In the United States the groups pro "gay" have been associating the subject negatively valued "being gay is bad" with the object positively valued "defend the rights of minorities not to be discriminated against is good". The process is described in the following terms. Defend the right of minorities not to be discriminated against is good. Homosexuals are a minority. Therefore, defending the rights of homosexuals not to be discriminated against is good. The strategy has had a huge success. Described by Festinger cognitive dissonances have been generating a dramatic process of change of values regarding homosexuality. So much so that two democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama) and the Supreme Court of the United States feel emotional and emotionally attracted towards the idea of defending the rights of homosexuals as a minority. No one wonders if it is true that homosexuals constitute a minority in the proper sense of that concept.


For a detailed discussion of what are the social values and the way in which they regulate the conduct of the individual in society see: Walter H. Bruckman "Toward a Reformulation of Contemporary Psychology: the Theory of the Senergicones", editorial Trillas, Mexico 1995.



Change of the Social Values on Homosexuality


In the previous articles under the menu: Homosexual Theory: Theory of Values: How the Values are Changed? we discussed the way in which the values change. This article must make use of that theory.


The way in which "gay" groups have managed to develop a successful strategy to produce changes in the values of American society is one that makes use of two resources. First they make use of scientific knowledge about the cognitive dissonance of Festiger and, secondly, make use of the recognition that has made American society to the rights of blacks and minorities in general. In regards to the first aspect, they have managed to produce cognitive dissonance in American society successfully promoting a pseudoscientific ideology about the nature or origin of homosexual behavior. In regards to the second aspect, they have managed to generate with much success in the minds of Americans an analogy for the struggle of the homosexual groups with the struggles of Malcon X and Martin Luter King for the recognition of the rights of minorities.


This strategy of "gay" groups has proved to be very successful. It consist to create and disseminate an ideology "scientific" (in reality pseudo scientific) on the biological nature of homosexuality that allows them to compare and equate homosexuality with other minority groups so that they can take advantage of the goodwill and sympathy that exist in society to eradicate the discrimination against minorities. To the extent that they have managed to succeed to associate homosexuality with a discriminated minority, the dissonances of Festinger have done the rest by promoting change in the system of values of individuals. As we know the cognitive dissonance that produce these comparisons between homosexuals and minority groups made its effect on members of the Supreme Court of the United States and two of its democratic Presidents.


How to modify or change values is not clearly defined in contemporary sociological theory. The more firmly established hypothesis is presented by León Festínger with his theory on cognitive dissonances. Briefly this theory States that if a person has a value against or in favor of something and has another value that contradicts the first, will activate a mechanism that will make changes in one of the two values or in both and, consequently, in the attitudes that are derived from them. For example the attitude of treat black people as if they were inferior to white people is founded on the value "being black is bad". This value is in contradiction with the values "being racist is bad", "being fair is good", "be equality is good" and with the belief "all men are equal". Accordingly, an individual who is confronted with both types of values will experience cognitive dissonance that lead to generate anxiety. The generation of anxiety, while more intense, more incite the modification of one of the two types of values.


Groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuals have used these postulates to modify the values of the most prominent members of the society. How have they done? Let's see. A value very strongly established in our society and especially in its most prominent members is: "discrimination against any minority group is bad". Groups that favor the advancement of homosexuals have managed to successfully promote the idea that homosexuals are a minority group. To convince the society they present the argument that homosexuality is a sexual preference and, consequently, cannot be learned as a conduct, because they are born homosexual. To the extent that they have managed to convince the most prominent members of the society that is in effect a minority and, therefore, of a group that is discriminated, to that extent they have generated cognitive dissonance in those members that generate anxiety, lead them to change their values and their consequential attitudes.


What the most prominent members of the society are unaware is that the information provided to them about the absolutely innate nature of the homosexual conduct is false given the fact that can also be learned and that changing the values of the society against homosexual behavior has, in the long term, after multiple generations, the effect of promoting homosexuality.


If you ask any of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States if they would agree with that society be transformed from a heterosexual to a homosexual, everyone would say that not. If you asked them if they would agree with that society has the right to decide whether they want to be transformed


If you ask any of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States if they would agree with that society be transformed from a heterosexual to a homosexual, everyone would say that not. If you asked them if they would agree with that society has the right to decide whether they want to be transformed from a heterosexual society to a homosexual they all would say Yes. However, these same judges have established case law with regard to discrimination against homosexuals which precisely has the effect of transforming the society in that direction. Why are they come this way? The reason why this happens is that none of them believes that homosexuality can be learned and much less encouraging.



