Absolutely brilliant article about sexual "identity" and its historical construction

[erine]

firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

The author Michael Hannon explains how basically both “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are socially constructed ideas that are inadequate to summarize human sexuality. The ideal, rather, is Christ; sexual relations are in marriage between a man and woman. He predicts that the homosexual / heteronormative false dichotomy is essentially political and doomed to fall out of fashion inevitably.

He cites interestingly enough some radically liberal anthropologists and sociologists like Foucault in explaining that the narrow essentialism of fixed sexual identities is false. Of course, he proposes a catholic solution and not a post-modern queer theory “anything goes” philosophy.

I have been saying in a far less eloquent manner essentially what he is saying here for a while now. I have studied very conservative Christian research and liberal post-feminist queer theory studies and they both end up coming full circle to conclude that there is never something so simple as sexual identity. It is not always fixed. I think we dehumanize ourselves and don’t respect our dignity as human persons when we try to fit ourselves into one category.

I know there are plenty of married couples out there who are deeply in love and attracted to each other and also experience attraction to the same sex. Sex in marriage is supposed to be a gift of charity, not purely based on arousal at a given moment.

I know not everyone agrees or has the same experience but I have found the above to be true and thought it might help catholics, many of whom I know sometimes are confused about their orientation due to the culture’s propaganda, but who also want a family and to fall in love with a good spouse. I know a lot of people personally who desire a family but are confused because there have been times they found themselves attracted to someone of the same sex…they seem to compare themselves to others and assume that other people have NEVER had that same struggle and therefore conclude they aren’t “allowed” to ever marry, even if it turns out they meet someone of the opposite sex whom they love deeply and are attracted to as a whole person. I hope this article helps people who are in that situation.

Blessings

Erine

 

[esieffe]

Really interesting article Ernie. I suggest people read it through thoughtfully and carefully before rushing into any judgement about it. If I am reading the analysis correctly, and I believe I am, it is saying while there is no argument against church doctrine, but that human sexuality is less black and white, and more fluid and in flux, depending on age and life experience.

The take away, is that sexuality is a complex situation, one that the church provides direction for. I will add that it weakens some of the harsh labels slapped on it such as abomination and immorality. Clearly if someone is in a state to where heterosexuality is the genetically predominate force, than adherence to church doctrine becomes much easier.

For those finding themselves floating more in the gay end of the swimming pool, chaste is for now, still the better alternative. I would suggest THAT approach to starting a family only to pull the carpet out later. Not fair at all to the innocents.

I have always felt that the fire breathing anti gay activists, feel remorse for feelings they did not ever ask for, and fight back with a sanctimonious zeal devised to bury their own fears over their own sexual confusion or guilt. Those of us fortunate enough to feel secure in our sexuality do not feel the drive to single out this sin as final battle for morality.

This is a condition that can be worked with and reconciled. The primordial pool whose origins are hidden deeply in the middle brain, to which we only have limited knowledge, is still being studied. The great news is as time goes along, the more we learn, the more we can help bring this imbalance into the light of understanding. The implications or weight of sin may change in the level of severity of this sin but at the same time bring NO change church doctrine, but lead to better understanding with which we can guide those who suffer back into a healthier or more productive place.

 

[JimG]

I subscribe to this magazine and had already skimmed the article briefly, but I need to read it more thoroughly. It confirms in my mind something I have long suspected—that homosexuality is a recent invention. So is heterosexuality. So is the idea of “sexual orientation.”

According to the author, this taxonomy was created in the 19th century. Before the invention of sexual orientation, there were men, and there were women. There were various sexual activities that could occur between and among them, some virtuous, some iniquitous.

A person who engaged in sodomy was not thereby identified as a homosexual. A person who engaged in fornication was not thereby identified as a heterosexual. There were a range of actions, virtuous or sinful, to which a person might be tempted to engage (as there still are.) But the action, the attraction, the temptation, was not the identity. And it still is not.

The author asserts that the attempt to equate various erotic attractions with personal identity is doomed to fail. For one thing, the number of erotic attractions is such that the number of sexual “orientations” seems to implausibly multiply. “Orientations” continue to multiply even while the law attempts to legalize only one additional (or perhaps more–I’m not keeping up.)

The attempt cannot be supported much longer. The only question is whether it will be replaced with an even more chaotic approach to human sexuality, or whether we will return to natural reason, taking into account the sexual complementarity of man and woman and the natural procreative end toward which that complementarity is directed.

