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.

[bluethread]

Why would what we think matter? It's a scientific question that should be left to scientists to answer.

I agree, and thus far the scientific consensus is that sexuality is fixed. No one chooses to be straight, gay, or otherwise.

There is also some evidence that for some people, sexuality can change from what they formerly identifies with.

I'm not aware of this evidence. What studies have suggested this?

The idea that this is a scientific question only presumes a scientific humanist viewpoint. I question much of the "science" of psycology and sociology. Also, there is no such thing as "scientific consensus". Consensus is a political concept not a scientific one. Bust Nak is correct in that science is not about what scientists think, but what they can show using the scientific method, which is subject to consistent replication.

Saying that it is a scientific question ignores the multiple variables that human psycology and sociology include. One can say that given a particular social structure, there are so many individuals who claim or follow a certain practice. However, unless one can find that elusive androphile or gynophile gene one can not make a blanket scientific statement one way or the other. Of course, to verify that androphile or gynophile gene one would have to show consistent behaviors among those who have each particular genetic trait. I personally think that the manner in which one relieves ones passions is more a matter of time, place and opportunity, than predetermined genetic preference.

[marketandchurch]

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.

I mention Gender because of it's role in perpetuating the preferred orientation that society espouses. We have male and female gender roles, which prop up the male-female bias of the institution of marriage, and the institution cannot survive without those gender constructs.

Your reasoning for consent is the secular barometer for morality. But I think I've made the case that the issue of consent is not enough to make issues in the sexual arena morally problematic. The bible's reasoning is based on the fluidity of orientation, gender, and it's fight to build society around the male-female pairing, and the family unit they create.

Government is the large determiner of morality. And it's interpretation of morality makes it both the right-giver, and the right-protector. To say that something is a right is purely subjective, and nothing more then an opinion, unless you can insure it, and protect it. If that Government feels it has obligations to God, and a said religion, then those God-based morals and those God-given rights will be insured, extended, and protected. Likewise, if a society is God-based, and feels it has obligations to God, then it is likely that its government will as well. If the Government allows us to protest it's own interpretations, then do note that's exactly what it has done... but we only have as much rights and freedom to challenge government as the government in question is willing to give. If you are trying to argue that right and wrong, beyond government & God, is determined by individuals, then I must ask: What specifically?

Government subsidizes heterosexual marriage because its in the business of keeping the society going, so it will be pro-family to encourage family creation, which is essentially the reason for marriage in the Christian and American tradition. You can couple with someone without marriage. You can couple with a group of people without marriage, and you can couple with just one person, but have it as an open relationship, and all of this without marriage. So the point of marriage is to know the opposite sex, have children, participate in the tradition of family-raising, build communities based around the family-unit, and minimize the sexual partners you have.

[marketandchurch]

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.

Lott, Sodom, & Homosexuality:

If women were property then the bible would not have allowed them a bill of divorce, nor would the rabbi's have allowed women to initiate divorce. Property isn't owed sex, or relationship. It isn't granted dignity, or given rights. That was the way of the world. The Jewish experiment was to break with that human norm as much as it could, while conditioning the Jews into the male-female pairing that is required by the institution of marriage.

Daughters don't have property, nor are the sources of wealth-creation. Lott's son-in-laws are more important specifically for that reason. The story is preceded by an incident wherein Abraham offers Lott a choice of where to take his herd, and Lott choses the valley of Jordan, leaving the less attractive land for his uncle Abraham. He is concerned with the material, not relationships. Even as they flea Sodom, he's leaving behind his daughter, and never looks back. His wife looks back, and is consumed by the destruction.

Lott is just a loser, period. There's absolutely nothing positive to learn about idyllic behaviors and virtue, when reading the story of Lott, as it is a mirror-image of one of the folly's of human nature: Not Knowing When To Leave A Bad Situation. Everything he does in that story is one mistake after the next. From offering up his daughters in exchange for the safety of his guests, to fighting the angel's attempt to take him to safety, to then wanting to flea to a similar town(civilization) in the area instead of going to the hills. He is saved for one reason, and one reason only, and that is because God had sympathy for this loser, likely on Abraham's behalf.

You are sort of correct about Sodom's reason for being punished. It isn't so much gang-raping men so much as it is it's mistreatment of the stranger. Much of the bible's hatred of homosexuality had to do with male sexual nature, and its raping of the same sex to emasculate other men into submission. The tale of Lott, however, follows a mirror contrast in the episode preceding it, wherein Abraham argues to God on behalf of the stranger. So God decided to punish a place on earth, for their mistreatment of others. Mistreatment of the stranger is perhaps one of the biggest on-going themes in the first five books of moses, it is routinely referred to and harped upon as a concept. If it was gang-raping of other men, then why not wipe the egyptians out... or the assyrians... or the babylonians..., as male-rape was common place in every society, including ancient israel.

