Blog 4: Should Prostitution Be Legalized?

Proponents of legalizing prostitution have very strong beliefs that it would help the profession many women are a part of. Many believe that the legalization of this act would help to give prostitutes more power over themselves and more resources for their choice of employment. Some of the main arguments of proponents are that it would reduce violence against sex workers, it would give them a chance to promote healthier sex and lives, it is essentially a victimless crime, it could be seen as revenue for the state, law enforcement would have the ability to work on more pressing things like violent crimes, and it is not going away any time soon.

In 2003, there was a court case in Rhode Island that uncovered the state legislation could not keep prostitutes and customers engaging in a “commercial exchange” (Ehrenfreund, 2014). For the next six years, Rhode Island saw a significant decrease in public health, specifically sexually transmitted infections, outbreaks, public safety had an increase, and the number of rapes reported decreased by 31 percent, according to a study done by two university employees. This mistake in state legislation came about when lawmakers amended the laws about prostitutions because they had the potential to “infringe on First Amendment freedoms” (Ehrenfreund, 2014). Basically, the lawmakers deleted the passage that actually defined the act of prostitution, the act of having sex for money. However, they did leave in the laws against pimping, street walking, and trafficking.

One support of the legalization of prostitution is that it will help to protect sex workers legally. If there were to be a problem with a client, a sex worker would have the ability to approach authorities to complain about their issue. As of now this is impossible. Fear of being sent to jail or having to pay a fine, sex workers often do not report abuse by their pimps or johns. This ability to bring those to justice who hurt them will give sex workers more security in their jobs (Ehrenfreund, 2014).

In Nevada, prostitution is legalized in brothels only. Because of this, sex workers have a steady job without fear of being arrested. According to an article by Erin Fuchs, sex workers in Nevada are required to get monthly syphilis and HIV testing done, as well as weekly test for gonorrhea and chlamydia, something that not everyone does (Fuchs, 2013). Because of the legalization in Nevada, all paid sexual encounters require a condom to be worn, decreasing the possibility of spreading STIs between the workers and the customers. According to Fuchs, there were instances in 2012 in New York City where police officers used the fact that a woman was carrying condoms as evidence of being a sex worker, which started the trend of not using a condom during an encounter. According to a PROS Network (Providers and Resources Offering Services to sex workers) study, 46% of the 35 sex workers polled said they did not carry condoms with them because they were afraid of being arrested because of them (“Public Health Crisis”, 2012). Because of Nevada’s laws there is a higher use of condoms among sex workers.

Many people also believe that not allowing the sex workers access to public health initiatives by stigmatizing their work leads to a spread in ignorance and STIs, especially HIV. The United Nations Development Program published a report on illegal sex work in Asia detailing the harm it does to sex workers’ health:

“Criminalization increases vulnerability to HIV by fueling stigma and discrimination, limiting access to HIV and sexual health services, condoms and harm reduction services, and adversely affecting the self-esteem of sex workers and their ability to make informed choices about their health.” (UNDP as qtd. by Fuchs, 2013).

By not giving these workers basic rights to their own health, we cannot possibly begin to make a difference in the HIV and AIDS epidemic that is plaguing this world.

Opponents of legalizing prostitution believe that there would be far too many adverse effects to make it reasonable to become a recognized, legal profession. Many believe that legalizing, even decriminalizing; prostitution does little to help the harm that many sex workers come to. According to a German publication Der Spiegel, legalizing prostitution has not helped with the international problem of human trafficking and sex trafficking. The article quoted an American Congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney, who created the Human Trafficking Caucus as saying “there was the naive belief that legalized prostitution would improve life for prostitutes, eliminate prostitution in areas where it remained illegal and remove organized crime from the business. Like all fairy tales, this turns out to be sheer fantasy” in regards to the legalization of prostitution in Las Vegas (“Unprotected”, 2013). The legalization of prostitution in Nevada actually created an increase in human trafficking, due to the demand of more and more sex workers to fill the brothels. According to this article, Germany “technically” does not have a problem with human trafficking, from a statistical perspective. But when there are women who do make testimonies about being lured into Germany to work in a brothel, they are often omitted or lost.

