Homosexuality today had turned in one of the theme of popular social and public
debates, which are often used by politicians and public figures for personal
promotion and political speculations. Ethical and moral aspects of homosexualism,
on the hand with public opinion and public attitude towards homosexuals have
divided society on two groups: those who tolerate people with different sexual
orientation and those who stand on very conservative positions denying rights
of sexual minorities.
One of the most serious ethical problems in today’s debates over homosexuality
is a problem of allowing gay or lesbian families to have their own children,
forming a so-called “alternative family”: “Homosexual lobbyists
are effectively using the anti-discrimination angle of the civil rights movement
for advancing the gay rights platform. Their current efforts to redefine marriage
are now backed by activist judges in Massachusetts and local officials in San
Francisco. In response to these most recent assaults on traditional American
values and the fundamental institution of marriage, President Bush announced
his support for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the
U.S., which has ignited a firestorm of public debate.” (from Hollowell,
K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race?)
The issue of childbirth in homosexual families provoked even debates in the
circles of scientists, as some of them say that homosexuality represents a certain
trend evolution of human species. Despite the fact that human gene of homosexuality
has not been discovered, and it’s a big uncertainty about its existence
in general. But there are lots of gay right activists who support idea of childbirth
in homosexual families using gene technologies, which would be very similar
to cloning. But it’s clear quite that nevertheless such foetus will be
different from one born from a tradition pregnant woman.
To the opinion of a famous psychiatrist, Doctor Kelly Hollowell the idea of
using gene technologies for homosexual families pregnancy is nothing but a vulgar
mistake. He makes a clear point that it would be nothing, but simple cloning,
not a natural biological process, as the future child would be mostly “modeled”
by doctors, which contradicts with ideas of genetics and Darwinism. Such practices
would only violate human genetic code and probably would have serious outcomes
for humanity. As Doctor Hallowell writes:
“Ironically, the same people who promote gay marriage and anticipate discovery
of a gay gene also believe evolution is an unassailable fact. In fact, if you
believe evolution you cannot logically believe that homosexuality is a genetically
driven advancement. It does not promote the propagation of our species or lead
to any other. To the contrary, it would lead to the extinction of the human
race. What’s more, homosexuality does not even represent social or cultural
progression. Growing support that homosexuality is a result of poor family dynamics
or criminal abuse is also inconsistent with advancing the human race.”
(from Hollowell, K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race?)
The author of this article Dr. Hollowell writes that it’s false to classify
homosexulism as a trend in human evolution. Homosexualism existed always, the
earliest records of it go all the way to Ancient world cultures, it was spread
in Middle Age epoch but of course its existence was hidden by chronicles due
to domination of dogmatic Catholicism and Inquisition. The main issue with debates
over homosexualism is that in prior epochs it was mostly avoided, but now in
times of civil society it was brought to the surface of discussions. Hollowell
writes that until homosexuality gene is not discovered it’s impossible
to make any objective conclusions. Hollowell also writes that today the only
solution to this problem could be found in ethical compromise, which would solve
this problem and leave both sides (homosexuals and conservatives) on the positions
of tolerance.
Scientists today cannot answer the question: whether people are born homosexuals,
or the main role is played by environment. Scientists an psychologists who research
the nature of sexual relations and human sexuality have not found a consensus
which would give single classification and definition to homosexuality.
None would argue that the problem of homosexual relations is viewed differently
by orthodox religion, society and by medical professionals. Even physicians
have different views and theories about this issue: to the opinion of some psychiatrists
homosexuality is a form of psychic disorder, which can be successfully treated
under a correct monitoring from the side of physicians and correct therapy on
the hand with changes made to the lifestyle and way of behavior.
The nature of homosexuality is different as it’s very individualistic
and private issue: some homosexuals are sure about their non-traditional sexual
preferences since their child years, others decided to change sexual orientation
after obtaining rich sexual experience and experimentation made during their
teenage or even adult years, or as a result of serious shock which has direct
relationship to their heterosexual life or experience. Again we should agree
that it may depend upon certain psychological and personal factors. Robert Spitzer,
a professor of psychiatry is convinced about individualistic nature of homosexuality
phenomenon, so he thinks that in many cases of “obtained” homosexuality,
person has a big possibility to save his heterosexuality:
“A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have
switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some “gays” are
capable of becoming “predominantly” heterosexual through psychotherapy.
“In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation
were substantial, credible and believable…” (Spitzer, R.)
Psychologists who support ideas of Spitzer also suggest that homosexuality may
be avoided if those persons subjected to sexual uncertainty will be more restrained
in their sexual activity and will limit their erotic fantasies, especially if
they’ll try to occupy most of their free time with some sorts of activities:
“According to the findings, all 143 men and 57 women claimed the therapy
altered their view of the same sex to some extent. All reported maintaining
the change for at least five years.
In this study, only six of 202 “gay” men and lesbians who had been
through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality.
These subjects were interviewed between 1995 and 2000 for an average of 90 minutes.
According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported
becoming asexual or conflicted.” (Spitzer, R.)
The article ‘Cure’ for homosexuality serves as a good evidence to
this issue: it’s impossible to view and analyze homosexuality only through
the prism of medicine or tradition biological views considering it psychological
pathology as the origins of human sexuality are very subjective and individualistic.
Moreover, homosexuality cannot be viewed as psychic disorder or abnormality
as it doesn’t have any issues with social behavior of a person. Homosexuals
are equal members of society and the issue of their private life can be only
discussed on the rights of privacy.
References:
1.Hollowell, K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race? Article Worldnetdaily available at web resource:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37336
2.Spitzer, R. ‘Cure’ for homosexuality? Study: Some ‘gays’ can become ‘predominantly’ heterosexual with psychotherapy Article, Workdnetdaily available at web resource:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34943