I might add that the title of the article “Against Heterosexuality,” is instructive. The author sees the whole structure of “sexual orientation” as a mistake. We are men and women. We are not our sexual temptations.

 

[frobert]

firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

I have been saying in a far less eloquent manner essentially what he is saying here for a while now. I have studied very conservative Christian research and liberal post-feminist queer theory studies and they both end up coming full circle to conclude that there is never something so simple as sexual identity. It is not always fixed. I think we dehumanize ourselves and don’t respect our dignity as human persons when we try to fit ourselves into one category.

BTW, good article.

You are correct, sexuality is a complicated affair. It is not always fixed. Many people who prefer members of the same sex have opposite sex partners and many who prefer opposite sex partners have same sex partners. Prisoners may have only the same sex option regardless of their preferences. Some people do not have a sexual preference, for them same or opposite sex partners will do.

Hannon correctly points out that sexual orientation is a relatively recent social construct. Do you think he would say the same about sexual preference?

Note: I do not advocate or condone sexual acting out whether gay or straight.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So what? “Rights” are also a constructed thing.

 

[frobert]

So what? “Rights” are also a constructed thing.

I believe that what Hannon is attempting to bring out is that, to understand the essence of CC teachings–all disordered sexual acts are sinful–we need to abandon the social construct of sexual identities. I agree with him on this point.

You correctly point out that civil rights are a social-construct also. Hannon understands this:

"True, the firm natural division between the two identities has proven useful to the “gay rights” activists on the ground…

…very few “gay rights” issues remain to be settled. Orientation might have a few years’ worth of political capital still, but many progressives already boast that they could discard the absurd natural-categories myth and be just fine, having now initiated an irresistible liberalizing trend that will continue apace with or without it."

The implications of invalidating “sexual identity” is greater for heterosexuals, the CC and other conservative groups than for LGBT groups.

“The Bible never called homosexuality an abomination. Nor could it have, for as we have seen, Leviticus predates any conception of sexual orientation by a couple of millennia at least. What the Scriptures condemn is sodomy, regardless of who commits it or why. And yet, as I have argued throughout, in our own day homosexuality deserves the abominable label, and heterosexuality does too.”

 

[JimG]

I note again the title of the article–”Against Heterosexuality.” The author traces the concept of heterosexuality as a norm back to the mid-19th century, at which point the concept of homosexuality as a matter of personal identity came into use as well.

He notes that before this, the understanding of sex and of sexual sin, was related to the idea of human nature and the natural end of sex (the teleology of sex) as tending toward procreation and family formation.

Sexual actions which went against that natural end were seen as wrong—fornication, masturbation, extramarital sex, etc., while sexual activity that tended toward procreation and family formation was seen as good. It’s a very long standing standard which is in accord with human nature.

But it was too religiously rooted for the post- ‘enlightenment’ era. So instead of classifying actions, the new idea was to classify people. In this regard, “heterosexuality” became the new norm, and other attractions the deviant. This was thought to perhaps preserve the old moral standards without the religion, but it didn’t work.

If heterosexuality was the norm, then heterosexuals got a pass just by being straight. Fornication, adultery, masturbation, were no longer seen as sinful because, they were, after all, actions done by straight people. Homosexual persons, on the other hand, could do nothing right, because their very “orientation,” excluded it, being deviant.

The whole concept of “orientation” makes young people stress out about their “sexuality.” Rather than considering the morality of particular actions, they worry about their sexual identity-- “who they are.” Who they are, of course, is human beings, with tendencies toward good and evil, which must be either encouraged or resisted.

It seems the concept of “orientation” is now being discarded by those who previously might have pushed the idea. Secularists want to get rid of it because if there is no orientation, then anything is acceptable. There need be no standard.

Christians ought to want to get rid of it because it doesn’t accord with human nature.

 

[Elizium23]

So what? “Rights” are also a constructed thing.

Rights are constructed? When they have been endowed in us by our Creator?

Rights are often intrinsic things which are set aside and protected in the law. Sometimes rights are constructed, for example the right to have a fixed grille in the sacrament of Penance. But often they are given by God and the only things the law can do is preserve them or trample on them.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Rights are constructed? When they have been endowed in us by our Creator?

Rights are often intrinsic things which are set aside and protected in the law. Sometimes rights are constructed, for example the right to have a fixed grille in the sacrament of Penance. But often they are given by God and the only things the law can do is preserve them or trample on them.