The article talks about how women from poor eastern European countries are lured to Germany with the promise of a job as a nanny or model or are even sent by their families to make money, often ending up in brothels in the red light districts of Germany (“Unprotected”, 2013). According to an article by Donna Hughes, the young girls who are coerced into the sex working lifestyle are conditioned by sexual violence and rape. Many girls finally give up and give in thinking there is no way out. Because there are places in Europe that legalize prostitution, it is hard for these girls to get out of the life and get the protection they deserve. Reports of abuse and rape are not always taken seriously, and lead to less and less reporting due to being afraid no justice will come to them (Hughes, 1999). Hughes goes on to say that prostitution is not only a bodily invasion, but a mental one too. Many sex workers report each act being like rape and using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain they felt each time they were working. This leads to high numbers of drug overdoses and alcohol poisoning cases.

Janice Raymond wrote an article that discussed 10 reasons why legalizing prostitution is not a good idea. The first of these is that it is a “gift” to pimps, traffickers, and the sex industry, not the workers. She disputes the claim that recognizing prostitution as a legal form of employment brings a certain amount of dignity to the women “dignifying prostitution as work doesn’t dignify the women, it simply dignifies the sex industry… they haven’t thought through the consequences of legalizing pimps as legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen, or the fact that men who buy women for sexual activity are now accepted as legitimate consumers of sex.” (Raymond, 2003). She points out the notion that these women, or men, do not start working for themselves; in fact they become even more entrenched with their bosses, pimps. The legalization and decriminalization does not inherently give the workers rights, as a labor union would, but just allows people to create more money for them through exploitation. She also urges for the decriminalization for the sex workers themselves, but instead find the pimps and johns more accountable for exploitation.

Raymond’s second argument is that the legalization promotes sex trafficking. She cites a report that found 80% of the sex workers in the Netherlands (where it is legal) had been brought in from other countries, 70% of which were from central and eastern Europe (Budapest Group, 1999, and IOM, 1994, as qtd. in Raymond, 2003). She goes on to say that even the government was in favor of bringing in outside girls: “In the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued in favor of a legal quota of foreign “sex workers,” because the Dutch prostitution market demanded a variety of “bodies”” (Dutting, 2001, as qtd. in Raymond, 2003). In Germany, after the legalization of prostitution there was a study that showed “75% of the women in Germany’s prostitution industry were foreigners from Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and other countries in South America” (Altink, 1993, as qtd. in Raymond, 2003). The rapid increase of immigrants was masked by the allowance of work permits to be granted for being a sex worker. Currently, the promotion of prostitution, pimping, and brothels are legal in Germany.

Raymond’s third argument discusses child prostitution. Originally the legalization of prostitution was aimed at ending children being prostituted, but after the legislature passed the Netherlands saw a 300% increase in child prostitutes from 1996 to 2001, going from 4,000 children to over 15,000 (Raymond, 2003). The ChildRight organization estimated that at least 5,000 of the child prostitutes in the Netherlands were trafficked in from other countries, and mostly from Nigeria. The increase of demand of sex workers allows for those who are making the brut of the money to make less than moral decisions.

 

This topic is not an easy one. It is hard to make a decision about such an interesting career. One on hand I am avidly against coercion and human trafficking. On the other, I am in full support of people having the right to partake in whatever career they choose. I don’t believe that just because your job is to have sex for money means that you should be penalized. I think that there should be harsher punishments for those who physically, emotionally, and mentally abuse others.

The strongest argument for legalization was the notion that STIs become less and less prevalent. That being said, they do not always test for some infections, HPV being one. Allowing a sex worker to have the right to insist on the use of a condom is also something that I am in support of. Not being able to have even that much say over your own body should be illegal. For the men and women who choose this line of work, they should have more than that to protect them. Another compelling argument was that the sex workers would have more say over whom they work with and for. Allowing a person to choose their line of work should be an inherent right. By taking a majority of the power from the pimps and brothels, sex workers will have a better chance at doing their work the best they can.

I do agree that implementing regular, even more than recommended for the general population; STI testing is a very good idea. By using condoms, and knowing you medical situation, you can help to reduce unwanted STI spreads.

On the other side of the argument, I think the most profound point was about the human trafficking of young girls and children. The fact that the Dutch government basically, in my opinion, allowed for human trafficking to continue is beyond me. Importing young people just so your customers can get the “body” they want is appalling. No one should be lured into a job they do not readily want to take on. While human trafficking will continue whether or not prostitution is legal, it should not be supported, overtly or not.

