Martha Nussbaum’s novel, From Disgust to Humanity, demonstrates a change in time where our society is moving forward from politics of disgust to politics of humanity. According to Nussbaum, the politics of disgust is a viewpoint that connects homosexual activities with things that are normally categorized as disgusting, such as saliva, feces, semen, and blood. These practices performed by homosexuals tend to invoke the emotion of disgust; thus, the term politics of disgust. The politics of humanity is quite the contrary. An individual’s freedom, liberty, and decisions are looked upon with utmost respect regardless of others’ personal attitudes, as long as they don’t inflict harm on the bystanders. In Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity, disgust …show more content…
Nussbaum targets both same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage during this part of her argument. She clearly breaks down to the reader the reasons behind the disapproval of same-sex marriage. Since, most people who are against gay marriage always take their position in the argument of straight marriage, Nussbaum discusses the whole topic of marriage itself. States tend to take marriage nonchalantly; anybody who fills out the application is granted the right to marriage, but there exist people who believe marriages are how it is said to be on a wedding card; truth is, those types of marriages doesn’t exist. According to Nussbaum, marriages are not as usually how it is portrayed in pictures, movies, etc. It is definitely not how the little figures on top of the wedding cake portray marriage to be either. The act of polygamy was popular during early eras. Men married more than once and people didn’t care about divorcing their spouse before taking part in another marriage. Nussbaum berates the people who defend the term “happy marriages” because the divorce rates of the present era show that marriages are falling apart quicker and quicker. This is due to the fact that “when women are able to leave, many demand a better deal” (Nussbaum 138) and also “it’s just that people live so much longer” (Nussbaum 146). Nussbaum believes that marriage is a changing problem in our era. She questions why our …show more content…
The fact that homosexual clubs are kept an eye on by the police way more than heterosexual clubs is a form a social inequality according to Nussbaum. She takes John Stuart Mill’s side of self-regarding actions and how those actions that do not arouse harm around others shouldn’t be monitored. While Devlin and Kass use disgust the criteria for the basis of law making, Mill and Nussbaum resort to harm as the criteria for the basis of law making. People who believe that sex clubs are not necessary believe that because they think it harms customers. However, Nussbaum points out the fact that there are other harmful activities that are not regulated. “Alcohol, a dangerous drug with well-documented links to harm to others (violence, drunk driving, sexual assault) is hardly regulated at all, except for age and place of purchase restrictions” (Nussbaum 178). She even counteracts the argument that criminals tend to take part in criminal activity due to them going to sex clubs by stating that “we should target criminals, not places of consensual activity that are sometimes patronized by criminals” (Nussbaum 182). Due to these arguments, Nussbaum comes to the conclusion that there is no need of banning or regulating sex clubs because they don’t harm the nonconsenting and the actions performed in the clubs are self-regarding. The only criteria that people
The debate over homosexuality as nature or nurture dominates most topics about homosexuality. People often confuse the nature/nurture issue with the development of gay identity. In fact, the nature/nurture argument plays a small, insignificant role concerning gay youths (Walling 11). Homosexual identity is the view of the self as homosexual in association with romantic and sexual situations (Troiden 46) Many researchers have either discussed or created several models or theories concerning the development of homosexual identity. However, the most prominent is Troiden’s sociological four-stage model of homosexual identity formation. Dr. Richard R. Troiden desc...
... of what happened from the seventies to the nineties. We went from liberal ideas of ways to dress and live our lives to conservative ideas of clear defining lines between sexual categories and more conservative styles of dress; boys dressing like boys and girls dressing appropriately as girls. People of the nineties were not able to accept the fluidity of bisexuality because it does not fit in a clear-cut category; it entails all of them instead. Perhaps as we venture into a new century and millennium our society should start learning from the past so we can continue making steps forward instead of backtracking into the close-mindedness of the past. Freedom should be something embraced and not stepped over. This freedom can help us to remember, "…In the end, it is really about the simple mysterious pull between warm human bodies when the lights go out." (Newsweek, 50)
Society has grown to accept and be more opened to a variety of new or previously shunned cultural repulsions. Lesbians, transgenders, and gays for example were recognized as shameful mistakes in society. In the story Giovanni 's Room, the author James Baldwin explores the hardships of gays in the 1960. The book provides reasons why it is difficult for men to identify themselves as homosexuals. This is shown through the internalized voice of authority, the lack of assigned roles for homosexuals in society and the consequences entailed for the opposite gender.
