Dc Power Supply Report Essay Example for Free

Dc Power Supply Report Essay Overview The goal of this experiment was to construct a power supply that would convert a 120-volt 60 Hz input ,such as that received from a wall socket, to a 12-volt dc voltage output with a ripple factor less than 0. % making it suitable for the operation of small electronic devices. Block Diagram Schematic Diagram Discussion The 120-volt rms 60 Hz input was used to represent a wall socket. To reduce the voltage from 120-volts to 12-volts a 10 to 1 step-down transformer was placed in the circuit. An FWB bridge was implemented to convert the AC signal to a DC signal. A voltage regulator was added to stabilize the output. Capacitors were also added to aid in the stabilization of the output signal. The capacitor values as well as the value of the load resistor were manipulated achieve the ideal output. Results Conclusion Utilizing the procedures apparatus discussed in this report, an output reasonably close to the ideal output was produced. The amount of components used in the experiment was minimized to reduce the overall cost of the circuit. However it was necessary to add capacitors to reduce the ripple voltage.

Critically Assess the View That We Are Not Responsible for Our Evil Actions Essay Example for Free

Critically Assess the View That We Are Not Responsible for Our Evil Actions Essay Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions. Many argue that hard determinism is the best approach to take when assessing this hypothesis as once you abandon the outdated notion of freedom; you can create a much better world. B.F. Skinner supports this view by recognising that since people are ultimately the result of their conditions, â€Å"and will get conditioned by their upbringing and environments anyway†, we ought to control people’s upbringing and environments as much as possible to ensure that their conditioning is positive. Skinner argued that such a plan would be more helpful than the current situation, in which peoples conditions is ultimately dependent on to luck. The case of Leopold and Loeb demonstrates this idea perfectly. If you look at the case on the surface, it seems like an act of pure evil, both boys kidnapped Bobby Franks and demanded ransom from his family, when this failed, they murdered him by hitting him over the head with a chisel. Harrow, whom was their lawyer and a follower of hard determinism, argued that â€Å"they killed [Bobby Franks] because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite process that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped†. If one looks into the background of these two boys, evidence refutes this point; both of these boys were from very privileged backgrounds, Leob was actually the son of the vice president. Despite this, Leob was fascinated by detective stories; he read about crimes, he planned them and he eventually committed them. Leopold, on the other hand, who was reading Philosophy at the University of Chicago, became attracted to Friedrich Nitezche and his criticism of moral codes; he believed that those who followed Nitezche were super human and did not have to abide by the moral laws that others did. Darrow argued that Leopold’s obsession with crime and Loebs fascination with Nitezhce was a form of rebellion against the well-meaning, but strict and controlling, governess who raised him. They can not be hold morally responsible for the murder of Bobby Franks because each â€Å"child takes one shape or another shape depending not upon the boy himself, but on what surrounds him.†. However, this is a weak view to take as it suggests that people do not need to feel guilty for their actions; they have no moral responsibility, as their actions are already determined. If people were not morally responsible for their evil actions, then the world by a chaotic place, people could commit evil crimes and blame it upon their surroundings. It is therefore clear that hard determinism is a ridiculous view to take when assessing this hypothesis, as it would lead to utter anarchy and the notion of sin would be undermined. Many argue that soft determinism is the best approach to take when assessing the question, as it does not rule out free will- the two are compatible and so moral decisions and moral debate remains possible. Followers of soft determinism believe that some of our actions are conditioned, while others have so complex a collection of causes that they may properly be described as freely decided or willed. Hume is the Philosopher who is normally associated with this idea. Hume believed that events are determined because of a casual link between objects. Take for example, in 2012, when the travellers were prevented from flying as a result of ash from a volcanic eruption in Iceland. For Hume, this casual link is called the constant union of objects. For instance, the volcano’s eruption prevents you from flying; that is outside of the control of the individual. But the response to that situation produces free will. In relation to murder, one could argue that your upbringing is determined, but the way you respond is a result of free will. This is a differing view to that of Take for instance the case of Mary Bell in 1968 who was convicted of the murder of two toddles. She was subject to an awful upbringing; her mother was a prostitute who specialised in sado- masochism- Mary was forced to listen to her mother perform these acts. A soft- determinist could argue that although Mary was subject to an abusive upbringing, she must hold some moral responsibility for her actions. Although this view seems highly logical, soft determinists have not agreed on precisely what is and what is not a determining factor in human action. This means that contradictions between followers of soft determinists are highly likely. Many disagree that Libertarianism is the best approach to apply to questions surrounding moral responsibility. They believe that cause and affect is too apparent in the world for us to simply disregard it; it must have an impact on human actions. Take for instance, the idea of murder, if you are brought up in a family in which murder is regarded as a sin, you are less likely to commit such a crime as one understands that murder immoral. This demonstrates the idea of cause and effect perfectly; someone teaches you that murder is immoral; the cause, you understand this and therefore do not do it; the effect. Despite this, one could refute this weakness by arguing that these are just moral rules that coincide with the societal norm, they do not strip us of our free will. Even if we were not brought up with these moral codes, we can still abide by them as we posses free will. The idea of free will also makes logical sense to us. In our day-to-day lives, we feel as if we posses it; we make daily decisions based upon our feelings, not something that has already been determined. As put by Aquinas, â€Å"man chooses not of necessity but freely†. Peter Van Inwagen’s also follows this approach, he argues that we can see that we posses free will by the deliberation of two choices of action; if we are able to do both, then we must have it as it ultimately is our choice to do either or. Peter Van Inwagen used an analogy to demonstrate this idea; you are walking along a road with many branches on it, which branch you choose to go down is your decision. Therefore, in relation to moral responsibility, we should all be held responsible for any evil actions committed as they do not come about as a result of chance or random events. Some may be subject to events which could potentially alter their morality, but they are free to choose which path they take. To conclude, although hard- determinism has some strengths, the fact that it believes that we should not be held morally responsible for actions mean it is useless when looking at questions surrounding moral responsibility. Soft- determinism, on the other hand, is far too vague and would produce many contradictions. Libertarianism is the best approach to take as it makes logical sense; we can see we possess free will and we should therefore be punished if we commit evil actions.