The concept of “a right” dates to the Late Middle Ages, before that it didn’t exist basically anywhere.

 

[Elizium23]

The concept of “a right” dates to the Late Middle Ages, before that it didn’t exist basically anywhere.

I would contest that assertion; based on a quick reading of the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that the concept of rights is as old as the concept of law, which is pretty old. Furthermore, just because we didn’t have a concept of something doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Newton discovered gravity in the Renaissance and yet before that time, we all adhered closely to its law.

 

[erine]

I subscribe to this magazine and had already skimmed the article briefly, but I need to read it more thoroughly. It confirms in my mind something I have long suspected—that homosexuality is a recent invention. So is heterosexuality. So is the idea of “sexual orientation.”

According to the author, this taxonomy was created in the 19th century. Before the invention of sexual orientation, there were men, and there were women. There were various sexual activities that could occur between and among them, some virtuous, some iniquitous.

A person who engaged in sodomy was not thereby identified as a homosexual. A person who engaged in fornication was not thereby identified as a heterosexual. There were a range of actions, virtuous or sinful, to which a person might be tempted to engage (as there still are.) But the action, the attraction, the temptation, was not the identity. And it still is not.

The author asserts that the attempt to equate various erotic attractions with personal identity is doomed to fail. For one thing, the number of erotic attractions is such that the number of sexual “orientations” seems to implausibly multiply. “Orientations” continue to multiply even while the law attempts to legalize only one additional (or perhaps more–I’m not keeping up.)

The attempt cannot be supported much longer. The only question is whether it will be replaced with an even more chaotic approach to human sexuality, or whether we will return to natural reason, taking into account the sexual complementarity of man and woman and the natural procreative end toward which that complementarity is directed.

I might add that the title of the article “Against Heterosexuality,” is instructive. The author sees the whole structure of “sexual orientation” as a mistake. We are men and women. We are not our sexual temptations.

Excellent summary. Essentially, yes, the problem is the false heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Anyone who has studied sexuality and doesn’t have an agenda to push will honesty tell you that there is a wide spectrum of both sexual identity and behavior.

More importantly, the catechism explains that our sexuality is either Man or Woman. That is how it is defined. Note that it does it doesn’t demand we conform to a gender stereotype. (Joan of Arc, anyone?). I think we see two problems in our culture due to the lack of understanding of men and women. One is defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, and two is on the other extreme, judging people’s sexuality based on if they act out a certain masculine or feminine stereotype.

I respect there are practicing Catholics who say they are gay and that’s that. This article is posted for the myriad others; those who I have read online and know personally who are sometimes gay, sometimes straight; those who thought they were gay and then met a member of the opposite sex they fell for and were more attracted to. To free our minds a little from the dystopian tyranny that is the LGBT agenda.

I am not impractical and I know solving the issue isn’t as simple as reading an article. But if people just knew their history…having known for a while now that sexual “orientation” is nothing like what the media says, I have been frustrated to see the pain this has caused my peers.

Once upon a time you didn’t have to be lustful after every member of the opposite sex to be straight. People say wait for the “right person.”. Love is more than following our attractions at a given moment.

 

[erine]

I note again the title of the article–”Against Heterosexuality.” The author traces the concept of heterosexuality as a norm back to the mid-19th century, at which point the concept of homosexuality as a matter of personal identity came into use as well.

He notes that before this, the understanding of sex and of sexual sin, was related to the idea of human nature and the natural end of sex (the teleology of sex) as tending toward procreation and family formation.

Sexual actions which went against that natural end were seen as wrong—fornication, masturbation, extramarital sex, etc., while sexual activity that tended toward procreation and family formation was seen as good. It’s a very long standing standard which is in accord with human nature.

But it was too religiously rooted for the post- ‘enlightenment’ era. So instead of classifying actions, the new idea was to classify people. In this regard, “heterosexuality” became the new norm, and other attractions the deviant. This was thought to perhaps preserve the old moral standards without the religion, but it didn’t work.

If heterosexuality was the norm, then heterosexuals got a pass just by being straight. Fornication, adultery, masturbation, were no longer seen as sinful because, they were, after all, actions done by straight people. Homosexual persons, on the other hand, could do nothing right, because their very “orientation,” excluded it, being deviant.

The whole concept of “orientation” makes young people stress out about their “sexuality.” Rather than considering the morality of particular actions, they worry about their sexual identity-- “who they are.” Who they are, of course, is human beings, with tendencies toward good and evil, which must be either encouraged or resisted.

