The changes in the views in homosexuality The current world has seen a fundamental change in the imagery and perception of human sexuality. Indebted in this aspect is the broad portfolio of the moral aspect that is governed by various sexual relationships such as homosexuality, lesbianism and opposite sex relationships. Within the same scenario, there have consistently been wide frame changes on the ideals and provisions that basically underlie such different sexual orientations. By and larger, homosexuality remains a fundamental articulation in the human society with its consideration and connotation carrying a widely changing phenomena.
Homosexuality has basically been viewed from different angles which have consequently yielded a diversely argumentative debate on the legitimacy of the relationship. Unlike the traditional view on the same where homosexuality was viewed as socially bad and inadequate, the current social structures have undergone through a series of revolutions resulting into perpetual acceptance and incorporation of the act as an ethical human conduct. In the recent past, the subject matter of homosexuality has hit the headlines of letters, columns and presentations based on human sexuality (Crowley, 2004, p. 27). The same has however been shadowed on a controversial analysis where the society has been divided into two blocks, the opposing and the proposing side. Conceptually, the classical changes in the domains of homosexuality can be viewed and internalized from the consequential implication of the widely erupting significance in the acceptance and incorporation of the same in the societal sexual paradigms. Traditionally, homosexuality was barely viewed as a suboptimal procedure that worked to undermine human sexuality and more so an activity that was unworthy to engage in.
The contemporary society condemned homosexuality from its corresponding argumentation on the state of inadequacy and compromise to the outstanding realms of preserving the sanctity of sexual relations (Herek, Milagritos, 2006, p. 513). The global religions profoundly viewed sex and intimacy as an affair leveraged between opposite sexes as opposed to same sexes. However, the truth of structural changes has perhaps ignited reservation for the current changes in the view and formulation of the ideals behind homosexuality.
It goes without saying that the principle development of gay relationships enticed and embraced on the current day outlook by the Anglican Church provides us with the suit to argue of the divergent changes in homosexuality. Seldom, some proponents of homosexuality have welcomed it to correspond and spur within the statutory structures of human sexuality and to often provide legitimate sexual relationships for men (Herek, Milagritos, 2006, p. 518). The argument for this recourse has based their reservations on various material articulations corresponding to the rights and freedom of choice in sexual ideologies by every individual person.
Evidently, homosexuality has also been enshrined in canopies of religious sacred dimensions where many proponents continue to leverage widely corresponding provisions and rights for gay relationships. Part of the human society that proposes on gay relationships have disregarded the traditional view of homosexuality as an evil act and going against the sexual will of humanity to a wide dimension of acceptance and invitation to the parameters of the society.
Evidently, the Anglican Church is currently sanctifying gay marriages and disregarding the traditional perceptions that object same sex marriages (Crowley, 2004, p. 734). Preferentially, this may be described as real changes affecting the state and view of homosexuality. At my personal perspective, the current scenario that embraces gay marriages and homosexuality in virtually unethical and an action whose intend is to compromise the sexual worth of humanity.
Changes may be what encompass human society, but such a change that reserves homosexuality may not hold worth for subjective sacred sexual interrelationships in the society. Conceptually therefore, these changes should be described as wrong and evil motivated as well as breaking the social fabric that sanctifies human sexuality. Reference Crowley, P. (2004). Homosexuality and the Counsel of the Cross. Theological Studies, Vol. 65; pp. 725-740 Herek, G. & Milagritos, G. (2006). Attitudes toward Homosexuality among U. S. Residents of Mexican Descent. The journal of Sex Research, Vol. 43; pp. 510-524