CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
39
Genetic predisposition Environmental factors
Debate Score:75
Arguments:42
Total Votes:115
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Genetic predisposition (23)
 
 Environmental factors (23)

Debate Creator

geoff(738) pic



What is the greater cause of homosexuality?

Nature via nurture?

Genetic predisposition

Side Score: 36
VS.

Environmental factors

Side Score: 39
3 points

I think both have an influence in homosexuality, but since I had to pick one I am will pick genetics since there has been studies that cannot deny that there is some genetics has an influence in homosexuality.

I read this article about twin studies that was very interesting.

The main conclusions were:

1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.

2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.

3. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.

4. Change is possible.

Side: Genetic predisposition
xyze(39) Disputed
1 point

Such twin studies found that between monozygotic twins, where one twin was homosexual 52% of the time the other twin was as well. (Bailey and Pilard study).I would call this substantial.

Side: Environmental factors
2 points

Speaking to the issue of physical sexual desire, would anyone seriously contend that heterosexual desire stems from social learning? Absurd.

Given the stigma that is still associated with homosexuality, why would anyone "choose" to desire someone of the same sex? It'd be a hell of a lot easier to do what the majority is doing. You can't choose your desire.

But it's more than just physical desire that makes people fall in love. There is a mental/spiritual component, too. And I think that is also innate, and anyone who tries to label that as an environmental interaction is 'shrinking' what it means to be a human being.

There is an unfortunate tendency among heterosexuals to magnify the sexual dimension of homosexual relationships. Homosexuals seek companionship, security and fulfillment just like everyone else.

Side: Genetic predisposition
hseldon10(10) Disputed
3 points

Just because people don't "choose" to be homosexual doesn't mean that homosexuality is not produced by environmental factors.

We didn't "choose" to learn our first language, or to define our ego around our given name, or to recognize our gender role (even straight people), yet none of these are defined genetically either.

The fact is that most of what our brain knows is learned unconciously at a very early age, sometimes even in the womb of our mothers. Homosexuality and heterosexuality alike are unconciously learned behaviors.

You say that "mental/spiritual" components, when constrained to environmental interaction, "shrinks" what it means to be a human being. You don't provide an argument as to why, but I am going to guess that you believe that, spiritually, a human being is more than the sum of its interactions. You are actually quite right. A human being is the fractal multiplication (not the sum) of its interactions. That our mentality can be defined by science does not make me any less human.

On the other hand, adovcating that, since "we are more than our learnings", then humanity must be only whats on our genetic material, and saying that this is more human than the former argument is downright ridiculous. If everything was in our genes (which, mind you, are just a very long strand of protein and acids), then nothing would be left to our minds and souls. Our "spirit" and our "mentality" are not defined genetically. Saying so dehumanizes our species.

Side: Environmental factors
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

I just want to defend my beliefs of innate predisposition from accusations of "dehumanizing the species."

I have not meant to suggest that human beings are incapable of change, growth and transformation. Of course not. But there is a certain inherent intelligence and potential; an optimal direction for self-actualization. IMHO.

But that doesn't mean I am reducing a human being to a pile of genetic material. On the contrary, I think our genes (as we understand them) are merely the physical manifestation of our presence, and I believe human beings are more than just physical matter (Wow, that sounds flakey).

Then again, how did genetic material get such a bad reputation? If human beings were the only species with DNA, it would be sacred.

Side: Genetic predisposition
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

I think you're on really shaky ground here. First of all, it's not possible to demonstrate the action of the Unconscious. Its existence can be inferred, but never proven.The Unconscious concepts I am familiar with are those of Jung and Freud, respectively - and neither ever proposed a role for the Unconscious in physiological development.

It's interesting to speculate on how "deep" the Unconscious might go, but to say, "This is how the brain works," as if you have the report in front of you, is disingenuous at best. If you do have any evidence to support this, I'd be interested to see it.

Side: Genetic predisposition
jmichaelcb(3) Disputed
2 points

While I do agree that nature plays a greater causal role in homosexuality than does nurture, I have to disagree with your assertion that heterosexual desire stems from social learning. Many a gay person has spent significant periods of their lives living as straight people. There are two reasons for this both of which are components of social learning. First, almost everyone that they see around them is straight, so they believe that is how they should act. Second, society will extract a penalty for not following its norms. Gay kids learn how to avoid scorn by acting straight. Happily the penalty piece is diminishing.

Side: Environmental factors
1 point

I agree. It's not like people choose to be straight, it just happens, there isn't a point in your life where you have to choose between the two. I'm all for having a good time and while I don't think of myself as a homosexual, I keep an open mind.

