Sexuality & Orientation: A question.

[marketandchurch]

This is a question I am very curious about, vis-a-vis the Christian/Muslim/Jew crowd. But atheists are welcome to chime in as well. Do you think sexuality is fixed?

If you think sexuality is fixed, what is your own personal explanation for the existence of other sexualities? Are there several possibilities vis-a-vis orientation, for the human creature? And by fixed nature, what do you believe is the strength of that rigidity?

Do you think it is somewhat of a spectrum wherein there are most of us, who have a fixed heterosexual orientation, a small group who have a fixed homosexual orientation, and an even tinier portion who are "confused," have multiple sexual identities, or no sexual identity at all?

In other words, please explain your view of the matter in full, and I would love to just get a cross-section of where Christians/Muslim/Jew are on the matter. It is incredibly helpful, because the premise we hold will frame the way we approach the issue of same-sex marriage.

Feel free to expand this to the greater Gay-Marriage debate if you wish, so long as it relates to gender, sexual orientation, and its affects on the society at large.

[Haven]

I'm an atheist, if that's relevant, and I voted "yes" in this poll -- sexual orientation is fixed.

My vote was based on the emerging scientific consensus, which seems to suggest that sexual orientation is a fixed, lifelong, and to some degree inherited characteristic, as well as my own personal experience and the experiences of those close to me. One doesn't choose whether to be gay, straight, bisexual, or pansexual, one just "is" that way due to some combination of genetic and environmental factors.

[Darias]

I'm an atheist and I consider myself mostly straight (I don't feel strongly enough about my likes to identify with the bisexual label, but I would be lying to myself if I claimed to only ever find the opposite sex attractive), although I preface that by saying that I am a virgin so my stated preferences should be taken with a grain of salt. However, being that I am heteroromantic, and given my southern upbringing and preference for monogamous loving relationships in lieu of casual polyamorous sex, I must say my options in life (sexually and in terms of relationships) are for all intents and purposes strictly heterosexual -- and I'm fine with that.

As for your question, I don't know. I suppose that if someone is bisexual, that it would be easier for them to think that sexuality is fluid and shifting along a spectrum, in the same way I can imagine that someone who is straight thinks that it is the default position that everyone feels naturally.

My main point however is that whether or not sexuality is fixed is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual preference or orientation is moral.

I imagine I could be brainwashed into any number of things I would otherwise not do, finding them objectionable. But just because that could happen to me doesn't mean it should.

And even if we were to say that there was an ideal sexuality, it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to express that -- or forced to praise and adore it even though they themselves do not posses it.

I'm curious as to why you mention gender; gender is not relevant when it comes to sexual orientation -- and by that I mean any gender or anyone who identifies as a gender (regardless of whether or not they are that gender, biologically) can have any orientation or fall anywhere along the sexual spectrum.

For instance, there are tomboys who like to play video games, drink beer, and go fishing, but who are completely straight. And there are girly girls who are completely gay.

As for how we determine what sexual preferences are moral, this all hinges on consent. If the NAP is violated, then it is a crime. Animals and minors are not capable of consent, and this is why these types of relationships are reasoned as immoral, and most people have recognized this -- which partly explains why such activities are illegal.

You don't arrive to what's right and what's wrong because god or government says so. You don't behave justly for fear of hell or imprisonment.

There is no logical reason why 4% of the adult population must be treated differently by the government under the law. We all have negative rights, not a finite list of positive rights given to us by god or social contracts. There is no reason why the government should subsidize your marriage but penalize or outlaw someone else's. There are benefits that come with civil marriage, which should never be confused with religious matrimony. And it should be noted that civil unions are not the legal equivalent of a marriage, else there wouldn't be a debate in this country. If the laws weren't written the way they were, I'd much rather see marriage in the form of private contracts without the need for government to involve itself in, or define for everyone what marriage is.

And marriage as it is commonly thought of today did not always exist. Biblical views of matrimony included relationships that would be alien and appalling to us. Yet that fact is commonly and conveniently ignored by those who wish to claim that straight marriage is an eternal value ordained by god and there has never been nor ever will be anything like it -- and all must submit to this ideal.

[center][/center]

I have yet to find a sound argument that justified unequal laws in this way. Whether it's a religious argument against gay marriage or the ever rarer secular talking point -- I remain unconvinced.

[marketandchurch]

I'm an atheist, if that's relevant, and I voted "yes" in this poll -- sexual orientation is fixed.

My vote was based on the emerging scientific consensus, which seems to suggest that sexual orientation is a fixed, lifelong, and to some degree inherited characteristic, as well as my own personal experience and the experiences of those close to me. One doesn't choose whether to be gay, straight, bisexual, or pansexual, one just "is" that way due to some combination of genetic and environmental factors.

That's good to hear an atheist chime in. I expect the sample size of atheists to be more supportive of the "fluid" side of things, or at least more so then Christians, so its nice to see you break with my expectations.

