Three years ago I wrote the article: Do you love? in which I touched on the subject of homosexuality. I did not analyze 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 a 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 a person. I reject the genetic theory of the nature of a person’s character and his 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 there is nothing that determines their character, interests or orientation. All that they know is created in the interaction within his 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 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 significant 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 a concerned authority and a mother is only a person who serves in the house, which is even today spread phenomenon, then the children usually appreciate the father more than the mother. In the son that may cause greater love for men than women. I think it is a primary 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 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 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 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 to men, and this can direct her toward a homosexual relationship with women. Of course, individual human biological characteristics, character, a degree of narcissism, stress, culture, also play a significant role in sexual orientation, but I believe that the crucial role comes from the families in which the child grows up in.
Similar results will 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 evolve, it might be difficult for her to establish and maintain a relationship with men.
As a conclusion, I want to emphasize that same rights relations between men and women are the only reasonable 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 mutual respect between parent and children also. Parents must be the highest 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 authority to daughters, and the mother slightly 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 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 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 critical role in the process of 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 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 present when one of the siblings is gay than there are only 11% chances the other sibling is gay too. If homosexuality occurs by genetics, then 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 have influences in making a son or daughter homosexual. This contradicts my opinion. The study did not take into account that we live in a society which does not know how to love. But later the study states that an increasing number of young people in dysfunctional families identifies themselves as homosexual and transsexual. According to me, this is a direct result of the lack of love. Once we learn to love the number of homosexuality will significantly 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 among 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 of an ability to detect substance because they are used to receive it from authorities. 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 the conclusion regarding 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 has such research not been provided before Lung and 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, which is in a 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 to be perceived as more 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 to change homosexual orientation is to do harm. While 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 a big study and a large sum of money and they were sure that they honestly did their job (as much as they were able to). 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 directed social studies wrongfully and were very successful in doing so.
As the result, the social sciences today are useless and produce 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 funded them is far from the influence of the West while Neil Whitehead works for the New Zeeland government. It seems that the truth may be found only far away from the west. However, these studies, besides the fact that they were published in the West by some miracle, are not supported there.
I am very disappointed with today's social sciences. Who will accept my idea if sciences cannot? I feel that 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?" which teaches
people how to love unconditionally, 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 a formal study of
the sciences of which I am writing about, so that the critical 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.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
February 11, 2019