Side: Genetic predisposition
-1 points

I agree, it's definitely a mixture of nature and nurture with one influencing the other. Not sure about the spiritual component however.

Side: Genetic predisposition
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

I don't think nurture enters into it. If people are experimenting with homosexuality, okay.

But if you are acting in accordance with a spontaneously occurring desire, then that's just how you're wired.

Side: Environmental factors

Here's the problem with genetic predisposition being the cause of homosexuality.

1. If they are genetically disposed to be gay, they are defective and must be cured.

Side: Genetic predisposition
1 point

It's funny, this argument has +2 votes, but your argument on the other side,

Here's the problem with environmental factors:

1. Homosexuality is a chosen life style, a perversion that must be countered.

Has -2 votes.

CreateDebate advocates the Final Solution :P

Side: Genetic predisposition
1 point

It most likely is primarily genetic. But, regardless of nature or nurture, it is NOT A CHOICE. You can't CHOOSE who you happen to be attracted to. I'm gay and I'm 5 foot 9, and I chose neither my height nor my sexual orientation.

Side: Genetic predisposition
nrh21208(19) Disputed
2 points

Why are you gay? Because of genes? Tell us about your childhood? What did your family unit look like?

Side: Environmental factors
1 point

I see there being a fundamental misconception in this "choosing" to be gay.

Our brains do, indeed, begin as a near blank slates, and most of our higher functions are learned post-birth (imagine what a Botswana-teenager believes to be a hot-babe versus a Hollywood-fed American teen). We define ourselves and our desires by veiweing others in our cultural context (while chemicals in our brain say "I am horny right now" we then define what to seek under these circumstances... be it a man or a woman... or a skinny or fat or blonde or brunette..black or white).

BUT, thinking that we CHOOSE to be gay, assumes we have an actual point in our childhood where we sit down for a good life-assessment and finally block-in A or B.

My argument is that while our biological disposition cannot yet be definitively proven to favor or not favor being gay- I think that we simply are not conscious of our attractions until a much-later age (perhaps self-awareness of cultural forces defining 'attractive'' occurs in our late-teens) and that any 'damage done' occurs without our fully self-conscious selves not yet being awake.

Our youth and development is on mainly auto-pilot and so a so-called choice is no choice at all- but more a cultural and sociological push- well out of our self-conscious hands until AFTER we are self aware.

Could you un-learn to be gay or straight then? Perhaps, but our youth-development is a hard force to dodge let alone divert completely.

Side: Genetic predisposition
1 point

Personal experience tells me that environmental factors cannot entirely influence someones sexual orientation, but can influence one's views on the subject, thus bringing any genetically caused feeling out into the open. I am an identical twin, I'm gay yet my twin is straight. We are both male, had the same stable upbringing and are very close. Obviously this must be to do with genetics, and the balance of sexual orientation in a person, not their environment.

Side: Genetic predisposition
kjcmsw(1) Disputed
1 point

Since identical twins share exactly 100% DNA, what one has so has the other, genetically speaking. If homosexuality is genetic, then if one identical twin has a "gay gene", then so has the other. Just because identical twins were raised together, doesn't mean they had the "same" environment. There are too many environmental differences & experiences to list here that would account for why one identical twin claims an homosexuality identification and other does not.

Side: Environmental factors
1 point

I believe that I was born bi-sexual. I didn't choose it. Whether it's fully genetically determined, or environmentally determined, one's sexual orientation isn't a concious choice. I suspect that orientation is primarily genetic.

Side: Genetic predisposition
1 point

I'm inclined to fall on this side:

We have found a gay gene. Call it a defect if you want, but in an overpopulated world it is an altruistic adaptation.

We have not found a gay environmental factor. It shows up in every single population, and in animals.

[I almost typed fagtor.]

Side: Genetic predisposition
1 point

The vast majority of studies show a large range of influences that can affect a persons sexuality. No single factor can be cited as the sole cause for sexual orientation.

However, studies such as Twin Studies show that genetic factors are most likely to be the predominant cause.

(List: http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html) ) )

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The largest twin study was the Bailey & Pillard study which found a 52% concordance of homosexuality between monozygotic (Identical) twins.

(When an identical twin is homosexual, 52% of the time the other twin is also homosexual.)

Similar studies also found that between dizygotic twins (twins that share ~50% genetic information) the 52% figure drops

(22% in the Bailey & Pillard study), but is still about double the normal occurrence.

The important thing that these studies show is that there is a significant link between genetics and sexual orientation. The more genetically similar two people are, the more likely they share the same sexual orientation.