It seems the concept of “orientation” is now being discarded by those who previously might have pushed the idea. Secularists want to get rid of it because if there is no orientation, then anything is acceptable. There need be no standard.

Christians ought to want to get rid of it because it doesn’t accord with human nature.

Exactly. Young people I know angst to no end over their orientation. There is an actual psychological disorder called HOCD now, in which the sufferer fears they are gay and fears they will have to give up their hope for relationship with the opposite sex. I can’t bear it when I see strangers online telling some poor person who is confused by their orientation that if the are gay they are only “allowed” to be just friends with the opposite sex. Even if the person didn’t say they were gay and does want a spouse.

One woman I read wrote an article about having been a lesbian for a while and eventually getting married to a man. LGBT activists made a Facebook group saying she should be shot. Because she was living in defiance of the gospel of fixed sexual identity.

I’m only up in arms about it because I see my friends and I myself having crises about this, seeing others decide so and so is gay. As someone probably bisexual or hereroflexible or whatever silly term, I get especially angry when strangers decide someone can only be gay or straight and nothing in between. Science and research show that most people are in between to some extent.

My understanding was always simple. I thought you fall for someone, ideally get married and do sexual actions in marriage between man and woman. I thought attraction grew as you love someone. Oxytocin from touch increasing that bond. I also thought it was okay to love your friends, platonically. I don’t even keep close platonic friendships with men or women as much because when I has close women friend people called me lesbian, close man friend everyone thought we were dating. Everything is about sex. Which is annoying because sex in its right contest is such a great good. We have cheapened it.

It is so logically flawed to say that attraction / “love” is based solely on immediate body responses. Yet I have grown friends who still think sex and love mean the same thing. Serial dating is a modern thing too. I thought emotional bond was what keeps people together. I once told afamiky member about struggling to bond with a man. I was immediately told this was my sexuality. What? No, I just was meeting not cool guys. Sexuality is not fundamental human energy. That is Freudian. It is a very deep force but it is also not easily defined. I heard a nun explaining how they channel their sexual energy, even at the convent. She mentioned singing. So they all have sexuality, they don’t cut it off but channel it, and they are all women living together. Are they all lesbian? Of course not. According to LGBT agenda, they would be. It is absurd.

It is most insidious with young people who had same sex experiences and now feel they are defined by those sins or abuses and can’t ever have a family. I see this all the time. Meanwhile I know happily married couples in which one or both are bisexual. My frustration at all this LGBT agenda is very high.

I also once read a study by Maslow I think about high dominance women who were “lesbian” until they me a dominant enough man, at which point they went with him instead. I relate to that a lot and I know plenty of women like that. It was not PC of course…a comment intended to mock the study exclaimed, “you mean to say the women weren’t with a man until then because they just hadn’t found the right one?”

Well, yeah…

 

[erine]

Really interesting article Ernie. I suggest people read it through thoughtfully and carefully before rushing into any judgement about it. If I am reading the analysis correctly, and I believe I am, it is saying while there is no argument against church doctrine, but that human sexuality is less black and white, and more fluid and in flux, depending on age and life experience.

The take away, is that sexuality is a complex situation, one that the church provides direction for. I will add that it weakens some of the harsh labels slapped on it such as abomination and immorality. Clearly if someone is in a state to where heterosexuality is the genetically predominate force, than adherence to church doctrine becomes much easier.

For those finding themselves floating more in the gay end of the swimming pool, chaste is for now, still the better alternative. I would suggest THAT approach to starting a family only to pull the carpet out later. Not fair at all to the innocents.

I have always felt that the fire breathing anti gay activists, feel remorse for feelings they did not ever ask for, and fight back with a sanctimonious zeal devised to bury their own fears over their own sexual confusion or guilt. Those of us fortunate enough to feel secure in our sexuality do not feel the drive to single out this sin as final battle for morality.

This is a condition that can be worked with and reconciled. The primordial pool whose origins are hidden deeply in the middle brain, to which we only have limited knowledge, is still being studied. The great news is as time goes along, the more we learn, the more we can help bring this imbalance into the light of understanding. The implications or weight of sin may change in the level of severity of this sin but at the same time bring NO change church doctrine, but lead to better understanding with which we can guide those who suffer back into a healthier or more productive place.

Pretty much yes, but would add they key point that we are Men and Women not gay or straight. Man and Woman He created them.

