Homosexuality’s Assault on Monogamy

            Question: Is the gay crowd’s fixation on same sex marriage as simple a question as equal rights or do the homosexuals have covert, alternative objectives that would come into play if “same sex marriage” becomes law?  If the United States Supreme Court were to rule that the states must recognize same sex marriages would that be tantamount to a biological promulgation that homosexuality is a natural and normal orientation? 

            Just how society ought to react or should adjust to homosexuality is a highly sensitive conundrum.  It is a problem because the homosexuals, although a minority, have succeeded in organizing to the extent that they appear to represent a viable voting block and have captured the empathy of liberal minded Americans. 

            There are various ways of looking at homosexuality, from a legal perspective, moral, religious, biological and politically correct perspective.  In response to the latter, a derogatory remark about homosexuality could result in a crippled political career.  Of the several moral issues debated by concerned Americans like race, religion, government and war, same sex marriage seems to generate the highest state of tension.  Tension begets attention. If the liberal media interprets a sexual comment as incendiary it could result in the commentator being branded a bigot. In that regard, political correctness has become a powerful tool in manipulating free expression. We all pretty well know what the politically correct consequences are in publically opposing homosexuality.  It could indirectly affect employment and public standing if one’s occupation is associated with public approval such as a cartoonist.

         A cartoon about Mohammad appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2005.  The Muslim world took it as an insult which sparked demonstrations throughout the Middle East.  As if on cue Muslim’s swarmed into the streets, violence erupted, Danish Embassies were attacked, as the crazed Muslims called for the death of any and all Danes connected with the “blasphemous” cartoons. Stunned by the ferocity of the rioting over such a trivial reason The Vatican and a couple of other Christian leaders sided with Islam in denouncing the cartoons, the illustrator and newspaper that printed them. 

            The Vatican’s reaction qualifies as political correct as opposed to free speech on the part of the Danish cartoonist.  It is also an example of caving in to intimidation.  European Muslims are more easily provoked than American Muslims. 

            Homosexuals also demonstrate but they are usually the victims of violence rather than the other way around.  They have been shrewd enough to turn senseless violence against their fellow homosexuals into an asset.  It is a strategy that gay activists and polygamy activists have in common, turning discrimination into a politically correct resource. 

            So much for political correctness – what about the moral factors?  Is homosexuality perversion or deviant behavior?  In the 1950s it was considered a perversion but since the 60s there has been a gradual but definitive relaxing or incontinent trend in how society views sexual behavior.  Laws against adultery and sodomy are now considered archaic.  Cheating on one’s wife may be grounds for divorce but not criminal punishment.  Since Lawrence vs. Texas, two men in the privacy of their bedroom can engage in buggery to their heart’s content because the Texas Supreme Court ruled it’s no one’s business, including the state.  

            The homosexual lobby has succeeded in using polemics to rationalize that homosexuality in and of itself is a natural consequence.  If homosexuality is a natural orientation among the human species, then it is implied that the oral and anal love making techniques, as disgusting as they may sound to heterosexuals, are natural.  Going one step further, Lawrence vs. Texas suggests that sexually, anything goes among consenting adults except where minors are involved.  Public sentiment draws the line with minors. By drawing the line at age 18, is it a rational or emotional decision?  What is the difference between an 18 year-old boy performing sodomy on a 50 year-old man and a 50 year-old man performing sodomy on a 17 year-old boy?   Is it the act or the idea that is offensive?

            Where homosexuality is concerned, it seems that religious entities have drawn a line in the sand at same sex marriage.  Religious belief can safely skirt political correctness and oppose homosexuality.  In the case of Catholicism and Mormonism, although they openly oppose homosexual unions, the churches are against discriminating against gays especially where housing and employment is involved.  How can they not?  Nevertheless, when the LDS Church agreed to a city ordinance against discriminating against gays in housing and in the market place the gays seemed to take it as a victory. 

            Gay activists claim that homosexuality has a genetic origin.  There has yet to be scientific conformation but many scientists lean in that direction.  If homosexuality has a genetic causality why couldn’t an aversion to homosexuality also have a genetic origin?  There are geneticists who suspect a fear of snakes is a genetically induced aversion.  In that regard there are other human quirks common to all cultures that geneticists suspect are genetic.   

