The same-sex couples and their opponents

Varianta in limba romana aici

Since the US decision to legalize sexual relations between persons of the same sex there has came back an old debate on the subject. There are absurd arguments on both sides, but it seems that the bigger ones are those against legalizing such relationships, or even against those involved in it. I wrote this article to give a reply to such judgment errors. Of course, I selected the most visible ones because, if I would have analyzed all them all, then such a text would have turned into a several dozen pages study, which is not the case here.

Before making an opinion, those involved in this dispute should study some psychopathology, although the field is a bit distorted on this topic *. But even a summary study on the matter reveals a few things that the gay rights opponents have not quite clear. These prejudices can be broadly corrected if the following are known:

• - Homosexuality is not contagious. . The attraction to the same sex is not due to any virus or something spread by touching any person with such sexual orientation.

• - Homosexuality is not transmitted through education. There is no causal relationship between the way child is treated by parents and its subsequent sexual orientation as an adult. The existence of a community of same-sex attraction people is not made and is not strengthened by "propaganda" or "recruitment" as usually believed.  

• - Homosexuality is not pedophilia or other libidinal disorders. Those who feel the attraction for the same sex can not be a pedophile or voyeur or something else like this at the same time. There can not be combined several libidinal disorder in one single person. So, the giving some rights for LGBT community does not mean legalizing dangerous to society behaviors such as the pedophilia or the sadism. . 

• - Homosexuality is due to extra need of sexual activity. These people are wrongly perceived as ultra perverts, as having an ultra potent sexuality that the opposite sex could not cope with. Although homosexuals are generally more active than the normals, however, their libido is not so strong as to feel the need of transition to same-sex partners after, allegedly, having exhausted the opposite sex partners. Not at all. Simply these people are attracted to the opposite sex partners just as the normal ones do not feel attracted to the same sex persons.

• - The LGBT persons do not threaten to rape same-sex persons. The sexually assault cases against same sex persons are statistically lesser than those of men against women.

The main charge against these people is the abnormality. Of course, you can see a mile away that the sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not normal. They improvise mating organs that have not a biological specific sex role. Yet, such imputation is absurd to me. Even if these relationships are not normal, till this does not mean that they would be benign or harmful. Then, the appeal to normality should not be a criterion for "correction" if this abnormality does not have a visible bad consequence over the other people freedoms or the environment. Everyone should have the right to live a life as her/his wants. After 3,000 years of Western civilization spiritual mutilation, invoking normality is childish. Abnormal is also the very "normal" couples’s sexual life, as everybody knows. Because, if the sexuality role is the reproduction, then the most of human sexual activity is abnormal since it does not meant for reproduction. Most of them practice sexual activities solely for pleasure, and do not want every intercourse to end with a pregnancy. Then, many "normals" use the eccentric sexual behavior for the very need for diversity and refreshing the couple relationship. It is not fair to blame those who practice such fantasies or take them any right. Especially worrying is the fact that a majority decide what is normal, according to their own preferences, but not by following strict criteria of morality or biology. So here is how the "normality" is pretty hard to establish. This is not imputable for itself; it's good for a person to live its life as free as possible, as long as it does not affect the freedom of others or the environment. However, it is absurd to expect everyone to conform to your own personal preferences in art, lifestyle or sexual life.

A second important accusation made against same-sex couples is the eccentric behavior and clothing, especially at the annual parade which they organized in major cities. However it must be stated that, in a inhibitive world, same-sex orientation people feel persecuted and, thus, usually censor their gestures. They explode inside of such a crowd. These things happen also with "normality" if prolonged sexual inhibition. That is, actually, the case for every drive; it will become stronger when previously inhibited. I am not hedonism advocate; I am convinced that some drives must be inhibited. But in this case the proposed social inhibition for sexual minorities is pointless. I am convinced that there are some extreme cases, wanting extra rights form the social system, just for belonging to a sexual minority. I would not agree with that, but anyway, these cases are rare.

The moderate opposition reactions are explained by the extension personal libido outside the couple relationship which we are engaged in, despite the fact that couple members of the have very strong links and even inseparable. In other words, each one is more or less consciously projecting himself/ herself in different movies couples or in different social circles of direct contact or publicized couples. I analyzed in detail this libido dynamics here: http://baldovin.netai.net/acte/Din.psi.abis/texte/tabu.htm#varianta, so no more details here. I brought that up just for sustaining that the "normality" moderate opposition towards same-sex couples is due also to the phantasmatic self projecting reaction into a sexual relationship with such a person, according to this natural libidinal mechanism.