If homosexuality was caused by environmental factors then there shouldn't be any difference between homosexuality between monozygotic and dizygotic twins - Yet there is a difference of 30%.

Side: Genetic predisposition

Most gay people grow up and dont like what they see is working well,more men are turning gay just because there is to much effort in pleasing a woman,man is not above or equal to a woman and the future looks even worse,50% of men divorce cause they just couldnt be fucked being a slave to a woman just so he can get what other men give away for nothing in return,man cannot lift more than 10 kg at work because we let women in so to give them equal rights man had to be brought down to their level.

Side: Genetic predisposition

I believe that a person is born Gay. Being Gay is not a choice.

Side: Genetic predisposition
4 points

This is simply a matter of how the brain works. The brain learns everything it knows, even how to regulate breathing and the pumping of the heart. The only thing found in our genes is the design of how the brain learns and develops, but most of the development of the brain is done through learning. If we learn how to see, how to speak, how to love, and everything about ourselves from our mother, our family and society, then most definitely we learn how to love from them as well, and this includes straight and homosexual loving.

This argument, however, does not advocate that homosexuality is a "disease", because that implies that "normalcy" is in straightness. However, straightness is as randomly concieved and socially constructed as gayness. The reason why there are more straight people than gay people, then? Because straighteness is more socially rewarded. Why? Because it is better for society. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, and this is our ultimate biological goal, and, yes, our most basic impulses are biological.

However, most of our behavior, though influenced by our most basic influences, are nuanced by social interaction. And so, what our brain learns about loving at an early age will determine later homosexuality or heterosexuality. Thus, both are determined by "environmental factors".

So, this also doesn't mean that anyone "chooses" to be gay or straight. The predisposition is made by our brain in an unconcious way. Still, the defining factors for homosexuality and heterosexuality (both) are learned (also unconciously).

Why? Because this is how the brain works.

Side: Environmental factors
geoff(738) Disputed
2 points

Lots of behaviour is genetic. Weaver birds can build intricate nests without any instruction for instance. Homosexuals can and do produce offspring - there are many homosexual parents. I can imagine in some countries e.g. Iran there are many parents who are actually homosexual.

Side: Genetic predisposition
Szechuan(101) Disputed
1 point

I don't buy it. Yes, the human body develops in response to the environment on a fundamental level; and yes, social learning at a young age has a huge impact on our relationships later in life (attachment theory), but I would argue that all of these developments occur within the framework of our basic genetic blueprints. IE, we're born with certain potentials, and the environment, and probably chance, too, help to determine what gets filled in and emphasized.

Do you think some children learn to be colorblind? If so, why is Red-Green colorblindness the most common? Red and green are primary colors - I highly doubt any children grow through a critical stage of development without seeing plenty of both of them. Not to mention colorblindness is more common among boys. Are boys at a higher risk of not being exposed to the right colors at the right time?

Side: Genetic predisposition
nrh21208(19) Disputed
1 point

Really...you are certainly confused. I could not beleive this came from SZ after reading your other ignorant posts.

Read the sentence after (attachment theory) where you argue that these 'developments occur within framework of genetic levels.......yet the rest of your message agrees with social learning impacting future relationships? I quote you "we're born with potential and the environment, and probably chance...help determine what gets filled in and emphasized! Whoa! Thats true!

Thanks for the supporting evidence of Homosexuality (future relationships based on social learning at a young age) being credited to ENVIRONMENTAL factors :)

Oh, the color-blindness is not even in the same category.

Side: Environmental factors

It is surely the environment. You get two men lost in the wilderness, exposed to the elements, huddling trying to keep each other warm and before you know it ... BAM!

Side: Environmental factors
1 point

iPad sent    

  

   An interesting concept on what causes homosexuality,

  An idea that has been brought forth is that homosexuality is caused by gender reversal of the child's parents, meaning a dominant female and a submissive male as a couple raising children. It's being proposed that when a child is born they differentiate between males and females not by their physical appearance but by their parents position in the household. Just as animals have a hierarchy humans do as well but due to social engineering the hierarchy has reversed for some. 

If a baby girl is born to such a couple she will identify with the submissive parent, if it happens to be dad, she will identify sexually as a male and have an attraction to females. Same thing with boys only they identify with their dominate mom and will be attracted to males.

 Single female or single male households have the same situation. If the parent has the correct gender identity in their relationships with others, their child will be heterosexual.

  If a gay couple adopted a child of the same sex, the child will identify with either the dominant or submissive parent which will be their same sex and  therefore will be attracted to the opposite sex.   