I am curious. Off the cuff, and I don't expect you to know this, because I don't, and I've asked around, and no one I know does either, but do you know of any meaningful attempt/experiment, to both destroy our traditional notions of gender & orientation, while promoting a more neutral or even pro-homosexual framework? A sample size of more the 100 would be nice to account for every possibility. And I'm speaking specifically of children, and following them through adulthood, while not saddling them with preconceived notions of sexuality, and allowing them to choose for their own which sexual identity they gravitate to... or... hand them down a framework wherein the sex of one's affection can be interchangeable, between the same sex, and the opposite sex.

I almost feel that no meaningful study of the sort has ever been performed in psychology, and if one exists, it'll come from the Scandinavian's. They seem to have the edge on these matters, especially the Swedes & Danes. But only such a study could truly explore the fluidity of orientation. Because there is human history to consider, and it is rich with male-male relations, in every culture, and we have to consider what it is that they had in their cultures, that enabled so many to love the same sex, and the opposite sex, with no moral or social qualms.

[marketandchurch]

To further frame my case:
My argument is that human sexuality is not fixed, for the vast majority of humans, in the sense that, if our society promoted male-male love, people grew up with that framework, it was just as normal to hook up with another man as one would hook up with another woman, children grew up seeing dads flirt with boyfriends following a divorce, or mom flirting with another woman following divorce, and it was socially acceptable, if not supported, to experiment around with both sexes, and see what you like... then one will live out & comport their orientation to that socially-defined ideal.

So it is very crucial then for me to explicitly clarify something:
When I say fluid, I don't mean in the sense that the sex of one's attraction is interchangeable, as is. What I mean by fluid is that orientation is a societal construct, a function of culture, a peer-induced preference AND a product of biology. Meaning, that we live out the socially preferred ideals of our society, and in the case of our culture today, which is rigidly pro-male+female, we conform to that definition by being a largely heterosexual society. I also view human nature as 100% nurture, and 100% nature. Biology has something to say, but the environment/society can also trump biology as well.


For Most Men Today:
Most of the people here are straight, you grew up straight, you've only seen straight role models, with a reality where the guy gets the girl is normative, the prince gets the princess, boys wear boy halloween costumes, men don't wear dresses, men propose to women, men open the doors and pull out the chairs, etc. So accepting the current reality of these social constructs and gender roles, I don't say that sexuality is fluid in the sense that you, the male, who grew up under this framework, can just walk down to a gay bar in town, and hook up with someone of the same sex. But in a world where male-male love is idyllic and preferred, or even accepted and acceptable, we would have far more dudes, who grew up as this being the norm, living out a more "bisexual" lifestyle then we currently do. What will keep most men today, in our society, from ever even exploring elasticity of their orientation, is the fact that we all have been so ingrained with a rigid orientation, that the society handed down to them, a society of which, was influenced 100% by the Judeo-Christian Male-Female preference. Look at Clay Aiken, and what a hetero-preferring social construct can do to a gay male. Even though Clay would have likely come around to his homosexuality, it is still impressive a spectacle to observe what nurture can do to nature.


For Gays Who Say Their Fixed:
I also posit that most (80-90%) of gays are rigidly homosexual. They will never be attracted to anything other then the same sex, and they did not choose their sexuality. But, just because they did not choose their sexuality, does not mean that sexuality is fixed for most people. I view it as a spectrum, with gradations of "fixed" on both ends, getting more fluid as one approaches the vast middle, which makes up the majority of society. I'll flesh out my views more and explore this topic in even greater depth as as the week goes on.

[Baz]

my vote makes it level pegging so far.

It should not matter.

I expect it is like most things, it's dependent on the individual, nature nurture is evident to a greater or lesser degree in most of our preferences.

It should make no difference to any laws or policy’s we make, any more than my preferred sexual position.










.

[marketandchurch]

my vote makes it level pegging so far.

It should not matter.

I expect it is like most things, it's dependent on the individual, nature nurture is evident to a greater or lesser degree in most of our preferences.

It should make no difference to any laws or policy’s we make, any more than my preferred sexual position.










.

Baz, I am curious: Which group do you identify with more? Atheist, theist, deist, agnostic, pantheist, etc.

[marketandchurch]

I'm an atheist and I consider myself mostly straight (I don't feel strongly enough about my likes to identify with the bisexual label, but I would be lying to myself if I claimed to only ever find the opposite sex attractive), although I preface that by saying that I am a virgin so my stated preferences should be taken with a grain of salt. However, being that I am heteroromantic, and given my southern upbringing and preference for monogamous loving relationships in lieu of casual polyamorous sex, I must say my options in life (sexually and in terms of relationships) are for all intents and purposes strictly heterosexual -- and I'm fine with that.

As for your question, I don't know. I suppose that if someone is bisexual, that it would be easier for them to think that sexuality is fluid and shifting along a spectrum, in the same way I can imagine that someone who is straight thinks that it is the default position that everyone feels naturally.

My main point however is that whether or not sexuality is fixed is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual preference or orientation is moral.

I imagine I could be brainwashed into any number of things I would otherwise not do, finding them objectionable. But just because that could happen to me doesn't mean it should.