[marketandchurch]

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.

Gay Camps
If you are reffering to camps that attempt to make a Gay person straight, I am with you 100% in my dislike of the matter. It is not right, that person did not wake up and choose which sex they will be attracted to, and the proof is history... considering the ramifications of being gay, one didn't choose it. It wasn't worth the ostracization from family, friends, and community, it wasn't worth being expelled by the church, to loose your career over, be punished, and in many cases, killed over. So it is not a choice, and those who are born gay will always be gay. But even when one says this, one has to add the caveat that just because 80-90% of current Gays didn't choose their sexuality, doesn't mean that sexuality is fixed. (not that you agree or disagree, but I always have to say it for other people reading my responses.)


Chivalry:
As I said before, I mention Gender because of it's role in perpetuating the preferred orientation that society espouses. We have male and female gender roles, which prop up the male-female bias of the institution of marriage, and the institution cannot survive without those gender constructs. What is even the point of chivalry? Why don't women pull out chairs for their men... The whole point of chivalry was to teach a man how to treat & behave around a women. It was to restrain our aggressive & overly sexual nature, in a framework that would ritualize this ideal into daily encounters with the opposite sex... because repetition is the mother of learning, and a man, throughout history, doesn't just wake up all of a sudden and know how to behave around the opposite sex. It is learned, and done so from the youngest age, to restrain many of the less palatable aspects of male nature.


Why Gender Roles Are Questioned:
I disagree with your assessment about why gender roles are being questioned. They have been in question for the last century. Michel Foucault comes to mind, Judith Butler does as well. It began in the academics. We raised an entire generation of PHD's and college graduates in the social sciences, to give boys dolls & girls trucks, so that they do not have a sexist upbringing, merely conforming to the gender roles handed to them by adults and society at large. And this was the late 50's through early 70's.

[marketandchurch]

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.

Gender Roles
I fully agree with you. I am a huge fan of stay-at-home dads, so long as they also have a part-time job to also help his wife bring in income, instead of sitting around all day watching cartoons and not doing anything productive(especially if he doesn't want to cook..., you better earn that dining out money.) Women who are full-time stay at home moms almost never miss a beat, there's always something to do or be done, and if they don't want to take on a part-time job, then that's fine by me, but the preference is that one of you stays home to rear the kids, and use your time constructively to provide all the homely duties required, without the other spouse coming home and then also being expected to make dinner, and take care of needs of the kids that you could have provided for them.

Gender roles that exist for tradition sake, are meaningless roles/rituals. As I've said with Chivalry, it is taught to a young boy growing up how to treat a lady, partly to curtail aspects of male nature that can hurt the opposite sex. If women don't come first in our concern, they won't come at all in, any way. That was a large part of the ancient world. Women were largely neglected to making a home. They had no societal value beyond that, and child rearing.

I'm not here to perpetuate the girly girl ethos. I think it's stupid. And it is rather strange... most strong christian couples I've known over the years, do not have the wife acting out a girly-girl identity either. Girly girls are largely the product of media and entertainment, with the advent of hollywood and advertising. There is room to reinterpret gender roles for the modern era. The case for having Gender Roles, are that 1.) we need socially-induced & demanded mechanisms, that force both sexes to affirm our social values of family creation(to keep society going on,) 2.) to make both sexes get along better, 3.) To empower the Family unit, and 4.) to curtail the worse aspects of both sexes. You can reinterpret every gender role we have anyway you want, but those three things are the main reason we've had them throughout history, and this is why they are so important to the institution of marriage.


The Pixie
I too love the pixie, it's a cute cut when kept feminine. When cut too short, and too aggressively, it no longer communicates femininity, which is fine by me, some dudes like that. What's even cuter then the pixie cut is the pixie ethos, pixies also have an unorthodox wit & intellect that I absolutely adore, and they do a great job of marrying their valuing of independence & their new-woman ethos, with some traditional feminine cues. This seems to the variant that is most in vogue right now,

[center][/center]

But I think it looks better with the sides. There's a lot of beautiful, feminine pixies. Most of the girls I hang out with are lezzies, & a few them make it a statement to have as few feminine cues as possible, which is not very attractive.

[Darias]

I mention Gender because of it's role in perpetuating the preferred orientation that society espouses. We have male and female gender roles, which prop up the male-female bias of the institution of marriage, and the institution cannot survive without those gender constructs.

I'll save a more detailed response on the issue of gender roles and how they supposedly influence sexuality for another post. However, I simply don't buy the notion that gender roles have anything to do with the idea that persons who are sexually attracted to one another and who want to start a family will form a union. As long as there are human beings, there will always be relationships, and there will always be children, and the majority of the time the relationships will be straight.

