Homosexuality-theories compared and contrasted - Research Paper Example

? Running head: Homosexuality. Introduction Homosexuality is away of sexual orientation involving individuals of the same gender, in a situation where men are involved it’s termed as gay otherwise its lesbians for females (Barry,pp 298). The act of homosexuality perception differs from one area to the other, different countries have different laws that relates to homosexuality. In other parts of the world its illegal while in other areas it has been legalized following pressure from the activists and has been given equal opportunity in areas like in military services, employement and in human rights unions. With all those consideration certain religious associations perceive it as a sinful act (Kenneth,pp 365). Considered theories Two theories have been advanced to explain the origin of homosexuality; both are scientific theories though the social scientists have also contributed to the explanation by stating that it results from a social and environmental factor. In my view homosexuality is a human act that results from peer influence and the need to adventure and acquire knowledge of what is perceived to be against the norm (Lester,pp 123). 1.0 The Genetic theory This theory states that homosexuality as a human behavior is a culmination of the genetical constitution of a human body. It argues that’s there are genes that are responsible for the occurrence of homosexuality, these genes it states are homozygous in a recessive situation, and in the case of heterozygous case it will only be manifested if there is a diploid cell formation from another heterozygous situation (Bret,pp 243). This explains the reason as to why it is said to be hereditary and can be traced in a lineage. The genes are said to occupy the same locus in the genomic sequence (William,pp 229). This theory has been ignored for the obvious reasons that its assumes that only one gene is responsible for determination of sex in human beings, which is an obvious understatement 2.0 Theory of Neurohormonal His theory tend to explain the influence of hormones in homosexuality though different reports gives conflicting statements rendering the theory less efficacy on its explanations, its states that the prenatal hormones in association with the nervous system under a conducive environment during the gestation periods at the second to fifth month may results into a homosexual person, the theory proposes that when the nervous system comes into contact with hormones such as testosterone,estradial and some other sex hormones during neuro organization, then homosexuality results. The theory gives more weight to testosterone hormones as being critical during gestation period as being responsible for the development of homosexuality, this theory on the same principle explains the situation of monozygotic and that of dizygotic twins (Bruce,pp 198). Comparison of the two theories Its worth noting that the two theories have concurrence at some point, they all appreciate that homosexuality is controlled by innate factors, the genetic one being that its controlled by the genes while that of the neurohormonal one is influenced by the hormones, in this way the theories tend to believe that the external environment actually do not plays any role in influencing the sexual orientation of an individual (Lester,pp 23). The theories also confirms that the status of homosexualism is hereditary and that it can be passaged from one generation to the next provided that the genitical materials of the homosexuals are constant, also for the neurohormonal theory, the presence of the hormones will dictate the occurrences of homosexuality, In addition to those both the theories also acknowledge the role of the environment in homosexuality, in this sense both accepts that for a homosexual individual to occur a enabling environment is necessary Which is correct? The question of which of the theories that explains homosexuality can be banked on has led to a ragging debate as all have shortcomings: certainly all are not mutually exclusive such that one can confidently refute the otherwise statement, in a nutshell they fail to withstand the principle of falsifiability of science. The sociobiology theory is more of hypothesis than proven facts hence its rejection, on the other hand the neurohormonal theory is more of descriptive instead of being explanatory. (Joanne,pp 276). With the shortcomings of the theories its of necessity that a more convincing study and research should be done to arrive at the more universally accepted statement with coherent methodology put into place and statistical analysis be done on the research to support the facts that will be collected, and as for now, there are only speculative opinions awaiting justification on the occurrences of homosexuality (Vern,pp 34). Personal opinion Its my conviction that homosexuality is not related to any of the genetical constitution or any Biological effects but is a thought that arise out of frustration and peer influence, this point is hinged on the fact that most of the homosexuals have been known to be intravenous drug users, all this individuals are not in any way related and the fact that most of them are found in clusters and share certain activities is an indication that the occurrence of homosexuality is not linked to heredity but is more of social culmination, the fact that most of homosexuals are also known to be suicidal indicates that there is rampant juvenile delinquency among homosexuals thus an explanation of social states that results to homosexuality. Contrasts on the two theories Even though the two theories at some point tend to agree on matters concerning homosexuality development, they also contradict in many aspects: The sociobiological theory attributes homosexuality to be solely influenced by the genetical materials while the Neurohormonal is greatly influenced by the nervous system and hormones combination (B. John,pp 324). The sociobiological theory casts certainty in homosexuals’ development as its in the genes and will be manifested in a homozygote recessive situation while that of the Neurohormonal is dependant on the conducive environment resulting during the second and the fifth months of which if not, homosexuality do not results. In the Neurohormonal theory homosexuality is attributed to be a situation mostly in males, contrary the sociobilogical one which gives an explanation of occurrence of homosexuality in both genders. Conclusion To date there is no scientific statement that has been conceptualized properly to be an explanation on homosexuality occurrence; only possible reasons are advanced including factors like size of the family, order of birth and age of the parents at birth of which none is proven. This has generated criticism as to lack of a more solid explanation from the biological sciences views and there is need to revert to the social science for a better explanation as part of the people view it as a social occurrences that needs a social intervention. References Barry, Adam. The Rise of Gay and Lesbian Movement. Chicago: Hall and Co., 1987. Bret, Hinsch. Passion of the Cut Sleeve:The Male Homosexuals Tradition in China. Carlifonia: The University of Carlifonia, 1990. Bruce, Bagenihl. Biological Exuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Chicago: St.Martin's Press, 1999. Joanne, Myers. Historical Dictionary of the lesbian liberation movement:still the rage. NewYork: Scarecrow Press, 2003. John, Boswell. Christianity Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago : Chicago University Press, 1980. John, DEmilio. The making Homosexuals Minority in the United States. Chicago: Chicago University Press., 1983. Kenneth, Dover. Greek Homosexuality. Chicago: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1979. Lester, Brown. Two spirit people:American Indian lesbian Women and gay men. Routledge: Routledge Press, 1997. Vern, Bullough. Before Stonewall:activists for gay and lesbian rights in historical context. Routledge: Routledge press., 2002. William, Percy. A.Datum corporation. 1998. 15 April 2011 . Read More