The Period Of Chattel Slavery In The Caribbean History Essay

The Period Of Chattel Slavery In The Caribbean History Essay The Caribbean during the 18th century was categorized mainly as an agriculture based region with numerous plantations. These plantation main outputs were sugar, a commodity highly demanded in Europe earning high profits for plantation owners. However, to create such vast quantities of sugar required human labour, resulting in the development of the chattel slavery system. This slavery system comprised mainly of Africans whose characteristics were suitable for the tropical climates. Enslavement was a dictatorship system where the enslavers had absolute power, like a puppet master pulling all the strings, hence, rendering the enslaved powerless, however, the enslaved reacted waging a protracted war cutting the strings of the enslavers in a fight for their freedom. Chattel slavery refers to A system of slavery whereby an individual and their offsprings are recognized by the law as being the property of another person for life1. Enslaved could be bought, sold and branded just as a piece of furniture, and these inhuman conditions enraged the enslaved resulting in resistance. This is further supported by Hilary Beckles et al who stipulated This record of resistance illustrates that there was hardly a generation of enslaved males or females in the Caribbean who did not take their anti-slavery actions. Entrapment, is against human nature, and thus, enslaved resisted from the start in a long or protracted war. Many slave revolts and plots in these territories between 1638 and 1838 could be conceived of as 200 years war one protracted struggle launched by Africans and their Afro-West Indian progeny against slave owners stated Hilary Beckles. The Enslaved worked under harsh conditions from sun up to sun down, with little rest and exposure to diseases, under strict control from supervisor who demanded productivity. The world of the enslaved therefore, was a constant battle between oppression of master control and the desire for freedom. Slave society refers to the whole community based on slavery, including masters and freedmen as well as slaves stipulated Brian L. Moore. The Societal structure was a hierarchy, white masters at the top socially and politically, the coloured in the middle and the enslaved forming the foundation at the bottom. Around 1832 there were approximately 50,000 whites and 100 000 freedmen in the British Caribbean but only 32 000 slave owners suggested B.W Higman. Freedmen owned slaves; however, it was not in any high concentration when compared to the whites. Although, representing the minority whites control the politics and the majority of wealth maintaining absolute power. The whites were highly educated when compared to the freedmen who had basic education, leaving majority of the slaves uneducated. This is supported by B.W Higman, who noted this strong contrast reflected differences in the education of free males and females, but its also indicated differences in wealth. Whites were the maters operating the plantations, while freedmen were either freed coloured or freed blacks who earned their freedom and tried to invent their own identity. These combined features and characteristics of each class created an arrangement of diverse practices and behavior that illustrated the properties of a slave society. For any society to function adequately there must be system of control and the slave society was no exemption. Christopher Humber et al stated System of slave control embodied physical, social, psychological, economic and legal factors. The enslaved were economical exploited by enslavers, as they were forced to labour in plantation through physical violence denying them personal freedom. The whip was a stimulus to labour and a constant form of punishment and for fear of the hundreds of lashes kept in line and did basically as they were told 2. Slaves lived on the plantation in small dirt huts, and enslavers positioned their mansions at the top overseeing their enslaved community and society practices, emphasizing enslaved social inferiority. Food and clothes were controlled by the enslavers, as they decided what and when enslaved should eat and also how they should dress. Slaves were not allowed to be educated; ignorance was a powerful means of control3. Denying basic social functio n such as education signified enslaved inferiority. The Enslaved religions practices, such as their drumming, music and dance were not allowed and even punishable by death. The enslavers religions were forced upon them as a form of control, and Christopher Humber et al noted Enslaved were only allowed to sit at the back of the Anglican/ Catholic churches. The enslaved were seen as inferior to the whites and the whites argued that Africans were barbaric and uncivilized. Enslavers tried to oppress and crush the spirits of the enslaved through psychological ideas of race and colour. Economic structure of society in terms of property, earnings (Money) and time were control buy the enslavers. Slaves could not legally posses property or legally make contracts, could not be paid for nay work that they did, could not own animals and could not own land4. These economic and legal restrictions crippled the enslaved freedom of movements. The different control systems implemented enforced ensla vement and entrapment, however, the enslaved resistance continued to punctuate the society. The period of slavery was characterized primarily by one protracted war launched by those enslaved against their enslavers, suggested Hilary Beckles. From the commencement of slavery, the enslaved pursed their freedom through different forms of resistance and these resistance activities were illustrated in the Caribbean. Enslaved resistance comprised of day-to-day resistance, plots and revolts and rebellion including marronage. Sheperd V. noted The several stages in the development of Caribbean anti-slavery activities in the period up to 1834: 1500-1750, 1750-1807, and 1807 up toe end of slavery. During the period 1500-1750, the society was dominantly enslaved Africans and plantation construction was now developing. The main form of resistance used during this period was marronage, which Barbara Lalla stipulated as The process of flight by slaves from servitude to establish their own hegemonies or wild territories. Maroons, also known as, Runaways were able to establish small communi ties creating independence from the plantation social, economically, and legally. However, for successful maroon developments the island had to be mountainous, Sheperd V. noted Forested and mountainous interiors of colonies like Jamaica, Dominica and Guyana facilitated the maintenance of runaway slaves. In an island like Barbados, marronage had limited success due to the lowland. Maroons developed structure, in terms of farming for food and in situations earned money by selling produce, persons were able to practice their own religion freely without feeling inferior, Possibilities of ownership of items and most importantly they had freedom of choice. Maroons were able to formulate strategies