Indeed someone mostly gay may find it easier not to have a spouse; at very least they must be straight enough for the one spouse and totally up front about SSA.

I posted more (selfishly) for people like me who have shifting attractions and fall for individuals. I would never want romantic love with a woman, only a man, but I don’t always feel 100% straight. This leads some jerky people to decide I am gay which is false and is the same as a veritable stranger (as they often are) walking up and informing me that I can never marry. Not cool! I see my peers discreetly bully others by “helping” them “accept” being gay–this is to people who do not define themselves as such. It is rarely that simple and I find it really insidious and basically from the devil. People do it just to be mean sometimes, to men and women.

I used to think everyone knew that you love persons, not genders. I did my research ad I found out that apparently that is what “bisexuals” do. I am being facetious here of course. I am trying to show how absurd it is that LGBT agenda says that everyone is a slave to their lower passions and that only “bisexuals” fall for “persons.”. Everyone falls for individuals otherwise anyone could just replace a spouse with the next man / woman on the street.

Choosing marriage is a very different and radical decision involving much more than just sexual attraction to an individual.

These days being a man or woman is a real role and challenge, a part to play and role to come into, not just a set of body parts. We call people guys and gals but we really should get back to man and woman. It isn’t about stereotypes it’s about being real.

 

[erine]

BTW, good article.

You are correct, sexuality is a complicated affair. It is not always fixed. Many people who prefer members of the same sex have opposite sex partners and many who prefer opposite sex partners have same sex partners. Prisoners may have only the same sex option regardless of their preferences. Some people do not have a sexual preference, for them same or opposite sex partners will do.

Hannon correctly points out that sexual orientation is a relatively recent social construct. Do you think he would say the same about sexual preference?

Note: I do not advocate or condone sexual acting out whether gay or straight.

Thank you. I think he may say the same about preference. To be clear, I know some people (celibate Catholics) who make it clear what they prefer. I know a lot more like myself who don’t have a preference. As in, I just like or dislike individuals. They are cool or not. I would enjoy marriage one day and look for someone of character and faith. Character, faith, virility make the man more attractive.

Sexuality definitions these days are beyond flawed. For one thing women are not as visual as men. They become aroused by words or relationship. Also by erotic images in general. Studies have straight women getting turned on by women and all other stuff and not by handsome men. Because women are not as visual. It is very complicated. This is not something that can be defined by one of four boxes - LGBT Like a standardized test.

Prison is a perfect example. People do sexual things with same sex in there. Obviously not everyone who goes to jail is “gay.”.

I went to all girls school. A lot of them still act overly affectionate and attached with women friends, as happens in that kind of environment. None of them are gay it was just behavioral. They all want families.

Trust matters too. One psychologist at my work defined lesbians as different from many women she knew who were not lesbian but didn’t trust men because of bad experiences.

My position is lame because I sometimes find women more visually attractive and am more affectionate but I prefer the relationship and emotional interaction with men so much that I would be okay having only men friends and eventually a spouse and no women friends the rest of my life. I would be fine with that. But it is not that simple as a single and also I tend to nt be as affectionate and giggle with men because of my situation. I wish things were more simple!

If someone is gay and wants celibacy I have nothing but respect. I posted my thoughts for people who are somewhere else on the spectrum and want a family but feel like they are committing some kind of thought crime for desiring this.

Romantic stereotypes area problem too. Some couples don’t want things all cheesy and hallmark. They might even like a more brother sister type teasing relationship. So even if they are bisexual they prefer a more fun thing w opposite sex in marriage that isn’t all about how their sexuality is channelled.

For the record I believe and follow all church teachings and think sex is for marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[JimG]

Erine, I appreciate your thoughtful comments about the article. What the author calls “orientation essentialism” has indeed caused a lot of angst among the young especially. This idea of sexual “orientation” as something essential to one’s identity tries to force every person into certain pre-ordained categories, which as he notes, are artificial and of relatively recent origin.

Not only that, it suppresses true friendship between persons of the same sex. People are afraid to have close friends of the same sex for fear of being labeled gay. Or else, they feel that if they do have close friends of the same sex they must be gay and can therefore never have a relationship with the opposite sex. It’s just bunk.

Using these false categories, people even look back in history, labeling past historical figures gay with no evidence whatsoever. (And often relating to historical figures from an era–which is all but the present–which did not even categorize people by “orientation.”)

There are men, there are women. There are sexual activities, some good, some bad. There’s no need to classify people rather than actions.

