The Language of Homosexual Love

After a long break due to illness I feel it is time for me to start blogging again. Once again, the issue I am writing about is homosexual marriage. I am doing so for two reasons. One, homosexual marriage has become a ‘hot’ political issue in Australia where it has not yet been recognized or sanctioned; and two, I think it is incredible how language has been used to change human sexuality, family unit composition and social structure.

It is reasonable to state that human beings are heterosexual by nature and design because we rely on sexual copulation to procreate. Sexual arousal is triggered in the brain, via the sensory organs, when a man and a woman come into close physical and intimate contact. This enables copulation to take place.

It is also reasonable to state that an extremely small proportion of the world-wide human population are sexually attracted to, sexually aroused by and engage in simulated acts of copulation with a person of the same sex. These people are, quite correctly, defined as homosexual.

Over 50 years ago, homosexuals decided that they did not wish to be defined as homosexual anymore. This was probably because, at that time, homosexual sex acts were treated as criminal offences. So they took possession of the rarely used delightful little English word ‘gay’ (meaning carefree and merry) to define themselves.

However, in the late 1960’s, western countries began decriminalizing homosexual sex acts ‘between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.’ But, to this day, homosexuals still doggedly cling on to the word gay to define themselves and promote gay pride rather than homosexual pride: a bit of a conundrum is it not.

During the 1970s, psychiatrists and psychologists in the USA suggested that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem and introduced the concept of ‘sexual identities’ and ‘sexual orientations.’ I do not profess to know the basis or the rationale behind this concept, but what it seems to do is place simulated acts of homosexual copulation on an equal footing with natural heterosexual copulation.
In other words, it is now considered perfectly normal and natural for two people of the same sex to engage in acts of simulated copulation with one another.

I have to assume that this is the basis on which some western countries have recognized and sanctioned homosexual marriage. Having done so, centuries old common use language needed to be changed to remove heterosexual ‘bias’ and foster the illusion of ‘marriage equality.’

Biological family unit was changed to traditional family unit; biological mother was changed to birth mother; heterosexual marriage was changed to traditional marriage and the words husband and wife were replaced with the word partner. Homosexual marriage is defined as gay or same sex marriage which once again, doggedly avoids using the word homosexual: another conundrum is it not.

Psychiatrists and psychologists can introduce concepts; politicians can enact legislation; judges can make rulings and language can be changed; but no one can change the inalienable fact that the primary function of sexual copulation is procreation.

Because homosexuals cannot procreate through simulated acts of copulation, they rely on adoption, sperm donation and surrogates to bring children into their relationships. In effect, this deliberately deprives children of one or both biological parents, half or all of their biological extended family relatives and their family history as well.

Biological relatives and family histories are important because they provide continuity and a sense of belonging. They also give us a sense of family and an identity of who we are and how we became who we are. Being deprived of these biological family connections is not a good outcome for children.

Let us not forget that the children of heterosexual (now traditional) marriages took a hit in the 1970’s when no fault divorce was introduced. No matter how well-meaning this legislation was supposed to be, children are always traumatized and suffer when their biological parents separate and divorce. What sort of trauma and suffering will children who are brought into homosexual marriages have to cope with when these marriages fail?

Modern political ideologies need to be reminded that it was groups of cooperative biological family units that enabled human beings to settle, form communities and build civilizations. In other words, the naturally evolved biological family unit of man, woman and children has been the anchor and the strength and stay of human social structure from the very beginning when early humans stood upright and walked out of the rainforests.

As human communities grew in size and complexity, the importance of the biological family unit to human social structure was recognized, formalized (by marriage) and given the protection of church and state. This protection is reflected in Clause 3 to Article 16 of the United Nations Human Rights Charter, published in 1948, which states “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and state.” The question is: are homosexual couples a natural and fundamental (family) group unit for a heterosexual species?

As an aside, there are probably more heterosexual couples living together in long-term relationships who are not married than there are homosexuals who wish to do so. Are these couples being disadvantaged or discriminated against in any way because they are not married: of course not. Yet another conundrum surrounding the issue of and the need for, homosexual marriage. And, what about bisexuals, are they now being discriminated against because they cannot marry the man and woman of their choice?

Homosexuals use the words homophobia and bigot to define people who are opposed to homosexual marriage.

Homo means man; phobia means an abnormal intense and irrational fear or an aversion to something; in this case homosexuality. So, how does a person suffering with homophobia react in the presence of a homosexual? Do they break out in a cold sweat? Do they shiver in fright or do they run screaming to the nearest closet and hide cowering in fear? The point I am making here is that homophobia is an invented condition that in no way reflects the beliefs and social opinions of homosexual marriage dissenters.

The only people who ‘may’ suffer from such a condition are people who were sexually molested by a homosexual pedophile when they were children. Yet, all these victims are asking for is the perpetrators who ruined their lives be made accountable for their crimes. I don’t think this can be construed as homophobia either.

A bigot is defined as ‘a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own.’ In this case, the ‘idea’ is homosexual marriage. It is not homosexual marriage dissenters who are creating a hue and cry, organizing the lynch mobs and destroying people’s reputations and livelihoods: homosexuals are the ones doing that. So who are the bigots?

Homosexuals need to be reminded that, in a democracy, people have the right to hold their beliefs and express their opinions on social change without fear of persecution. I have exercised my right to do so by writing this post.


About aquarianmist

I am a retired admin officer. My interests include supernatural phenomena, tarot cards, movies, social activities and more.
This entry was posted in Political. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.