of successful revolts and attacks on plantations, under the assertive leadership such as Price, lead to arrangements between the Europeans. According to Hilary Beckles What is clear is that maroon activities which were endemic over the entire period greatly undermined the colonizing efforts of t he Europeans and the economic life of the plantations. The sugar rush peaked during 1750-1807 creating a mature plantation society, increasing some aspects of Creole diversity and Sheperd V. stated during this period resistance assumed different forms such as day-to-day acts and negotiation for rights and also marronage increasing. Christopher Humber noted day-to-day resistance as the subtle methods used by the slaves to express rejection of slavery and further supported by Hilary Beckles, who noted day-to-day resistance were generally designed not to overthrow the slave system, but undermine its efficiency. A vital part of day-to-day resistance was enslaved women and the particular strategies they employed. Field womens adaption of the strategy of labour withdraw, interpreted as laziness by drivers and overseers, was considered a universal problem suggested Hilary Beckles. Low level or productivity was not tolerated, and the malingering attitude adapted by women was a great discouragement to the sugar industry. This was particularly eff ective at harvesting time when a few hours behind schedule could make a world of difference in the level of profits realized stated Christopher W. Humber. Women also resisted through children, because the birth of enslaved children meant that the child was automatically born a slave. Enslavers wanted to use birth control as a means of maintaining an enslaved labour force, however, enslaved women committed infanticide as Hilary Beckles noted acts of infanticide are frequently cited on plantations. Acts such as harming farm animals, making them unable to turn the mill were also done by enslaved women. The variations of resistance during this period focused on ending slavery by making the plantation system unprofitable as Hilary Beckles noted These acts of resistance were considered effective strategies and undermined greatly the efficiency of the plantation. The period 1807-1834 marked the ending of slavery, with first the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and the continuous resistance from the remaining enslaved on the plantations. Hilary Beckles further noted 1807-1834 was marked by growing protest among the enslaved, particularly among creoles, linked also to the impact of growing anti-slavery discussions in the metro pole. Creoles also called country-borns undeniable had a hand in the overcoming of slavery and bringing emancipation. Creoles resisted politically, seeking to earn rights for the enslaved through lobbying in the parliament and instigating the continuing unjust behaviors towards the enslaved. It was not Africans who organized, an attorney wrote, but creoles, which were never known before to have been concerned in anything of this sort5. In Britain the profitability of the plantation system was in decline and so was the slave system on a whole. The funds from New world slavery had significantly contributed toe he primit ive accumulation of capital that enable the industrial revolution in Britain6. With Britain moving towards more profitable investments, slavery resistance in the parliaments increased leading to the passing of acts, such as, the emancipation act of 1833. Armed revolts and rebellions were the most violent, and dramatic forms of resistance that the enslaved used against their enslavers. Armed revolts were usually, bloody and many enslaved died, as Hilary Beckles noted The enslaved were conscious of the military might of their enslavers and knew it would be suicidal to always engage them in armed conflicts. The large scale slave rebellion under the leadership of Toussaint L. Ouverture end slavery in Saint Domingue, marking Haiti as the first free black republic in the Caribbean. After news of slave efforts leading to freedom in Haiti spread throughout the Caribbean, the enslaved consciousness was no longer an issue and widespread rebellion transpired all over the Caribbean. Some such r evolts as noted by Hilary Beckles are 1816 revolt in Barbados, 1823 in Damara (Guyana) and 1831/32 Christmas rebellion in Jamaica. The enslavers methods of control were failing and emancipation was no inevitable. Eric William noted in 1833 stating The alternative were clear emancipation form above or emancipation from below'. The rewards and benefits of the different forms of resistance were realized on the 1st of august 1834 marking the end of slavery. Since the existence of slavery for thousands of years, one aspect has persisted, that is, the resistance of the enslaved towards their enslavers and thus the period of chattel slavery in the Caribbean is no different. From the arrival in the Caribbean the enslaved develop anti-slavery attitudes, despite being at the bottom of the societal structure. To counteract this anti-slavery attitude control procedures were develop and implemented, however, resistance acts such as marronage, and day-to-day resistance eventually escalating to large scale revolts threaten and ultimately ended chattel slavery. From the commencement to the termination of chattel slavery, the enslaved have plagued their enslavers in a fight for freedom and such an endemic resistance could only be seen and best described as a protracted war for freedom. Notes National Glossary of the U.K National Archives Based on Caribbean History access through link : http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/caribbeanhistory/popups/glossary.htm See The Spanish instituted the Siete Partidas, the French had the Code Noir access through link : http://www.novapdf.com See Slavery, Freedom and Gender: The Dynamics of Caribbean Society page 137 See The Spanish instituted the Siete Partidas, the French had the Code Noir access through link : http://www.novapdf.com See Africa in America: slave acculturation and resistance in the American South and the British Caribbean, 1736-1831 Page 221 See Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams Page 68 Works Cited Beckles, H. Natural Rebels: A Social History of Enslaved Black Women in Barbados. London: Zed, 1989. Print. Bryan, Patrick. Campbell Carl. Higman B. W. Moore Brian L. Slavery, Freedom and Gender: The Dynamics of Caribbean Society. United States: U OF OKLAHOMA PR, 2002. Print. Higman B.W. Slavery Populations of the British Caribbean, 1807-1834. Kingston Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1995. Print. Humber Christopher. Caribbean History Section B: Resistance Revolt. Teach Dip (Mico): 2006. Print. Lalla Barbara. Defining Jamaican Fiction: marronage and the discourse of survival. University of Alabama Press, 1996. Print. Sheperd V. Beckles, H. Caribbean anti-slavery: the self liberation ethos of enslaved blacks. In Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World: Student Reader. London Kingston: Ian Publishers Ltd., 2000. Print. Williams Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, 1944. Print.