            When I was a young man in the US Navy, while on liberty in San Francisco, it was not uncommon to be hit on by homosexuals.  The common reaction of the sailor was instant aversion; there was no thinking about it, no discussion, just instant revulsion just as there is instant dislike and fear when you suddenly come across a snake.

            As long as we are on the subject of genes it may be germane to acknowledge that there are a number of genetic disorders that affect behavior – such as Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, Turner Syndrome and Sickle cell disease.  The people with Down syndrome are easily identified, they stand out, but I know of nowhere where they are discriminated against.  But then they don’t cause any trouble or intrude on the privacy of others, nor do they deface public or private property, nor do they solicit sexual congress with strangers. 

            You may have already guessed where I am going – into that erotic homosexual domain where some politically correct gays think I should not tread. 

            There is no doubt that many gay men and women are upstanding citizens, patriotic Americans and law abiding.  There are homosexuals that have made meaningful contributions to the arts and in other cultural endeavors such as business, academics and politics.  These individuals should be respected for their humanitarian accomplishments the same as heterosexuals.  But there is also a faction of homosexuals whose unorthodox behavior has brought upon the gay culture in America moral condemnation.  The aberrant habits of this faction I believe have resulted in deserved or undeserved animus (you decide) among the heterosexual majority.  Political correct intimidation I also believe has kept the annoyed majority from speaking out but has not changed their thinking or natural aversion to homosexual erotic habits.

            What I intend to say next is not speculation or fiction but qualified facts from my experience as a sex crime investigator while a detective in the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office.

            I frequently came in contact with homosexuals due to the following complaints: child molest or pedophilia and disorderly conduct. 

            Some male homosexuals seek out occupations or hobbies that bring them in contact with adolescent boys – occupations like school teachers or Boy Scout leaders.  In discussing this “malady” with a prominent psychiatrist he told me that homosexuality in men was an extension of the masturbation stage.  With that in mind, I noticed that predatory homosexuals often target that age group where young boys are experiencing testosterone stimulated interest in the opposite, in other words, the initial masturbation stage. 

            Most contacts are with children in the immediate family or neighbors, someone known to the homosexual.  Hitchhikers are often targeted as are young boys in public restrooms.  A common ploy is to show victims nude pictures of women and when the boys are sufficiently stimulated the homosexuals then attempt to take over where the pornography leaves off.  My psychiatrist friend said that if a boy has a particularly satisfying homosexual experience, and a disappointing heterosexual experience, as he grows older, there is tendency to revert back to the more satisfying experience.  This hypothesis gives credence to a nurturing explanation for homosexuality.

            Homosexuals find places to meet.  Public restrooms, parks and bars are the most common.

            As a result of handling both homosexual and heterosexual sex offenders I formed the opinion that per capita there is a much larger pedophilia incident rate among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

            With many homosexuals there seems to be an inordinate preoccupation with eroticism that compels them to take dangerous chances.  It is not unusual for some homosexuals to participate in as many as 25 to 50 sexual contacts a night, the majority of contacts being strangers.  It’s like a sexual binge that’s hard for heterosexual people to understand.  It’s no wonder aids is so prevalent among homosexuals.

            In the 70s the consensus was that homosexuality was an environmental (nurturing) disorder.  In that regard I maintained close professional contact with a psychologist who developed a “shock” form of therapy.  What he did was attach an electrical shocking devise to the penis of his patient then showed him a series of homo and hetro photographs.  When he showed the patient a homosexual photo the penis was shocked. The psychologist thought this Maslov type of therapy conditioning put the patient’s sex urge back on the proper, heterosexual, track.

            Today it seems that therapy designed to change sexual orientation is so unsuccessful that some social scientists now treat the patient so he reconciles to his sexual orientation.

            I am convinced that homosexuality has a nurturing origin and “probably” a genetic impact.  Many homosexuals are bisexual – married with children living a cryptic, secret homosexual life.  The men genuinely love their wife and children but when it comes to sexual pleasure, they are more fully eroticized by a homosexual act.  These bisexuals frequent restrooms to make contacts or recruit a covert lover on the side.