  But If a gay couple adopts an opposite sex child, the child will associate with one partner which will be of the opposite sex as themselves, therefore causing them to be attracted to their own gender.

  Can it effect their development physically? Many gay women have very masculine features and build, just as many gay males are of a feminine build. Soon after birth can gender identity conflict effect the way a child develops both mentally and physically? 

  There are varying degrees of this socially engineered heterosexual relationship, just as there are varying levels of homosexuality. A person may be curious, bisexual, or exclusive. Do varying levels of gender reversal cause varying levels of homosexuality?   

  Many say the reason for an increase in the visible gay population is because of public acceptance of their life choice but the percentage of visible homosexuals skyrocketed soon after the feminist movement as well. With equality for women being the prime objective. Then was abused by many causing confusion as to what male and female gender roles even are.

  This hypothesis being presented is not rocket science and is known by many, but is ignored due to self serving agendas. A persons sexual preference has been decided for them long before their first kiss. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. 

  The ultimate casualties of this are kids growing up confused about their identity, many don't take it well, and for others it's a lifelong battle with self. A heterosexual can start life with the correct sexual identity and preference by observing a correct hierarchy growing up, but throughout their life they can change towards the opposite identity due to societies changing views on gender roles, thus causing their own offspring to be gay even though they're not themselves. It's all about nature, the natural development of a child's mind through stages that have been hardwired. They are expecting the male to be dominant and the female submissive, and for their natural survival instinct they are are counting on it. 

  As had been noted umpteen times there is nothing in our genes that distinguishes a heterosexual from a gay individual. Just as humans are the only species to be affected by homosexuality, we are also the only species that has tried to 180 nature. 

  You cannot dictate nature and homosexuality is the result of trying to do so.

Happy parenting

Side: Environmental factors
0 points

It is very simple, Please, both sides read this article.

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Side: Environmental factors

I think we are all bisexually-capable, but environmental factors may limit what we're willing to experiment with.

This could mean that our sexuality is predetermined in our brains and that environmental factors can force one to withhold their homosexual urges.

It could also mean that because heterosexuality was considered the norm (for obvious reasons) early on and still is, it is much more prevalent today. This would also be in favor of "environmental factors" as being the reason.

In conclusion, I think environmental factors often do determine one's outwardly expressed sexual preference regardless of their deeper desires. This can applied to most superficial traits that one may possess.

For instance, if I liked certain songs from Avril Lavigne's first album that my friends would scathe me for, I might deny this fact in public, but listen to her on my own time...lol

Hmm...that's probably a bad example... ;)

Furthermore, I think people think that it's either a "choice" or "genetic". The word choice is misused here. It's made to seem as if there must be an on or off switch. You can't choose, pur sae, but your brain reacts to the environment and the end result will be one or the other (or bisexuality). That doesn't mean that you are pre-wired to be any particular sexuality. That just means that in your particular environment your brain reacted a certain way.

So the idea of choice comes down to whether or not our lives are just the byproduct of our brains reacting to the environment.

Side: Environmental factors

Just wanted to simplify my argument.

Environmental factors are the greater cause.

Our brains may be wired a certain way, but they will react/"learn" differently when presented with different situations. Therefore it's our reaction to certain factors in our lives that ultimately decides what orientation we 'choose' whether or not this is in agreement w/ our deeper desires.

Is it then possible to control the outcome by changing the environmental factors? Maybe that is what religion did by shunning homosexuality.

Side: Environmental factors
0 points

even though genetics and the chemics of a brain do create the base, i really believe that sexual desires are environmental.

take pedophilia and beastiality. do you truly believe that those people are born liking only young children or animals. if so, that's a great case to defend the idea entirely. these people are affected by something else. now, i do accept that some of these people are chemically unbalanced, but to actually make a final "decision" in having sex with animals or small children would have to be quite a boost through an emotional account (from the environment).

although, i'm okay with gay people. not one of those conservative guys who says it's a "choice", that's insane.

Side: Environmental factors
geoff(738) Disputed
1 point

Humans are asexual for a long time during development and only really express concrete preferences after puberty. I believe a person may have certain feelings which may or may not be expressed depending upon environmental factors e.g. being given the opportunity, being exposed to the possibility etc. Sexual orientation is a complicated, time dependent combination of genetic and environmental factors which we may never fully understand until we can make models with perfect accuracy e.g. down to the molecular level of the brain or further.

Side: Genetic predisposition
-1 points

If it were purely genetic, there would be no such thing as bisexuality.

