HomosexualitY - To Bi Or Not To Bi !!



I want to break free!!”

So sang FREDDIE MERCURY of the QUEEN fame, and in this so called age of the New Awakening we still DARE to raise homosexuality as an issue , as a topic to rave rant and debate about. But regardless of what we “enlightened “ souls choose to define right / wrong , good /bad , the whole controversy of homosexuality remains a freedom protected by our constitution, a freedom many countries had fought for and won. That freedom which gave way to   a   lot of nations /individuals to develop their potential/s to the maximum---that freedom , none other than the freedom of CHOICE.


The whole concept of sexual orientation, whether 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual', is a social delusion. People believe they have an 'orientation' because that is the prevailing myth in our society and people just assume it is true. The whole concept of sexual orientation, whether 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual', is a social delusion.

No one is born with the sexual attractions that they manifest later in life. If you are a 'heterosexual', why are you not attracted to all members of the opposite sex, under all circumstances? The reality is, you are sexually aroused by certain specific members of the opposite sex, and only under specific circumstances. Let's say you are powerfully sexually aroused by long-haired Latino girls who dress punk, when you see them dancing. Can anyone seriously believe that information this specific is coded in your genes? Instead of a generalized sexual orientation, what people really have are Sexual and Affection Arousal Cue Imprints. These are very specific, and are not genetic at all, whether they are 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' in nature. You cannot "choose" what your Arousal Cue Imprints will be, they are simply an accident of the process of development. Neither can they be changed, once acquired - by force of will, prayer, or divine intervention.



Because most people have a very long list of Arousal Cue Imprints, and many of them are slight variations of the others, they become blurred together in our minds, and we come to see them as a generalized 'orientation'. However, careful observation of what specifically causes a sexual or affection response in you will reveal that your Arousal Cue Imprints are indeed very specific. Sexual and Affection Arousal Cue Imprints account for all manifestations of sexual desire, there are no exceptions. Therefore, this theory explains things that cannot otherwise be explained by the theories of "genetics" or "choice". For example, the existence of 'bi-sexual' persons. If 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' are genetic, where do 'bisexuals' come from? Similarly, if sexual arousal is a matter of 'choice', then why can't you just choose to be sexually aroused by office furniture? Or your Grandparents? Try 'choosing' to be sexually aroused by Rosie O'donnel or George Bush Sr., and see what happens. This theory also accounts for sexual attractions considered to be deviancy like bestiality, rubber and leather fetishes, sado-masochism, etc. No one 'chooses' to be aroused by these things, and it is simply ridiculous to think that they might be genetically coded.

You have the Sexual and Affection Arousal Cues that are specific to you, because a sub-conscious process that you cannot directly observe recorded them, in some manner, at some point prior to your achieving physical maturity. Please note that this does not mean that you will have a conscious memory of the event which created your Imprint(s), nor does this process necessarily require a rational correspondence between an event and it's corresponding Imprint. In other words, you don't have to be seduced by a blond German barmaid as a child in order to be aroused by blond German barmaids in later life. The correspondence may be quite oblique, but then, that is how the subconscious works.

Many other species have great difficulty achieving sexual arousal unless If 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' are genetic, where do 'bisexuals' come from?
This is why the existence of homosexual imprints is not a contradiction of its purpose.  


The choice of what to do with our arousal is left to so-called "higher functions", which determine our sense of morality. Some imprints are quite unfortunate and may generate attractions that ought not to ever be acted upon - such as attractions to minor persons or to violence. Once again, however, the subconscious function that imprints these things as attractions is unconcerned with morality. It cares not at all whether our arousal ultimately leads to other people being harmed or traumatized. It is up to us as individuals to harness our rational function and exercise control over our impulses if they may lead to harm to others.



Traditionally a person is supposed to search for that special someone who is right for them , fall in love and ultimately marry for life. Politicians still get a lot of mileage out of espousing family values and paying homage to a marriage as the central institution in our society. Bridal magazines do a roaring trade ,celebrity weddings attract huge  public interest and young girls especially continue to invest considerable emotional capital in the dream of a “perfect marriage”. Unfortunately reality is somewhat different - with nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce – so called heterosexual “right “ marriages. So what exactly makes these marriages seek a status higher than the homosexual union? Nothing.



The various arguments presented are:

“ Gay union should not be allowed because marriage is defined as the union of  a man and a woman. Funny . I always thought that the whole idea of marriage is exactly that u promise each other loyalty and love. Stating that gay couples can’t marry because WE don’t marry gay couples is an empty tautology that reeks of bigotry and fossiled thoughts.

 Another argument which comes forth is the question-“Are we humans taking too many things in our own opinion disregarding all previous distinctions set upon it?” How awful –humans taking things in their own consideration !! This argument clearly implies that someone knows better than humans what humans need and want from life!!

