Why homosexuality?

[Mr Carcer]

Or heterosexuality? Or bisexuality?

Why do we define sexuality by the gender to which we are sexually attracted? For the life of me, I cannot tell why we define a person's sexuality by gender preferences but not by hair colour preferences. I prefer brunettes. If I was exclusively attracted to brunettes would it be fair to label me brunettesexual?

I would be foolish if I didn't acknowledge the prejudice that homosexuals and bisexuals frequently receive and I would be naive to think that there's much chance of being physically or verbally attacked, losing a job, or generally being mistreated because of my preference for brunettes.

Should we recognize and label sexual differences according to preferred genders? Does it have any use beyond being able to point out when prejudice and intolerance is occurring? Which came first the labelling of sexual difference by preferred genders or the intolerance, i.e. do we call people who prefer the same gender homosexuals because they have suffered intolerance or did we label them homosexuals and in doing so create a distinction which may have unwittingly made them a target for intolerant bigots?

[engly-saxo]

Maybe because some see homosexuality as unnatural, in that people are supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex in order for reproduction to take place.

I'd imagine this is why homosexuality is denounced in many religions.

[Mr Carcer]

To which my answer would be that clothing and religion isn't natural, but we don't see many religious people arguing for nudity and the banning of all religions. Furthermore there are examples of same sex relationships occurring in the wild.

As for reproduction, my own preference for brunettes has nothing to do with reproduction. Why should my preference be exempt from criticism when it has as much to do with reproduction as a lesbians preference for female partners or a gay man's preference for male partners? Moreover we know that homosexuals can/do reproduce and are quite capable of raising children (at least one lesbian on this messageboard is a mother and a friend of mine has a lesbian mother).

But I think all of this isn't getting to the root of the issue. We know what arguments that bigots have against homosexuality and we're aware of the counterarguments. We are also quite aware of psychological explanations for homophobia and the counterarguments to the psychological explanations. None of this however explains why we focus on one particular facet of sexual attraction to almost the exclusion of all others.

[hokowo]

Or heterosexuality? Or bisexuality?

Why do we define sexuality by the gender to which we are sexually attracted? For the life of me, I cannot tell why we define a person's sexuality by gender preferences but not by hair colour preferences. I prefer brunettes. If I was exclusively attracted to brunettes would it be fair to label me brunettesexual?



heterofemBrunettesexual= meaning straight (straight being men getting sexually aroused by female sexual organs or typical female chracteristcs like less facial hair, boobs that could make milk etc.) men attracted to women with brown to black hair.

The beauty of language just make things clearer. We ceratinly a long way from the apes some say we come from.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Or heterosexuality? Or bisexuality?

Why do we define sexuality by the gender to which we are sexually attracted? For the life of me, I cannot tell why we define a person's sexuality by gender preferences but not by hair colour preferences. I prefer brunettes. If I was exclusively attracted to brunettes would it be fair to label me brunettesexual?


My idea exactly for several years. "Homosexual", "Heterosexual" etc, do not refer to behaviors. An adequate reference to bahavior would be "Adrosexual", "gynosexual" and "bisexual".

"Homosexual" contains a reference to whom is loved and who is the lover, and thus is related to gender roles. It's a savory dish for busybodies, who are the ones interested in sanctioning gender roles.


Me? Slimathleticoandrosexual. Yummm!
Lógos Sokratikós

[hokowo]

My idea exactly for several years. "Homosexual", "Heterosexual" etc, do not refer to behaviors. An adequate reference to bahavior would be "Adrosexual", "gynosexual" and "bisexual".

"Homosexual" contains a reference to whom is loved and who is the lover, and thus is related to gender roles. It's a savory dish for busybodies, who are the ones interested in sanctioning gender roles.


Me? Slimathleticoandrosexual. Yummm!
Lógos Sokratikós

homosodomiticblondebigpenissexual

Anyone knows what that is?

How about some more interesting sexuals?

[hokowo]

homosodomiticblondebigpenissexual

Anyone knows what that is?

How about some more interesting sexuals?

