Officially Gay - Revision history

Lspencer119 at 02:22, 21 October 2015

2015-10-21T02:22:50Z

Lspencer119 at 21:28, 19 October 2015

2015-10-19T21:28:17Z

Lspencer119 at 21:24, 19 October 2015

2015-10-19T21:24:02Z

Lspencer119 at 21:23, 19 October 2015

2015-10-19T21:23:33Z

Lspencer119: Created page with "test run"

2015-09-28T00:48:52Z

Created page with "test run"

New page

test run

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 }}
 In Officially Gay, Gary L Lehring suggests that the military is primarily responsible for defining homosexuals. By determining what or who constitutes homosexual identity in the military the legal system begun to use the frame work of the military to legislate homosexual identity. By examining and tracing the discourse of homosexuality, Lehring describes how the American conscientious began to shift in regard to homosexuals.
 Lehring suggests that homosexual identity was constructed by using religion, psychology, and medical diagnosis to label gays and lesbians as perverts, mentally unstable, and inherently evil. He examines the historical evolution of the epistemology of these institutions in an effort to determine the influence of institutions upon governmental policy. Lehring, references Michele Foucault’s ideology concerning the rise of institutions.
 Religious institutions aided in the conceptualization of sexual identity is perceived. Overtime religious institutions would develop doctrine which perceived homosexuality as unnatural. This was based largely on an association with what occurred in nature and the interpretation of God’s intent for man. Any sexual act deemed unnatural would fall under the sodomy. Sexual sin would gradually move from the ecclesiastical realm into the civil sector of law. During the mid-1500s English rulers would exact sodomy statues. Once removed from the ecclesiastical courts unnatural acts would become a capital offense.
 Lehring, notes the case of the Earl of Castlehaven, who was tried and executed for sodomy. Castlehaven was an English nobleman accused of sodomizing his wife. Although, there were several other more serious charges, the act of sodomy was considered so offensive to God. The courts in fear of God’s wrath would find Castlehaven guilty and sentence him to death. By the beginning of the twentieth century in many places sodomy was considered a felony and punishable by death. Though religious institutions considered any number of sexual sin sodomy, the judicial system focused its efforts to legislate sexual behavior to same-sex sexual acts.
 Lehring goes on to note that the rise in legal proceedings regarding sodomy led to scientists to begin studying the issues of sexuality and desire. He refers to Michele Focault’s theory on the rise of institutions and urbanization as contributing to a growing need to find medical and scientific explains to what was deemed as problematic issues associated with a growing society. Physicians played a central role in the passage of legislating sexual behavior. Medical professions offered up theories as to prevent a decline in civilization. These theories would address any manner of sexual vices including but not limited to prostitution, birth control, and abortion.
 Physicians would actively pursue discovering new disease and afflictions. As a result of these new discoveries physicians would also pursue a course of treatment for these new found afflictions. The validation of what was regarded as true began to shift established religious beliefs to science based beliefs. Lehring points to the rise of Darwinism theory as being the new interpreter of what was regarded as truth. There was a shift in language, sodomy which is considered an act was replaced by the label of homosexual which refers to a person vice an act.
 Lehring cites John DeCecco’s argument that the labeling of a person as a homosexual was borne out of a social-political desire of those attracted to members of the same sex to distance themselves from the religious, secular, and scientific boundaries of their sexual activities. In contrast to DeCecco’s argument, Lehring notes that Shane Phelan argued that by shifting the language the problem of sexual behavior became a medical problem as opposed to a legal problem. Researchers had successfully shifted the focus from sexual behavior to the person; the homosexual. Research of sexual behavior led to multiple theories which addressed practices which end result was not to reproduce.