From another point of view, the mainstream society is opposed to sexual behavior that are not involved, only to absurdly broaden wide their choices horizons to a suitable partner. Influenced by the primitive prejudice of the false same sex attractions contagiousness, many prefer to have such a rejection or even hostile attitude towards these people with same-sex orientation.

A serious problem is the vehement opposition to that decision, leading to extreme cases, like that priest that burned himself in protest, or assaulting or killing the homosexuals. Such extreme events made in the name of "normality" fulfill the too much absurdity landscape that exists today in the civilized society. Burning oneself protest and more acts like that are psychopathological cases that proves some special psychical forces involvement. The aggressive repulsion for same-sex couples is largely due to a psychical conflict between one’s sexual impulses and its inner ethical forum, that Freud firstly called "Conscious" and then, "Superego". Freud clearly saw that the vehement rejection, as long as do not come from an extremist mentality (such as Islamic fundamentalists), is due to their repressed tendencies that are then outward projected.

The projection phenomenon, that Freud explains such vehement reactions with, is quite general. I think there are personal factors involved that must be exemplified. Every person libido consists of a concordant libidinal sphere with her/his (physical) sex, and a discordant libidinal sphere, inherited especially from the opposite sex parent. I analyzed this phenomenon in detail here: http://baldovin.netai.net/acte/Din.psi.abis/texte/meta.htm#Libidoului . The concordant libidinal sphere is usually stronger because it receives energy from the genitals. But the opposite-sex parent could have a very powerful libido and send it to its children as psychogenetic inheritance. The sexual behavior of this grew up adult varies depending on this opposite sex parent libido power on the following scale: metatropism, transvestism, transsexualism, bisexualism and exclusive homosexuality (paraphilia), as I detailed here: http://baldovin.netai.net/acte/Din.psi.abis/texte/libidinale.htm .

So, the most of us have the predisposition for sexual behavior directed towards the same sex persons, more or less visible. But most of us do not feel it. However, if we have a closer look to our sexual behavior, we can easily see it. For example, we find moments when we are excited about the women on top position or domination woman who initiate sexual intercourse. Even if these moments could be rare, however our excitement is explained precisely by this discordant libidinal sphere predisposition that, in this case, find common ground with the concordant one.

But when the discordant libidinal sphere are stronger and comes into conflict with the concordant one, there certain personal problems may occur. The psychical discomfort produced by them is due to their association with a fragile period in everyone's life, which is the beginning of adolescence and childhood loss. This age coincides with the genitals development and with starting sending libidinal energy from the instinct to the psychical system. At that moment the libidinal spheres have about the same energetic level, mainly the concordant libidinal sphere is a bit stronger, due to education. But at that moment, the discordant libidinal sphere also receives libidinal energy, so that certain homosexual behavior may occur. For those that have a strong discordant libidinal sphere, the emotional life does not change much from adolescence. They remain adolescents for the rest of their life. For the others, the parenthood can totally change their affective life, so this adolescence period remembrance is a not very pleasant. Therefore, many have this reaction of disgust seeing these couples.

Then, there are those in between these two parts, the nuances. Some have families and a normal sexual life, but the transvestite, transsexual, or bisexual drives, may compulsively appear in their minds. They are the mentioned above vehement voices. Some of them use the religious meditation to calm down the whole psychodynamical energetic system. And, that is why there was possible that extreme case of self-immolation. Others practice them both at the same time, thus finding some emotional balance, as in the case of homosexual monks.

Concerning the anti same-sex marriages ideas, I focus firstly on that who’s saying that the family means a man and a woman and nothing else. There are people that believe that the family means what the official justice says. But the most evaluated mammals raise their babies so that union is a family. Whether it is a single mother family, whether it is made from the both parents, whether it is a group, it is still family. The people who don’t see this reality are stuck in the classical traditional family mentality. But those who are interested in this subject can study the cultural anthropology and see that in the primitive’s man life, the uncle can have the father’s role for the child. So there is primitive family even according to such criteria classical family.

Beyond that, linguistically speaking, a child raised by a single mother can not be called a child without family. The family was not invented by the State or any authority. The invention is an artificial operation and mainly refers to the technology. Sexuality, birth and family are elements of evolution of life on earth. The family is both animal and human nature itself. So there is no need for artificial definitions and objectives provided by legislation for the family. It affirms them before being drawn by a repressive authority. Luckily, in this case, the authorities do not suppress its natural development.

