Gender
For the grammatical concept, see Grammatical
gender. For other meanings see Gender
(disambiguation).
Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity.[1]
Depending on the context, the term may refer to such concepts as sex (as in the general state of being male
or female),social roles
(as in gender roles)
or gender identity.
Sexologist John Money
introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955.
Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to
anything but grammatical
categories.[2][3]
However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s,
when feminist theory embraced
the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.
Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[4][5]
and documents written by the World Health
Organization(WHO),[6]
but in many contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of
gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter
word.[2][3]
Although this gradual change in the
meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration
of the process in the scientific literature was observed when the Food and Drug
Administration started to use "gender" instead of
"sex" in 1993.[7] "Gender" is
now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of non-human
animals, without any implication of social gender roles.[3]
Gender studies has become
a branch of the social sciences.
In the English literature, the trichotomy between biological sex, psychological
gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978.[3][8] Some cultures have
specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male
and female, such as the hijra of India and Pakistan.
While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and
gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences
investigates whether biological
differences in males and females influence the development of gender
in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence
the formation of gender identity.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gABZn7T5zA(video
of some researchers about sex)
This article is about the Male sex. For the city, see Malé. For other
uses, see Male
(disambiguation).
Not all species share a common sex-determination
system. In most animals including humans, sex is determined genetically, but in some
species it can be determined due to social, environmental or other factors.
The existence of two sexes seems to have been selected independently across
different evolutionary
lineages (see Convergent
Evolution). The repeated pattern is sexual reproduction in isogamous species with two
or more mating types
with gametes of identical form and behavior (but different at the molecular
level) to anisogamous
species with gametes
of male and female
types to oogamous species in which
the female gamete is very much larger than the male and has no ability to move.
There is a good argument that this pattern was driven by the physical
constraints on the mechanisms by which two gametes get together as required for
sexual
reproduction.[1]
Accordingly, sex is defined operationally
across species by the type of gametes produced (i.e.: spermatozoa vs. ova) and
differences between males and females in one lineage are not always predictive
of differences in another.
Male/female
dimorphism between organisms or reproductive organs of different
sexes is not limited to animals; male gametes are produced by chytrids,diatoms and land plants, among others. In
land plants, female and male designate not only the female and
male gamete-producing organisms and structures but also the structures of the sporophytes that give rise
to male and female plants.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)
For other uses, see Female
(disambiguation).
This article needs
additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)
*
This article is about gay as a term. For homosexuality, see Homosexuality. For
other uses, see Gay
(disambiguation).
Gay is a word (a noun or an adjective) that primarily refers to a
homosexual person.
The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being
"carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it
had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early
as 1637.[1]
The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late
19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1]
In modern English,
gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to
men, and the practices
and cultures
associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century, the word gay
was recommended by major LGBT groups andstyle guides to describe
people attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3] At about the same
time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the
Anglosphere, this
connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish
or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use, the word does
not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an
inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can
also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to
which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and
harshly criticized.[4][5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay)
This article is about the sexual orientation. For other uses, see Lesbian
(disambiguation).
Lesbian as a concept, used to differentiate women with a shared sexual orientation, is a
20th-century construct. Throughout history, women have not had the freedom or
independence to pursue homosexual relationships as men have, but neither have
they met the harsh punishment in some societies as homosexual men. Instead,
lesbian relationships have often been regarded as harmless and incomparable to
heterosexual ones unless the participants attempted to assert privileges traditionally
enjoyed by men. As a result, little in history has been documented to give an
accurate description of how female homosexuality has been expressed. When early
sexologistsin the late
19th century began to categorize and describe homosexual behavior, hampered by
a lack of knowledge about lesbianism or women's sexuality, they distinguished
lesbians as women who did not adhere to female gender roles and designated them
mentally ill.
Women in homosexual relationships responded to this designation either by
hiding their personal lives or accepting the label of outcast and creating a
subculture and identity
that developed in Europe and the United States. Following World War II, during
a period of social repression when governments actively persecuted homosexuals,
women developed networks to socialize with and educate each other. Greater
economic and social freedom allowed women gradually to be able to determine how
they could form relationships and families. With second wave
feminism and growth of scholarship in women's history and sexuality
in the 20th century, the definition of lesbianbroadened, sparking a
debate about sexual desire as the major component to define what a lesbian is.
Women exhibit sexual fluidity and can become physically and emotionally
intimate with the same sex. Some women who engage in homosexual behavior may
reject the lesbian identity entirely, refusing to identify themselves as
lesbian or bisexual.
Other women may adopt a lesbian identity for political reasons. Greater
understanding of women's sexuality has led to three components to identifying
lesbians: sexual behavior, sexual desire, or sexual identity.
Portrayals of lesbians in the media suggest that Western society at large has
been simultaneously intrigued and threatened by women who challenge feminine
gender roles, and fascinated and appalled with women who are romantically
involved with other women. Women who adopt a lesbian identity share experiences
that form an outlook similar to an ethnic identity: as homosexuals, they are
unified by the discrimination and potential rejection they face from their
families, friends, and others. As women, they face concerns separate from men.
