Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

In order to grasp the real difference between these two sexual orientations one must first eliminate any trace of preference from one’s judgment. It is possible to have a preference but still eliminate those manifestations of preference that have no basis in reality, or when they do, to assign to them the proper value. After that one must recognize that human sexuality varies along a spectrum, as do all other things. The midpoint of the scale will be asexuality and bisexuality. Asexuality will describe those individuals that are deficient in erotic tension, presumably a genetic feature. Bisexuality for those that do have normal or abnormally high erotic tension. If we wish to define a position devoid of sexual preference, this will be it.

As we move out towards the ends of the spectrum of sexual orientation, we will encounter heterosexuals at one end, the historically preferred end for humans, and homosexuals at the other. So, the first question to be asked is why humans preferentially select the heterosexual end of the spectrum, instead of dividing equally, which would be expected if no advantage accrued to one choice over another. The answer to the above question must be procreativity which is a feature of heterosexuality. Being procreative, historically has been advantageous when compared to the reverse. This will be because there is strength in numbers and therefore a survival advantage accrues there. Also due to the fact that family relationships are more intense than others, one can work on his personal interests to advantage by exploiting those relationships. A farmer can use his children for free labor, for example.

Since we have come to expect that all choices in life involve both advantage and disadvantage, what is the disadvantage of this choice? The answer is that heterosexual relationships always lead to violence because they involve cross sexual relating. Since both of the sexes are involved and since the sexes are opposites, they normally have opposite values. Females tend to feminine values which mean emphasizing relationships and when a relationship demands sacrifice to make it. Males on the other hand value understanding over relationships, since understanding allows one to more easily adapt to changes in the environment. For instance, when population density, the most variable feature of the environment, leads to a new highway that passes through one’s home, if he understands and agrees with the need, he is more easily able to accept the sacrifice. If not he may choose to fight which may lead to much greater loss.

As a result of these fundamentally conflicting values, heterosexuality invariably leads to violence. The manner in which the violence manifests itself varies with the understanding of the individuals involved which demonstrates the importance of the masculine value. At the low end death may result. At the high end psychological conflict replaces physical conflict. But, the conflict is inescapable.

These are the only objective reasons for the choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality as a preferred method of sexual expression. There are, of course, many subjective reasons. One’s family doesn’t approve of homosexuality. One’s genetic makeup predisposes one to one end or the other of the spectrum. One’s psychology developed during childhood turns out when puberty arrives to favor one end or the other. One’s religion disfavors one end of the spectrum. The culture has developed a distaste for the mechanics of sexual expression at one end of the spectrum. And so on.

One very compelling reason for a preference is usage. The culture, due to its preference, develops institutions with the preference built in and cannot readily remove it without destroying the institutions. This is still a subjective reason, however. The subjectivity arises when pondering the difficulty of replacing an existing institution with another. Christianity would seem to exhibit this feature.

This subject isn’t being pondered for nothing. Thinking over what has been stated should lead to the conclusion that excessive numbers of humans will work a dramatic change here. The objective reason for preferring heterosexuality will disappear with increasing numbers of humans. In addition the downside of heterosexuality, the accompanying violence, will become more intolerable with increasing population density, because when violence erupts, it affects bystanders. Drive by shootings, for example. You may doubt that drive by shootings have anything to do with sex, so I will demonstrate it. Young males tend to join other young males in gangs. The most effective will get benefits, one of which will be ease in attracting feminine attention.

So, the reason for this essay is to identify the reasons for the increasing pressure on humans to discontinue discrimination against homosexuals, a very noticeable feature of the late twentieth century. It has to be done to reduce the damage flowing from heterosexuality and to assist in reducing the rate of increase of the numbers of humans. This means that every human is constantly being confronted in the media with reasons for discontinuing the discrimination: homosexuals are, in many cases very attractive and productive people; violence against them is immoral and unchristian; antihomosexual discrimination is undemocratic; and so on. In addition, where possible, homosexuals are presented in sympathetic situations, the recent movie Philadelphia, for example, and their attractive qualities are dramatized, the movie Birdcage comes to mind. Finally some active promotion goes on, particularly in the pornographic field. Playboy constantly displays attractive lesbian relationships and the Internet provides many images of both male and female homosexuality.

Finally one might well ask why the culture doesn’t just identify the real reason for acceptance of homosexuals? The answer is obvious. Overpopulation is difficult to observe at close range. It only becomes clear at long range, via statistics for example. So, identifying the real reason wouldn’t have the desired effect, since most people would dismiss it. This tactic has a down side, though. If people could actually see the survival threat, they would more quickly adapt, but if we wait for that time, it may be too late to fend off the worst results of overpopulation, a great die off for example, which must be expected to threaten the continued existence of humans or at least technological civilization.