What is the scientific point of view of dialectical materialism on homosexuality ? If it had not be formulated until yet, now it should be easy to see what it could or should be.
About homosexuality, there are two aspects that have to be taken in account. The first aspect is that the universe is “an onion” ; the second is the contradiction between countryside and and city.
What happened in the past? Homosexuality was repressed by religion which were patriarchal. It was sometimes tolerated as an expression of virilism (like in ancient Greece), but in general it was rejected as an unnatural form, with “nature” here being of course what was created by an almighty god.
The situation changed for homosexuality with the formation of the cities. Homosexual men and women could meet much more people in the cities than on the countryside, because of this they could sometimes meet and understand their homosexuality.
This could happen of course only in situations where culture was much more developed than in the basic relationships in the countryside; that is why homosexuality could express itself in the strata linked to art and refinement. Homosexuality, to be understood, necessitated a certain refinement very far from basic peasant attitudes.
For this reason, and as a protection, also with linked to the possibility of personal cultural blooming, many homosexuals were linked to this strata. For this reason also, the working class who developed itself with capitalism rejected homosexuality as being a practice of great bourgeois strata.
What was wrong was that only one contradiction was seen : the one between physical labour and intellectual labour; this made that homosexuality was seen as a decadence of non-working people, as the result of idleness.
Whereas if we take in account the contradiction between city and countryside, we can see that the development permitted by capitalism made homosexual people understood their own nature.
We have here to see also that nature is not to understand in a mechanical way, but in a dialectical way. A undialectical error was to consider that as human life was produced by a men and a woman, homosexuality was counter-productive and therefore reactionary.
It was a typical point of view in the communist movement of the 20th century. Homosexuality was more or less tolerated at the personal level, it was not talked about it, but the internal line of the Party was that in communism, homosexuality would have disappeared.
The problem inherent to this conception is that it put his focus on individuals. In fact, dialectical materialism understand the movement of matter at a much greater scale: the universe itself.
Let's quote the Japanese physicist Shoichi Sakata (see Life, Matter, the Universe, part 6: Mao Zedong's cosmology in the GPCR – the universe as an onion):
“Current science has found that in nature there exist qualitatively different “levels"-the form of motion — , for example, a series of the levels such as elementary particles — nuclei — atoms — molecules — masses — heavenly bodies — nebulae.
These levels form various nodal points which restrict the various qualitative modes of existence of matter in general. And thus they are not merely related in a straightforward manner as described above. The “levels” are also connected in a direction such as molecules — colloids — cells — organs — individuals — societies.
Even in the same masses, there exist “levels” of states corresponding to solids-liquids-gases. Metaphorically speaking, these circumstances may he described as having a sort of multi-dimensional structure of the fish net type, or it may be better to say that they have the onion-like structure of successive phases.
These levels are by no means mutually isolated and independent, but they are mutually connected, dependent and constantly “transformed” into each other. For example, an atom is constructed from elementary particles and a molecule is constructed from atoms, and conversely the decompositions of a molecule into atoms, an atom into elementary particles can be made.
These kinds of transformations occur constantly, with the creation of new quality and the destruction of others in ceaseless changes.” (Shoichi Sakata, June 1947)
If we understand this well, then we can see see that a gay or a lesbian couple adopting a child is preserving life. Here, homosexuality is not “counter-productive” at all, because a couple permits life to develop itself.
And if we take a couple of lesbians, we can see that they can benefit of assisted reproductive technology, like in vitro fertilisation. Their situation is not an obstacle to life, seen from the point of view of society.
For men, the situation is more complicated. As surrogacy can only be considered as alienation and exploitation, the only solution for a couple of men to support life is to adopt.
Seen like that, dialectical materialism recognizes homosexuality as a natural phenomenon, concerning a tiny part of the population, and it considers that there is nothing anti-social or counter-productive.
Homosexuality in everyday life is often influenced by capitalism, because the capitalist cities have marginalized and then integrated homosexuality as an individualistic lifestyle. But socialism recognizes homosexuality as a natural form that should be given the possibility of culture within society.