Let us start this post with a famous quote from Sigmund
Freud that was first published in ‘American Journal of Psychiatry in the year
1951.
"Homosexuality
is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no
degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a
variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual
development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times
have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato,
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute
homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....
"If
[your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social
life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he
remains a homosexual or gets changed...."
If some practice that is of no harm physically or mentally
(if practiced safely), then why that given a religious face and condemned
throughout the history. A sect of people become famous and earn money and power
just by condemning people and practices and without understanding the real reasons behind those intention, there is always a group of people supporting
them.
How many individuals and lives would have got shattered due
these acts? We cannot count them out, as most will not be reported and what
that are reported itself would be uncountable. When ancient people and
civilizations understood the psychology of individual and respected their
preferences, why we, at this modern era condemn and alienate an act that we
know very well that has been practiced throughput the human history.
I am not a supporter of gay culture but I strongly feel that
an individual’s sexual orientation is his or her personal choice and no one in
the world has the right to interfere in that choice. What is the meaning of
just proclaiming that we are living in a free world when we could not freely
think, write and practice something that we love without harming or troubling
others.
By nature, sex with the opposite sex has some intentions. A male
or female expect something in return from the relationship. It could be monetary
benefits or reproductive outcome. Everyone knows and it is not limited to one
single country that one gets wed locked he should remain so throughout the life
irrespective of whether love remains between them or not. They might hate each
other, despise each other’s personality. But still they have to stay together because
of social restrictions and monetary considerations.
If anyone want to get out of that tie he would be subjected
to such a pressure mentally and legally to such an extent that one would go
almost mad. Law and legal procedures are so one-sided in this aspect with the retention that the weaker sex should be protected. A male seeking diverse may
have to pay a great deal of money as alimony, first as a lump sum and then as a
monthly allowance for the up keeping of the female.
There is another mad thing that is going on in this world.
Females fighting for equal rights and against the discrimination they face. If
they are equal to a male then why they need protection from a male and a demand
for alimony is made. Why the so called feminists come against the laws that support
females considering them as weaker sex.
Females at least should accept that they are weaker sex if
they want protection from males or should fight against all the laws that help
them saying that they are weaker sex.
But these kind of a selfish intentions are absent in
homosexuality. It would be pure love or the very simple intention of just
enjoying the life. No future bindings claiming that one is weaker than the
other. Gay culture seems to be more pure and the relationship might be a relaxing
change for males who are fed up with the pretensions of the females.
Other articles by the author:
0 comments:
Post a Comment