Side: Environmental factors
-1 points

The disgust protects the men from the homosexuality.The disgust is almighty to protect the men from the homosexuality. The theory of the attachement (John Bowlby, Attachement and loss) explains the trauma from which homosexuality springs

THE CAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Errors to avoid to keep your baby from becoming homosexual

Table of Contents

THE NATURAL ORDER AND ITS INVERSION

EXPLAINING HOMOSEXUALITY

1. Introduction

2. Inner realm

3. Psychic virility

4. Love instance

5. The trauma from which homosexuality springs

6. Errors to avoid to keep your baby from becoming homosexual

EDUCATING INFANTS WITHOUT ARTIFICIAL TOYS

THE NATURAL ORDER AND ITS INVERSION

Permit me to expound a little on the inversion of the natural order of education and its consequences.

I will begin with a child growing up in the 19th century. During the first year of life, that child eats and sleeps much of the time. About the age of one, he learns to walk. At age two or three, he begins to talk. At about two, he learns lack, longing and patience (and perhaps renunciation). How are these things learned? The child learns them naturally by looking around him. He sees that another child has a bicycle, for example. He realises that the other child has a bicycle. He then realises that he himself has none (learning of lack). There spontaneously arises the longing to have a bicycle (learning of longing). That longing will gradually grow until it turns into suffering (the child is dying of longing for a bicycle). Since that excessive longing makes him suffer, he will learn to moderate his longing, to wait (learning of patience) and perhaps to renounce. Note that this learning is a very gradual, drawn out process (taking many months). This education, particularly the learning of patience, is crucial to a child's psychological and social development. Patience is knowing how to control one's drives and being able to stand free and independent of objects.

Let us look now at the haphazard, disorganised development of a child in our day and age. Even before a child is weaned, a stuffed toy is placed in his crib. At the age of one, he still has a stuffed toy in his bed and his playpen, and his bedroom is full of toys. The infant becomes accustomed to his toys BEFORE he had learned lack, longing and patience. His education is disorganised; the natural order is not respected. By age two or three, the child has developed a very strong attachment to his comforter (a transitional or intermediate object, often a stuffed toy or doll, but also other things). He cherishes it more than anything in the world. All it takes to create a crisis is for someone to take his comforter (against his will). The infant screams and cries; he throws a tantrum. He is suddenly and violently confronted with lack and longing. The education in patience goes awry because the child is strongly attached to his comforter. Furthermore, there is an assault. Even further, the child is very young (and therefore fragile), in addition to which his sense of ownership is thwarted. The child does not experience physical suffering, but psychological suffering. It is narcissistic suffering. According to Freud, narcissistic wounds are the origin of homosexuality in adults. Depending on the child's age, the circumstances and the repetition of the assaults, the child will present multiple symptoms, such as sleeping disorders (nightmares), stress, hyperactivity, oppositional disorder, and psychosomatic manifestations.

In his book 'Emotional Intelligence,' psychologist Daniel Goleman cites one of many cases clearly illustrating the psychological suffering of a child. 'Len, age five, is fed up with his brother Jay, age two and a half, who is constantly smashing his Lego creations. Furious, Len bites Jay, which starts crying. Their mother, alerted by Jay's screams, intervenes and scolds Len, ordering him to put away his troublesome toys. Given what he must perceive to be blatant injustice, Len bursts into tears, crying on and on. He is inconsolable; his tears seem endless.'

When education occurs through inversion of the natural order, it is like throwing a child into the lake BEFORE teaching him to swim. He risks drowning, the education in swimming is too violent. In the case of toys and the learning of patience, psychological suffering is involved; the drowning is psychological if the natural order is not respected. That psychological drowning is not recognized by the parents, who are blind to it.

Let us return again to the past. Until the early nineteenth century, working-class children toiled and had no time for play. Toys were strictly for the children of the middle class. In the mid-nineteenth century, industrialisation made toys more accessible. Metal and synthetic materials replaced wood and porcelain. Then toward the middle of the twentieth century, the use of toys became widespread through all social strata in industrialised countries.

Canadian educator Daniel Kemp maintains that the personality of children changed around the 1960s. He talks about mutation and calls those mutants 'Teflon children,' whom he describes as very self-centred and aggressive. They apparently are unaffected by solitude; they do not experience guilt; the parents have trouble making them obey; neither punishment nor reward has much effect. Another observation points up psychological exhaustion in teachers, who can no longer control their classrooms. Those teachers suffer panic or breakdown because of turbulent, insubordinate pupils. You will doubtless notice that this change in children's character occurred alongside the generalisation of stuffed animals and toys in society.