 Lehring notes that that scientists and medical professional added to the collective knowledge of sexual vices. Men and women were scrutinized for any behavior did not result in reproduction. These were signs of sexual deviancy were categorized as physical and psychiatric. Physical difference between homosexual and heterosexuals ranged from physical abnormalities to youthful appearance.  Some researcher suggested that homosexuals suffered from multiple personality disorders. Attributes of the male homosexual were characteristics which were effeminate in nature. Lesbian were ascribed masculine characteristics.
 Psychiatric characteristics of homosexual behavior ranged from environmental influences to behavioral influences. Lehring states that of the many theories which were developed, the theories of Sigmund Freud was the most widely accepted. Freud believed that homosexuality in adults was due to a stunted growth phase of sexuality. Freud later changed his views to reflect to homosexuality was linked to sexual instinct and sexual object choice. He believe that either of these could be changed.
- Lehring notes that the Mattachine Society formed in the 50s, was one of the early organization to focus on homosexual culture. The aim of the organization was to have repressive language removed from legislation. The Mattchine Society believed that the language, culture, and legislation heterosexual society denied gays the opportunity to discover their common identity.
 Lehring cites early studies conducted by Alfred Kinsey in the late 40s and the writings of Donald Webster Corey in the 50s, suggest the only difference that exist between heterosexuals and homosexuals is sexual preference. Homosexuals and heterosexual share identical types of background such as social, economic, political, etc.
 During the 60s homosexuals assert themselves and worked to get the psychiatric views of homosexual behavior changed. The resulting outcome was the removal of homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders. Lehring notes that there are mixed opinions from mental health professionals as to the causes of homosexuality.
 The military would employ many of these theories to disqualify applicants from service. This process of identifying and labeling gays not only barred homosexuals from military service but the federal work force as well; they were considered to be a risk to national security.  The way in which the military justified the exclusion of gays serving in the military and federal work office would influence political policies of the government in regard to homosexuals.
 Lehring notes, that the military most common argument for the exclusion of homosexuals service was due to the lack of control over sexual desire. By putting homosexual service members in close contact with heterosexual service members was risky due to the immorality of homosexuals. Those who applied for military service and were rejected for non-compatibility of military service. To deem homosexuals inferior to service the country served numerous purposes.  One Lehring points out that by making homosexuals inferior, it forced the rest of society to conform.
 Lehring does a good job of laying out the historical roots of homosexuality. He touches upon homosexuality being shifted from a religious sin to a secular matter; later to become a capital offense. He identifies how the theories came into being and maps out the efforts to explain the concepts of homosexual activity over time.
 He also touches upon the early struggle by gays to take control and establish their own identity and culture though the formation of the Mattachine Society. He does make not that all homosexual agreed with and supported the Mattachine Societies efforts to remove language legislation from the administrative arm of government.
 Lehring also goes on to point out how the rise of science created the perfect storm for research and treatment of homosexual activity. The theories which derived from this research would then be used by the military to determine by physical characteristics or psychiatric characteristics whether or not an individual was to be labeled homosexual.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox book
-| name			 = Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization
+| name			 = Officially Gay: The Political Construction of Homosexuality by the U.S. Military
-| author         = Arjun Appadurai
+| author         = Gary L. Lehring
-| publisher      = Univ Of Minnesota Press
+| publisher      = Temple University Press
-| pub_date       = 1996-11-15
+| pub_date       = 2003
-| pages          = 248
+| pages          = 229
-| isbn           = 0816627932
+| isbn           = 246897531
 | image          = [[File:Modernity at Large.jpg|200px|alt=cover]]
 }}

