Homosexuality
Homosexuals most likely build their orientation on narcissism, which develops a close emotional bond between 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, it can still generate 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 for 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 individuals fiercely oppose it 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 controversial, as this could increase the possibility of returning to a natural state. Living in a natural state can achieve genuine joy in life.
I think that homosexuality is an undeveloped form of love, just as falling in love is. 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 disalienated 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 a healthy society, as I have defined in my book “Humanism,” homosexuality would be reduced, if not removed.
My philosophy states that thoughts determine a person. I would rather reject the genetic theory 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 they know comes from interactions within their environment. This interaction begins with the parents. The relationship between parent and child is the most important for the development of every individual and society. Children see their future through the lives of their parents. Today, parents live in an alienating society that leaves 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 their relationship 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 detrimental and cannot leave a positive mark on children's development. Suppose a father is the authority and a mother is merely someone who serves in the house, which is still an existing phenomenon today. In that case, the children usually appreciate the father more than the mother. It may cause the son to love men more than women. I think it is the primary origin of male homosexuality. In support of this hypothesis is the fact 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 develop 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. In such a family, the son would instead develop love for his mother, which would lead him to have a better attitude toward 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 family in which 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 equal rights for 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 differences in intelligence, strength, or other skills. Parents and children must also respect each other. Parents must have the highest authority over their children, but they must also respect them. Parents need to build 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 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 questioned members of the Taiwanese military. 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 homosexuality.
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 that 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 in terms of same-sex attraction. The research proves that homosexuals are not born that way.
The research also states that no one becomes homosexual because of their upbringing, either. According to it, parents do not influence a son or daughter to become 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 among 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 could not replicate it and would not be excellent students. People who become accustomed to uncritically accepting knowledge have a reduced ability to detect misinformation because they are used to receiving it from authorities. I had the opportunity to talk to many social science professors and was often disturbed by their lack of logical reasoning.
I concluded about homosexuality almost incidentally. Lung and Shu, along with Neil Whitehead, confirmed by their studies that I was pretty much 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? The social sciences not only fail to contribute to society's development but also prevent it. And this is no accident. Why?
We live in a capitalist society in a continual economic and moral crisis. Capitalism fears for its survival and therefore hinders the natural development of values that could expose its immorality. 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 follow corporate interests and fund them to develop suitable theories.
That is why the American Psychological Association has instructed for years that changing homosexual orientation is harmful. In contrast, the West has generally capitulated to the idea that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. The study by 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 Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith were honoured to receive such an extensive study and a large sum of money, and they were sure 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 nearly all activities in the developed world, to the detriment of society. Scientists who could actually contribute to the development of social science are ignored, do not receive research grants, and have no access to the media. Supporting studies such as this one from Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith have wrongly directed social studies and have been very successful.
As a result, the social sciences today are useless and harmful to society. Generations of scientists, wrongly directed, cannot recognize the correct path today. Lung and Shu were able to conduct their study because the Taiwan government that funded them is far from Western influence, while Neil Whitehead works for the New Zealand government. The truth may be found only far away from the West. However, even if 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 the 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 the scientific community further in my next article.
My article, Do you love? teaches people how to love unconditionally and eliminate homosexuality. I have submitted it 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 all the sciences I am writing about, so the critical message that this article carries, and the one you are reading now, will not be accessible to the general public soon. That’s a shame.
20.11.2012
References:
Homosexuality: the importance of mothers and fathers” by Neil Whitehead and Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Studies of identical twins show homosexuality is acquired, not genetic.