Lesbians may encounter distinct physical or mental health concerns. Political
conditions and social attitudes also affect the formation of lesbian
relationships and families.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian)
"Bisexual" redirects here. For other uses, see Bisexual
(disambiguation).
Bisexuality is romantic
or sexual
attraction or behavior
toward males and females. The term is especially used in the context of human
sexual attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward men and women.[1][2]
It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along
with a heterosexual
and a homosexual
orientation, all a part of the heterosexual–homosexual
continuum. People who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual
preference for one sex over the other may identify themselves as bisexual.[3]
Bisexuality has been observed in various human societies[4]
and elsewhere in the animal kingdom[5][6][7]
throughout recorded history. The termbisexuality, however, like the
terms hetero- and homosexuality, was coined in the 19th century.[8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality)
As in the case of so many
political and social issues, there are scholars, and studied opinions on both
sides. Some believe that the most important statement the Bible makes about
gender is found in the words of the Apostle Paul when he writes that, in
Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ€
(Galatians 3:28).
Others argue just as
emphatically that the same Apostle Paul encouraged wives to learn quietly in
church (1Cor 14:34), and at home, to be submissive to their husbands, as unto
the Lord (Eph 5:22). In another letter Paul adds, “I want you to know that
the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of
Christ is God†(1Cor 11:2).
The post generated quite a
bit of reader
discussion, so
De Haan followed up with second post
reflecting further on the topic. If
the famous Bible passage about submission to
one’s husband has
you wondering about the Bible’s teachings on gender roles, these posts and the
discussions offer a lot of good food for thought.
By: Andy. This entry was
posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 2:00 am and is
filed under Bible Study, Relationships. You can follow any responses to this entry
through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently
closed.(http://www.gospel.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/04/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-gender-roles/)
1. The Bible’s Silence on the
Morality of Homosexual Sex
Until the late nineteenth century, as already mentioned, the concept of
homosexuality was totally unknown. No Bible writer knew of homosexuality,
so no Bible writer could have said anything about it. The Bible
writer is always talking about the only kind of people he knew anything about,
the only kind anyone knew about for another 19 centuries; today we would call
them heterosexual In statements in the Bible about same-gender sex, the
writer is saying that when two of these (heterosexual) people have same-gender
sex, they are lustful and sinful. We believe the Bible and we believe
that. There cannot be anything in the Bible that says anything about
(unknown) homosexuality or homosexual people or acts by gay or lesbian persons.
Many writers point this out, but alas, homophobics are not reading.
No one questions the Bible's condemnation of sexual lust, and with our
understanding of orientation today that would be whether it was homosexual or
heterosexual. Lust is a matter of the human heart. It is the lust
in the person that is condemned, not the act itself.
That last statement is important, for some may say that the Bible condemns the
act of same-gender sex regardless of whether it is a heterosexual act or a
homosexual act. But all ethicists tell us morality is only in persons.
Only people are moral or immoral, not spoken words, not actions – only
the people behind the words or actions have morality or immorality. We often
say some action is wrong, but that is figurative; literally it is the person
who is wrong. If someone takes a gun, points it and pulls its trigger,
that is an act. Any morality is in the intent of the gun-handler.
It could be murder, self-defense, target practice, putting a suffering
animal to sleep, etc. It is not the act, it is the mind behind it that
God judges. When the Bible talks about evil, it is talking about
persons., not acts.
We need to understand clearly: No act performed by anyone is moral or immoral
in itself. That is, no act performed by a
homosexual is immoral. It is simply an act, nothing else. God
is looking on the heart of the person.
If anyone insists on believing that the Bible writers could and did talk about
homosexuality, gays and lesbians, he or she should consider that if the Bible's
condemnation of opposite-gender sex acts, many times, does not mean that all
opposite-gender sex acts are condemned, then the Bible's condemnation of
same-gender sex acts, a few times, does not necessarily mean that all
same-gender sex acts are condemned.
Since the Bible has no specific reference to homosexual sex, nor condemnation
of all same-gender sex acts, we must find our understanding of its morality
from the principles the Bible teaches us. So I shall try to address that.
2. The Criteria for Homosexual
Morality
Whatever the criteria
are for moral sex expression, they are as accessible to
the homosexual as
they are to the heterosexual.
Now we are face to face with the question of what is moral in sex expression.
What are the criteria to be met for sex expression to be moral?
Professor Kathy Rudy says, “Christian ethicists, moral theologians, and
religious leaders throughout the ages have spent an enormous amount of time and
energy thinking about when sex can be considered moral and when it cannot.”[i]
One reason theologians and Christian ethicists have difficulty finding a sex
ethic in the Bible is that the Bible’s condemnation of sexual acts is always
associated with immoral, selfish lust, while Scripture says nothing that
specifically defines a loving sex life.
We know that promiscuous sex is lustful, sinful. Some homosexual people
are promiscuous. Probably the church needs to think more than it does
about how to help these people, but I am not thinking of them now. Nor am
I thinking of the millions of gays and lesbians who spend their lives in their
closets without promiscuity, some of whom do come to our churches. The
question remains about the morality of those gay men and lesbian women who have
fallen in love with someone of their own gender and formed a loving, committed
partnership. When they ask for membership in our churches saying, “Christ
is our Lord and Savior and we want to serve him with you in this church’s
fellowship,” should we assume their union is sinful when there is nothing in
the Bible that says so? We turn to Bible principles for guidance.