In her book 'The Child,' Maria Montessori describes the conditions of poor children in 1900. Very simply, they had nothing to call their own. Once the child moved around, walked and touched objects around him, the mother sent him out to play outdoors (in the yard). Working-class children, who spent all day running in the streets, did not tire their mothers.

Maria describes the fifty poor children age 3 to 6 who attended her nursery school in 1906. She states that they were sweet, sincere, cheerful and energetic. They shrieked with enthusiasm, clapped, ran, thanked effusively and knew how to show their gratitude. They were outgoing, admired everything and adapted to everything.

The most noticeable attitude of those children in nursery school was their work-focused activity. Although the school made marvelous toys available to them, the children never played with them.

Maria then describes a nursery school of rich children. The children grabbed objects from one another. They switched from one object to another without sticking with any of them. Some were incapable of being still. In most cases, their movements were aimless. They ran all around the room without knowing why. Their handling of objects conveyed no respect for them. They were unable to concentrate on any task. Sometimes, they rolled around on the floor and upset the chairs. They were disoriented in their work and resisted all direction. These problems were encountered to varying degrees in all rich children, who were intelligently tended by loving families.

Maria believed that rich children eventually overcame their problem. Along with the return to normalcy comes the disappearance of disorder, disobedience, self-centredness, quarrelling, capriciousness, attachment, submissiveness, and so forth.

But not all of them overcome their difficulties. A child's first caprices are the first maladies of the soul. Caprices are the expression of an inner disturbance and are manifested as a moment of purposeless, disorderly activity. These children become impenetrable, empty, incompetent, capricious and bored; they exist outside society. Their attention is closed to all but the things they want to possess. Virtually all moral deviance stems from that first phase, in which a decision between love and possession must be made. This phenomenon by which humans become attached to things they do not want to give up, even when those things are useless, poisons the fundamental equilibrium of the psyche.

In his book 'Tales from a Traveling Couch,' New York psychotherapist Robert Akeret cites an example to show that putting a teddy bear in a baby's crib may lead the child to zoophilia, and from zoophilia into masochism! The story he tells is true and must be read to be believed. Naturalist Konrad Lorenz in his book 'He Talked with Mammals, Birds and Fish' shows a phenomenon similar to zoophilia (and reproducible) in birds. Indeed, birds raised alone direct their sexual love toward any being with whom they commingled during certain phases of their youth, i.e., very often with humans. Lorenz cites the case of a white peacock, the last survivor of a brood that had met with disaster. The peacock was placed in the giant turtle room at the zoo. For the remainder of its life, the hapless bird had eyes only for giant turtles and was deaf and blind to the advances of the loveliest peacock hens. One characteristic of this amazing process of impregnation is its irreversibility.

Now that I have explained how our children have become horrid little monsters, you understand why parents must be taught not to disturb their infants with artificial toys or stuffed animals. In a perfect world, children would be raised as they were in the early nineteenth century, when stuffed animals and artificial toys did not exist among the working classes.

EXPLAINING HOMOSEXUALITY

1. Introduction

Three concepts are key to understanding the psychological disturbances that bring about homosexuality. They are the concepts of inner realm, psychic virility and love instance.

2. Inner realm

The inner realm is an intimate precinct encompassing all those things which a person cherishes. All individuals have their own inner realm. In the normal individual, the inner realm usually encompasses spouse, children, self, trade or profession, automobile, house, and so forth. In sum, it embraces everything that the individual holds dear and would regret losing.

The inner realm has no clear boundaries. Outside that precinct lies all that leaves the individual indifferent or arouses disgust.

3. Psychic virility

The psychic virility is the psychological centre of drives.

It is sensitive to all assault upon the inner realm, meaning aggression against anything lying within that precinct.

Its extreme sensitivity makes the psychic virility susceptible not only to assault but also to threat and provocation–to whatever endangers the inner realm.

Assault upon the inner realm puts pressure on the psychic virility. Whenever the psychic virility is pressured, a drive is awakened. In the case at hand, the drive is the desire to fend off the assault. If that is possible, the psychic virility decompresses and the drive retreats. The exertion of pressure on the psychic virility creates an unpleasant, almost unbearable sensation. Decompression produces a pleasant sensation.

Because of its extreme sensitivity and fragility, the psychic virility suffers under strong pressure. However, the stress arising from the routine vicissitudes of life is generally mild and causes no suffering.

The psychic virility is also capable of foresight and can operate to prevent assault through the search for prestige. Indeed, prestige is a demonstration of strength, which in turn compels respect and thus prevents aggression. (The psychic virility does not wait for the individual to be dead to mobilise, for once death has occurred, it is too late to act.)

