homosexuality

The law facilitates the social construction of certain issues or groups as social problems by making it seem as if it is according to the law it is right what it is rejecting or accepting. In other words, the people who make and pass certain laws in particular laws which are sensitive topics to the citizens are portrayed as if the government is trying to protect the citizens from a harmful threat. As Kramar discussed is her chapter, one can tell that the law at the time was being extremely discriminatory towards a particular group of people. The made it seem as it was extremely wrong and unhuman to be a homosexual, and as a result it created a moral panic to deter individuals from engaging in such acts. The law installed a fear in citizens, and crated a negative image that these individuals who happen to be gay were either pedophiles or either a child. The law clearly demonstrated inconsistency with their actions, but yet the law was able to get away with such discrimination; however, it is needless to say that even though we have come far from our historical roots many of us refuse to take a step forward. Instead we are taking a step back in terms of rejecting homosexual athletes to participate in the Olympics. Although every country differs from one another in terms of their laws, the Russian Law seems to have no problem in rejecting such a controversial issue. In terms of how the law facilitates the social construction of a social problem take the Cold War for example where the government actually terminated employees for their sexual orientation only because the government was fearful of their secrets being leaked to the so called enemy, and by that fear the government was able to terminate people through “law”

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “homosexuality

  1. In thinking about this topic, it is worth considering how homosexuality has come to be regarded as a ‘controversial issue’, and what role law has played in this. Aspects of social life are not inherently controversial. They become recognized as controversial through a process of social construction, whereby they are contrasted with a (similarly socially constructed) set of conventional norms. It is worth thinking about the implications of having a practice or idea come to be recognized as controversial.

    • harvinder23

      It is clearly evident that the Law has played a massive role in shaping much of the publics perception on homosexuality, along side the help from media as well(moral panic); however, there have been several accounts in which the law has single handily used its tactics to rule against homosexuality. A prime example is the cold war. The cold war is one of the earlier examples I can think of in terms of the law using its authority to favour against people who chose to be part of a different sexuality group. To me it is not only unfair, but it does not make sense. What I mean to say is it is fascinating how the law was able to commend such power where people were terminated from their job simply because of their orientation. The law has managed to apply certain criterions where there is without a doubt no counter claim to fight back for what is right. Enough though, we have developed in a society where homosexuality is not as foreign as it was before, the law is still managing to shape societies perception. In particular the Olympics in Russia where the controversy of homosexuality is openly rejected by officials and the Olympic committees. We are forgetting that the law is created to protect us, and grant us certain rights that no one can take away from us, but at the same time that so called law is taking away may individual rights where it is ruling against individuals personal choice of orientation. The law indeed is the one who is contributing to the negative perception of homosexuality. The London, Ontario case in the early 1990’s is also amongst examples of how the law was able to carry out its rejections towards homosexuality. This is event is definitely something that the law had implications with and regarded as controversial, because on one had you have people for the law, and the other people against it.