Anyone knows if brunettesexual is male or female?

The beauty of communication and modern language.

[djrafikie]

I'm a intellisexual.

I like brains. Apparently genitals are the most important thing for some, but I guess if you're that dim, you have to hunt for something at your own level.

I joke

no, actually, I only partially joke.

[Mav]

Mr Carcer: Why do we define sexuality by the gender to which we are sexually attracted?

Anything and everything gets a label these days. While male + female will always be the most popular combo, any other combo or grouping after that will earn a label.

Mr Carcer: I cannot tell why we define a person's sexuality by gender preferences but not by hair colour preferences.

Well, Djrafikie is a brains man, I'm a face man, your a brunette guy....any leg men out there? We do define sexuality by other means, just not as greatly. It is still with in the norm of the majority.

Mr Carcer: If I was exclusively attracted to brunettes would it be fair to label me brunettesexual?

Yes. Now if those brunettes were horses, donkeys, or dogs, you could expect a label and odds are....the same reaction from the majority as the other groups get now.

Mr Carcer: Should we recognize and label sexual differences according to preferred genders?


We have already done this. To late to take it back now.

Mr Carcer: Does it have any use beyond being able to point out when prejudice and intolerance is occurring?

Well how are we going to know if it is a gay march or not? The Transves......sorry, the men dressed up to look like manly women, sometimes is not a dead give-a-way.


Mr Carcer: Which came first the labeling of sexual difference by preferred genders or the intolerance, i.e. do we call people who prefer the same gender homosexuals because they have suffered intolerance or did we label them homosexuals and in doing so create a distinction which may have unwittingly made them a target for intolerant bigots?

The act came first, then the intolerance on a local level, then the label as the word spread.
Example: We find out that all the cow mutilations were in fact aliens coming down, and acting out their sexual fantasies with the cows. We don't have a label for it now, but once we found proof that it is taking place....would it be tolerated by the rancher, would it get labeled, or would we then...all sit down and try to understand/justify the attraction?

Everything gets a label/name these days. Starting tomorrow, during your daily travels, find something that is not labeled. Then return here and share your findings.

P.S. I find it funny that you used the label "intolerant bigots". (Bigots: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.) This definition can be applied to both sides.

[Raza]

I'm still not sure whether 'sexual orientation' originally refered to ones preference for sex partners, or ones preference in the sex of partners. However, most people seem to use the first, and working from that it's a very good question.

I think it serves a good enough purpose to have words for sexual sexual orientations. I also think it would serve a purpose to have similar words for other common groupings, such as age and body type preferences. I definitely think people put waaay too much importance on sexual sexual preferences when they view that as something unique from other kinds of preferences - I see no reason at all to do that.

[Harumi]

This labeling is actually a fairly recent phenomena. The ancient Greeks and Romans would have been utterly mystified by our categorizing. They didn't see people according to gender really and instead just...humped a lot.

I'm a bishtallintelliliberalatheistsexual. What's that tell you?

[arkirk]

Religion, especially theistic religion must assert its power via controversy. Sheep, homosexuals, atheists, and those under the influence of Satan have all been justifications for atrocities stemming from the time of Moses. About 10 % of humans are said to be homosexual.

Religion has had homosexuality on its plate for its whole existence. Not all religious cultures have dealt with it the same way. The fact that homosexuality was perceived as a 10% phenomenon in society made it a good target for controversy...for thousands of years. We all know it means nothing in cosmic terms what kind of sex a person or animal may find itself pursuing.

It looks like Moses didn't care for homosexuals. Read Leviticus and you will see that this segment of society has been discriminated against for a very long time...allegedly on the word of Moses and Aaron. It is a millenia long crime against this segment of society. Why homosexuality? Easy target.

Try involluntaribiautosexual! Wouldn't the bearded ones have fun with that!

[Jennie]

It's probably because gender is one of the first ways we identify ourselves, before hair color, eye color, intelligence etc. You can find four and five year olds who will declare themselves "twins" because they wear the same clothes despite skin color differences, but they don't do it with the opposite gender usually. I don't know if this inclination is because of social training or because of something inborn, but it starts early and is therefore basic.