Let us look at some pertinent questions.
To be moral, must sex be between male and female?
We know that just because a sex act is between male and female, that does not
make it (or literally, make the people) moral. The final criteria for
morality will be found elsewhere.
We know, also, that while the procreative sex act must be between male and
female, sex involves many other acts, some of which sometimes become more
important than that act. God made both men and women with desire
and potential joy in all those other sex expressions. There is nothing in
the Bible that declares that for sex to be moral, it must be between a man and
a woman.
To be moral, must sex be in marriage?
We are certain that all sex in marriage is not moral; there is often
selfishness, exploitation when one considers the other as merely a sex object,
even rape. Whatever the final criteria are for moral sex, they will be
found somewhere outside of, beyond, legal marriage, for morality is in people,
not in a legal status. But so many think sex outside of marriage is sin;
sex in marriage is not. They consider it as simple and black and white as
that. But nothing as complex as sex, which plumbs both the heights of
beauty and the depths of ugliness, can be simple, and no black and white rule
can define it.
McNeill speaks to this:
For gays and lesbians to be moral, must they be celibate?
Some say that if homosexuality is unchangeable and if homosexuals cannot love a
person of the opposite sex, then they must remain celibate. The Bible
gives its blessing to celibacy under certain conditions (Matthew 19:12), but
gives no guidance about its adoption. Paul seems to recognize that not
all people can remain celibate (I Cor. 7:9).
Psychotherapist/theologian McNeill expresses what I have found in my reading to
be supported by many psychologists with regard to celibacy: (a) it is wrong to
consign a person to such isolation and loneliness, one who is thus cut off from
close relationships with either sex, not temporarily but until death; (b) it is
unrealistic to expect this for it is virtually impossible for it to be done;
(c) many of those who attempt to do this do so for pathological reasons; (d)
the “almost inevitable results [of attempting celibacy] will be tragic in terms
of suffering, guilt, and mental disorder;” and (e) growth and maturity require
deep and committed relationships in one’s life.[iii]
Pathology in attempts at celibacy? McNeill’s explanation:
Other highly respected theologians, also, have concluded that gays and lesbians
need to develop intimate and committed relationships. Thielicke: “It is
true that the homosexual relationship is … very certainly a search for the
totality of the other human being. He who says otherwise has not yet
observed the possible human depth of a homoerotic-colored friendship.”[v] William Barclay, whose
commentaries on the books of the New Testament have sold over a million copies,
has this comment on celibacy: “Sex is a part of life and the deliberate annihilation
of it is not a virtue; it is a criticism of life as God made it and meant it to
be.”[vi] McNeill believes, “Only a
sadistic God would create millions of humans as gay with no choice in the
matter and no hope of changing and then deny them the right to express their
gayness in a loving relationship for the rest of their lives under threat of eternal
damnation.”[vii]
Louise, I think we must conclude that requiring celibacy of gay men and lesbian
women cannot be supported by the Bible, is unjustifiable from an ethical
standpoint, and can be damaging psychologically. Sex, created by God in
every person, has the potential of being beautiful and blessed by God in anyperson.
If the morality of sex is not defined by a specific sex act, by being
married, or by being celibate, how is it defined?
McNeill believes: “A general consideration of scriptural data concerning sexual
behavior leads to only one certain conclusion: those sexual relations can be
justified morally which are a true expression of human love. The call of
the Gospel is not one of conforming passively to biological givens; rather,
that call is to transform and humanize the natural order through the power to
love.”[viii]
Theologian James B. Nelson’s concept: “I believe that our best biblical
scholarship reaches Walter Wink’s conclusion: ‘There is no biblical sex ethic.
The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to
bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or
period.’”[ix]
Wink, Nelson and McNeill and others say love is the criterion. But the
way we use the word, it means many different things to different people.
We love pie and babies and the sweet old lady next door. So not
just any kind of love will do. It certainly is not anywhere where there
is selfishness and lust and not in the immature love of youth and their
“crushes” (however “sweet” they may be.)
Theologians have tried to define the kind of love required by moral sex.
Nelson’s concept is that sexual acts ought above all to be “shaped by
love, justice, equality, fidelity, mutual respect, compassion, and grateful
joy.”[x] Ethicist Michael Keeling
believes that covenant is the essential factor for moral sex that we find in
the Bible, that sex between two people who have made a covenant with each other
is moral.[xi] Norman Pittinger believes
the same criteria hold for either heterosexual love or homosexual love: “the
centrality and primacy of love—love which is mutuality, sharing,
giving-and-receiving, life together in the most radical sense of the phrase.”[xii] Christopher Levan expects
moral sex to “embody the divine intention for self-giving love. … Thus,
sexuality is not a question of right technique, it is a question of right
relationship.”[xiii]
These adjectives defining uniting love are, I believe, summed up in Ephesians
5:25 where we read about the kind of love that should bind a married couple:the
same kind of love Christ had for his church when he gave his life for her.
