About homosexuality

About homosexuality

It is strange that in a world that has made possible space exploration, in vitro fertilization, gloves with Bluetooth, bikini with solar charging, dietary cakes and Facebook, homosexuality is still considered to be heresy, deviance or non-sense? 

Maybe yes, maybe no! It's not necessarily a rule according to which the progress owed to an elitist minority should be directly proportional to the rate at which large groups of people are answering to everyday life questions, such as: “who takes out the garbage (the woman or the man)?” , “do we still come from monkeys?” , “gays are human?”.  

Concerning this last interrogation, opinions prove to be divided. And it's good to be like that, as by diversity there may be born exciting points of view. Problems occur when people who say their opinions go up to showing aggression, rigidity and extremism in their views, something more like in a dark Middle Age.

As things can be seen, contemporaries who “throw stones”, seem to be afraid of men and women (and especially of men) who organize parades, wear strident clothes and insist to walk in the park hand in hand, to exchange saliva in public, to be legally ”married” and to adopt children, in a pale attempt of revenge for the fact that they alone, can't do anything else but... sex.

These are, in general, the “sins” assigned to the gay community which, some say, unbearably violates the perfect and natural order of things around.

Who are, however, these people and what do they want from the world?

As already well known, homosexuality means that sexual orientation experienced by the individuals who feel attracted (from the erotic point of view), to persons of the same gender and who, like bisexuals or heterosexuals, are interested in either free relations, casual, no strings attached, or in long term commitments (despite the stereotypes of promiscuity, infidelity and immoral behavior they are often associated with).

If currently this orientation is regarded with skepticism, paradoxically, ancient societies embraced it without any shame. 

For Greeks, the practice perfectly matched the social specific rules of the time and coexisted with the official marriage of men (with women), who loved (both emotionally and physically) teenage boys outside the family. Pederastic relationships, for so they were called, had pedagogical value, but also had the purpose to keep under control the undesirable growth of birth rate (ingenious method, isn't it?).

Romans were also familiarized with the language of homosexual love, Trajan emperor himself being consumed by burning passions for “well shaped” young men. 

Also in the Arab countries male love was a common habit among Muslims whose poets frequently showed in verses the admiration for real men or symbol characters (of mythology) of the ideal lover.

In China and Japan, homosexual relations complied with the principle of age and difference of class. All men were enfolded by the “germ”, regardless of the social class they belonged to. How could money, social status or poverty stood in the way of the love with another male?

Such a local culture developed around the “stronger” gender and its representatives’ affairs, was also present in Central Asia, where “batcha” young males (wearing long hair, elegant clothes and having the uninhibited disposal to be ”bought” by the rich men from big cities), popularized it through song and dance. 

In the Pacific area, the homosexuality was not recognized as such, but some tribes in Papua-New Guinea, obliged very young boys to make repeated oral sex with the elders of the group, but as part of an obsessive  ”ritual”  for initiation and growing up (in no way for ”pleasure”). A traumatizing custom, actually.

Europe, with its religious restrictions, specific to the Middle Age, gradually tempered the “unrolling of forces” between persons of the same sex. The Church extracted from the “holy books” a long list of punishments for the “heretics” who, at least officially, had been forced to give up their “impure” mores.

This situation recovered during the period of Renaissance, when the Caesar was given back what belonged to the Caesar and at least some men...  declared happy again.

But this happiness did not last long, because once with the wish of psychiatrists from the 19th century to study homosexuality, its supporters have been cornered from all sides, analyzed and medically diagnosed , being labelled eventually as the beneficiaries of some serious mental or behavioral disorders.

Legislation also manifested against those who were committing the unnatural carnal act, restricting the acts in question and adopting the so-called “laws against sodomy”.

In the 20th century, after the Second World War, gay women and men were organized around the idea of solidarity and recognition of the rights for which they pleaded, forming a close-knit community and becoming, with time, visible, daring and vocal. In other words... ”they came out of the closet.”

Their sustained efforts were reflected both at scientific (homosexuality has been removed from the manual of mental disorders in the early 70s), and legal level, although in certain countries governed on fundamentalist religious principles, the relational model still continues to be incriminated (in Saudi Arabia, for example), while others have legalized it since 1950. 

Regarding the granting of the right to marry and adopt children, the reactions of the majority are different (of the world's states also, 14 of them authorizing marriage, fewer the adoption). 

Those who label ”the need” of the alternative couples of an equal treatment regarding the adoption, marriage and walking hand in hand on the street as “outrageous”, are known as big homophobes. 

Those who have the ability of not feeling offended by the extension of gay’s freedoms, whose existence they do not blame of major influences brought to their inner balance or to the peace on the planet, prefer the path of empathy and tolerance.

There are, finally, also “the others”, located somewhere in the middle, who are trying hard to maintain tenderly, but especially unconvincing, the myth of neutrality causing safety. Although, things are not by far like this! 

The good news, and at the same time bad, is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Both the eloquent intellectual and the farmer in the field. Both the man in the office and the one fixing the sink. Both the rich one... and the poor one... 

There are welcome, in the end, everyone's opinions, as long as they are based on arguments that go beyond bizarre phobias, poor judgements and obscure feelings. Without them, there cannot be any dialogue. And the dialogue... is the only flicker which still gives us hope that we are still a ”civilization”.