            Speaking of restrooms, homosexuals can be very destructive, defacing the walls and partitions between stalls with filthy graffiti and human excrement.  They bore holes in the partitions in which to offer their penis to the guy next door.  And as we recently learned from a politician, playing footsy with the guy in the next stall is another way of making contact.  When homosexuals dominate a public restroom it makes it very uncomfortable for heterosexuals.  It’s no wonder parents will not allow their children, especially boys, to enter a public restroom alone.

            Parades and public demonstrations symbolize solidarity and power.  Almost without exception when homosexuals demonstrate there are those few that kiss, hug, dress and carry banners that they know annoy heterosexuals.  Taunting heterosexuals is not an appropriate way to gain their support.  This kind of behavior conveys the message that, “we are now powerful enough to get what we want in spite of you.”  I think that heterosexual resentment is now evident in the recent surge of political opposition to same sex marriages.  It symbolizes, “enough is enough.”

            If we approach the claim of homo-naturalness from a biological prospective I believe that objective research will debunk the proposition that homosexuality is normal and natural because the obvious natural order of things is procreation with emphasis on heterosexuality and monogamy.  This does not preclude that some species practice polygamy like a pride of lions, or that some species like chimpanzees engage in homosexual play.  As it concerns our cousins, the chimps, when a female comes into season it is a free-for-all, the males, including those who have engaged in homosexual play, compete for the opportunity to pass on their genes.  The chimps have been known to go so far as to gang up and kidnap fertile females, then the males fight with each other for the right to copulate, or they take turns, depending upon the hierarchy. 

            To say that because chimps engage in homosexual play is proof that homosexuality is normal, I think is flimsy and degrading polemics.

            Homosexuality has no interest in procreation.  All the interest is in “selfish” pleasure and domination.  The sex urge in homosexuals is misdirected.  Neither god or evolution meant for sex to be restricted to pleasure only.  The pleasure and bonding factors are primarily to encourage a continuation of the species.  Unlike a god, Mother Nature’s concern is not with individuals but with species. 

            The obvious conclusion is that homosexuality whether genetic or environmental is deviant behavior.  It deviates from the biological evidence and reasoning that all life is programmed to procreate.  Natural selection, for whatever reason, tends to eliminate that life which is unfit.  If all humans were suddenly turned into compulsive homosexuals humanity would cease to exist. 

            Homosexuality is a disorder and should be treated as such the same as other genetic disorders. I think that societies are gradually accepting that reasoning by relaxing the laws against sodomy and not intruding upon the erotic behavior of gays as long as it is done in private.  Very few people object to two or even three men or women purchasing a house and cohabiting together – doing whatever erotic acts they desire as long as it is consensual and the participants are adults.

            Same sex marriage does not prevent gays from cohabiting, negotiating contracts or engaging in erotic behavior.  So what is it that same sex marriage will really do for them?

            I suspect it is the implication that if the United States government recognizes same sex marriage the people of the United States must also recognize that homosexuality is a legitimate form of sexual orientation.  This would give zealot homosexuals the justification to pursue young males the same as heterosexual men pursue young females.  And I suspect that although shelved by pro-gay activists for the moment, there is the notion that homosexuality as an alternative sexual orientation should be taught in the public schools. 

            I doubt that the vast majority of American parents want their children indoctrinated with the thesis that homosexuality is normal, safe, stable, pleasurable and acceptable when from a biological view it is a disorder. If anything should be taught in the schools it is reality, not what political correctness or religious irrationality thinks “ought” to be.  In defense of responsible gays, if homosexual orientation is irreversible, as some academics claim, it only effects sexual behavior and doesn’t prevent people affected by the disorder from becoming a respected, responsible, productive citizen.

            In spite of attempts to alter human nature by economists (Karl Marx), psychologists (B. F. Skinner), religious leaders (Joseph Smith), and politicians (Obama), in the long run human behavior can only be manipulated not changed (Matt Ridley).