I would have to say that I side more, in some respects, with the legalization of prostitution. The reason I have come to this decision is that I think it will help not only with the STI problem, but also with drug and alcohol abuse. It is no secret that sex workers often use illicit substances to numb the pain of their work, and it should not be one. By giving the power back to the workers to seek the help they need, whether it be legal or medical, we are giving them more opportunity at life. I do think that there should be strict regulations on who can and cannot be a sex worker and what they must do to continue working.

I think that implementing a license, as you would for a bus driver or plumber, would help to make the industry more reputable. By doing this, you could require sex workers to have to complete certain trainings and certifications to become licensed. This would also help to regulate STI testing by requiring it to keep the license. Having this system seems unattainable, but it could be done. Just as we trust those who fix our houses, teach our children, and drive our buses we should trust those we wish to have sex with having the proper education and training. This could also help to weed out illegal, or “undocumented”, sex workers. Having restrictions on any career is what allows it to work well.

 

References

Ehrenfreund, M. (2014). “When Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution, rape decreased sharply”. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: www.washingtonpost.com

Fuchs, E. (2013). “The 6 Types of Prostitutes and Where They Work”. Business Insider. Retrieved from: www.businessinsider.com

Fuchs, E. (2013). “7 Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution”. Business Insider. Retrieved from: www.businessinsider.com

“Public Health Crisis: The Impact of Using Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in New York City”. (2012). The PROS Network and the Sex Workers Project. Retrieved from: www.sexworkersproject.org

Raymond, J. G. (2003) “Ten Reasons For Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution”. Journal of Trauma Practice and Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from: www.embracedignity.org

“Unprotected: How Legalizing Prostitution Has Failed”. (2013). Der Spiegel. Retrieved from: www.spiegel.de

Blog 3: Is BDSM a Healthy Form of Sexual Expression?

Many people stand behind BDSM (bondage and dominance, discipline and submission, and sadism and masochism) as a healthy expression of sexual feelings and desires. According to a study done by Andreas Wismeijer titled “Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners” those who partake in BDSM activities did not show any negative psychological characteristics. They were found to be on the same level as those who participate in “vanilla”, more mainstream, sexual activities, and the only deviations showed that the BDSM group was more psychologically sound than the vanilla group. Of the 902 participants, 468 were classified as BSDM users. Wismeijer found that BDSM people tend to be more extroverted, more open to new things, and much less neurotic. He also found the BDSMers scored lower on test that concerned social anxiety and fear of social rejection and fear of others disliking them. BDSMers also reported higher rates of successful relationships either current or past. Of the breakdowns of the BDSMers, those who reported being the dominant partners showed the best scores overall. Those who reported being submissive or a “switcher” still scored better than the vanilla control group.  Wismeijer concluded that there was no real tell as to why BDSMers had a better overall outcome, but he attributed it to the fact that they may have better release because they are more confident in their sexual needs and desires. Wismeijer also stated in an interview with Live Science that he thought that his findings showed that BDSM may not need to be included in the DSM under sadomasochism. Because his findings show that BDSMers tend to be more psychologically sound than others, there should be no reason to include them in a manual of mental disorders.

The other side of this controversy bases it’s arguments solely on the notion that BSDM promotes relationships with abuse and violence, especially toward women. Recently, the novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” has brought light to the BDSM lifestyle as well as sparking intense debates on whether or not the book romanticizes relationships with violence and abuse. Many critics of this book link the character of Christen Grey’s fascination with and use of BDSM to his alleged child hood abuse. (Disclaimer: I have never read this book, nor seen this movie, so I cannot attest to whether or not this is true of the story.) In an article written for Forbes online medium, Kathryn Casey discusses the novel and the story line. She, as well as many other, attribute Grey’s fantasies and activities to the alleged child abuse. Many people hold that the practice of BDSM is akin to other manifestations of childhood trauma in adult life (i.e. cigarette smoking due to an oral fixation). Another critique of this story comes from the fact that it puts fairy-tale like dreams in the readers head. The female protagonist is able to change Grey throughout the trilogy, but does this by enduring pain and suffering throughout their relationship. Casey, along with other critics, understand that this is just fantasy, but hold strong to the notion that there is a fine line between erotic and dangerous.

The even less scientific arguments come from the religious realm. While there is no explicit line in the Bible that condemns BDSM specifically, there are multiple passages that argue against hurting others for your own pleasure, sexual or otherwise. According to GotQuestions online forum, the “marriage bed” is sacred and should not have anything performed in it that is not entirely consensual.