The Correct Interpretation of the American Constitution


The Supreme Court of the United States has as part of its functions the interpretation of the Constitution, and still more, the spirit or intent of what he meant in the Constitution. The constitution o the country is a document created by the society which sets the values that will govern that society. The society decided that the discrimination between human beings is bad when you set in the Constitution that all men are equal. Is the matter of the Supreme Court interpret what he meant the society in that constitutional clause, that is to interpret the spirit of the law and determine when that right is being violated. It is abundantly clear from the spirit of the Constitution which society considered bad to discriminate for reasons of race or ethnic group, gender or physical handicap. It is not apparent from the spirit of the constitutional law that society has wanted to include in these groups deviations of moral conduct norms, even if it's genetically targeted behaviors, because they can be learned by convenience and be encouraged to harming the welfare of the collective.


The Supreme Court of the United States should be illustrated so that it does not become a victim of pseudoscientific ideologies of homosexual groups and finish making decisions that in the long term transform American Society from a heterosexual monogamous to a homosexual polygamous. If the Supreme Court of the United States maintains the current jurisprudence would be preventing that society can establish what is moral and adjudging that attribution for itself. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of the United States would be forcing the evolution of American society toward those behaviors.


The role of the Supreme Court should be to interpret the rules of morality, as well as the spirit of those rules established by society over time and enshrined in its Constitution and its laws. It should not be the function of the Supreme Court the substitute for society to decide what should be the moral rules of society.



The Degree of Prestige of the Institutions and their Influence on the Inculcation of New Values


It must be clear that homosexuality can be learned if left to instill the value that establishes that this is bad. If the society gradually establishes that being gay is not bad, it will gradually uninstalling this value until new generations no longer have it. As a result, homosexuality begins to increase.


As already stated, no one knows how to install the values in the psyche of the person. It is known that these are transmitted through the significant figures such as parents, friends, teachers, priest, etc. While most significant is a person for another more influence when it comes to instilling values. If set by law that being gay is not bad and that not can discriminate against them, gay teacher not hide his homosexuality to his students. Instead, he will proclaim their pride of being homosexual since this is not bad. The teacher is a significant figure for the student and is possible to copy and install the value of him and not from his father or friends that being gay is good. Everything will depend on the influence exercised by the parent and others significant persons vs. the influence exercised by the teacher.


The President of a nation is a highly significant figure for children. If the President says that being gay is not bad, it is something that has enormous educational power in new generations. The Supreme Court in a country is an institution of enormous significance for all citizens. When the Supreme Court says that being gay is not bad, it exerts a huge influence on the establishment and installation of new values in the psyche of new generations.


To get an idea of the enormous power that the Supreme Court has on the changes of values in society simply put as an example the case of racial discrimination. While we are still very far from achieving the ideal of a non-racist society, is evident how in the period of time of 40 to 60 years the decisions of the Supreme Court have radically transformed the values and attitudes of American society about the racist conduct. Since 40 to 60 years ago was negligible the presence of blacks and other minorities in television, radio, film industry, highly paid professions, etc. Today that is not so.


Why I do emphasis in future generations? Values, once installed tend to prevail and to resist the change. It is easier that new values that contradict the old values be incorporated by the new generations than by the adults that are already formed. I'll give you an example. Racism is something that must be eradicated by unjust, inhuman and degrading treatment. For that societies have created the value that being racist is bad, that is, the discriminatory conduct by issue of race or color is bad. People have installed this new value and consequently manifest themselves against racism. But the old value that is inconsistent with this is still installed. As a result, the individual lives with two values. On the one hand, you can say interracial marriages are not bad, but on the other hand, you dislike the idea that your daughter marries a black person. However, the new generations have the possibility of installing a single value, the new, to the extent that are most exposed to this and not to the previous. Consequently, it is more feasible to give a non-racist society in the new generations to come that in existing ones.