Science and Religion: A Christians Response to Biology Essay -- Bible

Science and Religion: A Christian's Response to Biology Introduction In the beginning, God created...the earth and the heavens, or an evolving mass of matter, later to become the heavens and the earth? The conflict between science and religion is a hot topic in many intellectual circles today. One of the more controversial topics is creation versus evolution. How did the world get to where it is right now? How was creation initiated? Is there a Creator or was life created spontaneously? These are some of the questions that boggle minds and set people searching for answers. There is even a conflict within the church: Did God create the heavens and the earth as they are, or did God allow the universe to develop according to natural laws? This conflict between science and religion continues to hold up in our supposed intellectual society. In order to tame this conflict and be true to their faith and science, Christian biologists have an obligation to reflect their Christianity in the realm of biology as well as their biological intellect in the realm of Christianity. History of Science and Religion The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1... ...Science). Science and God: A Warming Trend? Science, 277, 890-893. Helweg, O. J. (1997, March). Scientific Facts: Comparatible with Christian Faith? USA Today, 125, 84. Hughes, I. (1996, March). We are only Human... New Scientist, 60. Jones, T. (1996, August). God and Scientists Reconciled. New Scientist, 46. Ross, H. (1997a). Genesis One, Dinosaurs, and Cavemen. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/dinocavemen.html. [Oct. 1997]. Ross, H. (1997b). Neandertal Takes a One-Eighty. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/FAF/97q3faf/neandertal.html. [Oct. 1997]. Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html. [Oct. 1997]. Wright, R. T. (1989). Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers.

The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd Essay examples -- Essays Papers

The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd Dr James Sheppard lived together with his sister Caroline in King's Abbot, a small village. He was a great doctor and when somebody died he looked to see what had happened. Mrs Ferras died on the night of the 16th - 17th September. Dr Sheppard drove there. After he had analysed the body he drove home again where he talked about the death of Mrs Ferras with his sister. Caroline pretended to know everything about the death. She thought Mrs Ferras had killed herself because she had killed her husband last year. That day Dr Sheppard met Roger Ackroyd, a good friend of his, by chance. Roger invited Dr Sheppard to his house at 7.30. He also told Dr Sheppard that it was very important. That evening Roger told James that Ralph Paton, his nephew, was in London. But James had seen Ralph this afternoon. When Roger heard that, he was very angry and pretended that he didn't know that. The next morning Caroline told him that she had seen Ralph Paton with Flora Ackroyd. They had been walking together. Dr Sheppard went into the garden. Minutes later pumpkins flew past his ears and a face looked over the fence. After the new man had excused himself he introduced himself. His name was Hercule Poirot, the new neighbour. When James walked into his house again Caroline told him that she had heard that Ralph Paton had said to a girl Mr Ackroyd had to die. Then James walked to Roger's house. When Dr Sheppard entered Ackroyd's house on this day he heard ...

