Homosexuality
Homosexuals most likely build their orientation on narcissism, which develops a close emotional bond between the members of the same sex.
Everyone who has thought about homosexual relationships for a long time develops a desire to investigate sex with same-sex members. Given that homosexual orientation was until recently prohibited or shameful, homosexuals have hidden their sexual desire. In such an environment, homosexuals were indeed unhappy people. The enormous stress under forbidden desires and long-term suffering resulting from the inability to achieve homosexual relations established the homosexual orientation. After that, the first homosexual experience brings incredible happiness and strengthens the homosexual orientation. I am convinced that if homosexuality were not forbidden, homosexuals would be less passionately homosexually oriented. Any forbidden love between a man and a woman may confirm this claim. If their relationship is undesirable or prohibited by their families, such a relationship raises passion. Restricting love is counterproductive. The same applies to homosexuals.
Members of the same sex who live together should have equal rights as married people except the right to name their relationship as “marriage” because it is not natural. Language should be rich enough to distinguish between natural and unnatural human relations. Homosexual sensitively opposes it fiercely because they have suffered deeply while hiding their sexual orientation, and it is essential to them that their homosexual relationship is accepted by society as natural. It would be better for them to accept their relationship as at least controversial because it would increase the possibility of returning to a natural state. A natural state can achieve genuine joy in life.
I think that homosexuality is undeveloped love, just as falling in love. Developed love is not even necessarily sexual. When people learn to love, they will lower their narcissism, which will return them to their nature, significantly reducing or even ending homosexuality. In a disalenated society, people will find that marriage between a man and a woman is a good solution.
***
Homosexuality is a wrong human orientation resulting from an unhealthy society. Society is insane because it is alienated, neurotic and destructive. Homosexuality cannot be removed until society is healed. In the healthy society, I have defined in my book “Humanism,” homosexuality would be reduced if not removed.
My philosophy states that thoughts determine a person. I rather reject the genetic theory of the nature of a person’s character and orientation. Life creates a person. At birth, a person is an empty box. They do not know whether they are people or frogs. They have developed instincts for survival and individual characteristics, but nothing determines their character, interests or orientation. All that they know is created in the interaction within their environment. This interaction begins with the parents. The relationship between parent and child is the most important one for the development of every individual and then also for the development of society. Children see their future through the lives of their parents. Today, parents live in an alienated society which makes them dissatisfied with their lives. Such people could hardly find love in themselves. Lack of love creates trauma in the development of children. These children do not see a promising future for themselves. That is when the significant problems of today’s society begin. On the contrary, if the parents are happy and love each other, the children build faith in their future.
I’ve concluded that only an equal relationship between parents can build love. If the father is the authority of the family and the mother is not, they are not equal, and the relationship between them cannot be defined as love. In my book “Humanism,” I have presented that some level of sadomasochism always exists in such relationships. Such a relationship is not good and cannot leave a good mark on the development of children. Suppose a father is an authority and a mother is only a person who serves in the house, which is an existing phenomenon even today. In that case, the children usually appreciate the father more than the mother. It may cause the son to love more men than women. I think it is the primary origin of male homosexuality. In support of this hypothesis is that throughout history, homosexuality rates have been higher among men than among women. In my opinion, that is because patriarchy was the dominant relationship in families. If the son in such a family does not develop homosexual tendencies, he would probably not build a love for women either because the family in which he has grown has not taught him to appreciate and love women. Daughters from such marriages would most likely seek more love from authoritative men because they could hardly enjoy others. They would probably spend their lives seeking love from a man who might be unable to give it.
The situation is significantly different if the father is an adverse authority, an authority that the child fears or despises. The son in such a family would instead build a love for his mother, which would cause in him a better attitude towards women. The daughter may also establish a better relationship with women than men, which can direct her toward a homosexual relationship with women. Of course, human biological characteristics, character, a degree of narcissism, stress, and culture also play a significant role in sexual orientation. Still, I believe the crucial role comes from the families where the child grows up.
Similar results will occur if the mother has the dominant role in the family. The son would admire his mother, which would, with great certainty, direct him towards a heterosexual relationship. Such a son can be passive in relationships with women and expect women to make decisions. Depending on the father’s passivity and other factors, her daughter may develop homosexual relationships with other women. If such relationships do not evolve, it might be difficult for her to establish and maintain a relationship with men.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the same rights relations between men and women are the only reasonable solution for the development of the family and society. Husbands and wives must respect each other as human beings, regardless of their differences in intelligence, strength, or other skills they possess. There must be mutual respect between parents and children also. Parents must have the highest authority over their children, but they must also respect them. Parents need to build their respect through their good example and by using rewards and punishments. In addition to the full equality of parents, it may still be good if the father is somewhat higher in authority over daughters, and the mother slightly higher over sons, because it will reduce or remove the inclination of a child to develop homosexual tendencies.
***
This observation regarding homosexuality is based on my philosophy. When I crystallized the conclusion, I decided to check out what science has discovered in the field of homosexuality. According to the references I found on the Internet, the study about the homosexuality of psychologists Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, published in 1981, seems very important. They have examined more than a thousand homosexuals and heterosexuals over three years of data collection. They then analyzed data for five years and spent two years verifying conclusions. After ten years of work, they concluded that family does not affect the sexual orientation of children. This study has contributed to the notion that homosexuality is part of the genetic code and should be accepted.
Does this mean that my contemplation was wrong? No, it does not! Recent studies by two Taiwanese psychiatrists, For-Wey Lung and Bih-Ching Shu, published in Comprehensive Psychiatry in 2007, examined parents’ role in forming homosexuals. They have questioned members of the military in Taiwan. Using a statistical model-based study, they concluded that the influence of parents and increased neuroticism could explain homosexuality in 62% of cases. In short, according to them, the relationship between father and son has the most critical role in becoming male homosexuals. They argue that paternal affection and introverted and neurotic characteristics are the leading causes of male homosexuals.
Added on April 4, 2019. Dr. Neil and Briar Whitehead from New Zealand are the authors of the book My Genes Made Me Do It (2016). They made conclusions based on a 20-year study undertaken with more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. They concluded that homosexuality is overwhelmingly environmental and nothing about our genes compels homosexuality. Genetic homosexuality has been a convenient myth promoted by gay activism for decades. The research based on 33,000 pairs of twins in Australia shows that when one of the siblings is gay, there is only an 11% chance the other sibling is gay too. If homosexuality occurs by genetics, identical twins will always be identical for same-sex attraction. The research proves that homosexuals are not born that way.
The research also states that no people become homosexual because of upbringing either. According to it, parents do not influence making a son or daughter homosexual. This contradicts my opinion. The study did not consider that we live in a society that does not know how to love. But later, the study states that an increasing number of young people in dysfunctional families identify themselves as homosexual and transsexual. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the lack of love. Once we learn to love, the number of homosexuals will decrease. My article “Do you love?” teaches it.
***
I have not read these studies because that is not of my primary interests. But I use their conclusions to emphasize the incompetence of western social scientists. Why are they incompetent? Today’s scientists are recruited from excellent students who have developed the ability to repeat knowledge. Such people are used to accepting knowledge uncritically; otherwise, they would not be able to replicate it and would not be excellent students. People who get used to uncritically accepting knowledge have less ability to detect substances because they are used to receiving it from authorities. I had the opportunity to talk to many professors of social sciences and often became disturbed by their lack of logical reasoning.
I concluded homosexuality almost incidentally. Lung and Shu, and Neil Whitehead confirmed by their studies that I was right. My conclusion should logically be the first idea that leads to the origin of homosexuality. Why was such research not provided before Lung, Shu and Neil Whitehead? What have the sociological and psychological scientists been working on in the field of homosexuality so far? Social sciences not only do not contribute to the development of society but also prevent it. And this is no accident. Why?
We live in a capitalist society in a continual economic and moral crisis. It is afraid for its survival and therefore hinders the natural development of values that can present the immorality of capitalism. Capitalism promotes perverted values to be perceived as normal. That is also why media propaganda supports homosexuality. But that is not enough; they need support from the sciences to be more convincing. Capitalists can always find people who, consciously or not, follow the interests of corporations and fund those people to develop suiting theories.
That is why the American Psychological Association has instructed for years that changing homosexual orientation is to harm. In contrast, the west has generally capitulated to the idea that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. The study from Neil Whitehead states that half the homosexual population moves towards heterosexuality in the natural course of life; it’s just that very few people ever hear about it.
I believe that Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith were honoured by getting such an extensive study and a large sum of money, and they were sure that they honestly did their job (as much as they could). This is not about corruption but instead about something much worse. It is a conspiracy that covers practically all the activities of the developed world to the detriment of society. Scientists who actually may contribute to the development of social science are ignored and do not get research grants, and have no access to the media. Supporting studies such as this one from Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith have wrongfully directed social studies and were very successful.
As a result, the social sciences today are useless and damage society. Generations of scientists who have been wrongly directed cannot recognize the correct path today. Lung and Shu have managed to make their study because the Taiwan government that funded them is far from the influence of the west, while Neil Whitehead works for the New Zeeland government. The truth may be found only far away from the west. However, besides the fact that they were published in the west by some miracle, these studies are not supported there.
I am very disappointed with today’s social sciences. However, who will accept my idea if sciences cannot? So I have to vigorously attack today’s social sciences to attract attention to my work. I’ve already done so in the article My Clash With Sciences and plan to oppose them further in my next article.
My article, Do you love? teaches people how to love unconditionally and eliminate homosexuality. It has been offered to numerous psychological magazines. All the answers I received can be summarized as follows: “Your article, “Do you love?” is interesting, but unfortunately, its form does not fit into the conception of our journal.” Unfortunately, I do not have time for a formal study of the sciences I am writing about, so the critical message that the article carries and this one you are reading now will not be accessible to the general public soon. That’s a shame.
20.11.2012
References:
Studies of identical twins show homosexuality is acquired, not genetic.
