Disoriented Orientation- Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, July 20, 2011, 11:00 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

The latest mantra that is being chanted by the LGBTQI lobby is that deviant sexual behaviour is a matter of ‘orientation,’ and that such deviant sexual orientation is predetermined. They are using this excuse to demand a change in the existing laws of marriage and to brand as persecutors or ‘homophobes’ those who hold the contrary view that homosexual behaviour is not normal. As soon as the New York State Legislature ‘legalized’ what is called ‘same sex marriage’ there were public celebrations all over the world, including in some parts of India. This is a classic example of distorting facts to push an unacceptable agenda. Since the early 1990s numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted. In the U.S.A. two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. (American Psychiatric Association, “Fact Sheet on Gay Lesbian Bisexual Issues” May 2000; and “American Psychological Association Online: Answers to Your Questions/Topic – Sexuality/What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?”) It is terribly unfortunate that grossly ignorant and highly irresponsible Hollywood actresses like Lady Gaga are being publicly idolized as oracles of knowledge about the scientific aspects of the predetermination of sexual ‘orientations.’ In fact, solid scientific studies have not been able to show any such predetermination. E.g. from the 1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon leVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work; nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Another Chromosome Study by Dean Hamer – also a gay man – made in 1993 said: “environment factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay . . . I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

Because of the crass stupidity of people like Lady Gaga, many people, who are otherwise reasonable, are led to believe that some people are “born gay” and therefore cannot change their sexual behaviour. Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued in the gay magazine Frontiers that sexual orientation is not fixed. And lesbian columnist author Camille Paglia argues that homosexuality is not normal and that it is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.

There are numerous other scientific studies (too numerous to be cited in the limited space allotted to this article) which clearly dismiss the widely held view that homosexual “orientation” is genetically predetermined and cannot be changed. This fallacious belief is gaining ground and is also influencing legislators and prominent citizens who help form public opinion, including members of the Judiciary. It is urgent that the facts are presented to the citizens so that they can make up their own minds on the issue.

In a landmark study in 2007, Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse concluded that it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and that such efforts to bring about change do not appear to be psychologically harmful. Entitled “Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 200.) this groundbreaking research has been hailed by experts from both sides of the debate as being the most methodologically rigorous to date.

In conjunction with the dissemination of biological and psychological facts about homosexual behaviour, there are two other aspects which need to be considered carefully: 1.What is ‘normal’? and 2. What is a ‘gay right’?

What is normal?

Hysterical attempts are being made by the so-called Gay Rights Activists to convince people that homosexual behaviour is ‘normal’ (and therefore not ‘unnatural’). The obvious corollary to this assertion is that if homosexual behaviour is normal then by all the rules of logic, heterosexual behaviour should be categorized as abnormal. The two behaviours are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be ‘normal’ at the same time, just as something cannot be both black and white at the same time. The National Aids Control Organization (NACO) in India’s latest surveillance data shows that India is home to an estimated 4.12 lakh MSMs (Men having Sex with Men) of whom 2.74 lakh have been identified. According to these statistics, around 4.2 % of all sexually active males in India are believed to have sex with other men. Even by statistical standards, a miniscule 4.2% of the population practising MSM cannot be held to establish the standard of “Normality” in matters concerning sexual behaviour. It is therefore simply astounding that some officials of the NACO claim that homosexual behaviour is natural. The illogical approach to the problem (yes, problem) of homosexual behaviour has led to the distortion of both logic and of common sense. Public statements are now being made, even by persons in authority, that people with homosexual tendencies should be treated as ‘equals’ with heterosexuals. Such advocacy lacks conviction because it is both illogical and intrinsically absurd. One can emphatically agree that people with homosexual tendencies should be treated with the respect due to every person, and that they should not be discriminated against in matters of employment or social relationships. In a civilized society any discrimination based on sexuality, religion, caste, language or ethnicity is intolerable. But to equate respect with equality is to indulge in sheer fantasy. Which brings us to the claim that there is such a thing as “Gay Rights.”

What is Gay Rights?

The so-called Gay Rights movement is attempting to gain political mileage by claiming that people with homosexual ‘orientations’ should be “given” equal rights with non-homosexuals. The fundamental fallacy of such a demand is that “Rights” are not “bestowed” by any human authority – not even by governments. Rights are inherent in Persons by virtue of their being Persons. These rights have to be ‘acknowledged’ by society and upheld by public authorities. Rights accrue only to persons and not to non-human beings such as animals, fish, birds, insects, trees or any of the millions of living species. To speak of ‘animal rights’ therefore, is fanciful and intellectual poppycock. It is an abuse of the language. It is quite legitimate to speak of women’s rights or children’s rights because women and children are human persons, but to speak of animal rights is sheer absurdity.

Secondly, Rights are inherent in Human Persons and are not to be attributed to physiological processes or psychological “orientations.” This is why the campaign for the so-called ‘reproductive rights’ of women is so irrational. Reproduction is a physiological process just as is breathing, digestion, or other processes. To claim that the process of reproduction can be made the subject of a “right” is as absurd as to claim that the process of breathing or of digestion and other physiological functions can be made the subject of “rights.” We have not yet heard the feminists claim that they have mammary rights!

The confusion in the minds of many people arises from the imprecise use of the language, which is itself the result of confused thinking. The word “Right” is a much misused word which is very loosely used to promote questionable political causes. Even an otherwise ‘educated’ person like the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indulges in nonsensical propaganda claiming that ‘gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.’ As a lawyer by training, and holding such an important position, she should know that nowhere in the International Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations is there any mention of ‘gay rights’ being part of Human Rights. But, of course, everybody knows that Hillary Clinton, and her boss Barack Obama, who is also a lawyer, put their political agenda ahead of legal rectitude. Her espousal of so-called gay rights, like her espousal of abortion and euthanasia is not only anti social; it is politically destructive of social order and harmony.

- Averthanus L. D’Souza