I think the main reason marriage is even relevant including inside and outside of religious communities, is because of the legal benefits it offers. If there is any decline in the want to pursue marriage, it is because marriage in general is so risky due to the bias against males in the court system. If the marriage fails, the man loses half of everything. If the spouse claims marital rape as an excuse to get a divorce and take his things, his life is over for all intents and purposes.

But setting aside the benefits and consequences of legally binding civil marriages, people will want to be together and have families. Most people will have straight relationships and have children as they always have. The fear that in the near or distant future, humanity will become an androgynous society is a bit far fetched.

Your reasoning for consent is the secular barometer for morality.

The Non-Aggression Principle and the concept of self-ownership (and by extension property rights) are not monopolized by non-believers. This is not a secular morality; this is the only real morality there is. Any other thing labeled as morality that fails to incorporate those principles is not only meaningless to human beings, but objectively false; just as any moral system that denies facts and the principles of mathematics is false. If genocide and child sacrifice are labeled as good by an authority figure, then that renders the label of "good" meaningless to everyone else -- being that such a way of thinking can only be understood and justified by the authority.

And if you call a god "good," then the standard by which you measure that god is obviously higher. Otherwise the label means nothing and therefore the nature, will, and actions of said god become mysterious; his edicts are to be obeyed out of fear and they aren't based on anything but his whim. If we call that system "good," then let us also call it "jellybean" because at that point good and bad have no meaning whatsoever. What good is the human ability to reason right from wrong if he should forsake that ability for unthinking obedience? If he should defer that judgement to an all powerful dictator? What's good for the fox isn't good for the chicken.

But I think I've made the case that the issue of consent is not enough to make issues in the sexual arena morally problematic. The bible's reasoning is based on the fluidity of orientation, gender, and it's fight to build society around the male-female pairing, and the family unit they create.

Well what is the Bible but a collection of books and authors from many different eras with many different conceptions of the divine? The Bible contains many concepts of marriage and the traditional one you like is but one of many.

And even if I were to assume that the Bible is the word of god, then his dictates on marriage alone do not suffice, if they can't be shown to make sense. If gay marriage is bad because Yahweh says -- well, so what? How is it right to consider it a sin, apart from the glorifying the prejudice of a Bronze Age god that, not surprisingly, reflects the values of Bronze Age men?

Is divine command theory the only valid approach to morality? If so, then how does that help humanity? If morality is not consistent and logical, and if it is not understandable, then it is worthless and not worth talking about.

Government is the large determiner of morality.

No; morality is determined by the reasoning of individuals.

The State is just an organization with a monopoly of force and the self-appointed legal impunity to use it. The only role government plays in the "establishment" of morality, is when a minority within the government or a majority of the population use it as a tool to impose their will and values onto all. This is immoral

Examples of that include the Republic of Iran, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. etc. This is immoral.

And it's interpretation of morality makes it both the right-giver, and the right-protector.

Absolutely not! The government does not grant us a list of finite privileges, as though it were Yahweh presenting Moses with the Ten Commandments. The concept of natural rights is born out of the reasoning of self-ownership. For those of you who are religious, you may claim our rights are given to us by god, but for the rest of you, this much is obvious -- as human beings, all of us can do what we please with ourselves and our things, so long as we treat others with the same respect. That sentiment was present before the words "do unto others" was ever written.

And as time has shown, government isn't very good at safeguarding rights either. The United States can spy, imprison indefinitely without trial, kill, and torture its citizens -- despite the fact its Constitution forbids it from doing so.

To say that something is a right is purely subjective, and nothing more then an opinion, unless you can insure it, and protect it.

Well, I prefer not to use the terminology of "rights," because it suggests positive rights -- a list of cans and cannots. In reality, the ability to do and act and think is infinite, as long as that does not harm or steal from others. Anything that violates consent and robs or harms others is objectively unfavorable for prosperity.

You can say what you want if you think it's best we all live in poverty and suffering, in humble submissiveness to the unknown (god). But you can't say that a world where death, pestilence, and lex talonis are prevalent is more developed, prosperous or peaceful. You can hate prosperity and worship death, but you can't deny the objective reality that the NAP makes the world more peaceful and prosperous. Of course it goes without saying that a world with more peace and prosperity would benefit the existence of humanity as a whole, but that's just utilitarian observation (a majority could also thrive by preying on the minority, but that's not moral). Whether or not the aforementioned world is moral (from the point of view of a man or a god) is irrelevant to the reality.

2 + 2 = 4, whether that's blasphemy or not. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't exist in some material form. These facts are abstractions that don't exist, but they are still true; the same rationale applies to ethics and morality as Stefan Molyneux argues.