The phenomenon that we have described above for the case of racism, applied for other valuations as it is the case of homosexuality. As a result of the foregoing, former President Clinton, the current President Obama, the members of the Supreme Court, and many prominent citizens of the society maintains two installed inconsistent values. On the one hand think and express that being gay is not bad and on the other hand feel displeasure of practicing homosexuality. However, their children in the next generation may not have this double installation of values and, consequently, do not feel disturbed by practicing homosexuality.


This double installation of values is that allows you to have the false impression that homosexuality cannot be promoted. As they have moral values strongly installed in its psyche, they get the false impression that his repudiation or refusal to exhibit homosexual behavior is something biological that cannot be modified. This is like believing that by the fact they do not exhibit racist behavior, since such conduct is unpleasant to them, implies that they were born this way and that never could become so. Perhaps the generation to which they belong cannot ever become detached from the installed value that homosexuality is bad. Consequently, they will always feel emotional or affective rejection at the prospect of them acting as homosexual, while at the same time they feel emotional or affective rejection towards the discrimination and social rejection against homosexuals. This double installation of values will yield the false impression that they never could feel pleasure of homosexual behavior, although they believe and have the value of that being gay is not bad. As a result, they receive the false impression that homosexuality cannot be promoted. Don't they realize that perhaps in a generation changes cannot be seen, but after several generations they will see them. As everyone lives in the generation that belong they, can not realize what will happen in future generations. Consequently, the whole life may pass having this double contradictory assessment, feeling, on one hand, emotions and unpleasant emotional states that move away from displaying a homosexual conduct and, on the other hand, feeling emotions and affective States consistent with the defense of the rights of homosexuals to be not rejected or discriminated against by others. This is exactly the same case as the individual that coexists with two values contradictory that being racist is bad but he dislikes her daughter to marry a black person. He can pass whole life without manages to overcome his racism, which is rooted in the value instilled in him from an early age that being black is bad. However, for their children, grandchildren and future generations these contradictory feelings will disappear to the extent that the cognitive dissonances are gradually producing uniformity in the values and to the extent that reared in an environment that instill them a single value and not two contradictory. Accordingly, to the extent that this is so, future generations will not feel displeasure that their children have interracial marriage.


Former President Clinton as well as the current President Obama can publicly say that being gay is not bad. However, they themselves being unprepared emotionally to experience a homosexual relationship without feeling disturbance and displeasure. In the same way may not be prepared to accept that their daughter simply for curiosity will experience a homosexual relationship. However, his daughter or the sons of his daughter have greater chance of not installing the value that being gay is bad and, consequently, practice it without remorse. Since changes will come in the long term in the generations to come, former President Clinton as well as the current President Obama cannot realize the effect that their decisions in the present will have on future society.



The Power of Ideologies as Forms of Promoting Changes in the Systems of Values


The populist ideologies are generalized beliefs that become fashionable and disseminate with strength in the population. Those ideas as they go spreading go changing all those beliefs and old values that fall in contradiction with them, thus generating transformations in the constellation of values of the society. On many occasions such populist ideologies do not have any theoretical scientific base on which to sustain the new beliefs. However, if the ideology becomes very popular it will have the ability to generate pseudo scientific models that would justify them. Scientists are human beings subject to share, just like any other person, these populist ideologies. Consequently, its scientific research will be oriented to find what they want to find. This is more the rule than the exception in the field of social sciences. However, it also occurs in the natural sciences. There are many natural scientists trying to find the physiological and biological factors in brain structures which justify that homosexuality is a genetic and not a learned factor. There are those who have found structural differences in the brains of homosexuals, which show, according to them, the thesis that is a purely biological phenomenon and, consequently, a sexual preference issue. For a discussion of how is form the conceptual frameworks through which humans perceive or interpret reality see Chapter 10 of W. H. Bruckman, "Towards a Reformulation of the Contemporary Psychology: the theory of the Senergicones". editorial Trillas, Mexico, 1995.


Both former President Clinton and the current President Obama as the members of the Supreme Court are victims of misguided populist ideologies and equally wrong pseudoscientific models. Consequently, none of them believed that their decisions may be encouraging homosexuality in the nation and this is a mistake. Yes they encourage it, but the phenomenon takes to reveal several generations since the changes do not occur in the short term.


The Social Scientist



To buy the book:

Towards a Reformulation of the Contemporary Psycology: The Theory of the Senergicons



or if you want to make a donation