In today’s society there are many pressing controversial topics, such as gay rights. The way these topics are argued varies, the author can use emotion, statistics, personal experience, morals, and many other things; however the author takes a gamble in effectiveness with each style used. In LZ Grandersons, “The Gay Agenda,” Granderson uses emotional appeal and personal experience to present his argument and this proves to be very successful in engaging a strong reaction from the reader. By taking the reader on his journey of realizing his sexuality, from the moment he realized he should come out, to finding his life partner, and realizing that there was a large issue in the way homosexuals were treated and thought about, Granderson created
Andrew Sullivan, author of, What is a Homosexual, portrays his experience growing up; trapped in his own identity. He paints a detailed portrait of the hardships caused by being homosexual. He explains the struggle of self-concealment, and how doing so is vital for social acceptation. The ability to hide one’s true feelings make it easier to be “invisible” as Sullivan puts it. “The experience of growing up profoundly different in emotional and psychological makeup inevitably alters a person’s self-perception.”(Sullivan)This statement marks one of the many reasons for this concealment. The main idea of this passage is to reflect on those hardships, and too understand true self-conscious difference. Being different can cause identity problems, especially in adolescents.
...ognized that heterosexual, as well as homosexual individuals engaged oral and anal sex (Gay and Lesbian Rights, 49). For many years it was thought that people who were gay had some sort of mental disorder, and there are still plenty of individuals who believe this. Texas has yet to repeal laws condemning persons of sodomy, as well as three other states (Gay and Lesbian Rights, 49). This is evidence that certain individuals in Texas still believe that sodomy is a crime. Many are set in their ways, that the bible states clearly the stipulation that a man with a woman is the only correct and moral pairing of human beings. With knowledge of the overlying historical ideology of justification for discrimination that Baynton discusses in his essay, the egregiousness of this historical and current oppression of those with ‘abnormal’ sexual preferences becomes even clearer.
David Wojnarowicz’s 1990 “One day this kid…” piece uses the pathos of a kid done harm in an attempt to get the audience to take a hard look at how their and others actions effect homosexuals, and whether its warranted. The artist goes through a long list of trials and tribulations that effect homosexuals, and then uses the picture of a kid to put it in the context of not just supposed problems a gay person could encounter, but of wrongs done to this kid specifically. This is then reinforced when David gets to the second column where he addresses specific responses his opposition might think of such as laws, repression, which he phrases as being forcibly silenced and evokes thoughts of unhealthiness, or psychology in all of the horror its practice
It is clear that the murder of Matthew Shepard was a hate-crime against homosexuality and that fact was bound to be a significant factor in the court case. The motives of Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson prove that homophobia can lead to nefarious actions and tragedies. Not only do more serious consequences for homophobic actions need to be enforced, but acceptance of homosexuality needs to be enforced socially in order to reduce future tragedy in the LGBTQ
In this age of liberation and relative morality it is no surprise that homosexuals have tried very hard to gain ground in the way of civil rights. Homosexuals say they want equal rights, and they want homosexual-marriages to be legalized. However, what they are asking for is not reasonable. They are humans; and therefore they already have the same rights as every other human living in America. What homosexuals want are special privileges and the acceptance of homosexuality as a natural alternative lifestyle, second, marriage is already clearly defined, and third because homosexuals already have the same rights, they want special privileges, and since homosexuality is not an innate quality they don’t deserve them. People who have been misinformed about what the homosexual agenda is think that homosexual marriage is natural and that it should be legalized. I however, am opposed to this because homosexuality is not a natural alternative lifestyle. First let’s define homosexuality. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, homosexuality is “having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.” Men and women are obviously biologically different. “People of the same sex having intercourse goes against what is biologically natural” (Baird 114). Part of the homosexual agenda is to make people believe that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals when it comes to engaging in sexual behavior. This is absolutely not true. In Michelangelo Signorile’s book Cassel’s Rawlings 2 Queer Companion, a dictionary of lesbian and gay life and culture, he describes some of the sexual activities that homosexuals practice. These includes “fisting, when one partner shoves his whole hand up the anus of the other partner” (Signorile 96). In the essay Homosexual Rights: What’s Wrong, written by Brad Hayton and John Eldrege, they stated that “The U.S. taxpayer-funded Mapplethorpe photos. . . portraying typical homosexual behavior: fisting, urinating into anothers mouth, and andomasochism. The average homosexual has 10-106 different partners per year--300-500 in a life time” (Hayton 2). How can this be compared to heterosexual intercourse? How is this natural? It isn’t; this type of sexual behavior- even if it were practiced by heterosexuals- cannot be considered natural, in fact there are many states that have anti-sodomy laws though not enforced. As part of their agenda homosexuals not only want these things to be accepted and protected by the government, they also want them to be taught in public school as part of the sex education curriculum.