We realize that such love surely can be approached only by two
people—they could be straight or gay— who are so utterly devoted and dedicated
to each other that they have formed a union that they want never to be broken.
Surely this is Godly love. In such love—heterosexual or
homosexual—sexual expression fulfills its God-given purpose.
Can homosexuals have this kind of love?
Historical theology professor Rosemary Reuther writes:
One of the earliest affirmations of this that I found is a statement made by
Quakers back in 1963: “… the Quaker committee, after a long study of
homosexuality, drew the conclusion: ‘Surely it is the nature and quality of a
relation that matters; one must not judge it by its outer appearance but its
inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual
affection, and, therefore, we cannot see that it is in some way morally
worse.’”[xv]
In 1975 a symposium on homosexuality at the annual meeting of the Christian
Association for Psychological Studies (note Christian Association)
reported that behavioral science research and the realities of their clinical
practice had forced them to propose that while promiscuity, fornication, and
adultery should be regarded as sinful for both homosexual and heterosexual
persons, a loving, committed, permanent relationship between two persons of the
same sex was in an entirely different category and was not condemned in
Scripture, and that Christians burdened with an involuntary homosexual
orientation could choose a committed homosexual relationship as within God’s
will rather than an unwanted celibacy.[xvi]
Louise, if I can believe, as I do, that gay and lesbian people can in their
hearts and minds meet the criteria set forth above in their relationships just
as fully as heterosexual people can, then I can believe, as I have come to,
that their sexual expressions of love are moral in God’s sight, are within the
moral principles that God expects us to live by. Love by these criteria,
heterosexual or homosexual, is Godlike, for God is love.
These criteria are narrow. If a couple says, “We love each other so we
can move in together. If we find we're compatible, maybe we'll marry
later," it is quite doubtful they have the kind of love, selfless devotion
and lifetime commitment required for these criteria. I know of a couple, unmarried for very special reasons, who
live in a relationship that evidences full commitment to each other, to the
Lord and to the church. I do not question the morality of their
relationship. The criteria are spiritual, not legal. But they are
narrow.
Unfortunately, loving, committed homosexual couples represent only a small
percentage of all homosexuals (10% in one large-scale study of gays[xvii]). Many believe that number would
increase greatly if society accepted homosexuality and encouraged committed
homosexual relationships just as it does heterosexual relationships.
[i] Kathy Rudy, Sex
and the Church (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), 108
[ii] McNeill, 204
[iii] Ibid., 103
[iv] Ibid., 165, 204
[v] Thielicke, 271
[vi] William Barclay, A
Spiritual Autobiography, 115
[vii] McNeill, 102
[viii] McNeill, Taking a Chance on
God, 38
[ix] James B. Nelson,
“Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case” in
Jeffrey S.Siker,
Ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, 81
[x] James B.
Nelson, Are Christianity and Homosexuality Incompatible, 102
[xi]Michael Keeling, “A
Christian Basis for Gay Relationships,” in Malcolm Macourt, Ed.,
Towards a Theology
of Gay Liberation, 101
[xii] Norman Pittinger
[xiii] Christopher Levan,
“Homosexuality and Sin” in Pamela Dickey Young, Ed.,
Theological
Reflections on Ministry and Sexual Orientation, 65
[xiv] Quoted in Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
130
[xv] Alastair Huron, ed., Toward
a Quaker View of Sex
[xvi] Nava and Dawidoff,
120, 147
[xvii] Stanton Jones and Don
E. Workman, “Homosexuality: The Behavioral Sciences and the
Church”
in Siker, 97
Answer: While Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality to be immoral, this was
only her personal view. The morality of homosexuality is not a philosophical
issue per se, but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality
of homosexuality in any given situation. The essence of the Objectivist
position is this: Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it
is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people
don't choose their sexual orientations—it is in their natures to prefer sexual
relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both.
On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their
natures, and since sex is essential to man's life and happiness, this is a
moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their
natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between.
Objectivism holds that sex is morally important, but not for the
traditionally cited reasons. While some believe that sex should be practiced
only in order to procreate or only in accordance with the mandates of their
religions, Objectivismholds that sex is morally important because it can
promote one's life and happiness. Sex is not merely a hedonic process that
produces immediate sensory pleasure. Sex, "[t]o a rational man…is an
expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence"
(Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist,
Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is
properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own
highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and
body, of love and sexual desire" (ibid., 2). Celebration of one's own life
and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral
to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or
negate it.
So according to Objectivism, sex is potentially moral, but what about
homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were
disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological
"flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it
is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on
Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). Apparently, she thought
that heterosexuality was a universal fact of human nature. "The essence of
femininity," she wrote, "is hero worship" (Ayn Rand, "About a Woman President," in The Voice
of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff [New York: Penguin, 1989], 268), the worship
of men as producers. It is human nature, she believed, for a woman of
self-esteem to want to be ruled, in sexual matters, by a man worthy of ruling
her, and for a man of self-esteem to want to rule, in sexual matters, a woman
worthy of being ruled. To Rand, the "unfortunate premises" that lead
to homosexuality are, presumably, premises that contradict this view of sex
roles. (For further discussion and debate on Rand's views on sex, see Mimi
Gladstein and Chris Sciabarra, eds.,Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand [University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1999].)
