Pheromones

A recent news item played up by the liberal media, about a scientific study involving brain scans which claimed to find that the brains of homosexual men responded to certain male pheromones the same way as the brains of heterosexual women, brought to mind how pro-homosexual propaganda has radically changed over the years.

Back in my college days, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, homosexuals and their liberal supporters began asserting that sexual identities or orientations were learned, were social constructs. They were asserting that the only reason heterosexuals were heterosexual was because they were raised to be heterosexual, were psychologically conditioned from birth to be heterosexual, were taught that the only appropriate objects of sexual desire were members of the other gender. Some liberals and homosexuals went so far down this dead-end street that they came to a point where they even maintained that any heterosexual who couldn't learn to enjoy homosexual activity must have "sexual hangups and inhibitions."

Because this psychobabble was so new at the time and was presented in a relatively scholarly manner, for a while it made some headway due to the effective nonexistence of an organized opposing view. At the very least, many Americans became a bit confused about the cause of sexual orientations.

Reality did not seem to enter into the equation for these liberals and homosexuals. Biology---e.g., the obvious fact that heterosexual pheromones play a major role in explaining why males copulate with females in the animal kingdom---did not seem to faze these people at all. These people desperately wanted something to be true so much they threw caution to the wind.

What eventually did faze them, what eventually caused them to do a big "one-eighty," was this line of reasoning: IF they were right about sexual orientations being learned social constructs, THEN it follows that homosexuals can learn to be heterosexual. It also follows that any homosexuals who can't learn to enjoy heterosexual sex must have some serious sexual hangups and inhibitions. Their own propaganda was coming back to bite them where it hurts.

Well, the liberals and homosexuals couldn't have that. So, they eventually had to eat some major crow and completely alter their propaganda. Now, most homosexuals and their supporters are strongly asserting that homosexuals are born that way, that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. This "evolution" of their position has been fun to watch, especially because they still haven't found a human homosexual gene and thus can't prove their latest position is correct. Reality and biological facts still don't faze them at all. Basing their position on thin air and wishful thinking seems to be enough for them.

(Incidentally, I'm not implying that a homosexual gene will never be found in humans. I'm just pointing out that one hasn't been found to date. Some animals engage in homosexual-like behavior and they probably have genes which predispose them to do so. Nature is nowhere near perfect. It makes all kinds of mistakes. Some families are more vulnerable than others to heart disease or cancer due to defective genes, for example. Some races are more vulnerable to illnesses like sickle-cell anemia for the same reason. If human homosexual genes do exist they should clearly be considered natural mistakes, especially since we are obviously designed for phallic-vaginal sex, for heterosexual sex. And if human homosexual genes are ever found, we will eventually come up with a genetic fix for them, a "cure" for genetically-based homosexuality, though that could take many years.)

There are some other significant but inconvenient facts that homosexuals and their supporters go out of their way to ignore. For example, we know that many homosexuals were sexually abused when they were young and/or had seriously dysfunctional parents (e.g., alcoholic or drug-addicted, emotionally distant parents). This is evidence to support the position that homosexuality is a mental illness, which is what it was considered for decades until the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 "normalized" homosexuality by removing it from its list of officially recognized psychiatric disorders (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). The APA's decision to do so was not based on science, on knowledge. It was a political decision. No one had found a human homosexual gene, so no one could prove that homosexuality was biologically and/or psychologically natural or normal. The evidence indicated, and still indicates, that homosexuality is psychologically unnatural or abnormal, i.e., is a mental disorder.

And even finding a homosexual gene would not "normalize" homosexuality. Evidence suggests that genes probably exist which predispose certain people to schizophrenia, manic depression, or other mental disorders.

The fact of the matter is, if our minds are in conflict with our bodies, something IS definitely wrong. People who are physiologically designed for phallic-vaginal sex, for heterosexual sex, but have homosexual orientations, clearly have a problem; and that problem is in the mind not in the body, if the body's sexual "plumbing" is healthy and functional.

The APA's unscientific decision to remove homosexuality from its officially recognized list of psychiatric disorders clearly lacked foundation. The APA even ignored its own criteria. It says: "For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning." If not being able to have and/or enjoy natural phallic-vaginal sex is not a significant impairment of social functioning, I don't know what is. The APA has little credibility nowadays. For it, sexual politics trumps logic and science.