Personally, I don’t really see why BDSM wouldn’t be a healthy sexual expression. According to everything that has been published, the only real critique stems from the notion that it could be portrayed as abuse. Abuse is something that is not consented to by both parties, and even in cases where there is denial on one side, it is obvious that there is missing consent. The research done by Wismeijer obviously shows that people who are getting that intense of an outlet have better physiological standings than those who partake in “vanilla” sex. I have never been a fan of BDSM and do not think that I would be incredibly inclined to partake in it, but I do see how that could heighten a sexual experience. It was unsettling to me to see that there was very little information about the negative side to this debate that didn’t have to do with 50 shades. I was hoping to find some real information that wasn’t religious based and had some scientific information behind it.

References:

http://www.andreaswismeijer.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BDSM_JSM_Wismeijer_van-Assen.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/crime/2012/06/23/is-fifty-shades-of-grey-dangerous/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-BDSM.html

Blog 2: Should parents be able to choose the sex of their baby?

Wives tales about how to “choose” the gender of your baby have been around for centuries. Most of these are concerning different positions during sexual intercourse and different foods eaten during the early stages of pregnancy, but have been widely disproved. The only way to determine the sex of your baby, through conventional methods, is to wait until it has formed enough to be seen on an ultrasound or the even more old fashioned way of just waiting until he or she emerges in the delivery room. The debate over whether or not expectant parents should be able to choose the sex of their baby has recently become more and more heavily debated and is extremely controversial.

In the United Kingdom, choosing the gender of your baby is illegal – with one exception. If you have a genetic disease in your family history that is gender-related, such as hemophilia or muscular dystrophy, both found in males, you have the ability to choose to have a female baby (Wilkinson, 2010). Stephen Wilkinson is a professor of Bioethics at Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England. Wilkinson believes that parents have the right to choose the sex of their baby. In his op-ed article in the BBC News Viewpoint section he says: “Firstly, should parents regard their children as ‘gifts’? Children are not literally gifts, or if they are, from God perhaps, then they are no more gifts than other positive things in life…sex selection is not necessarily sexist. While there are no doubt some prospective parents who think that men are superior to women (or vice versa), for most the choice is just a preference…the fear that allowing sex selection here would open the floodgates elsewhere is unfounded.” (Wilkinson, 2010). Wilkinson goes on to talk of how banning sex-selection may be more practical in countries such as China, notorious for their one child rule, and other Eastern countries because of the heavy preference on having a male child, but it is not the same for Western Europe. (For the purposes of this essay, I am lumping America in with Western Europe.) One of Wilkinson’s biggest arguments for why gender selection should be allowed relies on the basis that British couples are traveling to the United States to get expensive treatments to secure the gender of their dreams. While it is cynical, the United Kingdom is losing out on a multi-billion dollar industry by outlawing gender selection.

In the United States, there is no federal law concerning sex selection, it is up to each individual state to choose their policy (American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2015). The way to choose your baby’s gender is through in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments that use sperm sorting techniques. This technique allows a lab to take a semen specimen and separate the healthier sperm from the less mobile and by their X and Y chromosome amounts. While this is a more effective way of choosing the gender, there is a higher percentage of female babies than male babies, 91 and 73 percent, respectively (Zamora, 2003). More controversial procedures like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) are used to determine the sex of an embryo as well as test for any medical illnesses. With PGD, the embryo created by IVF is removed from the uterus and replaced only if it is the desired sex. With CVS, the chromosomes of the fetus are analyzed early on in the pregnancy. Unfortunately, PGD and CVS often lead to abortions when the sex of the fetus is not the desired one (Zamora, 2003).

Many people who agree with the con side of this debate believe that the gender of a baby should be a natural biological determinate, not the preferred choice. One major argument against PGD and CVS is that you are not meant to “play God”. This is not always a religious concern. Some believe that the life in utero is so vulnerable; any sort of meddling should be very much regulated. Another concern is that the concept of choosing the sex you prefer has females at a disadvantage. In a 2012 article “Why allowing parents to choose their baby’s gender is wrong” by Ellen Dollar, the concept of sexism comes up. “In cultures in which boys are more likely to be educated and employed in stable jobs that earn enough to support a family, families hope for boy children who will eventually contribute to the family’s well-being and care for aging parents. Girls, on the other hand, are perceived as liabilities rather than assets, as they will not have the same possibilities for education and lucrative employment, and might even cost their family money in the form of marriage dowries.” (Dollar, 2012). Dowries are a thing of the past, but the argument is still valid. Even in modern day America boys are seen as a better deal. Boys get better jobs; boys are stronger; boys can carry on the line. Girls cost more money; girls pose more problems; girls don’t historically pass on the family name.

Bryony Gordon writes a blog for the UK Telegraph and tackled the issues of choosing the sex of your baby. She says “Children aren’t commodities, and families should not be seen as toy sets, uncompleted until you have all the different figurines” (Gordon, 2012). Gordon does not believe that children should not be picked exactly the way you imagine them, like the way you choose commodities. She compares the act of choosing the gender of your child to ensuring that you will only have to shop in the pink section of the store, as if you are planning the perfect party for the perfect family.

I went into this debate firm in my stance, and I still am. I do not think that you should have the ability to choose what gender your baby is. I am not incredibly religious, but I don’ think that using science for selfish reasons is a noble thing. I am willing to admit that if it is in the best interest of your baby, choosing the gender could be acceptable. If you have a genetic disorder that you do not want to pass onto your offspring, you should make the conscious choice to not do that. But, if you just want a girl because you think they’re better, or a boy solely to pass on your family name, that is incredibly selfish. One criticism I have of the argument that it’s within your rights to make that choice is that it simply is not, in my opinion. I think that genetics are something that should be left up to DNA and chromosomal alignments, not what accessories you want to buy. I believe that IVF treatments are a scientific miracle and I hope that every couple in love who wants to have a baby and is unable should have the opportunity to try their best. The argument that it is an economical gain for the United Kingdom is absolutely appalling. Using the misfortune of other is not moral or acceptable, again in my opinion.

When I think about whether or not I want a girl or boy if I am ever found in the position to be pregnant I always come back to the same decision: I want a healthy baby. I don’t care if I have to buy blue accessories, or pink ones. I believe that having a child is a conscious decision, in many circumstances, and should be taken any way it comes.

 

References:

American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2015). “State Infertility Insurance Laws.” Retrieved from: http://www.asrm.org/insurance.aspx

Dollar, E. P. (2003). Why allowing parents to choose their baby’s gender is wrong. Patheos: Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Retrieved from:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ellenpainterdollar/2012/09/why-allowing-parents-to-choose-their-babys-gender-is-wrong/

Gordon, B. (2012). No one should be able to choose their baby’s sex. The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9506234/No-one-should-be-able-to-choose-their-babys-sex.html

Wilkinson, S. (2010). Couples should be able to choose their baby’s sex. British Broadcasting Channel: Viewpoint. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8665282.stm

Zamora, D. (2003). Choosing the sex of your child. MedicineNet. WebMD. Retrieved from: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52103

 

 

Blog 1: Is Sexual Orientation Biologically Based?

Homosexuality in definition is the attraction to and sexual acts with a person of the same biological sex. The “cause” of homosexuality in humans has been debated heavily for many years. There are two opinions and positions: biological and choice.

Many gay-rights advocacy groups base their arguments on the position that homosexuality is something you are born with, comparable to a physical or mental disorder, but not in the way that it is an ailment. There has been scientific research into the possibility of a genetic difference between homo and heterosexual people, but no infallible answer has been found. In an article published by New Scientist, Andy Coughlan covers a study of identical and non-identical twin brothers and non-twin gay brothers, scientists found abnormalities on the X chromosome and chromosome 8 (Coughlan, 2014). The study covered by Coughlan was conducted by Alan Sanders over a span of 5 years and used 409 pairs of gay brothers. According to Coughlan

“The only trait unequivocally shared by all 818 men was being gay. All other traits, such as hair color, height and intelligence, varied by different degrees between each brothers in a pair and between all sets of brothers. Therefore, any [single nucleotide polymorphisms or] SNPs consistently found in the same genetic locations across the group would most likely be associated with sexual orientation” (Coughlan, 2014).

SNPs are differences in a single strand of genetic code. Sanders’ research was based off previous research about male sexual orientation and homosexuality being linked to genetic markers. There were only five SNPs that showed up, and the most common were on the “Xq28 and 8q12 regions on the X chromosome and chromosome 8” (Coughlan, 2014). Sanders admitted that even with this genetic finding there are still environmental factors that should be considered. In a 2014 article published by the Washington Post, genetics professor Jenny Graves talks about the “gay gene” and it’s potential existence. She believes that these genes should not be “gay genes” but actually male-loving genes. She claims that women with gay male relatives have 1.3 more offspring than women with straight male relatives, which points to the possibility that the same gene can be found in women and has more to do with a strong urge to be sexually intimate with men rather than to be homosexual (Graves, 2014). Graves talks about how there is no hard evidence that there is one gene abnormality that leads to this trait and it is most likely a combination of many different allele variations.

The other side of this controversy, the choice side, has been notoriously filled with religious persons who claim the act in itself of being homosexual is wrong and comes from making a choice about one’s sexual preferences. One of the forerunners on this side is the Family Research Council (FRC). In the article “Debating Homosexuality Understanding Two Views” by Peter Sprigg, FRC’s position is unveiled:

“Of the three aspects of “sexual orientation”-attractions, conduct, and self-identification-social conservatives view homosexual conduct as the most important, and thus operate from a “homosexual conduct” paradigm. We believe homosexual conduct is harmful, and therefore oppose demands that homosexual conduct and relationships be protected, affirmed, and celebrated. The harms associated with homosexuality include serious physical and mental health problems” (Sprigg, 2011).

FRC’s position is similar to many anti-homosexual groups. The choice to be homosexual comes from immoral upbringing and the choice associated with that upbringing. In another publication by Sprigg, he states that there are 10 myths about homosexuality that have to be put straight. One of these myths is that homosexuality is genetic. His argument is that “The research does not show that anyone is “born gay,” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors” (Sprigg, 2010). He argues that there is no evidence for homosexuality being genetic because of the flaws of three majors studies conducted in the 1990s. He claims that the research done in 1991 by Simon LeVay did not have a statistically significant sample size. The research done by s J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard in 1991 was also flawed and Bailey conducted a subsequent study which did not yield comparable results. And the work done by Dean Hamer in 1993 did not use randomized subject selections or have a statistically significant sample size (Sprigg, 2010).

 

I have to admit that this was an incredibly hard topic to research, and even after extensive researching, I am not entirely sure where I stand. The one interesting argument that I came across was the notion that those who believe being gay is a genetic abnormality are more accepting of homosexual and homosexual lifestyles than those who view it as a choice. I in no way believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t necessarily understand why it comes about. Both sides give vague and incredibly biased opinions and I don’t see a reason to side with either one. Many of the publications I came across took a very affronted position, always claiming that “it doesn’t matter” or “who cares?” or “why are we still arguing about this?”. This to me is ridiculous; if you believe something, you should fight for it, not get defensive and brush it off. I don’t know what side to align myself with.

I don’t necessarily think homosexuality is a choice, but I don’t see enough empirical evidence to prove that it is genetic. There are obvious personality traits that are associated with being gay, but at the same time there are those who are gay that don’t exhibit those traits. Since I have no understanding other than this minimal research, I don’t feel comfortable making a decision on where I stand just yet. If I had a gun to my head, had to choose, I would probably choose the biological side. In my opinion, there are certain traits you are born with, but are only manifested due to your upbringing, as explained by the Diathesis-Stress Model of addiction. You have a genetic vulnerability, but it does not manifest until it is provoked. I realize that this sounds bigoted and ignorant, and to a certain extent it is. I don’t know enough, but I do think that it could be possible. I am in no way saying that people “raise” their children to be gay, but I am saying that an overbearing and stressful environment has just as much possibility of ending with a child being gay as does an excepting and understanding environment. The possibility of there being a gay gene is just as possible as there being a genetic cause of Autism. There has been no specific evidence to prove either, but there have been strong possibilities.

 

References:

Coughlan, A. (2014). Largest study of gay brothers homes in on ‘gay genes’. Psychological Medicine. 15(48). Retrieved from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VNJCm4th2CR

Graves, J. (2014). How our genes could make us gay or straight. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

Sprigg, P. (2010). The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. Family Research Council. Retrieved from: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Sprigg, P. (2011). Debating Homosexuality Understanding Two Views. Family Research Council. Retrieved from: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11J33.pdf

Hello world!

Welcome to your brand new blog at St. Edwards University Sites.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.

Skip to toolbar