Fight Club :: essays research papers

The Fight Club, directed by David Fincher, constructs an underground world of men fighting with one and other to find the meaning to their lives. Ed Norton and Brad Pitt are the main characters who start the fight club. They make a set of rules in which everyone must follow. The fight club exists because individuals get weighted down by possessions causing them to miss the deep meaning of life. Most of the people in the fight club hold service jobs or lower level management jobs that are meaningless. Society becomes so rationalized that one must push themeself to the extreme in order to feel anything or accomplish anything. The more you fight in the fight club the tougher and stronger you become. Getting into a fight tests who you are. No one helps you so you are forced to see your weaknesses. The film celebrates self-destruction and the idea that being on the edge allows you to be beaten becuase nothing really matters in your life. Ed Norton is the main character in the beginning. He has a meaningless job and he has to go to support groups to feel anything. There he meets Marla, a woman who does the same as him; they are both addicted to support groups. He then meets Brad Pitt. Pitts character forces Norton's character to see that life is meaningless and they begin the fight club. It starts in the basement; it is in confines and is completely regulated. It then shifts to cultural anarchy of vandalism and attacks. Then the members have to pick a fight and lose. The idea of the fight club spreads and becomes like an army and the members become militant. The members no longer "take it out" on each other, they take it out on everyone. The idea of the fight club becomes facist and Tyler becomes like Hitler. It turns out that Norton and Pitt are the same person, they are Tyler Durton. Norton represents the average man in America at a meaningless job, feeling like there is no reason for his existance. Pitt represents the force which makes Norton realize that there is no meaning to life and he must push to the extreme to feel anything and to accomplish anything. Marla is the only woman in the movie and she is used to show that the idea of women fighting is a ridicule where as the idea of men fighting is celebrated.

