in a couple. The religious opposition of the legalizing of gay marriage is facilitated by the fact this practice dents the whole concept of family values. These values are vital in cementing bonding in the society.

Encouraging gay lifestyle will put the society at a risk as gay people have high chances of substance addiction and mental illness all of which are detrimental to the proper growth of a child and the moral standards of the society. According to the religious populaces, there is nowhere in the Holy Books that gay marriage is supported.

However, the Holy Books do not refute gay marriages. Religious leaders teach us to love. In addition, they encourage us not to discriminate other people especially the minority groups. The number of gay couples who want to get married is insignificant compared to the heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals are the minority in the society and should not be discriminated against in matters of marriage because they did not choose their sexual orientation. Furthermore, no one chooses who to love.

The claim that a gay couple cannot raise a child properly is misinformed. Research has proven that children raised by same-sex couples develop at par with those raised heterosexual couples (Williams, 2012). What a child needs most from his or her family is parental love (May, 1995). There are many children in the children homes who yearn for this love. Thus, it would be cruel to deny it to them on the basis that they will be brought up by same-sex couples.

There are many children growing up in broken families. The effects in this regard adversely affect a child as compared to the religious claims attributed to the children brought up by gay couples. In opposing same-sex marriages, religious leaders fail to consider that there are many single parents raising children by their own. These single parents play both the role of a father and a mother.

There is no reason whatsoever warranting the denial of gay couples to get married. Marriage has numerous benefits for the individuals involved. A couple needs financial sustainability which can be achieved through marriage (Paul, 2012). The emotional connection between two people is not planned or chosen.

Therefore, gay people should be allowed to fully enjoy the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy without any restriction whatsoever. The legal and financial benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy should also be available to gay couples (Paul, 2012).

The basis for the opponents of same-sex marriage does not provide any reasonable justification to warrant the prohibition of such unions. Concerning the claims of promiscuity, such occurrences will decline because individuals will engage in relationships that cater for their sexual orientation (Williams, 2012).

Thus, cases of homosexuals engaging in heterosexual relationships in order to conform to the societal norms, but still engaging in homosexuality will decline. Consequently, there will be more stable homes supporting the appropriate growth of children. There will also be a reduction in the transmission sexual diseases due to double-dealing.

No parent brings up a child to become a gay or lesbian. Being gay is more of a biological matter than one’s own choice. Even if homosexuality was an individual’s choice of a lifestyle, it does pose a threat in any way to other members of the society who only embrace heterosexual relationships.

Every human being is entitled to all rights irrespective of his or her sexual preference (OJALVO, 2009). By denying homosexuals the right to marry, we become insensitive to their feelings and preferences. Forcing them to conform to the set norm of heterosexual relationships will cause them more harm than good.

Allowing homosexual marriage should not be a war between religion and the law. The law ensures equality for all, but one should choose what to believe when it comes to matters of religion. Therefore, denying a loving gay or lesbian couple the right to marry goes against all morals and the law.

It takes a lot of courage for the gay people to accept their sexual orientation as they are afraid of how the society will treat them. This sense of knowing your real self should never be taken away by anybody. It is only fair to allow gay marriages and treat gay couples with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

May, W. E. (1995). Marriage: the rock on which the family is built . San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

OJALVO, H. E. (2009, November 5). Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry? – NYTimes.com. The Learning Network – The Learning Network Blog – NYTimes.com . Web.

Paul, G. (2012, January 1). Pros and Cons for Gay Marriage Legalization. PaulGoodman67 on HubPages . Web.

Williams, r., MA., Oakland, P. o., CA., Group, c. f., 17, w. i., et al. (2012, March 27).

Should gay marriage be legal? – Gay Marriage – ProCon.org. Gay Marriage ProCon.org . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 15). Homosexuals’ Right to Marry. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuals-and-marriage-essay/

"Homosexuals’ Right to Marry." IvyPanda , 15 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuals-and-marriage-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Homosexuals’ Right to Marry'. 15 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Homosexuals’ Right to Marry." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuals-and-marriage-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Homosexuals’ Right to Marry." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuals-and-marriage-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Homosexuals’ Right to Marry." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuals-and-marriage-essay/.

• Constitutional Amendment that Allows Same-sex Marriage
• Same-sex Couples and Marriage: Causes and Claims
• Should Gay Marriages Be Allowed?
• Why Gay Marriages Should Not Be Legalized?
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• Concepts of Gay Marriage
• Should Homosexuals be Allowed to Legally Marry?
• Civil Union: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples' Marriages
• California’s Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriages
• Gay marriage and homosexuality
• The Problems of Marriage and Divorce
• The Effectiveness of Marriage Conflict Resolution Programs in the USA
• The Effects of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Rich Couples Have Lower Divorce Rates
• The Government Should Sanction Marriages of Same Sex Couples

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Ugandan Court Upholds Draconian Anti-Gay Law

The law, which includes the death penalty as a punishment in some cases, has been strongly condemned, including by the United States.

