Causes of Homosexual Behavior
Theory of Values
What are Social Values?
Origins of Moral Values
How Values are Changed?
Sociology of the Homosexual Revolution in the U.S.
What to be Done?
The Political Road
The Educational Road
The Judicial Road
Criteria to Measure the Transition to Homosexuality
Percent of Homosexuality by Country
Index of Persuasion or suggestibility in Favor of homosexuality
Index of Officialization or Institutionalization of Repression or Persecution in Favor of homosexuality
Index of Repression or Persecution to Favor of Homosexuality
Make a Comment
Letter U.S. President Barack Obama
The Judicial Road
What To be done?: The Judicial Road
The Judicial Campaing
The third course of action that can take the groups who oppose the homosexual advance is the initiation of a lawsuit before the Supreme Court of the United States to claim that: 1. homosexuals should not be considerate as a minority group, 2. homosexuality is a behavior that can be learned, 3. the growth of homosexuality harms the well-being of society, 4. Uninstallation of values against homosexual behavior has the effect of promoting homosexuality.
Groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality have managed, with great success, to change values and, therefore, the attitudes of society towards homosexuality. On the contrary, the groups against the advancement of homosexuality have been losing ground until ignored and defeated. Why is the success of the first and the defeat of the last?
The success of groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality lies in that have managed to successfully promote the idea that homosexuals are a minority group. In other words, they have managed to successfully promote the idea that homosexuality is innate behavior that you cannot learn and, therefore, does not affect the sexual behavior of other members of society. It's a 'sexual preference' biologically determined and therefore is a discriminated minority group. To the extent that they have achieved that people and especially the courts accept this argument, have achieved two things: 1. that will change values against homosexuality for the most prominent members of society and with greater capacity and influence to change the values of other members of society. These are the rulers, legislators, and especially the judges. 2 Once it is achieved that you change the values of the most prominent members of the society, brings as a consequence the legislation of new laws to protect them from the rejection of society towards such behavior, avoiding that society discriminated against them. Furthermore arises that the courts establish new jurisprudence to equally protect them of the rejection of society and the discrimination.
The defeat of moralist groups against the advance of homosexuality is due to that they have directed their struggle around the protest, marches and improvised and spontaneous reaction and they have ignored the enormous power and influence that has the Supreme Court of the United States to modify the values of the society. To advance their cause, they have to get out of improvisation and organize their struggle around the study of the causes that led to the success of groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality. Only when these causes have been identified correctly, you can start to fight effectively. Only in this way you can leave the protest and improvisation that takes them from one defeat to another and arrive at revolutionary action which is capable of transforming the reality.
The first thing to be studied is the way in which groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality have managed to change the attitudes of the most prominent members of the society and in positions of power. This is important because these people, given the fact that they are in positions of power, have the ability to coerce the rest of society to also change its values towards homosexuality by means of criminalizing the possession of those values. The creation of laws and regulations, by legislators, Governors and heads of agencies, to criminalize the holdings of values against homosexual behavior, exerts an enormous power of change in society. The interpretation of those laws, regulations and the Constitution by the courts, also has an extraordinary power to change social values against homosexual behavior. Consequently, it is essential to correctly identify the way in which groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality have managed to change the values of the most prominent members of society in favor of homosexuality. This would specifically make possible to attack the causes of such change and be effective.
Groups in favor of the advance homosexuality have managed to present successfully in court evidence based on the expertise that homosexuality is a sexual preference and, therefore, innate biological factor. Religious groups have failed to demonstrate the falsity of such evidence and even put it in doubt. They have also failed to demonstrate the natural law that has societies for determining the standards of moral conduct that govern. Simply groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality have managed to present before the Supreme Court the idea that homosexuality is a sexual preference, meaning thereby that homosexuality is biological behavior that cannot be spread among heterosexuals. In other words, they have successfully managed to project the idea that homosexuality is not a conduct that can learn or teach, but that is something innate. You are born homosexual and, therefore, it's a minority that must be protected from discrimination. Pro moral groups and religious groups that have fought the advance of this ideology, have failed to not provide to the society and to the courts the evidence that homosexuals are not a minority and that homosexuality can be learned and promoted.
Groups against the advance of homosexuality, if they want to succeed in their fight, have to promote among the most prominent members of society the idea that homosexuality, although it may have an innate factor, also you can learn as a conduct and that the uninstallation of the value "homosexuality is bad" in society would lead to the growth of homosexuality and the transformation of society from a heterosexual to a homosexual. The evidence in that regard is solid because history provides extensive examples of homosexual behavior widespread in society.
Apart from promoting these ideas through lectures and writings, it is necessary to initiate a lawsuit to present evidence against the idea that homosexuals are a minority group. It is crucial for the groups against the advance of homosexuality to win that lawsuit, because as stated, the power of the decisions of the Supreme Court to change the values and attitudes of society is enormous. If the groups against the advance of homosexuality fail to win their struggle at the level of the courts, in the long term, they will not prevail. I repeat, there is no possibility of winning this struggle out of court, no matter how many protest and marches could be organized by religious groups.
Strategy of the Lawsuit to be Brought in the Courts
Now, to initiate a lawsuit in any court successfully it is necessary to know the rules of the game in this forum, as it is with these precepts that must act and not the religious or moralistic. What are those rules?
To intervene with the fundamental rights of the individual which have constitutional rank, as for example, the right to privacy and to freedom, you should demonstrate to the Court that the State has a compelling interest in such intervention. What these mean is that the State has the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has a valid justification to intervene with those rights and, that when you make a balance between that right and the justification to intervene, having more weight the justification to intervene. The "standing" to represent the State may lie in the Government or the people who represent the people, such as religious groups.
Groups in favor of the advancement of homosexuality have managed to prevail successfully in the courts to not be discriminated against by means of claiming constitutional rights, such as the right to liberty, to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, arguing that the State does not have a valid justification in law or a compelling interest in intervening or affect these rights. And judges have understood that such a justification does not exist. However, if it exists and is the State (through religious groups) which has to prove that in the balance of interest between this justification to intervene and the rights of homosexuals as individuals, such a justification has more weight.
To win this lawsuit you should demonstrate to the Court 4 things:
1. Homosexuals are not a minority group. In other words, they do not possess the characteristics to be considered as a minority group.
2 Homosexuality can be learned as a conduct, even if people don't have homosexual biological orientation.
3. The growth of the homosexual conduct between members of society is detrimental to the welfare of society.
Note that is prove that homosexuality is detrimental to society and not that homosexuality is a sin, or immoral. The tribunal does not accept this type of argumentation and if the groups against homosexuality want to prevail in their struggle, they have to leave their religious arguments to other forums that are not the courts.
4 Homosexuality is promoted when the values of the members of the society against homosexuality, through legislation and case law that criminalizes the possession of such securities are uninstalled. Homosexuality is promoted when the values of the members of the society against homosexuality are uninstalled as a result of the creation of legislation and case law that criminalizes the possession of such values.
As regards to the first point, there are arguments to sustain that homosexuals are not a minority group, consequently is a matter of that the groups against the advance of homosexuality be organized to raise the necessary resources to initiate this lawsuit that will require much expertise. As for the second point, you should bring evidence by experts in history, that homosexual societies have existed showing that homosexuality is a behavior that you can learn and be disseminated widely in society. As for the third point, you have to bring evidence, using experts in biology and epidemiology, of the increase in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, some of them that have no cures in those populations where anal intercourse are practiced and it later transmission to the heterosexual population. As for the fourth point you should present evidence that homosexual behavior increases when you uninstalled the values against homosexual behavior. In effect so occurs when you uninstall the value "homosexuality is bad". It must be evidence by experts in social psychology, about how to install values and how are modified through the Festinger cognitive dissonance. It should be evidence of the role that they play the values to regulate sexual behavior of individuals in society, as for example, incestuous conduct between parents and children and between siblings, pedophile conduct between adults and children, as well as homosexual behavior. Carry evidence of eras and societies that, given certain values, sibling marriages were allowed and eras and societies in which, given certain values, pedophile conduct (marriages of adults with children) was also allowed. It must be evidence that repulsion and disgust }you feels at the idea of having sex with the mother, the father or brothers or a child is not an innate sexual preference between heterosexuals that leads them to repudiate this kind of behavior, but the result of having installed values against those behaviors. You have to bring evidence that the criminalization of possession of values against homosexual behavior, leads over time, after many generations, the uninstallation of those values and the promotion of such practices. You have to bring evidence that people have a natural right to determine the rules governing sexual conduct of its members.
You have to bring evidence that every man has the physiological capacity to derive pleasure from a homosexual relationship and the same applies to the case of women. Every man or woman can derive pleasure when it caresses skin or their genital organs, no matter what the gender of the person who cherish him. The only thing that prevents him from deriving that pleasure are their values. If you are educated under the value of that being gay is bad, you will feel shame and dislike of practicing such conduct.
You must present evidence of that every man or woman can derive pleasure from the stimulation of the anus. Which make people feels disgust and shame of practicing such conduct is their values and, therefore, to the way in which he is educates. We must submit to the court evidence that, indeed, there have been eras and societies in which, given certain values, homosexual relationships were the norm among the members of society.
You have to submit to the court evidence that, indeed, there have been eras and societies in which, given certain values, pedophilia was allowed and accepted as something normal.
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