The second idea that had my attention is generalizing the same-sex marriages would end up in human being disappearance, as same-sex couples cannot have babies. But this maternal need for babies, that the men also have, makes them to involve into normal sexual relations. I am firmly convinced that the men maternal complex is enough for humanity to continue to exist as long as there are living conditions on the environment.

Overall, I think this main society reaction against a minority simply explains our current situation, the manipulation, the authorities’ oppression and, ultimately, the slavery, be it classical or waged. Even if not violent towards the sexual minorities, as part of the crowd, the common people does not think that they are persecuted, thus deepening their transgenerational persecutions which, ultimately, have mutilated their mid. The common people think about what is to be earned on short term from such marriage legalization, and thus, prefer to tolerate these abuses. Lack of empathy toward a minority will turn against one’s own person sooner or later, when its rights will be limited or even denied. So, on the term, this retrograde mentality will face the abuses that it allows now.

Nevertheless, I believe that the political decision for providing children for adoption to same sex couples must be more nuanced. The decision of children placement in the same-sex families must be taken into account the child’s interests. There are countries where institutionalized children receive an even better education than that offered by their natural parents. In this case, the child's interest is not to grow up in a same sex family, although, as noted, parents’ sexual orientation does not affect the child sexual orientation after reaching adulthood. Unfortunately, the statistics show that same-sex couples are less stable than the normal ones. Here's another reason why the adoption is not really a viable solution in the western developed countries. But there is another situation in the poor countries, with weak social services for children, corruption, poverty and other issues. In this case, I'm sure that the same sex couple adoptive parents, if having enough material resources, would provide a better future for a child than such a specialized institution. I am also convinced that such a couple from such a country is better family than many 'normal' couples.

Unfortunately, this same sex couple agitation for rights and civil recognition as children adoption and marriage do not relate much to these things. If really would want children, a same sex couple would easily get it. Such a person can find an opposite sex partner with whom to have a kind of contract that clearly stipulates that the child to be raised by it after separation. There are enough people in this world that can make such compromises.

But the problem is another one. As noted in the footnote below, many same sex orientation people have themselves some problem to accept their own sexual impulses, like the main society. So, they project into the world/society their own rejection. At the subliminal level, they see the purpose of that political struggle materialized into a kind of encouragement or prize awarding that the society would give for their sexual choice. This ideal has a personal psychical function: it is meant to counteract this embarrassment feeling that they themselves have. Of course, everyone involved in this political debate should understand that the world will remain indifferent to it, if the marriages of this kind would be accepted. Their mental and emotional discomfort unrest will not particularly end once with the legalization of this kind of marriage or with receiving rights for adoption.

I believe that this pursuit of formalization is blowing in the wind. Although I have deep respect for the family natural institution, I despise the legalized marriage for being an improper state intrusion into personal life. The contract signing between spouses only prolongs the agony of a possible breakup, but it does not ultimately prevent. There are so many spouses who live together but apart ... and this is precisely due to this artificial state's intrusions into the person’s private life, preventing them to find somewhere ele their half. It seems very unnatural to me to ask yourself this, since you should protect yourself from such potential abuse of marriage legal recognition institution.

* For example, the most used psychopathology treated, DSM, has removed long time ago the homosexuality among the sexual behavior disorders. This is mainly due to the medicalist prejudices remnants concerning the mental disorder. These prejudices consider the mental disorder as disease. In some parts of the world the equivalence between mental disorder and (mental) illness is still maintained. DSM's attitude has changed since the last half century ago, but as I mentioned, some prejudices still exist. And the need to treat the "correct" a certain mental disorder is descended from this bias. There is discordant attitude toward homosexuality, when the subject is ashamed to its sexual impulses, and there is discordant attitude, when the subject accepts it without remorse. Well, the discordant homosexuality could be treated in psychotherapy. On the contrary, no need for that in the discordant one’s case. However, even if there is not a therapeutic recommendation for this type of behavior that does not mean that homosexuality should not be recognized as part of the spectrum of sexual behavior disorders, as DSM decided. The transsexualism also does not require psychotherapeutic intervention; so this would never justify this disorder ranging removal from sexual behavior disorders

Gabriel Baldovin