[Mr Carcer]

It's not the labels that I question, but the weight to which we attribute to them. No one would get up in arms over an adoption by a person with an exclusive preference for sexual partners with green eyes. The same doesn't hold true for homosexual adoption. Any politician who tried to bring forth a legislation banning tall people from marrying one another would be a laughingstock. The same doesn't hold true for gay marriages. No one is ever going to feel that their values are threatened by brunettesexual culture or the brunettesexual agenda.

I'm reminded of an argument I was involved in a few months ago. It was an argument about crimes committed by black people. If I remember correctly, the position held by the person I was arguing against was that black people had a problem with crime. He even showed statistics in an attempt to prove his case. I could have argued that the statistics proved prejudice was rife in the legal system, that black people were turning to crime as a result of the poverty enforced upon them by a lack of decent education opportunities or job opportunities, and blah blah blah... But as we were arguing I started to ask myself why did these statistics exist in the first place. Where we're all the statistics showing that lefthanded people were three times more likely to commit rape? Or the ones saying that ginger men have a 26.4% greater chance of recidivism? To name but two completely fabricated sets of statistics.

It all comes down to the weight or significance which we have attributed to certain labels.

[Griff]

One friend of mine says "Oh, man, the freaking Haitians, straight off the boat, get a car and a gun, and they don't know how to use either!" He's a child of the ghetto. He hasn't said anything negative about black people in general, at least that I can remember. It's culture, not race. Anyway, I don't see the point of stressing over sexual orientation, either. Homosexuality seems to be a harmless peculiarity, and we seem to perform equally to other parents in terms of child-rearing. I don't know why I ended up with a guy, but that's just how the chips fell. Whether it's inherent or developed, I can't think of a single reason to question something I'd unflinchingly say was handed to us by God if I were one to hold such beliefs. It just works. I would be a lot more at ease if the fundies weren't threatening our right to even protect our interests through contract, and I really wish they'd find someone else to annoy.

On gender, I am quite certain that gender identity is determined well-prior to birth, and the condition of transexuality requires treatment. It isn't some frivolous choice people make out of a wish to be asinine. Left untreated, it can cause crippling depression, among other assorted mood disorders.

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the division on sexuality is so great. Few people are only attracted to any other specific feature. They are preferences, not neccessities. In any other case it's considered a fetish.

[Mav]

Mr Carcer: It's not the labels that I question, but the weight to which we attribute to them.

I like this statement. Good question Mr. Cancer, which I'll attempt to answer. I us analogy's allot so....no matter what the label, if it gets hammered by the majority, for me, it's for one or two reasons.

1. It is something that is not going to be allowed with no chance of discussion. Necrophilia for example.
2. Warning: Analogy Incoming:
A. It's like someone at your front door knocking. You open the door and answer the question they ask. 5 min later a knock at the door. The same person asks you yet another question which you answer. After this happens every 5 min for lets say 40 min....how are you going to greet this person at the door when 45 min have passed?
B. A baby crying none stop. You check every thing and it's all dry. Open up every jar of baby food, break out every toy, call everyone in the family,.......he won't stop crying!! Doctor gives no incite...what to do what to do!? Ya can't harm him.......

When every I see one of these pride marches on the news, I'm not thinking about their cause or their rights....I'm looking to see which one of them looks the goofiest. Sorry, but it's hard to take a man in dress with a feather bolo around the neck in high heal pumps seriously. Same thing when any black person tries to play the race card, they get this reaction...:rolleyes:

I'm not putting any one down, but just like John Kerry and his botched joke, they are their own worse enemy at times. If they focused on doing some of the things they talk about, they would get far less grief.

Now here is where I try and make you think I'm not the evil hate spawning monster you might think I am.:D I worked with a guy in security that was gay, and we had that boundary talk which ended with me saying, "As long as it makes you happy and fills a void in your life...then so be it,.....as long as it does not disrupt others. We got along great after that, talked about many different subjects. So like any group, you have the good, the bad, and the ugly....no pun intended.