"Morality" must be consistent and universal for it to really mean anything in terms of objectivity. Morality means nothing if one group is subject to it, but not others. If god can kill and mame who he pleases, but we cannot, then there is no objective morality.

If we can say that truth is better than lies, and facts are preferable to myth, then we can reason from that point and follow the logic, principles like the NAP can be validated.

If we place no value on truth or reason or reality, then we shouldn't concern ourselves with questions of morality or ethics in the first place.

If that Government feels it has obligations to God, and a said religion,

Government is a label given to an organization that possesses a monopoly of force on society. "Government" is not a thinking almighty with a will. Government, much like god, is a fiction. Statism is like a religion. And the only real thing is force. The power leaders possess and the legal permission to wage violence against persons and their property is undeniable. Label it what you will.

...then those God-based morals and those God-given rights will be insured, extended, and protected. Likewise, if a society is God-based, and feels it has obligations to God, then it is likely that its government will as well. If the Government allows us to protest it's own interpretations, then do note that's exactly what it has done... but we only have as much rights and freedom to challenge government as the government in question is willing to give. If you are trying to argue that right and wrong, beyond government & God, is determined by individuals, then I must ask: What specifically?

Well you certainly cannot claim that something is right by appealing to the majority or by appealing to authority. Both of these are logical fallacies; both depend on might. Was it right for the majority of Germans to vote for Hitler? Was it right for the German government to wage genocide -- well if morality is defined by might, then yes. Was it right for Yahweh to order and commit genocides of his own? Well according to him it was. Hitler thought he was doing the world a service as well; but both cases are subjective. You cannot arrive to what's objectively true, moral, or correct by citing the will of the people, or the will of the king, or the will of an omnipotent deity. Relying on those may aid your ability to force and establish your subjectivity upon all, but it does not justify or validate your views in the slightest.

The only tools all thinking people have in their arsenal, are reason and evidence. Without these things, no morality, objective or otherwise, can be realized.

Government subsidizes heterosexual marriage because...

Those in power want to keep their jobs, so they concede to the will of the majority of the population when it benefits them. Government isn't doing anything with a purpose in mind, as if it were a person with intent. Government has no principles and government is the enemy of reason; government is force, if it is anything.

. . . its in the business of keeping the society going, so it will be pro-family to encourage family creation, which is essentially the reason for marriage in the Christian and American tradition. You can couple with someone without marriage. You can couple with a group of people without marriage, and you can couple with just one person, but have it as an open relationship, and all of this without marriage. So the point of marriage is to know the opposite sex, have children, participate in the tradition of family-raising, build communities based around the family-unit, and minimize the sexual partners you have.

Of course you can couple, love, know, be monogamous with, and have kids without marriage of any kind, civil or religious. Now, I know you oppose gay marriage, but calling it "pro-family" is just propaganda; it's doublespeak.

How can something be "pro-family" and "pro-marriage" and "pro-monogamy" when it seeks to deny/legally punish or discourage a minority of the population from/for having those things and having them legally recognized? At bottom this position is inconsistent, illogical and prejudicial. Forcing all of society to conform to it via law uses force rather that reasoned persuasion. If you are coerced to agree or face the consequences, your views are not genuine.

But this idea that the sole purpose of government is to perpetuate religious idealism is absurd. You can't legislate someone's values on society -- it doesn't work. Just look at the failure of the drug war -- countless dollars spent, no decrease in the usage of drugs -- countless lives ruined and left to rot for non-violent offenses -- countless lives lost by gangs who thrive on this war. Prohibition doesn't work. State religion doesn't work. Both lead to bloodshed and both put the boot on the neck of freedom.

[Haven]

I'm not aware of this evidence. What studies have suggested this?

I am referring to the existence of "ex-gays."

"Ex-gays" are still gay. They may be in denial and living a "heterosexual" "lifestyle," but their orientations are still homosexual.

[kayky]

DELETE

[kayky]

Lott, Sodom, & Homosexuality:

If women were property then the bible would not have allowed them a bill of divorce, nor would the rabbi's have allowed women to initiate divorce. Property isn't owed sex, or relationship. It isn't granted dignity, or given rights. That was the way of the world. The Jewish experiment was to break with that human norm as much as it could, while conditioning the Jews into the male-female pairing that is required by the institution of marriage.

Of course women were considered property in the Bible, and you don't have to look any further than the Ten Commandments to figure this out. Men are told not to covet a neighbor's property. This property is then listed: house, wife, slaves.

[Baz]

[Replying to post 7 by marketandchurch]

I would suppose I would describe myself as a theist with panentheism as a core element but I am interested in all viewpoints.

I find it fascinating that no two people on earth are the same but still everybody finds it so hard to understand why we can't have the same view point.

I would expect to agree or disagree with some aspects of every religion.




.