By Abdi Latif Dahir

Reporting from Nairobi, Kenya

Uganda’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday largely upheld a sweeping anti-gay law that President Yoweri Museveni signed last year, undermining the efforts of activists and rights groups to abolish legislation that drew worldwide condemnation and strained the East African nation’s relationship with the West.

The legislation, which was signed into law by Mr. Museveni in May, calls for life imprisonment for anyone who engages in gay sex. Anyone who tries to have same-sex relations could face up to a decade in prison.

Uganda has faced international consequences for passing the law, with the World Bank suspending all new funding and the United States imposing sanctions and visa restrictions on top Ugandan officials. But the law was popular in Uganda, a landlocked nation of over 48 million people, where religious and political leaders frequently inveigh against homosexuality.

The fallout for Uganda will be watched closely in other African countries where a nti-gay sentiment is on the rise and anti-gay legislation is under consideration, including in Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania and South Sudan. In February, Ghana’s Parliament passed an anti-gay law , but the country’s president said that he would not sign it until the Supreme Court ruled on its constitutionality.

In Uganda, the five-judge bench said the law violated several key rights granted in the country’s Constitution, including the right to health and privacy. They also struck down sections of the law that criminalized failing to report homosexual acts, allowing any premises to be used to commit homosexuality or giving someone a “terminal illness” through gay sex.

But in their 200-page judgment, the judges largely rejected the request to quash the law.

“We decline to nullify the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023 in its entirety, neither will we grant a permanent injunction against its enforcement,” Richard Buteera, one of the judges, said in a reading of the judgment’s summary to a packed courtroom. He added, “The upshot of our judgment is that this petition substantially fails.”

Frank Mugisha, a prominent gay rights activist and one of the petitioners, said that they would appeal the Constitutional Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

“I am very sad,” Mr. Mugisha said in a telephone interview. “The judges have been swayed by the propaganda from the anti-gay movement who kept saying that this is in the public interest and refuting all the arguments that we made that relate to the Constitution and international obligations.”

The law in Uganda decrees the death penalty for anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” a sweeping term defined as acts of same-sex relations with minors or disabled people, those carried out under threat or while someone is unconscious. Even being accused of what the law refers to as “attempted aggravated homosexuality” carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Passage of the law — which also imposes harsh fines on organizations convicted of promoting homosexuality — alarmed human rights advocates, who said it would give new impetus for the introduction of equivalent draconian laws in other African nations. Uganda is among the African countries that already ban gay sex, but the new law creates additional offenses and prescribes far more punitive penalties.

The United Nations, along with local and international human rights groups, said that the law conflicted with Uganda’s Constitution and that it would most likely be used to harass and intimidate its L.G.B.T.Q. population.

The ratification of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, as the law is officially known, renewed scrutiny of the government of Mr. Museveni, who has ruled Uganda with a tight grip for almost four decades. Mr. Museveni, his son — whom he recently appointed as head of the army — and other top members of his government have been accused of detaining, beating, torturing and disappearing critics and opposition members.

The law was first introduced in March last year by a lawmaker who said that homosexuality was becoming pervasive and threatening the sanctity of the Ugandan family. Some legislators also claimed that their constituents had notified them of alleged plans to promote and recruit schoolchildren into homosexuality — accusations that rights groups said were false.

Anti-gay sentiment is prevalent among Muslim and Christian lawmakers and religious leaders from both faiths. They say that homosexuality is a Western import, and they held rallies to show support for the law before it passed.

A few weeks after it was introduced in Parliament, the law was quickly passed with only two lawmakers opposing it.

Activists, academics and human rights lawyers who challenged the law in court said it contravened not only Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom from discrimination, but also international treaties, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. They also argued that Parliament passed the law too quickly, with not enough time allowed for public participation — arguments the judgments rejected in their decision.

Human rights groups said that since the law was introduced and passed, L.G.B.T.Q. Ugandans have faced intensive violence and harassment.

Convening for Equality, a coalition of human rights groups in Uganda, has documented hundreds of rights violations and abuses, including arrests and forced anal examinations. Gay and transgender Ugandans have also been evicted from their homes and beaten up by family members — forcing many to flee to neighboring countries like Kenya .

The law’s passage brought swift repercussions for Uganda, too. Health experts also worried the law would hinder medical access for gay people, especially those seeking H.I.V. testing, prevention and treatment.