Current psychobiological research indicates that
Rand's conception of sex roles is, in part, mistaken. Biological factors such
as genetics and prenatal development play substantial roles in determining
sexual orientation. While the developmental mechanisms are not yet fully
understood, it is known that many, if not most, homosexuals are attracted to
members of the same sex by no choice of their own. Moreover, to the extent that
homosexuality is not a product of choice, it is not a moral issue. As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (New York: Penguin, 1957), "a sin without
volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that
which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of
morality" (938).
While sexual orientations may not be chosen, in
many cases, what behaviors people exhibit in response to their orientations are
chosen, and such behaviors can be evaluated morally. A person who by nature,
rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the
opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this
fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness
and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act
in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman
whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become
romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is
morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women
rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking
out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral
(just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but
there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se.
However, this moral fact has no political
implications. While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be
outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special
rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have
the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior
is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights
are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals
do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals.(http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral)
2.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male
3.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
4.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
5.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian
6.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality
7.)http://www.gospel.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/04/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-gender-roles/
8.)http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral
For the grammatical concept, see Grammatical gender. For other meanings see Gender (disambiguation).
Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity.[1] Depending on the context, the term may refer to such concepts as sex (as in the general state of being male or female),social roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.
Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[2][3] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[4][5] and documents written by the World Health Organization(WHO),[6] but in many contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.[2][3] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration of the process in the scientific literature was observed when the Food and Drug Administration started to use "gender" instead of "sex" in 1993.[7] "Gender" is now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of non-human animals, without any implication of social gender roles.[3]
Gender studies has become a branch of the social sciences.
In the English literature, the trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978.[3][8] Some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra of India and Pakistan.
While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence the formation of gender identity.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gABZn7T5zA(video of some researchers about sex)
This article is about the Male sex. For the city, see Malé. For other uses, see Male (disambiguation).
Not all species share a common sex-determination system. In most animals including humans, sex is determined genetically, but in some species it can be determined due to social, environmental or other factors.
The existence of two sexes seems to have been selected independently across different evolutionary lineages (see Convergent Evolution). The repeated pattern is sexual reproduction in isogamous species with two or more mating types with gametes of identical form and behavior (but different at the molecular level) to anisogamous species with gametes of male and female types to oogamous species in which the female gamete is very much larger than the male and has no ability to move. There is a good argument that this pattern was driven by the physical constraints on the mechanisms by which two gametes get together as required for sexual reproduction.[1]
Accordingly, sex is defined operationally across species by the type of gametes produced (i.e.: spermatozoa vs. ova) and differences between males and females in one lineage are not always predictive of differences in another.
Male/female dimorphism between organisms or reproductive organs of different sexes is not limited to animals; male gametes are produced by chytrids,diatoms and land plants, among others. In land plants, female and male designate not only the female and male gamete-producing organisms and structures but also the structures of the sporophytes that give rise to male and female plants.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)
For other uses, see Female (disambiguation).
This article needs
additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)
*This article is about gay as a term. For homosexuality, see Homosexuality. For other uses, see Gay (disambiguation).
Gay is a word (a noun or an adjective) that primarily refers to a homosexual person.
The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.[1] The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to men, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups andstyle guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3] At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use, the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[4][5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay)
This article is about the sexual orientation. For other uses, see Lesbian (disambiguation).
Lesbian as a concept, used to differentiate women with a shared sexual orientation, is a 20th-century construct. Throughout history, women have not had the freedom or independence to pursue homosexual relationships as men have, but neither have they met the harsh punishment in some societies as homosexual men. Instead, lesbian relationships have often been regarded as harmless and incomparable to heterosexual ones unless the participants attempted to assert privileges traditionally enjoyed by men. As a result, little in history has been documented to give an accurate description of how female homosexuality has been expressed. When early sexologistsin the late 19th century began to categorize and describe homosexual behavior, hampered by a lack of knowledge about lesbianism or women's sexuality, they distinguished lesbians as women who did not adhere to female gender roles and designated them mentally ill.
Women in homosexual relationships responded to this designation either by hiding their personal lives or accepting the label of outcast and creating a subculture and identity that developed in Europe and the United States. Following World War II, during a period of social repression when governments actively persecuted homosexuals, women developed networks to socialize with and educate each other. Greater economic and social freedom allowed women gradually to be able to determine how they could form relationships and families. With second wave feminism and growth of scholarship in women's history and sexuality in the 20th century, the definition of lesbianbroadened, sparking a debate about sexual desire as the major component to define what a lesbian is. Women exhibit sexual fluidity and can become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex. Some women who engage in homosexual behavior may reject the lesbian identity entirely, refusing to identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual. Other women may adopt a lesbian identity for political reasons. Greater understanding of women's sexuality has led to three components to identifying lesbians: sexual behavior, sexual desire, or sexual identity.
