Sexual orientation theory

Sexual orientation belongs to a theoretical construct borrowed from the analytical basis of vector theory in mathematics indicating the direction of a person's sexual desires toward its object that is complementary with the idea of sexual action. Recently sexual orientation theory has been employed to assert that a person's sexual preferences are immutable and should therefore be accepted by society,[1] as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.

In the 2020s, however, the theory having conflicted with people's lived experience, these same theoreticians have changed to a posture of harping on doubts that sexual orientation exists at all but instead represents what a person consents to prefer, rather than there being a natural orientation toward heterosexuality.

## Contents

* 1 Natural sexual orientation
* 2 Historical background
* 3 Ideological thinking
* 4 The purpose of sexual orientation theory
* 4.1 False message about the equal status
* 4.1.1 Neutralizing health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality
* 4.1.2 Misuse of the civil rights doctrines
* 5 Sexual preference determined by birth
* 6 Sexual preference determined by childhood
* 7 Objections
* 8 The Bible on sexual orientation
* 9 See also
* 10 References

## Natural sexual orientation[edit]

In a 1914 summary of an intellectual exploration into same-sex love, Sigmund Freud showed his theory of natural sexual orientation and its deflections, within his materialistic philosophy, to be in basic agreement with Western tradition:

"A person may love
1\. According to the narcissist type:

a. What he is himself (actually himself)
b. What he once was
c. What he would like to be
d. Someone who was once part of himself
2\. Accordng to the anaclitic type:

a. The woman who tends,
b. The man who protects."[2]

This meaning of "natural" is with respect to natural needs, rather than some biological determinism. What Freud called narcissistic love interfered with the achievement of what he called the "anaclinic" needs provided by each sex in carrying out their sex roles. Narcissistic love can heal certain psychic wounds, but choosing to pursue a loved person for possession before self-understanding in that type of wounded state does injury to the object of affection.

## Historical background[edit]

On several occasions, The Advocate, a mainstay magazine of LGBT pressure groups, published information that

"Polls repeatedly indicate that Americans who believe sexual orientation is either genetic or biological are much more likely to support gay and lesbian civil rights than those who believe it is determined primarily by environmental influences."[3]

Thus, the publication delivers the twisted message to the public that so-called "sexual orientation"—used as politically correct label for sexual disorientation—is either genetic or biological, became the main goal of LGBT pseudoscience. As one of its major protagonist, 'gay' neuroscientist Simon LeVay put it: "The question of whether or not gayness is immutable is rather crucial in the political arena." The importance of biological factors behind sodomitical behavior were stressed out also by authors of LGBT Mein Kampf called After the Ball:

"For all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence."[4]

## Ideological thinking[edit]

However, the problem with any area of research that intersects with politics of pressure groups such as the LGBTI one is the motivated rationalizations and reasoning and the confirmation bias. Where concepts determine percepts, ideology, including the gender ideology, trumps facts and science suffers. Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say, “Your genes did not make you do it”, i.e. humans still do have free will when making their behavioral choices for which they should be held accountable. Everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or her thinking and behaviour — simply because without genes there can be no human activity or behaviour of any kind.[5]

## The purpose of sexual orientation theory[edit]

### False message about the equal status[edit]

Two wrongs don’t make a right

"For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual sexual behaviors spread disease. When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “Heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn’t a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don’t make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not."

-- Scott Lively[6]

One purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to “gay” arguments.

#### Neutralizing health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality[edit]

For one thing sexual orientation theory neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with a congenital deformity that causes them to have both male and female genitalia) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female, what is also reflected in Natural order. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male 'sexual orientation' toward a female (or vice versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female 'orientation' is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural, in fact it is a sexual disorientation. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender disoriented conduct among people who are innately and unalterably heterosexual in form. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being,[6] as can be shown by scientific device of thought experiment.

