What’s in a Name? :: Research Papers

Whats in a Name?Throughout his go for Virtu entirelyy Normal, Andrew Sullivan explains how people of all different kinds of beliefs think about and enshroud homosexuals and homosexual behavior in society. He labels the four most unremarkably held viewpoints on homo sex (liberationist, conservative, liberal, and prohibitionist) and poses his hold politics of homosexuality. According to Sullivans labels, gay and homosexual activist Urvashi Vaid would be considered a liberal. Vaid is a liberal because even though she may support some aspects of the opposite four viewpoints, the main points that the other four entail clash considerably with her own beliefs. Vaid is non a prohibitionist, a conservative, a liberationist, or a hoper in Sullivans own politics she is a liberal under Sullivans classification.Prohibitionists, according to Sullivan, are those who coveting to cure or punish people who practice homosexual acts, and to deter all the others who might be tempted to stray i nto the homosexual milieu (Sullivan 22). These people believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that homosexuality violates a native practice of law. This natural law is the prohibitionist view that heterosexuality is the normal, natural form of human sexuality and that all other deviance, inducing homosexuality, is non normal and not natural. Scripture, and this natural law philosophy, are some of the intellectual ammunition prohibitionists use. They want to ascertain tolerance of homosexuality at all costs. Urvashi Vaid, on the other hand, wants effect tolerance for homosexuals. She argues against these evils for equal rights for gays. She desires liberation of gay people, so they do not have to live in closets or in gay ghettos, and she wants the closedown of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. She will not settle for virtual(prenominal) equality, and her goal of complete equality is against all a prohibitionist stands for.Andrew Sullivan describes his conserva tives as people who are inconsistent, people who have a insincere stance on the issue of homosexuality. These people combine a confidential tolerance of homosexuals with a public disapproval of homosexuality. While they do not want to see legal persecution of homosexuals, they see no problem with the alarm and disparagement of homosexual sexual behavior (Sullivan 97). They believe that peoples private lives are their own, but in public the heterosexual form is the right form, and anything publicly against that norm will hurt society. So if homosexual people forestall quiet about their homosexuality and let heterosexual dominance continue, and then all will be well.