In John Corvino’s essay, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” he advocates his argument that gay sex is not “unnatural” in any moral way. However, this argument is easy to critique when considering opposition from natural law theorists, democracy, and other perspective ideas.
The topic of homosexuality has become a constant issue throughout our society for many years. Many people believe that being gay is not acceptable for both religious and moral reasons. Because being gay is not accepted, many homosexuals may feel shame or guilt because of the way they live their everyday lives. This in turn can affect how the person chooses to live their life and it can also affect who the person would like to become. Growing up, David Sedaris struggled to find the common ground between being gay as well as being a normal teenager. He often resorted to the conclusion that you could not be both. Sedaris allows us to see things through his young eyes with his personable short story "I Like Guys". Throughout his short story, Sedaris illustrates to the reader what it was like growing up being gay as well as how the complexities of being gay, and the topic of sexuality controlled his lifestyle daily. He emphasizes the shame he once felt for being gay and how that shame has framed him into the person he has become.
In certain countries such as the U.S, people discriminate against others to a certain extent based off their gender, race, and sexuality. Butler states that “to be a body is to be given over to others even as a body is “one own,” which we must claim right of autonomy” (242). Gays and Lesbians have to be exposed to the world because some of them try to hide their identity of who they truly are because they are afraid of how others are going to look at them. There are some who just let their sexuality out in the open because they feel comfortable with whom they are as human beings and they don’t feel any different than the next person. The gender or sexuality of a human being doesn’t matter because our bodies’ will never be autonomous because it is affected by others around us. This is where humans are vulnerability to violence and aggression. In countries across the globe, violence and attack are drawn towards tran...
In our group there is a consensusthat homosexuals should have complete equality with everyone else in this country to not only marryand engage in sexual activities, but also to raise children. This is the result of the factthat in the recent past homosexuals, as well as women, have challenged these restrictions in the courts as well as in the media. Their actions have had a tremendous effect not only on our group butalso on a vast amount of people in this country. Just twenty yearsago there would have been a much greater opposition to equality for homosexuals. Butas a result of their involvement, public awareness has been raised. This paper aims to deal with specific constitutional arguments, a number of court cases, the opinions of a few Hunter College students we talkedto, and the role that homosexuals play in the media.
Horowitz, Carl F. “Society Does Not Need to Accept Homosexuality.” Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Dudley, William, ed. United States: Opposing Viewpoints Series. Pages 69-77. Print.
When one hears the words “LGBT” and “Homosexuality” it often conjures up a mental picture of people fighting for their rights, which were unjustly taken away or even the social emergence of gay culture in the world in the1980s and the discovery of AIDS. However, many people do not know that the history of LGBT people stretches as far back in humanity’s history, and continues in this day and age. Nevertheless, the LGBT community today faces much discrimination and adversity. Many think the problem lies within society itself, and often enough that may be the case. Society holds preconceptions and prejudice of the LGBT community, though not always due to actual hatred of the LGBT community, but rather through lack of knowledge and poor media portrayal.