And even if we were to say that there was an ideal sexuality, it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to express that -- or forced to praise and adore it even though they themselves do not posses it.

Very nice response.

It has been argued that Homosexuality is a Jewish invention. In the sense that... the ancient world never defined intercourse by the participants sex... but rather, by who was the giver, and who was the receiver. Men were always the giver, but the sex of the receiver was far more interchangeable. It was Judaism who came along and made distinctions between man-man love, and man-woman love, & moralized sexual relations based on the participants of the sex. This was entirely new in human history, no other culture had done that as far as we know.

You protest that even if there is an ideal, people shouldn't be forced to express that. What would you say to our current heterosexist framework, that always frames reality as a prince saving a princess, a guy picking up a girl, men not wearing dresses, I mean even valentines day is an ode to that preferred pairing of men and women through ads, language, etc. Don't you feel this heterosexual framework is forcing an orientation, or a preferred orientation, upon people? I guess the answer to that question lies in whether or not one thinks orientation is fixed or fluid.

I'll address the rest of your post more thoroughly tomorrow.

[Darias]

Very nice response.

It has been argued that Homosexuality is a Jewish invention. In the sense that... the ancient world never defined intercourse by the participants sex... but rather, by who was the giver, and who was the receiver. Men were always the giver, but the sex of the receiver was far more interchangeable. It was Judaism who came along and made distinctions between man-man love, and man-woman love, & moralized sexual relations based on the participants of the sex. This was entirely new in human history, no other culture had done that as far as we know.

You protest that even if there is an ideal, people shouldn't be forced to express that. What would you say to our current heterosexist framework, that always frames reality as a prince saving a princess, a guy picking up a girl, men not wearing dresses, I mean even valentines day is an ode to that preferred pairing of men and women through ads, language, etc. Don't you feel this heterosexual framework is forcing an orientation, or a preferred orientation, upon people? I guess the answer to that question lies in whether or not one thinks orientation is fixed or fluid.

I'll address the rest of your post more thoroughly tomorrow.

It was my understanding that OT laws were written that forbid a man to lie with another man in the same manner he would a woman because women were thought of as property -- and to have sex with a man would be to degrade his manhood. This is why Lot offered his daughters to the mob. This was why the mythical Sodom and Gomorrah were punished -- for being un-neighborly by gang-raping travelers -- as male rape was a common practice during wartime in the Bronze Age.

In any case, the Bible betrays no concept of monogamous gay relationships.

As for what you highlighted, what I had in mind was conversion therapy (sexual orientation reversal). I've heard horrible things about it -- the torture it involves, etc. I think anyone who has made it through this was probably nominally bisexual. Most who have returned to their original preference must have been homosexual. In any case, it's just wrong to do this to people just to conform them to the standards of a religious society.

I think the barrage of tv ads and the observance of traditional holidays like Valentine's Day do more to perpetuate gender roles than anything else. Gender roles, unlike sexuality, are clearly based on society alone... and they are changing. I think in modern times, ads that appeal to the preference of the majority of the population are done solely for marketing reasons, and not out of an agenda. I also don't think those sorts of things harm people like the above-mentioned "therapy" does.

The reason why traditional gender roles are being questioned, if only mainly for women not men (Equality! but keep the Chivalry!), is simply because younger generations like to question the customs of the generations that came before them.

I for one don't like the societal expectations of men or women... that a woman would be expected to stay at home and make me sammiches, or that I would be expected to pay for every single umpteenth date, be he sole breadwinner, and hold doors open for her (as if she didn't have arms). It's not that I wouldn't mind doing those things myself, it's just that feeling obligated to meet the expectations of those who feel entitled to certain things just sucks, whether you're a man or a woman. I suspect this is partly the reason why I find myself attracted to tomboys who don't mind picking up the tab every once in a while, instead of southern bell gold diggers who expect preferential treatment and equality for themselves, unreciprocated. And it's not as though girly girls would be incapable of rethinking traditional gender roles in favor of fairer expectations, it's just that tomboys, having preferred doing "guy things" their whole lives, would find treating other guys with respect (in terms of who should do what) much more easily and naturally than someone who was raised to be a princess.

Consequently, as a result of this, even though I still find beautiful feminine women physically attractive, their views on gender roles can completely undermine that initial attraction, as any number of things would (like lack of interest in history and current events and a profound love for Justin Bieber). I think I've also begin to see tomboyish girls with short hair more physically attractive because I assume they might not have prejudices or a sense of entitlement -- and in my mind I know that's unfair because, appearances are just fashion statements.

That said, I'm not attracted to women with manly physical features; I suppose that's the straight in me talking. But anyways I'm just rambling now.

[Bust Nak]

Do you think sexuality is fixed?

Why would what we think matter? It's a scientific question that should be left to scientists to answer. And the current consensus is that there are genetic and envriomental factors affecting sexuality, ones sexuality is not fixed from birth, but develops over time. There is also some evidence that for some people, sexuality can change from what they formerly identifies with.