The search for prestige is important, given what is admittedly an unfortunate human tendency to despise and reject weakness and poverty.

The search for prestige has a twofold purpose, for prestige is also a factor in seduction.

There are many ways to gain prestige, some of them being to buy a luxury automobile, wear expensive clothes, own a beautiful house or practise a high-profile profession.

Prestige can also be acquired through sports, which allow for the show of strength and superiority over one's adversaries.

Ordinarily, the drive of the psychic virility is called arrogance in sports confrontations, vanity in the quest is for luxury, jealousy when one covets someone else's property, egotism when everything is seen in terms of self, and pride in other cases. The drive of the psychic virility also intervenes in the desire to seduce, in which case it is the need for love that stimulates (pressures) the psychic virility.

Broadly speaking, the psychic virility can be stimulated in three ways, i.e., through aggression, the need for love and the satisfaction of daily needs (e.g., food).

Conclusion

The function of the psychic virility is to trigger drives.

Its physical function is to perpetuate life by ensuring that the individual thrives.

Its psychological function is to protect the love instance.

The psychic virility is the custodian of the love instance.

During sleep, the psychic virility manifests itself through dreams.

4. Love instance

The love instance is a psychological mechanism sensitive to tenderness, affection, friendship and love.

Nor only is the love instance sensitive to love (friendship, affection); it also has a lifelong need for love (friendship, affection), as though it were nourished by love (friendship, affection).

When the love instance lacks love (friendship, affection), the psychic virility comes under pressure. The individual seeks that missing love (friendship, affection), one example being an individual suffering from loneliness, which is a lack of affection and human warmth.

When the love instance is nourished (stimulated) by tenderness, affection, friendship or love, the individual loves the one who supplies that tenderness, friendship or love.

The love instance is ordinarily called the heart, although some common expressions employing the word 'heart' actually refer to the psychic virility instead of the love instance.

The love instance and psychic virility are intimately linked. The psychic virility shields the love instance so that whatever or whoever wounds the psychic virility does not stimulate the love instance.

5. The trauma from which homosexuality springs

The trauma from which homosexuality springs occurs when someone takes a young child's toy (against his will).

The child suffers from dispossession of his toy and wants to recover it. If he cannot recover it, he suffers more. As his suffering grows, so does the desire to recover the toy so that the suffering will cease. If the child still fails to recover the toy, his suffering grows even more. The more he suffers, the more he wants his toy. The more he wants his toy, the more he suffers. It is a vicious circle, a hellish spiral.

The caregivers of infants have certainly seen a young child throw a screaming or crying tantrum after having his toy taken away.

It generally takes several such assaults, I believe, to cause the psychological disequilibrium responsible for homosexuality. The original trauma may also occur when someone breaks the child's toy.

Let us analyse events in light of the concepts explained above. The child is attached to his toy, meaning that it is part of his inner realm. Having someone take the toy constitutes an assault upon the child's inner realm. (The assault is particularly brutal if the toy is snatched from the child's hands.) The psychic virility automatically feels pressured, and that awakens a drive. In this case, the drive is to desire to retrieve the toy. If the child cannot retrieve his toy, the assault is confirmed. The stress on the psychic virility intensifies, and the desire to recover the toy becomes imperative. If the toy remains irretrievable, the assault becomes blatant. The stress on the psychic virility builds to an unbearable pitch. That excess pressure probably damages the brain tissues constituting the psychic virility, which can be likened to an over-inflated balloon that eventually bursts. The pressure vanishes and the stress on the walls of the balloon is released, but the tear remains. That rupture will be the weak point in the psychic virility, a wound that does not heal although the surrounding tissues are sound.

Scientists have observed that one particular region of the homosexual brain is twenty per cent larger than that same region in the heterosexual brain. That site probably consists of brain tissues of the psychic virility that have been strained through excess pressure.

The assault which the child has suffered seems inconsequential, not serious at all, at first glance. Unfortunately, the child lacks sufficient psychological maturity to cope with the situation. He does not know how to relinquish his toy. He is like a hare caught in a stranglehold by a neck-snare. Since the hare is being strangled, it pulls against the snare. The more it pulls, the more it feels strangled. The more it feels strangled, the more it pulls.

Once a child has experienced the original trauma, his psychic virility will remain unbalanced, damaged and sick. It will no longer shield the love instance. No longer will the child be master of his heart, one might say!

The child will live in a secondary state, as it were, in a haze, a jumble of senses and mind in which there subsists only a feeling of bedazzlement and tenderness towards individuals of his own gender, with that feeling growing stronger over time.