#### Misuse of the civil rights doctrines[edit]

A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which would not otherwise apply to them. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny 'homosexuals' all of the benefits that 'heterosexuals' enjoy. “Gay” sophists have coined the term “heterosexism” to describe favoritism towards 'heterosexuals'. The wanted implications of introducing the gayspeak term 'heterosexism' is simply to make general public to think of it as “racism” toward 'homosexuals' alias toward practitioners of sodomitical lifestyle.[6]

## Sexual preference determined by birth[edit]

Many social advocates assert that unknown biological factors are responsible for sexual orientation. Thus, they argue that is by no means a matter of choice, and that it is pointless to try to change one's orientation. Some go so far as to say that the attempt would cause harm, so mental health professionals must not offer assistance even if asked. In contrast, sexual preference refers to a person's preferred mode of sexual activity, fantasy or desire.

Advocates of homosexuality frequently argue that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, i.e. one is "born that way". This forms the basis of an argument that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and thus should not be criticized. One may as well criticize a person for having blond hair, or dark brown skin.

Many groups cite scientific studies that indicate homosexual practices in many species (such as apes, monkeys, or penguins). However, researchers claim that the reason for homosexual behavior in animals is related to dominance, preparing for future heterosexual encounters, to expel low-quality sperm, and to engage in reproductive suppression.[7] As for social animals, macaques were studied engaging in same-sex behavior. However, a female may engage in female-female mounting, but that doesn't mean she isn't interested in males. Females often mount males, apparently to encourage them to mate more. Once they had learned this behavior, it was easy for them to apply it to other females as well.[8] We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are.

## Sexual preference determined by childhood[edit]

Some homosexuality advocates make an intermediate claim, i.e., that sexual orientation is caused by a number of factors but does not become unchangeable until early childhood or even as late as adolescence. Likewise, this forms the basis of the argument that no one can be held morally responsible for being homosexual.

## Objections[edit]

There is no scientific consensus on when sexual orientation is fixed, or whether it is fixed at all. All attempts to find a "gay gene" have failed.

Many people generally disagree with the premises of these homosexual arguments:

* A person "born" with a strong craving for alcoholic drinks would still be held responsible if he got drunk and injured someone in a car accident.
* A person with an "inherent" hatred of blacks would still be considered a racist (and in violation of the rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself").

However, in both of these instances, it could as well be argued that these are the result of personal experience and development: for instance alcoholism is seldom found in infants but develops as individuals gain experience of alcohol and see it as a solution to their problems or a route to happiness.

## The Bible on sexual orientation[edit]

Some Bible passages suggest that the normal, God-given orientation for human beings is heterosexuality. In the New Testament Jesus taught,

* "Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not?
* "And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.
* "From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)

Nonetheless, no explicit condemnation of homosexuality is ever ascribed to the Jesus: all explicit condemnations are found in the Old Testament and the Epistles. But this is probative of nothing, as Jesus often spoke in parables.

## See also[edit]

* Alma Kramer
* Gleichschaltung
* Sexual disorientation
* Sexual orientation argument
* Sexual orientation change

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child
2. ↑ "On Narcissism"
3. ↑ Dahir Mubarak. Why Are We Gay?. Retrieved on 12 Mar 2017. “Polls repeatedly indicate that Americans who believe sexual orientation is either genetic or biological are much more likely to support gay and lesbian civil rights than those who believe it is determined primarily by environmental influences. ... "The question of whether or not gayness is immutable is rather crucial in the political arena," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist ...”
4. ↑ R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (2015). We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong. Harper Collins, 38\. ISBN 978-07180-32487.
5. ↑ NE & BK Whitehead (August 2016). My Genes Made Me Do It! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence, 4th (revised), Whitehead Associates, 262–3. ISBN 978-0473174866.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Scott Lively (2009). Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the "Gay" Agenda, 1, Veritas Aeterna Press, 101–3.
7. ↑ LEVAN, K. E., et al. “Testing Multiple Hypotheses for the Maintenance of Male Homosexual Copulatory Behaviour in Flour Beetles.” Freshwater Biology, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 13 Oct. 2008, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01616.x.
8. ↑ Vasey, Paul L., et al. “Male–Female and Female–Female Mounting in Japanese Macaques: A Comparative Study of Posture and Movement.” SpringerLink, Springer, Dordrecht, 26 Apr. 2006, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-9007-1.