The United States said it would restrict visas for current and former Ugandan officials who were believed to be responsible for enacting the anti-gay policy. The Biden administration also issued a business advisory for Uganda and removed the country from a special program that allows African products duty-free access to the United States.

The World Bank, citing the anti-gay law, also said in August it would halt all future funding to Uganda . The economic pressures continued to pile on, with foreign travelers and investors staying away from Uganda.

Ahead of the ruling, Mr. Museveni remained publicly defiant, but analysts and diplomats said he privately worried about his country’s being labeled an outcast, and the devastating economic repercussions it was causing.

On Wednesday, members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community said the court’s judgment would not only amplify the government’s antagonism toward gay people but also deepen the animosity they face from members of the public.

The court’s decision opens a “Pandora’s box” that will push the lives of gay Ugandans “further more into darkness,” said Steven Kabuye, a gay rights advocate who fled to Canada after he was stabbed in January in an attack that activists said was spurred by homophobia linked to the law.

“I feel very disappointed but not surprised,” Mr. Kabuye said in a telephone interview.

Abdi Latif Dahir is the East Africa correspondent for The Times, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He covers a broad range of issues including geopolitics, business, society and arts. More about Abdi Latif Dahir

Christopher Durang, Tony-winning playwright with acid wit, dies at 75

‘i like to mix the serious with laughter,’ he said. ‘it’s a way of admitting that the stories we’re all involved in are crazy.’.

Christopher Durang, a Tony Award-winning playwright and satirist whose blending of absurdist humor, acid wit and philosophical explorations of rage, anguish, family and faith made him a mainstay of American theater for more than four decades, died April 2 at his home in Pipersville, Pa. He was 75.

The cause was complications from logopenic primary progressive aphasia, a neurodegenerative disease, said his agent, Patrick Herold. Mr. Durang was diagnosed with the condition in 2016 but continued to write, albeit slowly, for a few more years.

Although he was courteous and gentle in person, Mr. Durang was best known for plays that left audiences feeling disoriented and unsettled, marked by a brooding sense of menace or existential angst that was partly concealed by bawdy humor, surrealist gags and verbally dexterous monologues.

His work was filled with cultural references (Mick Jagger, Patty Hearst and Bertolt Brecht) and satirized theatrical forms and institutions, poking fun at traditional sitcoms, soap operas and protest plays while also lampooning priests, therapists, parents and other authority figures.

At times, he found humor in the darkest of subjects. His black comedy “Miss Witherspoon” (2005), a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in drama , told the story of a depressed woman who dies by suicide, travels to the afterlife and refuses to be reincarnated, asking, “Why can’t I just be left alone to fester and brood in my bodiless spirit state?” He described one of his later plays, the post-9/11 satire “Why Torture Is Wrong, and the People Who Love Them” (2009), as “a comic catharsis” after eight years of the George W. Bush administration.

“Sometimes people are offended by my plays,” he said in an interview with theater scholar Arthur Holmberg. “They have said no, no this is serious, there is no laughter involved. But I like to mix the serious with laughter. It’s a way of admitting that the stories we’re all involved in are crazy.”

Mr. Durang drew on his own Catholic school upbringing for the religious satire “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You” (1979), his first commercial hit. The title character, a dogmatic nun, lectures the audience on her faith’s basic tenets before being interrupted by a group of embittered former students. Verbal sparring ensues, along with a bit of absurdist violence: When one of her ex-students reveals that he is gay, the sister shoots him dead and declares, “I’ve sent him to heaven!”

The play ran off-Broadway for more than two years, with a cast led by a comically icy Elizabeth Franz as Sister Mary. (Discovering that one of her wards has a brain tumor and is overcome with fear, she responds with impatience: “Now I thought I had explained what happens after death to you already. There is heaven, hell and purgatory. What is the problem?”)

Mr. Durang’s other notable plays included “The Marriage of Bette and Boo” (1985), an almost inconceivably buoyant comedy that was inspired by the relationship between his father, an alcoholic, and his mother, who battled depression and had multiple stillbirths. Onstage, the children’s bodies were tossed on the floor by doctors; the mother keeps a calendar recording the days in which her husband is “half drunk” or “dead drunk.”

The play demonstrated what New York Times theater critic Frank Rich described as Mr. Durang’s “special knack for wrapping life’s horrors in the primary colors of absurdist comedy” and brought him his second of three off-Broadway Obie Awards.

Nearly three decades later, he won the Tony Award for best play for “Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike,” a darkly comic homage to Russian playwright Anton Chekhov. The play premiered in 2012 and moved to Broadway the next year, with a cast that included his longtime friends Kristine Nielsen, David Hyde Pierce and Sigourney Weaver.

Set at a Bucks County, Pa., farmhouse that resembled Mr. Durang’s own country home, the play centered on the relationship between three gloomy siblings, including a middle-aged Vanya who rails against the indignities of 21st-century life while lamenting the passing of a kinder, gentler era when “we licked postage stamps.”

The play became Mr. Durang’s biggest hit, making him feel “like I’ve won the lottery” when it was picked up by more than two-dozen regional theaters. Its success, he speculated, may have been because of its ending, which he described as “hopeful, or at least not dark” — a stark departure from such earlier plays as “Sister Mary.”

“I am not purposely trying to be commercial,” he told the Times , “but in my later years, the world seems so upsetting that I want the relief of something working out. You go out of the theater feeling a little relieved that the worst things didn’t happen to the characters.”

Christopher Ferdinand Durang was born in Montclair, N.J., on Jan. 2, 1949. His mother was a secretary, and his father was an architect who fought in World War II and was part of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. They separated when he was 13.

“It was hellish being around them,” Mr. Durang recalled in an introductory essay to “Christopher Durang Explains It All for You,” which collected six of his plays. “I never knew when they were going to explode into screaming.”

His mother took him to musicals at the nearby Paper Mill Playhouse in New Jersey, and at age 8 Mr. Durang wrote his first play, which spanned two pages and was “more or less plagiarized,” he said, “from the ‘I Love Lucy’ episode where Lucy has a baby.”

After graduating from a Benedictine high school, he studied English at Harvard College, where he slipped into a deep depression that was exacerbated, he said, by his parents’ divorce and by his realization that he was gay, at a time when homosexuality was still widely criminalized.

By his senior year, he had rediscovered his love of theater, taking a seminar with playwright William Alfred and putting together a musical parody of the Gospels, which included such songs as “The Dove That Done Me Wrong,” sung by the Virgin Mary. When a Jesuit priest complained in a letter to the student newspaper, calling Mr. Durang “a pig trampling in a sanctuary,” he took it as a badge of honor — including the letter, by his account, as part of his application to the Yale School of Drama.

Mr. Durang graduated from Harvard in 1971 and received a master’s degree from Yale in 1974, the same year he staged his play “The Idiots Karamazov” — a collaboration with fellow playwriting student Albert Innaurato — at Yale Repertory Theatre. The production starred Meryl Streep, another Yale student, as translator Constance Garnett.

Four years later, Mr. Durang made it to Broadway with the short-lived musical “A History of the American Film,” a hyperkinetic tour of Hollywood cinema that interwove references to some 200 films. The production brought him a Tony nomination for best book of a musical, although critics were mixed on the show.

“Like a circus car driven by clowns, powered by soap bubbles and fitted out with … exploding wheels, Christopher Durang’s play wobbles and squeals through some 60 years of American movies,” reviewer Richard Eder wrote in the Times . “Sometimes it stalls or bogs down, but it always gets going again.”

Mr. Durang received a Guggenheim fellowship in 1979. In the wake of “Sister Mary,” he found mixed success with plays, including the psychiatric sendup “Beyond Therapy” (1981), which had a brief run on Broadway and was adapted into a Robert Altman movie, and “Laughing Wild” (1987), a comic two-hander that lasted less than three weeks off-Broadway. The show’s dismal reception caused him to leave town for a rented house in Connecticut, where he lived for three years.

“I really got phobic about New York criticism,” he told the Los Angeles Times in 1996, the year he returned to Broadway with “Sex and Longing,” another poorly received comedy. “It was cumulative,” he said.

For a time, Mr. Durang supported himself with acting jobs. He had performed onstage since the 1970s, headlining a cabaret show, “Das Lusitania Songspiel,” in which he and Weaver reimagined Broadway shows like “Evita” in the style of the German theatrical collaborators playwright Brecht and composer Kurt Weill.

Mr. Durang later had small roles in movie comedies, including as a put-upon business executive in “The Secret of My Success” (1987), starring Michael J. Fox, and appeared in some of his own plays, including as the narrator in “The Marriage of Bette and Boo” and as the berobed Infant of Prague in “Laughing Wild.”

From 1994 to 2016, he co-chaired the playwriting program at the Juilliard School in New York with Marsha Norman. He also led a writing workshop for the grown children of alcoholics.

Mr. Durang’s sole immediate survivor is writer and actor John Augustine, with whom he had performed in a cabaret show called “Chris Durang and Dawne.” Mr. Durang said Augustine, his partner since 1986 and husband since 2014, had a “sunny nature” that “opened up positive feelings, possibilities, intuitions,” helping rejuvenate his life and work.

When he was just getting started as a playwright, “I had a bad message in my head that nothing ever works out,” Mr. Durang recalled in a 2006 interview with the Harvard Crimson . “I still have that message. Although now that I’m older, I go take a nap or tell myself to be quiet.”