Note Well – The word ‘homosexual’ in this piece is used to include all non-heterosexual variants.
Though many people may be naturally homosexuals, to say that every self-proclaimed homosexual is that way naturally would seem to be an error. This piece investigates the idea that there may be many present-day homosexuals who are that way due to social construction. If, by any chance, the contents of this article offend you then so be it. The offense is all yours and your right to take. Keep in mind that it is my right, as well, to articulate my views in the way I choose and it is your right to state your views in the comment section.
Immediately what may come to mind for those who support the gay rights movement or those who see themselves as liberal thinkers is that an argument for homosexuality being a social construction is an argument against the homosexuality being a natural phenomenon. I argue that the two can co-exists. There is little doubt that there are people who are born with a natural affinity against the social norms of heterosexuality, however, to register the appreciation of homosexuals “coming out of the closet” as simply the now open demonstration of already closeted people is a fallacy. Take note that many of those coming out as gay today were not alive in the days where open homosexuality would result in obvious death in the Western World. Though some older folk are openly declaring their once-hidden sexual orientation and younger ones do manifest tendencies at an early stage in life, does anyone wonder why it is that so many young people are, now declaring themselves homosexual?
One could argue that today’s socio-political environment, though not ideal, is much more conducive to homosexuality than it was in the past and that is true but that does not negate the ability for another force to be at play in the shaping of sexual orientation. The gay rights movement, by way of Capitalism, is a powerful force in the contemporary world advocating for equal rights. Ironically, it may be the Marxist dialectical tenet of a passage of quantitative change into qualitative change that may have made the difference for the gay rights movement. There is little doubt that the recruitment of powerful gay and pro-gay business leaders in joining the movement has done much for the gay agenda (not used in a negative way). Through this mechanism, in the capitalist world, public policies have taken dramatic changes in favour of gay rights. This occurrence was enabled by owning politicians by the funding of political parties by the gay rights movement.
However, owning politicians is but one step in the homosexual parade. The reason Capitalism has been mentioned so often is because it is primarily in the capitalist world that homosexuality has been so wide-spread and it may be reasonable to suggest that Liberalism’s moral principles of social indifference mixed with Capitalism’s infiltration of the political system has been used as a vector by the homosexual movement just as it was used by businesses and various organizations in the past as to create mass re-socialization. This time the re-socialization is in favour of homosexuality. In these very countries up until very recently recently homosexuality was abhorred with glimpse of a homsexual-inclusive society yet a rapid contrary change occurred. Logically, this quick about-turn would mean that the now lauded mass acceptance of homosexuality in Western Societies is neither a naturally occurring phenomenon nor testimony to the humane nature of humanity and our evolution of logic but a simple bi-product of the use of money to change the minds of the people. This use of power accumulated by way of wealth carries the gay rights movement away from an argument in favour of rights, towards an active agenda engaged in amassing geo-political dominance for self-interests.
Therefore, it must be acknowledged that there is a substantive difference between the logic of the gay rights movement and the homosexual agenda. The former is a logic of civil rights while the other is one of political influence and social domination. The two are often conflated which then makes arguments against the political manipulation employed by the homosexual agenda seem as though it is an argument against the civil rights arguments made by the gay rights movement.
Note well, once more, that this is not an argument for or against the homosexual agenda (to say there is not one is play a fool’s part). This is a discussion of the idea that homosexuality today is marketed to the people as a product to be consumed and many will consume it though they are not naturally that way.
Many hold to a position that homosexuality is natural and anyone who confesses to being this way was always this way because no one chooses a life where he or she will be a social outcast but this is also an error. This argument creates a dogmatic adherence to a logic based on blind faith in a pre-conceived un-tested conclusion. This conclusion is more error-prone than it is truth-filled. To disprove it one only needs to find one person in the whole world who after confessing to be homosexual then confesses to not have naturally been. It would be better to acknowledge that just as people can convert from one religion to another, people can choose to be homosexuals.
The marketing of homosexuality takes many forms such as natural peer pressure, political correctness and television shows which consciously choose to include glaring homosexuality or hint at it. The ending of Legend of Korra represents a classic example of brand placement. The end of the season 4’s finales shows Korra and Asami * (two females) sharing a tender moment and walking into a light, happy and holding hands. This was a allusion to them being gay without it being expressly said. The argument can be made that television shows today, just as when they began including coloured people in the recent past, are just doing their part in reflecting a truer society.
*This link carries you to Bryan Konietzko’s (Avatar Creator) Tumblr page where he states the intended implementation of a homosexual relationship within the show.
Yet, firstly, the societies they are reflecting are not always the societies in which these shows are distributed. A television show with overt homosexuality is likely to be distributed from an accepting country to one where it is not. Not only is the show distributed but the values are as well; creating prime conditions for cultural erosion. This is marketing and a form of cultural disrespect and ethnocentrism.
Using captive markets like the Caribbean, the metropoles, controlled by homosexual power interests, pedal their culture to regions which have little control over the media consumed and re-program the programable while isolating the impervious. Why is it that Legend of Korra, a show distributed by Nickelodeon which caters to a demographic of children would choose to include this theme in its work? It cannot be by coincidence that children today are increasingly showing signs of homosexual tendency while the shows they are watching are doing the same. This leads one to a summation that homosexuality like any other brand is being marketed to youth with an aim of reprogramming the sex and gender paradigms.
Arguably, the lacing of media with homosexual innuendo is a dangerous marketing tool which is already manifesting drastic social and cultural changes such as the suppressing of freedom of speech to advocate against homosexuality in the Western World. I am not saying that these changes are to be rejected or accepted. Their source must be acknowledged and the impact assessed. The homosexual movement is a socio-political movement and must be treated with respect as such. This means that while society must respect the rights of homosexuals, homosexuals must respect the rights of society at large.
I put a position that just with political campaigns, the use of media for any socially transformative message must be clearly marked as such and not be legally allowable to be engineered as a covert message. Naive yes? Substantively, State regulation is key to curb this destructive social ill. The ill about which I speak is not homosexuality but the historical use of media to arbitrarily pedal messages without sympathy or respect for the stability of our societies. When I speak about messages I am not speaking about civil rights messages such as equality regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. I am speaking about messages which seek to coerce the mind in order to take control of power within society.
There is a common argument that societies force sexual orientation on children from early and that is wrong but it only seems wrong today in the case of heterosexuality. The homosexual agenda, today, seems to be forming into a minority tyranny oppressing the majority. This is of concern. The movement towards gay rights seems to be transforming into a movement towards gay supremacy. It seems that no matter the social conversation, economic class, social class, religious freedoms or gay rights the principles remain the same. Once one group gains ground it seems to naturally want to subdue the already entrenched group instead of creating a harmonious reality.
Conclusively, the marketing of homosexuality is an aversion to humanity’s freedom equal to that of forcing a person into slavery. The use of various media to covertly inculcate our people, young and old, into any lifestyle, religion or ideology is a perversion of democracy and a threat to the stability of our societies. One must be vigilant in these times as always.