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 | isbn           = 0816627932
 | image          = [[File:Modernity at Large.jpg|200px|alt=cover]]
+}}
 In Officially Gay, Gary L Lehring suggests that the military is primarily responsible for defining homosexuals. By determining what or who constitutes homosexual identity in the military the legal system begun to use the frame work of the military to legislate homosexual identity. By examining and tracing the discourse of homosexuality, Lehring describes how the American conscientious began to shift in regard to homosexuals.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 19 October 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~test run~~	+	{{Infobox book
		+	\| name = Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization
		+	\| author = Arjun Appadurai
		+	\| publisher = Univ Of Minnesota Press
		+	\| pub_date = 1996-11-15
		+	\| pages = 248
		+	\| isbn = 0816627932
		+	\| image = [[File:Modernity at Large.jpg\|200px\|alt=cover]]
		+	}
		+
		+	In Officially Gay, Gary L Lehring suggests that the military is primarily responsible for defining homosexuals. By determining what or who constitutes homosexual identity in the military the legal system begun to use the frame work of the military to legislate homosexual identity. By examining and tracing the discourse of homosexuality, Lehring describes how the American conscientious began to shift in regard to homosexuals.
		+	Lehring suggests that homosexual identity was constructed by using religion, psychology, and medical diagnosis to label gays and lesbians as perverts, mentally unstable, and inherently evil. He examines the historical evolution of the epistemology of these institutions in an effort to determine the influence of institutions upon governmental policy. Lehring, references Michele Foucault’s ideology concerning the rise of institutions.
		+	Religious institutions aided in the conceptualization of sexual identity is perceived. Overtime religious institutions would develop doctrine which perceived homosexuality as unnatural. This was based largely on an association with what occurred in nature and the interpretation of God’s intent for man. Any sexual act deemed unnatural would fall under the sodomy. Sexual sin would gradually move from the ecclesiastical realm into the civil sector of law. During the mid-1500s English rulers would exact sodomy statues. Once removed from the ecclesiastical courts unnatural acts would become a capital offense.
		+	Lehring, notes the case of the Earl of Castlehaven, who was tried and executed for sodomy. Castlehaven was an English nobleman accused of sodomizing his wife. Although, there were several other more serious charges, the act of sodomy was considered so offensive to God. The courts in fear of God’s wrath would find Castlehaven guilty and sentence him to death. By the beginning of the twentieth century in many places sodomy was considered a felony and punishable by death. Though religious institutions considered any number of sexual sin sodomy, the judicial system focused its efforts to legislate sexual behavior to same-sex sexual acts.
		+	Lehring goes on to note that the rise in legal proceedings regarding sodomy led to scientists to begin studying the issues of sexuality and desire. He refers to Michele Focault’s theory on the rise of institutions and urbanization as contributing to a growing need to find medical and scientific explains to what was deemed as problematic issues associated with a growing society. Physicians played a central role in the passage of legislating sexual behavior. Medical professions offered up theories as to prevent a decline in civilization. These theories would address any manner of sexual vices including but not limited to prostitution, birth control, and abortion.
		+	Physicians would actively pursue discovering new disease and afflictions. As a result of these new discoveries physicians would also pursue a course of treatment for these new found afflictions. The validation of what was regarded as true began to shift established religious beliefs to science based beliefs. Lehring points to the rise of Darwinism theory as being the new interpreter of what was regarded as truth. There was a shift in language, sodomy which is considered an act was replaced by the label of homosexual which refers to a person vice an act.
		+	Lehring cites John DeCecco’s argument that the labeling of a person as a homosexual was borne out of a social-political desire of those attracted to members of the same sex to distance themselves from the religious, secular, and scientific boundaries of their sexual activities. In contrast to DeCecco’s argument, Lehring notes that Shane Phelan argued that by shifting the language the problem of sexual behavior became a medical problem as opposed to a legal problem. Researchers had successfully shifted the focus from sexual behavior to the person; the homosexual. Research of sexual behavior led to multiple theories which addressed practices which end result was not to reproduce.
		+	Lehring notes that that scientists and medical professional added to the collective knowledge of sexual vices. Men and women were scrutinized for any behavior did not result in reproduction. These were signs of sexual deviancy were categorized as physical and psychiatric. Physical difference between homosexual and heterosexuals ranged from physical abnormalities to youthful appearance. Some researcher suggested that homosexuals suffered from multiple personality disorders. Attributes of the male homosexual were characteristics which were effeminate in nature. Lesbian were ascribed masculine characteristics.
		+	Psychiatric characteristics of homosexual behavior ranged from environmental influences to behavioral influences. Lehring states that of the many theories which were developed, the theories of Sigmund Freud was the most widely accepted. Freud believed that homosexuality in adults was due to a stunted growth phase of sexuality. Freud later changed his views to reflect to homosexuality was linked to sexual instinct and sexual object choice. He believe that either of these could be changed.
		+	Lehring notes that the Mattachine Society formed in the 50s, was one of the early organization to focus on homosexual culture. The aim of the organization was to have repressive language removed from legislation. The Mattchine Society believed that the language, culture, and legislation heterosexual society denied gays the opportunity to discover their common identity.
		+	Lehring cites early studies conducted by Alfred Kinsey in the late 40s and the writings of Donald Webster Corey in the 50s, suggest the only difference that exist between heterosexuals and homosexuals is sexual preference. Homosexuals and heterosexual share identical types of background such as social, economic, political, etc.
		+	During the 60s homosexuals assert themselves and worked to get the psychiatric views of homosexual behavior changed. The resulting outcome was the removal of homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders. Lehring notes that there are mixed opinions from mental health professionals as to the causes of homosexuality.
		+	The military would employ many of these theories to disqualify applicants from service. This process of identifying and labeling gays not only barred homosexuals from military service but the federal work force as well; they were considered to be a risk to national security. The way in which the military justified the exclusion of gays serving in the military and federal work office would influence political policies of the government in regard to homosexuals.
		+	Lehring notes, that the military most common argument for the exclusion of homosexuals service was due to the lack of control over sexual desire. By putting homosexual service members in close contact with heterosexual service members was risky due to the immorality of homosexuals. Those who applied for military service and were rejected for non-compatibility of military service. To deem homosexuals inferior to service the country served numerous purposes. One Lehring points out that by making homosexuals inferior, it forced the rest of society to conform.
		+	Lehring does a good job of laying out the historical roots of homosexuality. He touches upon homosexuality being shifted from a religious sin to a secular matter; later to become a capital offense. He identifies how the theories came into being and maps out the efforts to explain the concepts of homosexual activity over time.
		+	He also touches upon the early struggle by gays to take control and establish their own identity and culture though the formation of the Mattachine Society. He does make not that all homosexual agreed with and supported the Mattachine Societies efforts to remove language legislation from the administrative arm of government.
		+	Lehring also goes on to point out how the rise of science created the perfect storm for research and treatment of homosexual activity. The theories which derived from this research would then be used by the military to determine by physical characteristics or psychiatric characteristics whether or not an individual was to be labeled homosexual.