Homosexuality from the Psychological and Christian Perspectives Essay

The â€Å"rightness† or â€Å"wrongness† of homosexuality has long been a subject for debate in both moral and social circles. Some have said that a person’s gender is their own choice and therefore should be respected. Some contend that homosexuality is brought on by factors both biological and environmental and should therefore be understood. Staunch Christian believers on the other hand point out that when God created humans, He created only man and woman. Anything that goes against that is simply wrong and immoral. In the 19th century, homosexuality was defined as one person’s desire and interest for another person of the same sex (â€Å"Homosexuality,† 2004). Today, while the definition is still applicable, homosexuality has also come to be viewed as â€Å"wanting to be of the other gender† different from one’s own biology. â€Å"I can’t help who I am. † Is a person’s homosexuality brought about as a matter of choice, by birth, or is it something in a person’s environment? There have been theories advanced in the field of psychology that state people are influenced by factors both external and internal. The late nineteenth and early 20th centuries saw the first scientific studies into the origin of homosexuality (Vern & Vern, 1993). The first was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). He was one of the first acknowledged researchers into homosexuality as well as one of the first people to publicly admit he was gay. In those days, he called what we know now as homosexuality â€Å"urning† and stated that urnings should be considered simply as the â€Å"third sex. † Richard von Krafft-Ebbing (1840-1902) was one of the first to issue views on homosexuality as a perversion. Then again, all sexual acts undertaken without the purpose of reproduction, to him, were unnatural and â€Å"perversions of the sexual instinct. † (Vern & Vern, 1993) Several studies then showed that homosexuality, particularly among males, was a common if not natural occurrence. In the journal â€Å"Yearbook for the Sexual Intermediates,† Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a leading proponent of the thought that homosexuality was inborn and therefore natural, states: â€Å"In the embryonic state, people are bisexual, but in the course of their natural development, most lose their desire for members of the same sex. These people are the heterosexuals, who love members of the opposite sex. Another category consists of those individuals whose sexual organs develop normally but in whom the desire for same-sex individuals in the feeling center fails to recede. The results are men who love men and women who love women. † (Sappho and Socrates, 1896) (Russell, 1995) The field of psychoanalysis also presented their views on the origin of homosexuality. In the early days, homosexuality, as well as other â€Å"deviant† societal behaviors were viewed as â€Å"illnesses† that were treatable by psychoanalysis. One explanation advanced was that of Freud’s Oedipus Complex among males and â€Å"penis envy† among the female homosexuals. Freud says that males with Oedipus complex, preferred their mother and hated their father. Perhaps this can be translated to males hating their â€Å"maleness† because they associate it with their fathers. Women on the other hand, realize â€Å"a repressed desire for a penis† in their psychosexual â€Å"phallic† and â€Å"oral† stages said Freud. (Webster, 2005, p. 324) Feminist critics of Freudian theory however said that Freud’s thinking were too misogynist and distinctly anti-feminine. One pivotal development in psychiatric understanding of homosexuality was a study conducted by Irving Bieber (Dain et al. , 1962, p. 182). In a sample of 106 homosexual patients treated by either him or other psychiatrists, he found that feminine and cross-gender behavior patterns commonly manifested themselves even before the age of puberty. It is from this study that it was determined that homosexuality set in even before males were influenced by any hormonal surges and sexual awareness caused by puberty. These results however, have been interpreted and over-simplified by some quarters to mean that homosexuality must then be attributed to a male individual’s relationship with a strong, dominant mother and a weak or absent father. It was then proposed that homosexuality was not an illness, but rather a developmental problem brought about by conditions of family relations particularly the relationship between father and son. Homosexuality was then treated as the product of a father’s failure to bond and impress the male gender identity on his son. Father needs to mirror and affirm the boy’s maleness. As Payne explains, â€Å"The masculinity within is called forth