By Florian Deltgen, PhD, PD
Special to The Beacon
Let me first say that I personally do not care how consenting adults have sexual pleasure with each other. I think this is entirely their private affair and should not be censored by society or regulated by law.
What consenting adult people do in their private homes is exclusively their business as long as it is not incestuous, does not violate the rights of others, and does not involve minors or animals that are both incapable of informed consent.
It is obvious that the anatomies of men and women are complementary. Their sexual organs are obviously designed to be used together for the purpose of procreation. Still, one can also argue that the Marquis de Sade (the inventor of Sadism) and Mr. Sacher-Masoch (the inventor of Masochism) had a point when they argued that we do not have sex because we want to procreate, but that we procreate because we want to have sex. Think about it. If sex were unpleasant, mankind would long be extinct.
Nature seduces us to procreate, by making sex pleasant. However, ultimately, nature’s intent is clearly not that people have sex, but that people procreate, so that the human species is preserved.
We use the word ‘normal’ often. We call some things, events, characteristics, or behavior ‘normal’ and others ‘not normal’. Synonyma for ‘normal’ are ‘usual’, ‘average’, ‘typical’, or ‘common’. Synonyma for ‘not normal’ are ‘abnormal’, ‘anomalous’, ‘uncommon’ or ‘atypical’. But although we may be using the same term, it may have different meanings or connotations depending on context or reference.
There are different ‘normals’. There is a statistical normal, a functional normal, and a standardizing normal. Let me explain the differences. When a system like e.g. the human body does not function normal, i.e. as it should by design, then a person becomes sick. Disease is essentially non-normal functioning of the body or of parts of it. Health is functional normality. Disease is functional abnormality.
Then you have statistical normality/abnormality, which is a majority situation. Like most humans are heterosexual or most windows can be opened, or most knives have one cutting edge.
When, as the story goes, George Bernhard Saw once went to see his ophthalmologist, the doctor examined his eyes extensively and then said “Mr. Shaw, your eyes are rather abnormal.” Shaw was upset. “Nonsense,” he responded. “My eyes are quite normal. I can see very well at any distance.” – “That is exactly what I mean.” replied the doctor.
They were, of course, both right. Only that the doctor was using a statistical definition of “normal”, while Mr. Shaw was using a functional definition. It is statistically normal that most people’s eyes are not functionally normal, that is to say that they do not function as they should by design.
A standardizing normal is a postulate. Like industrial standards to which all manufacturers must adhere. The term for ‘standard’ is ‘norma’ in Italian and Spanish, ‘norme’ in French, ‘Norm’ in German. You get the drift. A standard is essentially a regulation or determination by which everybody must abide, and which therefore becomes normal.
True homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, which is also observed in animals. It is rooted in a functional abnormality both of its causes and of its effects. This is complicated. In biology, we distinguish between “genotype” and “phenotype”. The phenotype is how a person looks on the outside, what kind of a body and what kind of sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics like hair, beard, voice, brain functions, or skeleton he or she has. The genotype refers to the genetic and hormonal makeup of a human.
Humans are technically a bisexual design. Both men and women have breasts and nipples. The female inner labia are homologous to the male scrotum. The clitoris is homologous to the penis. It is in the early days of fetal development that the chemical switch is turned toward either male or female development of this bisexual design. But occasionally, the result is not a physically fully male or female person, but a combination of both, the extreme being the hermaphrodite, who has both fully functional male and female sexual organs.
However, whether a person identifies psychologically and emotionally as a male or female largely depends on his or her hormonal makeup. In the extreme, a person can phenotypically appear to be a man or a woman but has the hormonal makeup of the opposite sex. It is the hormonal makeup that decides how you feel. Whether your emotions are those of a man or those of a woman and accordingly, whether you feel sexually attracted to women or to men, hinges mainly on your genotype. There are endless transitions and shades of intensity that occur in some people and animals. In the extreme, a person who physically looks entirely like a man may have the emotional and psychic makeup of a woman and vice versa, a person who physically looks entirely like a woman may have the emotional and psychic makeup of a man. A physical man with a female genotype will feel like a woman and a physical woman with a male genotype will feel like man. Whether they want it or not. Such a “woman” will feel attracted by other women and such a “man” will feel attracted by other men. This is true dispositional biological homosexuality. A tragic accident of nature. The people affected by it deserve our compassion, not our rejection.
True homosexuality, not imagined social gender, is a female mind in a male body or a male mind in a female body and it is the result of a technical malfunction during the early phase of the development of the human fetus. As such, it is a functional abnormality. It leads to forms of sexuality, for example anal sex, that are also functional abnormalities - if we accept the argument that the human sexual organs are designed complementary and primarily for the purpose of procreation and not primarily for the purpose of sexual pleasure.
In the US today, approximately 6.4% of the population identify themselves a part of the LGBT community (https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/). According to the 2014 General Social Survey this percentage has steadily increased since the early 1990s. In 1994 4.53% of men and 3.62% of women identified themselves as practicing homosexual sex. This percentage grew by 2014 to 8.18% respectively 8.74%. Since these numbers are based on “self-identification” they are most likely not correct. Reisman and Eichel concluded in their study of homosexuality in 1990 that the numbers provided through self-identification are exaggerated and that the actual percentage of male homosexuals in the US is only 1-2% of the total population. The female homosexuality being approximately the same percentage, which would make the entire homosexual segment of the population 2-4%. This means that homosexuality is not statistically normal either.
Not too long ago, societies and governments believed they had to regulate homosexuality with laws. In Germany e.g. homosexuality used to be a punishable offence under Section 175 of the Penal Code. A code name for ‘homosexual’ was “175-er”. This was clearly wrong. A democratic society most tolerate consensual non-normal sexual behavior of adult minorities and not criminalize it. In todays America, however, I see a trend toward minorities bullying majorities. If it is wrong for a majority to push minorities around and oppress them, it is also wrong for a minority to pretend they are a majority, to proclaim behavior that which is both statistically and functionally abnormal to be normal and to attempt to bully the majority into accepting the behavior, lifestyle, and value system of the minority by indoctrinating and brainwashing our children into believing that homosexuality is normal and heterosexuality is somehow perverted.
We must tolerate homosexuality, but we should not be expected to accept a gay/lesbian lifestyle and associated behavior and values as normal, because they are not. Homosexuality is neither functionally nor statistically normal and it should not be propagandized as either.
The Roanoke Beacon welcomes readers’ thoughts to Mr. Deltgen’s articles. Direct comments to: email@example.com.