Portrayals of lesbians in the media suggest that Western society at large has been simultaneously intrigued and threatened by women who challenge feminine gender roles, and fascinated and appalled with women who are romantically involved with other women. Women who adopt a lesbian identity share experiences that form an outlook similar to an ethnic identity: as homosexuals, they are unified by the discrimination and potential rejection they face from their families, friends, and others. As women, they face concerns separate from men. Lesbians may encounter distinct physical or mental health concerns. Political conditions and social attitudes also affect the formation of lesbian relationships and families.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian)
"Bisexual" redirects here. For other uses, see Bisexual (disambiguation).
Bisexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior toward males and females. The term is especially used in the context of human sexual attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward men and women.[1][2] It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along with a heterosexual and a homosexual orientation, all a part of the heterosexual–homosexual continuum. People who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other may identify themselves as bisexual.[3]
Bisexuality has been observed in various human societies[4] and elsewhere in the animal kingdom[5][6][7] throughout recorded history. The termbisexuality, however, like the terms hetero- and homosexuality, was coined in the 19th century.[8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality)
As in the case of so many political and social issues, there are scholars, and studied opinions on both sides. Some believe that the most important statement the Bible makes about gender is found in the words of the Apostle Paul when he writes that, in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus†(Galatians 3:28).
Others argue just as emphatically that the same Apostle Paul encouraged wives to learn quietly in church (1Cor 14:34), and at home, to be submissive to their husbands, as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22). In another letter Paul adds, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God†(1Cor 11:2).
The post generated quite a bit of reader discussion, so De Haan followed up with second post reflecting further on the topic. If the famous Bible passage about submission to one’s husband has you wondering about the Bible’s teachings on gender roles, these posts and the discussions offer a lot of good food for thought.
By: Andy. This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 2:00 am and is filed under Bible Study, Relationships. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.(http://www.gospel.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/04/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-gender-roles/)
1. The Bible’s Silence on the Morality of Homosexual Sex
Until the late nineteenth century, as already mentioned, the concept of homosexuality was totally unknown. No Bible writer knew of homosexuality, so no Bible writer could have said anything about it. The Bible writer is always talking about the only kind of people he knew anything about, the only kind anyone knew about for another 19 centuries; today we would call them heterosexual In statements in the Bible about same-gender sex, the writer is saying that when two of these (heterosexual) people have same-gender sex, they are lustful and sinful. We believe the Bible and we believe that. There cannot be anything in the Bible that says anything about (unknown) homosexuality or homosexual people or acts by gay or lesbian persons. Many writers point this out, but alas, homophobics are not reading.
No one questions the Bible's condemnation of sexual lust, and with our understanding of orientation today that would be whether it was homosexual or heterosexual. Lust is a matter of the human heart. It is the lust in the person that is condemned, not the act itself.
That last statement is important, for some may say that the Bible condemns the act of same-gender sex regardless of whether it is a heterosexual act or a homosexual act. But all ethicists tell us morality is only in persons. Only people are moral or immoral, not spoken words, not actions – only the people behind the words or actions have morality or immorality. We often say some action is wrong, but that is figurative; literally it is the person who is wrong. If someone takes a gun, points it and pulls its trigger, that is an act. Any morality is in the intent of the gun-handler. It could be murder, self-defense, target practice, putting a suffering animal to sleep, etc. It is not the act, it is the mind behind it that God judges. When the Bible talks about evil, it is talking about persons., not acts.
We need to understand clearly: No act performed by anyone is moral or immoral in itself. That is, no act performed by a homosexual is immoral. It is simply an act, nothing else. God is looking on the heart of the person.
If anyone insists on believing that the Bible writers could and did talk about homosexuality, gays and lesbians, he or she should consider that if the Bible's condemnation of opposite-gender sex acts, many times, does not mean that all opposite-gender sex acts are condemned, then the Bible's condemnation of same-gender sex acts, a few times, does not necessarily mean that all same-gender sex acts are condemned.
Since the Bible has no specific reference to homosexual sex, nor condemnation of all same-gender sex acts, we must find our understanding of its morality from the principles the Bible teaches us. So I shall try to address that.
2. The Criteria for Homosexual Morality
Whatever the criteria are for moral sex expression, they are as accessible to
the homosexual as they are to the heterosexual.
Now we are face to face with the question of what is moral in sex expression. What are the criteria to be met for sex expression to be moral? Professor Kathy Rudy says, “Christian ethicists, moral theologians, and religious leaders throughout the ages have spent an enormous amount of time and energy thinking about when sex can be considered moral and when it cannot.”[i]
One reason theologians and Christian ethicists have difficulty finding a sex ethic in the Bible is that the Bible’s condemnation of sexual acts is always associated with immoral, selfish lust, while Scripture says nothing that specifically defines a loving sex life.
We know that promiscuous sex is lustful, sinful. Some homosexual people are promiscuous. Probably the church needs to think more than it does about how to help these people, but I am not thinking of them now. Nor am I thinking of the millions of gays and lesbians who spend their lives in their closets without promiscuity, some of whom do come to our churches. The question remains about the morality of those gay men and lesbian women who have fallen in love with someone of their own gender and formed a loving, committed partnership. When they ask for membership in our churches saying, “Christ is our Lord and Savior and we want to serve him with you in this church’s fellowship,” should we assume their union is sinful when there is nothing in the Bible that says so? We turn to Bible principles for guidance. Let us look at some pertinent questions.