and blessed by the masculinity without† ( 1985: 13 ). This beautiful and mysterious match is the union of an inner need and an outer reality. The boy seeks to take in what is exciting, fun, and energizing about his father. There is a freedom and power to outgrowing mother—and this power is personified by the father. If father is warm and receptive, the boy will be encouraged to dis-identify from the feminine and enter into the masculine sphere. He will then become masculine-identified and most probably heterosexual. If both parents encourage the boy this way, he will be well on his way to fulfilling his male gender identification and heterosexuality. (Baird & Baird, 1995, p. 52) The year 1973 saw a change in the way homosexuality was viewed (Vern & Vern, 1993). Due to a vote held within the American Psychological Association (APA), homosexuality ceased to be an illness and was subsequently dropped from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The debate on the origin of homosexuality is basically of a â€Å"nature vs. urture† perspective. Some have posited the idea that being gay is not a choice, one is just born gay. Others have contended that homosexuality comes from failed or uneven relationships within the family. Which truly is which? Thinkers called â€Å"essentialists† hold forth the belief that man’s make up is biological and genetic. Sexual orientation is just one of the things that genes, hormones and brain make up decide. People are born gay and thus, cannot change or escape from that. (LeVay, 1996). (Seutter & Rovers, 2004) At the opposite end of the argument are the â€Å"constructionists. For them, nobody is born gay. Sexual orientation is decided and influenced by an individual’s interaction and reinforced choices in the social context particularly in the family setting. (Seutter & Rovers, 2004) Family seems to play a key role in the determination of an individual’s gender. Be it taken from a genetic contribution to setting the environment that conditions and orients an individual with society. Many psychologists agree that a person’s relationship with people around one’s self will have influences of varying degrees on the individual’s choices and preferences. In fact several theories have been advanced with their basis on such familial contributions. (Seutter & Rovers, 2004) Bowen’s â€Å"Family-of-origin† theory (1978) states that a person’s self-image, behaviors, attitudes, beliefs and values are formed by experiences within one’s â€Å"family-of-origin. † Differentiation or the need to preserve one’s self in relationships as an individual as well as the level of intimacy reached is just one of the things that are developed in the family-of-origin. Authority and power were the basis for Williamson’s concept of â€Å"Personal Authority† (1991) In his concept, Williamson believed that an individual’s person and feeling of personal was formed by leaving the parental home in the psychological if not physical sense. He further stated that only when an individual has â€Å"individuated† himself or set himself apart from the family and established his own identity can he reconnect voluntarily with his family. (Seutter & Rovers, 2004) Nowadays, gays and lesbians have become more â€Å"empowered† as opposed to the years past when homosexuals lived in fear of being discovered and isolated from society or prohibited from living normally as they chose. In a journal article by Anthony R. D’Augelli (2003) for the American Journal of Community Psychology, he shares: Homosexuality was not removed from the psychiatric nomenclature in DSM until 1973, a year after I completed my doctoral training. During my clinical training, I wanted to discuss my feelings with someone, but the idea was terrifying; and, I did not seek professional help because of fear that I would be removed from my program. (After all, who trains someone with a mental disorder to be a clinical psychologist? ) In addition, despite my sexual orientation, which was fairly clear to me at that point, I could not even bring myself to share this information even with the Army physicians during my physical examination after being drafted for service during the Vietnam era. This simple truth would have removed me from induction, but I could not say the words. (D’Augelli, 2003) What the Church has to Say The growing numbers of â€Å"out† gays and lesbians have not escaped the notice of the Christian churches. Traditionally, churches of different religions have been hostile toward gays and lesbians. To them, there are only two genders: man and woman. There have even been some instances where there were accounts of physical and verbal humiliation and abuse gay worshippers suffered within the church, at time in the hands of a priest of Father confessor.