Homosexuality Behavior is Exhibited through all Types of Species of Animals
We as a species are the only ones to grasp an understanding of it through biological, psychological and social aspect. We can view how biology,psychology and social play factors into why are gay ro why they might hide the fact that they are. I will be discussing how this mainly affects male homosexuals in general. Most cases are focused on the male narrative of homosexuality in the aspect that males are the mainly subjects in biological study, socially are more likely to face criticism and more frequent is Psychological study. Homosexuality in males is influenced by many factors from childhood to adulthood due to biological,social, and psychological forces.
Many studies suggest homesexuality as whole is a factor of Biology and not of psychological or social influence. The main belief is through the structure of the brain and how are chromosomes react. The main study of the brain suggest a lot of factors can be attributed to homosexuality when comparing brains of homosexual males to that of hetrosexual males. Levay studies showed that the brain of a homosexual male who died without AIDS and a hetrosexual man who also died without AIDS showed that the Homosexual male had half as many INAH3 cells than that of HEtrosexual male. Also with studies from Allen and Gorsky they found the homosexual anterior commissure was similar or larger than a females unlike hetrosexual males where its the smallest in hetrosexual men THe corellations of these are believed to be of three possibilities being structural differences were present early in life, the second being that homosexuality arises when men become adults as a result of men’s sexual feelings as well as behavior and lastly sexual orientation and brain structures lead to a third variable. When this comes to chromosomes however scientist feel that this is due to maternal chromosomes than paternal. They believe the mother’s x Chromosome may influence genes that cause homosexuality. This is only a theory however but scientist have seen a correlation between male and female dominated families.
When discussing this as a biological aspect it has channels and questions from human rights groups, religious authority, and government asking the question They wanna know how biology is involved with determining homosexuality.Biological studies are hard to prove to groups who don’t fully understand what goes on in the process of determining if homosexuality is a biological behavior or not. This also could be an unlearned behavior which is exampled saying that a certain breed of sparrow learns a call that is only in the span of a short time. Most sparrows do but not all which the author compares saying that hetrosexuality could just be a learned behavior and not a biological one. Social and Psychological studies seem to destroy what Biologist try to justify. Not all of these studies could be able to justify why women who have homosexual behaviors develop. Biology is a great way and try to see if nature has an influence over sexuality but its not completely understood to determine if it homosexuality is biological or not.
The social aspect of how might homosexuality may be influenced is through a lot of societal factors with religion,government and social status. In the United States at least 5% of people identify as being apart of the LGBT community than 50 years ago. A Lot of this is how american society deals with homosexuality especially with religion, government and religion. One of the main factors in the US that contributes to society’s determination of Homosexuality in Christianity. The main belief which Christians use as a defense against acts of homosexuality is that homosexuals are only looking for sex and sodomy than love which is obviously not the case. What research was done during the 90s is that males who were attracted to males were not just looking for sexual attraction but similar ideas to hetrosexual couples who wanted marrige, kids and loving home. In more conservative states it is found more of a increase in homosexual activities than in states with more relaxed view especially in the south. Government places a factor in this as well with a change during the AIDS epidemic. Both democrats and LIberals had similar views on homosexuality even though that was legalized in the 70s it became more relaxed in liberal states were states like New York and California had a high population of LGBT members. With the nation wide uplift of Gay marriage numbers of people coming out has risen. The social stigma of gay men however is portrayed very harshly especially the soft feminine of some gay men. Society has this stigma of “ straight passing “ and fem men. Society likes Straight passing gays because the fit the society norm unlike Fem men. They blame how the child was raised or where to that factor.
Society doesn’t exactly have a factor is how people determine if they are gay or not but more on if a person lives to how they feel. Many people before the 70s would marry based on society’s wants than what that person felt. Many would end up raising families but also engaging in secret homosexaul relationships. After the 1970s people became more open slowly growing but than being affected by aids epidemic causing people not to be as open due to the stipulation all gay men had AIDs. Today we live in a society more accepting than before but still with many stipulations that cause a still high amount of men not to come out. Slowly society will learn to accept how gay people are treated and will no longer affect the need to come out.
Psychology has a huge factor on homosexuality with many studies on how homosexualsity may be connected. Most of the studies are based on social cognitive theory which relates to patterns attributed and what is viewed while growing up. The study wanted to show how social factors could develop sexuality. Many studies tried to find a correlation between parents and the absence of parents that may explain why a male child is homosexual. They first use the factor of father to son relationship meaning the absence of a father the child develops the mothers qualities as well not having a father figure to look up to which in turn makes the child want relationships with men due to the lack of a male figure presence. Another one states the lack of having a mother. This eliminates the Oedipus complex where the male child develops jealous attachment to his father. Since no female figure is present the male child may not see affection with a women and develop attractions to his father. This also deals with the view of politics and religion like a social construct. Whatever the child is taught he should follow what they say than own beliefs.
These factors do not explain homosexuality however since both the mother and father theories contradict each other. You can not say without either parent a child will most likely end up a homosexual. Studies find that no matter the circumstance there are just as many gay kids in families of two parents as to families with one parent. There is a high contribute though to it being a social cognitive subject with children viewing different roles and exploring right and wrong. IT all depends on the child from a case to case basis than trying to view it as a whole.
I personally believe that all three factors contribute to homosexuality, each theory has there own flaws and facts that could contribute to one big understanding of why people are homosexual. Without trying to figure out why we wouldn’t understand completely as we would today which would have set us back as a society for probably 50 years With what we know today we have a better understanding on how social, biological and physchological factors affect are understabding of homosexuality
- Thorp, John. “The Social Construction of Homosexuality.” Phoenix, vol. 46, no. 1, 1992, pp. 54–61. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1088774.
- Alessi, Edward J. “Acknowledging the Impact of Social Forces on Sexual Minority Clients: Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical Practice with LGBTQ Populations.” Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 41, no. 3, 2013, pp. 223–227., doi:10.1007/s10615-013-0458-x.
- Garnets, L. D., & Kimmel, D. C. (Eds.). (1993). Between men—between women: Lesbian and gay studies. Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences. New York, NY, US: Columbia University Press.
- LeVay, Simon, and Dean H. Hamer. “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality.” Scientific American, vol. 270, no. 5, 1994, pp. 44–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24942693.”