Yet another amusing argument  that comes our way is that apparently “gay people are seeking to alter an anchored tradition by creating an uproar merely to satisfy their own needs of not seeming abnormal in anyway.” I guess whoever raised this argument must think that the other need marriage serves –having one’s relationship legally recognized and protected –aren’t worth having for their own sake.


At No.4 we have this:

“We may believe that we are wiser with age but actually we seem only to disregard previous rules which played a vital role in getting to this point in the future.”

Actually disregarding previous rules that deliberately set out to harm people has been the main source of sound justice throughout the last century or two. At the beginning of this century the rules were that women were the property of their husbands ,that divorce was illegal , and that women rights were something to be mocked at. All these things were changed for the better by DISREGARDING  those evil rules. The same thing goes for the “ rule” that gay people aren’t allowed to EXIST.

There isn’t a single reasonable argument as to why we shouldn’t let same –sex couples choose to have their relationship accepted and legally recognized in just the same way as different sex couples do. These arguments are an empty appeal to “tradition” and “moral values” which appear to consist of nothing more than the belief that it is moral to treat homosexuals badly.




There is a movement underway in North America today, a wave of anti-Gay sentiment, sometimes described as a ‘backlash’ against the recent progress of Gay and Lesbian persons to achieve civil rights and liberties on an equal basis with other citizens. What is behind this ‘backlash’? Is it entirely an orchestrated political manifestation of the extreme religious right? Or is there something more fundamental, more darkly sinister at the root of these outbursts?

There is a rather common personality type, which has been described by a variety of terms by a variety of researchers over the years, but that has two main and very distinctive traits:

- an overwhelming need to feel in control, not only of themselves, but of everything and everyone around them.

- an inability to accept responsibility for their own faults, weaknesses, and failures, and a need to cast blame onto someone else when things go wrong.

For the moment, we will term these personalities - Scapegoating Control Freaks - (SCFs). Life has not been easy for these individuals and their clone-like offspring since the end of WW2. Revelations about the Death Camps and the role of anti-Semitism in creating an atmosphere in which they could exist, took away the "right" to hate Jews and practice discrimination against them for many of the SCFs. Where once it was socially acceptable to hate Jews and to blame them for all of life's problems, it now became socially unacceptable. Things got even worse for the SCFs when the Civil Rights movement came along in the 60's - now it was unacceptable to hate Blacks and blame them for all their problems (or to hate Whites - if you happened to be a SCF of color). And then the Women's Movement came along, and it became unacceptable to be openly misogynistic and more and more difficult to dominate and unquestioningly control their wives and children. Some women even started to demand an equal voice in the household and in society at large. Can we even begin to understand how frightening and threatening all this was for the SCFs? And then - a final shattering blow - the end of communism and the Iron Curtain. Now there weren't even any godless commies around anymore to hate and to blame for all those disturbing changes happening all around the SCFs, that they couldn't stop and that made them feel so powerless, so insecure.

But there remained one refuge, one solace and consolation - it would surely always be acceptable to hate faggots and dykes! After all, God himself had declared them to be an abomination, hadn't He?

What we are witnessing today, this so-called "backlash", this wave of anti-Gay sentiment, is in fact the last desperate stand of those marginal personalities in our society who have a compelling and compulsive need to hate someone and blame others for their problems - real or imagined. It is a cry of -"Dammit! I have a RIGHT to hate someone, to hate THESE people, and you aren't going to take that away from me!!" Like a cornered bear, the SCFs can be expected to be irrationally vicious in attacking every manifestation of a liberalized view and acceptance of homosexuality in our society. It is not the Gay and Lesbian members of our society who are suffering from an emotional illness - it is in fact those persons who are passionately and irrationally opposed to equal civil rights for all members of our nations who need psychological help.


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 homosexual, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci etc.).

It’s a great injustice to present homosexuality as a crime---and moreover a cruelty beyond description.

We say India is a diverse society, but is it really? Homosexuals are human just as much as heterosexuals YET society thinks it has the right to put gays/lesbians down. Isn’t it about time we put our differences aside and gave people the rights they deserve, and whether you like it or not homosexuals deserve just as much right as you.


To conclude, no one does it better than Derek Jarman, British filmmaker,artist and author.

“Understand that sexuality is as wide as the sea.  Understand that YOUR morality is NOT law. Understand that if we decide to be the way we are , it is OUR decision and you have no goddamn right to interfere.”

The Author is a 1st Yr. Engg. student from Bangalore and also a content developer for Campusrox.com.

Any comments or questions regarding this essay can be addressed to: Smita Sharma

© 2000 campusrox.com - A Baseline Networks Co.  All Rights Reserved.