To be moral, must sex be between male and female?
We know that just because a sex act is between male and female, that does not make it (or literally, make the people) moral. The final criteria for morality will be found elsewhere.
We know, also, that while the procreative sex act must be between male and female, sex involves many other acts, some of which sometimes become more important than that act. God made both men and women with desire and potential joy in all those other sex expressions. There is nothing in the Bible that declares that for sex to be moral, it must be between a man and a woman.
To be moral, must sex be in marriage?
We are certain that all sex in marriage is not moral; there is often selfishness, exploitation when one considers the other as merely a sex object, even rape. Whatever the final criteria are for moral sex, they will be found somewhere outside of, beyond, legal marriage, for morality is in people, not in a legal status. But so many think sex outside of marriage is sin; sex in marriage is not. They consider it as simple and black and white as that. But nothing as complex as sex, which plumbs both the heights of beauty and the depths of ugliness, can be simple, and no black and white rule can define it.
McNeill speaks to this:
For gays and lesbians to be moral, must they be celibate?
Some say that if homosexuality is unchangeable and if homosexuals cannot love a person of the opposite sex, then they must remain celibate. The Bible gives its blessing to celibacy under certain conditions (Matthew 19:12), but gives no guidance about its adoption. Paul seems to recognize that not all people can remain celibate (I Cor. 7:9).
Psychotherapist/theologian McNeill expresses what I have found in my reading to be supported by many psychologists with regard to celibacy: (a) it is wrong to consign a person to such isolation and loneliness, one who is thus cut off from close relationships with either sex, not temporarily but until death; (b) it is unrealistic to expect this for it is virtually impossible for it to be done; (c) many of those who attempt to do this do so for pathological reasons; (d) the “almost inevitable results [of attempting celibacy] will be tragic in terms of suffering, guilt, and mental disorder;” and (e) growth and maturity require deep and committed relationships in one’s life.[iii]
Pathology in attempts at celibacy? McNeill’s explanation:
Other highly respected theologians, also, have concluded that gays and lesbians need to develop intimate and committed relationships. Thielicke: “It is true that the homosexual relationship is … very certainly a search for the totality of the other human being. He who says otherwise has not yet observed the possible human depth of a homoerotic-colored friendship.”[v] William Barclay, whose commentaries on the books of the New Testament have sold over a million copies, has this comment on celibacy: “Sex is a part of life and the deliberate annihilation of it is not a virtue; it is a criticism of life as God made it and meant it to be.”[vi] McNeill believes, “Only a sadistic God would create millions of humans as gay with no choice in the matter and no hope of changing and then deny them the right to express their gayness in a loving relationship for the rest of their lives under threat of eternal damnation.”[vii]
Louise, I think we must conclude that requiring celibacy of gay men and lesbian women cannot be supported by the Bible, is unjustifiable from an ethical standpoint, and can be damaging psychologically. Sex, created by God in every person, has the potential of being beautiful and blessed by God in anyperson.
If the morality of sex is not defined by a specific sex act, by being married, or by being celibate, how is it defined?
McNeill believes: “A general consideration of scriptural data concerning sexual behavior leads to only one certain conclusion: those sexual relations can be justified morally which are a true expression of human love. The call of the Gospel is not one of conforming passively to biological givens; rather, that call is to transform and humanize the natural order through the power to love.”[viii]
Theologian James B. Nelson’s concept: “I believe that our best biblical scholarship reaches Walter Wink’s conclusion: ‘There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.’”[ix]
Wink, Nelson and McNeill and others say love is the criterion. But the way we use the word, it means many different things to different people. We love pie and babies and the sweet old lady next door. So not just any kind of love will do. It certainly is not anywhere where there is selfishness and lust and not in the immature love of youth and their “crushes” (however “sweet” they may be.)
Theologians have tried to define the kind of love required by moral sex. Nelson’s concept is that sexual acts ought above all to be “shaped by love, justice, equality, fidelity, mutual respect, compassion, and grateful joy.”[x] Ethicist Michael Keeling believes that covenant is the essential factor for moral sex that we find in the Bible, that sex between two people who have made a covenant with each other is moral.[xi] Norman Pittinger believes the same criteria hold for either heterosexual love or homosexual love: “the centrality and primacy of love—love which is mutuality, sharing, giving-and-receiving, life together in the most radical sense of the phrase.”[xii] Christopher Levan expects moral sex to “embody the divine intention for self-giving love. … Thus, sexuality is not a question of right technique, it is a question of right relationship.”[xiii]
These adjectives defining uniting love are, I believe, summed up in Ephesians 5:25 where we read about the kind of love that should bind a married couple:the same kind of love Christ had for his church when he gave his life for her. We realize that such love surely can be approached only by two people—they could be straight or gay— who are so utterly devoted and dedicated to each other that they have formed a union that they want never to be broken. Surely this is Godly love. In such love—heterosexual or homosexual—sexual expression fulfills its God-given purpose.