 

[SpiderByte]

I have always felt that the fire breathing anti gay activists, feel remorse for feelings they did not ever ask for, and fight back with a sanctimonious zeal devised to bury their own fears over their own sexual confusion or guilt. Those of us fortunate enough to feel secure in our sexuality do not feel the drive to single out this sin as final battle for morality.

THIS.

One of the biggest reasons for the criticism of the Church in regards to gay marriage is a lack of communication. There is a difference between being against gay marriage and thinking gay people are evil and should be killed, or that being gay is somehow the worst sin humanly possible. I think Pope Francis has been a lot better at conveying this, identifying it as a sin without trying to villainize gay people. People acting like people who are gay are subhuman because they are gay seem to forget that all people, them included, are sinners. It is entirely possible to reject gay marriage without rejecting the person as well. I have an atheist friend who, though obviously I disagree with on some fundamental issues, we still get along fine.

People seem to forget that one of the core principles is that you are willing to accept and forgive others despite their faults, not rejecting and casting them out for not being perfect.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I would contest that assertion; based on a quick reading of the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that the concept of rights is as old as the concept of law, which is pretty old. Furthermore, just because we didn’t have a concept of something doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Newton discovered gravity in the Renaissance and yet before that time, we all adhered closely to its law.

I’m talking about universal human rights; sure an Athenian citizen had rights, but most people in Athens weren’t citizens and the Greeks felt some people to be natural slaves.

Excellent summary. Essentially, yes, the problem is the false heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Anyone who has studied sexuality and doesn’t have an agenda to push will honesty tell you that there is a wide spectrum of both sexual identity and behavior.

More importantly, the catechism explains that our sexuality is either Man or Woman. That is how it is defined. Note that it does it doesn’t demand we conform to a gender stereotype. (Joan of Arc, anyone?). I think we see two problems in our culture due to the lack of understanding of men and women. One is defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, and two is on the other extreme, judging people’s sexuality based on if they act out a certain masculine or feminine stereotype.

I respect there are practicing Catholics who say they are gay and that’s that. This article is posted for the myriad others; those who I have read online and know personally who are sometimes gay, sometimes straight; those who thought they were gay and then met a member of the opposite sex they fell for and were more attracted to. To free our minds a little from the dystopian tyranny that is the LGBT agenda.

I am not impractical and I know solving the issue isn’t as simple as reading an article. But if people just knew their history…having known for a while now that sexual “orientation” is nothing like what the media says, I have been frustrated to see the pain this has caused my peers.

Once upon a time you didn’t have to be lustful after every member of the opposite sex to be straight. People say wait for the “right person.”. Love is more than following our attractions at a given moment.

The concepts of heterosexual and homosexual were created by straight people to make themselves feel better and to pathologize people who were noncompliant with regards to sexuality.

Some people are bisexual, they are attracted to both sexes, that’s what the B in LGBT stands for.

 

[JimG]

The concepts of heterosexual and homosexual were created by straight people to make themselves feel better and to pathologize people who were noncompliant with regards to sexuality.

Some people are bisexual, they are attracted to both sexes, that’s what the B in LGBT stands for.

The author of the article seems to say much the same thing–that “heterosexuality” was devised as the new norm, to replace the old norm of male female relations as relating to family formation, but without having the religious overtones. By inventing heterosexuality as a quasi-scientific norm, homosexuality had to be invented as the abnormal variant.

But without reference to the nature of man and woman, it really had no basis to establish a “norm.” This, according to him, is one of the reasons that the new concept of orientation will not last.

 

[erine]

I’m talking about universal human rights; sure an Athenian citizen had rights, but most people in Athens weren’t citizens and the Greeks felt some people to be natural slaves.

The concepts of heterosexual and homosexual were created by straight people to make themselves feel better and to pathologize people who were noncompliant with regards to sexuality.

Some people are bisexual, they are attracted to both sexes, that’s what the B in LGBT stands for.

Agreed on your points. My thing is I take issue with lgbt because I think it would save ESP young people a lot of grief of trying to fit perfectly into one label. Being bisexual is fine, although even among lgbt people they usually are marginalized. The issue comes with defining oneself as a “–sexual” anything. It’s dehumanizing. I am a soul, not a sexusl orientation or identity.

 

[IBombAtomically]

erine-- AWESOME responses. Can’t pick just one to quote and thumbs up, so these apply to everything you wrote: