I understand that we do non see oculus to oculus on most of the issues I brought up in my old missive. I besides understand how you wish for me to convey that I understand what we have discussed in category over the past couple months from a sociological position. I would wish to travel in front and explicate that now and so possibly further explicate where I was coming from originally.

There are two basic ways to see the world of homosexualism: through the essentialist theoretical account and through the societal constructionist theoretical account. The essentialist argues that homosexualism is a “natural. cosmopolitan class that exists independent of civilization. clip. or situation” . ( David Greenberg ) They regard the cardinal world of homosexualism as shacking in sexual orientation. Sexual behaviour is secondary in nature. Concisely their end in life is to happen out what causes person to prefer same-sex spouses.

Social constructionists nevertheless believe that homosexualism is non a concrete world. but alternatively “a phenomenon that exists because of the manner it is defined socially. culturally. and situationally” . ( David Greenberg ) They are interested in the acknowledgment of separate classs of humanity based on sexual orientation. every bit good as intervention based on that fact. They think that being a homophile is experienced otherwise between different people. harmonizing to the societal context within which it takes topographic point. and that what it means to be a homosexual can change across the board.

From what you’ve taught us this semester so far I’ve come to the apprehension that there is no individual infallible step of homosexualism. I mean what really defines a homosexual. Just the idea or desire to be with person of the same sex. or is it possibly a buss with Madonna on MTV. Does one really have to perpetrate a sexual act behind closed doors with person of the same sex to be labeled a homosexual? These are some of the inquiries we have discussed in category. which have led me to the decision that homosexual sex is multidimensional.

Throughout my readings in the Reader. I have learned that male and female homosexual look are really different in nature. They have dramatically different homosexual manners. For illustration. males tend to move on homosexual desires more so than adult females do. while adult females tend to hold their feelings and desires about homosexual behaviour brew longer before they act upon them.

I’ve learned that many homophiles claim that they have no more pick in going homosexual than straight persons did in being consecutive. I’ve learned that a cistron or set of cistrons could predispose work forces to going homosexual from the on start of their life. Which of class begs the inquiry of whether or non this cistron can be “fixed” before a kid is born. to let the kid to go forth a “normal” life.

I brought up the cistron issue to my good friend Ryll and asked about her brother. who is a homosexual. and asked her if it were possible did she believe her brother would take to hold his cistron altered in order to do him “straight” ? She answered no. because that was the life he was used to. and to alter it now would be more damaging to him so merely remaining the manner he was.

Bottom line is homosexualism is a signifier of aberrant behaviour merely because most members of our society do non O.K. of it. and because this disapproval takes the signifier of disapprobation and penalty of homophiles and strained. hard dealingss betweens heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I would wish to unclutter up one issue if you have time… the difference between aberrance and wickedness as I see it. Not all aberrant behaviour falls under the class of wickedness. However. all wickedness is aberrant in my sentiment. I do non believe wickedness to be socially constructed as aberrance is. I believe people interchange the words more frequently than they should. I still hold true to my personal semi-absolutist position of wickedness. I believe that there is a sense of incorrect that is non tied in to civilization or society ; I believe that this sense of incorrect is because there is so an absolute when it comes to right and incorrect. I farther believe that we. as a human race. ne’er achieve at maintaining any criterion of right and incorrect. much less the absolute criterion that I’ve referred to.

Sin is anything that we do that does non delight God. This is non due to an arbitrary set of regulations that we follow. alternatively it is declarative of the character of God. I know I have done many things incorrect ; I have sinned. How do I cognize this? I feel a strong belief in my bosom when I do something that I know is incorrect. It pains me when I sin. However. even if I have become calloused to the incorrect that I do. it does non intend that the things I do are no longer incorrect. So the most of import indicant of wickedness is judging against the character of God. Where can the character of God be found? In the Bible of class. ??

I’ll halt at that place because I doubt you want to be preached to in this missive. I merely wanted to try to demo you how I see sin as non being socially constructed at all. but at the same clip demoing that I understand how aberrance is socially constructed. I do trust this short account of what I have learned therefore far in your category will be sufficient for this assignment. I will go on. of class. with new stuff when the following “letter” is due.