Can homosexuals have this kind of love?
Historical theology professor Rosemary Reuther writes:
One of the earliest affirmations of this that I found is a statement made by Quakers back in 1963: “… the Quaker committee, after a long study of homosexuality, drew the conclusion: ‘Surely it is the nature and quality of a relation that matters; one must not judge it by its outer appearance but its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and, therefore, we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse.’”[xv]
In 1975 a symposium on homosexuality at the annual meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (note Christian Association) reported that behavioral science research and the realities of their clinical practice had forced them to propose that while promiscuity, fornication, and adultery should be regarded as sinful for both homosexual and heterosexual persons, a loving, committed, permanent relationship between two persons of the same sex was in an entirely different category and was not condemned in Scripture, and that Christians burdened with an involuntary homosexual orientation could choose a committed homosexual relationship as within God’s will rather than an unwanted celibacy.[xvi]
Louise, if I can believe, as I do, that gay and lesbian people can in their hearts and minds meet the criteria set forth above in their relationships just as fully as heterosexual people can, then I can believe, as I have come to, that their sexual expressions of love are moral in God’s sight, are within the moral principles that God expects us to live by. Love by these criteria, heterosexual or homosexual, is Godlike, for God is love.
These criteria are narrow. If a couple says, “We love each other so we can move in together. If we find we're compatible, maybe we'll marry later," it is quite doubtful they have the kind of love, selfless devotion and lifetime commitment required for these criteria. I know of a couple, unmarried for very special reasons, who live in a relationship that evidences full commitment to each other, to the Lord and to the church. I do not question the morality of their relationship. The criteria are spiritual, not legal. But they are narrow.
Unfortunately, loving, committed homosexual couples represent only a small percentage of all homosexuals (10% in one large-scale study of gays[xvii]). Many believe that number would increase greatly if society accepted homosexuality and encouraged committed homosexual relationships just as it does heterosexual relationships.
[i] Kathy Rudy, Sex and the Church (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), 108
[ii] McNeill, 204
[iii] Ibid., 103
[iv] Ibid., 165, 204
[v] Thielicke, 271
[vi] William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography, 115
[vii] McNeill, 102
[viii] McNeill, Taking a Chance on God, 38
[ix] James B. Nelson, “Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case” in
Jeffrey S.Siker, Ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, 81
[x] James B. Nelson, Are Christianity and Homosexuality Incompatible, 102
[xi]Michael Keeling, “A Christian Basis for Gay Relationships,” in Malcolm Macourt, Ed.,
Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, 101
[xii] Norman Pittinger
[xiii] Christopher Levan, “Homosexuality and Sin” in Pamela Dickey Young, Ed.,
Theological Reflections on Ministry and Sexual Orientation, 65
[xiv] Quoted in Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
130
[xv] Alastair Huron, ed., Toward a Quaker View of Sex
[xvi] Nava and Dawidoff, 120, 147
[xvii] Stanton Jones and Don E. Workman, “Homosexuality: The Behavioral Sciences and the
Church” in Siker, 97
Answer: While Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality to be immoral, this was only her personal view. The morality of homosexuality is not a philosophical issue per se, but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality in any given situation. The essence of the Objectivist position is this: Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don't choose their sexual orientations—it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is essential to man's life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between.
Objectivism holds that sex is morally important, but not for the traditionally cited reasons. While some believe that sex should be practiced only in order to procreate or only in accordance with the mandates of their religions, Objectivismholds that sex is morally important because it can promote one's life and happiness. Sex is not merely a hedonic process that produces immediate sensory pleasure. Sex, "[t]o a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence" (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire" (ibid., 2). Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it.
So according to Objectivism, sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). Apparently, she thought that heterosexuality was a universal fact of human nature. "The essence of femininity," she wrote, "is hero worship" (Ayn Rand, "About a Woman President," in The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff [New York: Penguin, 1989], 268), the worship of men as producers. It is human nature, she believed, for a woman of self-esteem to want to be ruled, in sexual matters, by a man worthy of ruling her, and for a man of self-esteem to want to rule, in sexual matters, a woman worthy of being ruled. To Rand, the "unfortunate premises" that lead to homosexuality are, presumably, premises that contradict this view of sex roles. (For further discussion and debate on Rand's views on sex, see Mimi Gladstein and Chris Sciabarra, eds.,Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand [University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999].)
Current psychobiological research indicates that Rand's conception of sex roles is, in part, mistaken. Biological factors such as genetics and prenatal development play substantial roles in determining sexual orientation. While the developmental mechanisms are not yet fully understood, it is known that many, if not most, homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex by no choice of their own. Moreover, to the extent that homosexuality is not a product of choice, it is not a moral issue. As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (New York: Penguin, 1957), "a sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality" (938).
While sexual orientations may not be chosen, in many cases, what behaviors people exhibit in response to their orientations are chosen, and such behaviors can be evaluated morally. A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se.
However, this moral fact has no political implications. While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals.(http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral)
2.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male
3.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
4.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
5.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian
6.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality
7.)http://www.gospel.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/04/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-gender-roles/
8.)http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral
