Three years ago I wrote the article: "Do you love?" in which I touched on the subject of homosexuality. I did not analyse the reason for the emergence of homosexuality because it was not a significant enough interest of mine. In the meantime, taking into account that media has begun to support homosexuality and gay marriage, I started to think about it. I would not say that homosexual marriage is family because it is not natural. Same-sex partners cannot have a natural successor. I am not saying that children are required to define a healthy family but they are certainly an important part. Homosexual people are often so burdened with themselves that they completely reject an interest in children and it is not good for them and society. Homosexuality is definitely a wrong human orientation emerging as a result of an insane society. Society is insane because it is alienated, neurotic and destructive. Homosexuality cannot be removed until society is healed. I think in the healthy society that I have defined in my book "Humanism", homosexuality would be significantly reduced if not completely removed.
My philosophy states that thoughts determine man. I reject the genetic theory of the nature of man’s character and his orientation. Life creates man. At birth man is an empty box. He does not know whether he is a man or a frog. He has developed instincts for survival and individual characteristics, but there is nothing that determines his character, interests or orientation. All that he knows is created in the interaction within his environment. This interaction begins with 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 a very alienated society and therefore carry dissatisfaction 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 good future for themselves. That is when the great problems of today's society begin. To the contrary, if the parents are happy and love each other, then the children build faith in their own future.
I’ve concluded in my philosophy that only an equal relationship between parents can build love. If the father is the authority of the family and the mother is not, then they are not equal, and the relationship between them cannot be defined as love. In my book "Humanism" I have presented that in such a relationship there is always a level of sadomasochism. Such a relationship is not good and cannot leave a good mark on the development of children. If the father is the loved authority and the mother is only a person who serves in the house, which is even today a very widespread phenomenon, then the children normally appreciate the father more than the mother. In the son that may cause greater love for men than women. I think it is a major origin of male homosexuality. In support of this hypothesis lies the fact that throughout history homosexuality rates are higher among men than among women. According to me 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 develop 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 appreciate others. They would probably spend their whole lives seeking love from a man that might not be able to give it.
If the father is a negative authority, an authority that the child fears or despises, then the situation is significantly different. The son in such a family would rather 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 to men, and this can direct her toward a homosexual relationship with women. Of course, individual human biological characteristics, character, degree of narcissism, stress, culture, also play a big role in sexual orientation, but I believe that the crucial role comes from the families in which the child grows up in.
Similar results would occur if the mother has the dominant role in the family. The son would admire his mother, which would with almost complete certainty direct him towards a heterosexual relationship. Such a son can be passive in relationships with women and expect women to make decisions. Her daughter, depending on the passivity of the father, and other factors, may develop homosexual relationships towards other women. If such relationships do not develop it might be difficult for her to establish and maintain a relationship with men.
As a conclusion I want to emphasize that equal relations between men and women are the only good solution for the development of the family and society. Husband and wife must both respect each other as human beings, regardless of their differences in intelligence, strength, or any other skills they possess. There must be a mutual respect between parent and child also. Parents must be the greatest authorities to their children, but they also need to respect their children. Parents need to build their own respect in front of their children through their own good example and by using rewards and punishments. In addition to the full equality of parents, still it may be good if the father is somewhat higher of an authority to daughters, and the mother somewhat higher to 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 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 has no effect on the sexual orientation of children. This study has contributed to the notion that homosexuality is part of the genetic code and that it should be accepted as such.
Does this mean that my contemplation is wrong? No! Recent studies of two Taiwanese psychiatrists, For-Wey Lung and Bih-Ching Shu, published in Comprehensive Psychiatry in 2007 examined the role of parents in the formation of homosexuals. They have questioned members of the military in Taiwan. Using a statistical model based study they came to the conclusion that homosexuality in 62% of cases can be explained by the influence of parents and increased neuroticism. In short, according to them, the relationship between father and son has the most important role in the process of becoming male homosexuals. They argue that paternal affection and introverted and neurotic characteristics are the main causes of male homosexuals.
I have not read these studies because that is not of my primary interests. But I use these references to emphasize the incompetence of today's social scientists. Why are they incompetent? Today's scientists are recruited among excellent students who have developed the ability to repeat knowledge. Such people have gotten used to accepting knowledge uncritically, otherwise they would not be able to repeat it and would not be excellent students. People who get used to uncritically accepting knowledge have less of an ability to detect substance because they are used to expecting authorities to present the substance to them. I had the opportunity to talk to many professors of social sciences, and often became perturbed by their lack of logical reasoning. I came to my conclusion regarding homosexuality almost incidentally and Lung and Shu confirmed by their studies that I was right. My conclusion should logically be the first idea that leads to the origin of homosexuality. Why has such research not been provided before Lung and Shu? 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, which is in continual economic and moral crisis. It is afraid for its own survival and therefore hinders the natural development of values that can present the immorality of capitalism. Capitalism promotes perverted values in order to be perceived as more normal. That is also why media propaganda supports homosexuality. But that is not enough; they need support from sciences in order for the propaganda 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. Even if funds are provided by government, capitalists control them and enforce their influence. Capitalism deliberately supports wrong theories because they keep people ignorant. People who do not know are powerless, and as such they can not threat capitalism.
I believe that Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith were honoured with a large sum of money for this long study and were sure that they honestly did their job (as much as they were able to). This is not about corruption but rather 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 directed social studies wrongfully and were very successful in doing so. As a result, the social sciences today are useless and do damage to 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 is far from the influential West funded them. However, this study, besides the fact that it was published in the West by some miracle, is not supported there.
My article, "Do you love?" has been offered to numerous psychological magazines. All the answers that 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." I do not have time for formal study of the sciences of which I am writing about, so that the important message that the article carries, as well as this one you are reading now, will not be accessible soon to the general public. That's a shame.
I am very disappointed with today's social sciences. Who will accept my idea if sciences cannot? I feel that I have to strongly attack today's social sciences in order 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.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
January 24, 2013