The child will no longer be able to love a person of the opposite sex because his psychic virility has been damaged. Since the path that leads to the love instance is routed through the wounded psychic virility, that path becomes blocked. The charm of individuals of the opposite sex is blocked by the damaged psychic virility. That revives the pain of the psychic virility–whence the feeling of homosexuals that women are so dumb and the feelings of misogyny as well. (The charm of individuals of the opposite sex cannot press through to reach the love instance since, by nature, the charm of the person of the opposite sex does not wound the psychic virility.)

6. Errors to avoid to keep your baby from becoming homosexual

To keep your baby from becoming homosexual, you should not give him any toys from birth to the age of three years. Nor should you give him musical instruments until he is about four.

All sophisticated (personalised) toys, e.g., dolls, stuffed animals, miniature cars and plastic animals, are advised against.

All musical instruments, e.g., piano, guitar, trumpet or violin, are advised against.

I advise banning toys altogether for young children. Indeed, they cause misfortune for children under four, and children over the age of seven are too old to play with them. Furthermore, children under four could take the toys of their older siblings.

Young children can, however, play outdoors with any unsophisticated (non-personalised) toys they find, e.g., stones, sticks, earth, soil, grass, and so on.

Children can develop through engaging in many activities and games, such as running, singing, playing hide and seek or tag, going to the swimming pool, watching television, playing on a swing, tobogganing, playing with animals (live ones, not toys), picking fruit, walking in the woods and climbing trees, among others.

When the child is about three, if and only if he himself asks for a toy, it can be supposed that he has attained the psychological maturity to receive the toy he requests. But parents must not take the initiative of giving toys to a child who does not request them.

Allow the child to make his own toys. If he makes a toy himself, he has attained sufficient psychological maturity to have it.

Parents who believe that their child will be unhappy without toys should realise that children do not suffer from the lack of something they do not know. Ulrich Bräker writes in his memoirs, 'I was as carefree as a kid could be. I needed my three meals a day and asked for nothing more.'

EDUCATING INFANTS WITHOUT ARTIFICIAL TOYS

Once a child has learned to walk, he is impetuous in his desire to move about and to play. Play is the richest source of a child's joy, providing for his sound, normal development.

Children suffer from solitude and boredom. They need company, companions their own age. Parents who have only one child would be well advised to place them in a playschool as soon as possible. It is the only way to bring joy to their child's life.

Children who have grown up without stuffed animals or artificial toys are always happy. They have fun with natural toys found in the woods and at the seashore (e.g., seashells, stones and roots of unusual shapes). They also have fun with sticks, boxes, string and other things they can use to make their own toys. Their games are neither monotonous nor boring.

Unfortunately, there are little children who do not know how to amuse themselves for very long. Here are a few suggestions to keep them busy and happy:

Playing in the sand

Children love playing in sand. They build castles, mountains, canals and many other things. With a few rocks and sticks, they build such things as roads and houses. Children never tire of playing in the sand.

Children's songs

Singing necessarily accompanies rounds and lends a magical charm to many other diversions as well. Children delight in repeating the same refrain over and over; the simple rhythm catches them up in the beat. The songs learned in the yard brighten up our children's lives.

Stories

Introduce children to the wonderful world of story. Tell them traditional folktales such as Little Red Hiding Hood, Sleeping Beauty, and Hansel and Gretel, with which your mothers and grandmothers padded your childhood. Stories are an endless source of wonder for children.

Playing outdoors

Children love to play together in a field or beneath trees. Pity the big-city children who rarely have an opportunity to romp in the open air. Nothing profits youngsters as much as running and playing in the sun. When your children cannot be quiet in their room, send them outdoors to play.

Children love going to the swimming pool and also enjoy picking fruit. What fun to eat cherries while perched in a cherry tree!

Social games

There are many ways for children to have fun with playmates, e.g., hopscotch, hide and seek, or tag. Every mother will remember others from her childhood.

Pastimes

When bad weather keeps children indoors, you can suggest some interesting pastimes. Starting at age four or five, children love cutting out, even if only pictures in a catalogue. They also enjoy folding paper to make soldier's caps, pots, boats, paper chains, and so forth. Colouring is another favourite pastime.

Toys

Once a child is two or three years, he can be given wooden blocks. Starting at age 3, he can be given a ball, jump rope, scooter and other toys involving movement, as well as a paint box, modelling clay, and a pail and shovel.

Books

Once a child has learned to read in school, he can be given children's books to enjoy.

Side: Environmental factors
-2 points
-3 points