Skip to comments.Sexual Orientation Defined, Part I & II
Posted on 03/21/2006 3:46:13 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
Sexual Orientation Defined, Part I
The term "sexual orientation" is never defined. Not in public discourse, not in law. Yet there is law banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" -- whatever that is. How absurd.
Even the participants in the GLBT counterculture don't agree on definitions, or even terminology. New vocabulary is added monthly, it seems, and definitions are changed constantly. For instance, look at these newly-minted definitions in GLSEN's "Day of Silence" organizing manual, being disseminated to young people across the country. (GLSEN = Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network.)
So you thought you knew what "gay" or "lesbian" meant? Check again. Note that, according to GLSEN, the concept of reality-based or biologically-based gender is obsolete. Gender confusion is the new order! And note the new "spiritual" component claimed for GLBT sexuality. (Interestingly, whether these sexualities are inborn or learned is sidestepped in these definitions.)
Sexual orientation: - The preferred term used when referring to an individual's physical, emotional, romantic, and/or spiritual attraction to another person.
Gay - A term used to describe one who identifies as a man and who is attracted to other male-identified people.
Lesbian - Refers to a woman-identified person who is attracted to other women-identified persons.
Bisexual - A term used in describing an individual who expresses attraction for males and females. [Is bisexuality inborn? Did they mean to say the attraction is to "male- and female-identifying people"?]
Queer - Terms [sic] used to describe persons who are not heterosexual [or heterosexual identifying?] because of its gender-neutrality and its implication of social non-conformity..
Transgender - This term loosely. [sic] refers to people who do not identify with the gender roles assigned to them by society based on the .[sic] biological sex. Transgender is also used as an umbrella term for all those who do not conform to "traditional" notions of gender expression and includes people who identify as transsexual, or as a drag queen/king.
posted by AMann
Sexual Orientation Defined, Part II
We're continuing our discussion of the linguistic, conceptual, and legal confusion being sown by homosexual activists regarding the meaning of "sexual orientation." (See Part I.) In recent years, they've added a new qualifier to what may not be discriminated against: so-called "gender identity and expression", and then they further add "actual or perceived". This will cover any conceivable weirdness and public displays you can imagine, plus allow incredible latitude for litigation. Who will determine one's "identity" (presumably, only that individual), or what is included in "expression", or what the perceiver "perceived"?
We've read in Bay Windows that Rep. Carl Sciortino will be pushing a bill including these phrases in the state legislataure. And U.S. Rep. Barney Frank is doing the same at the federal level.
In Maine, a new law including such language was passed in 2005. It goes farther than any other in the country. The Christian Civic Leage of Maine (which led the fight to stop it) explained: "The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as 'a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.' "
And now there's a bill in Vermont proposing essentially the same thing. Kevin Blier of Vermont Renewal writes that House Bill 478:
... is intended to add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes in housing, real-estate purchases, employment and membership in employee organizations, such as labor unions. This bill targets a small minority of people for a set of special protections. ... It creates a classification that does not have clearly defined characteristics. This makes it difficult to predict the consequences of the bill if it is passed.
[While...] Gender Identity Disorder is a defined and treatable psychosexual dysfunction according to the American Psychiatric Association, it isn't clear that people will need to prove the presence of GID in order to qualify for the special protections.
What is also unclear is that since the bill protects gender "expression", cross-dressers and transvestites may also receive protections despite the problems such behavior could cause at a place of business or in a classroom.
While it would be unfair to discriminate against someone who is trying to decide a gender that nature had failed to define, such as in the case of hermaphrodites [an extremely rare circumstance], someone whose sex is clearly defined should not be entitled to play "sexual identity bingo" as retribution against an employer or as a tool to initiate frivolous litigation.
... Just because someone has strange or unusual sexual proclivities doesn't mean they are entitled to special protection under the law.... After all, couldn't a sadomasochist make the same argument? A polygamist?" ...
[Vermont Renewal newsletter, "A Closer Look" Jan/Feb 2006]
posted by AMann
Seems to me that they've legalized child molestation in Maine and haven't even realized what they've done. Or maybe they do realize...
This is beyond insane, beyond evil, beyond everything that means human civilization.
It's like the horrible excesses of Rome. It heralds the need for massive change, ASAP. One way or another.
"America need to stop this train wreck in the making."
Once on I-5 in California I saw a hundred-plus car/truck pileup. What we're looking at is infinitely worse.
And the tiny percentage of poor unfortunates who are born with missing/additional organs need medical treatment.
Those with psychological/morality issues not only don't need special rights, such special rights only make their problems worse.
I can only hope that more and more people wake up from their peaceful slumber (iow get their heads out of the sand).
Speaking of which, here is my latest rewrite on this issue:
Sexual Orientation -- What about Religious Orientation?
Like religion, homosexuality is subjectively determined and declared -NOT objectively determined and confirmed via some objective scientific test. If one feels they are a homosexual and declares they are -who can disagree with them? Who can objectively identify a homosexual person? If those that declare homosexuality become a protected class or exceptional class of individuals warranting extra 'rights' above and beyond those already afforded all human beings THEN what is to prevent everyone from claiming the socially rewarded, prized, and critically acclaimed homosexual status?
Can one imagine a court case on the issue -how can one prove or disprove homosexuality -the basis for all this stuff the leftists are pushing? This reality begs the legal question of sexual "orientation" presumption that at one time was based upon reality e.g. genetalia and now would go unanswered by the new world leftist spectrum of subjective gender premise. The question: in essence will society choose homosexual until proved heterosexual OR heterosexual until proved homosexual? Curious minds want to know? LOL
Now, if homosexual activity was suggested as a test to prove homosexuality then who could prove they would choose to engage in homosexual activity -how do they prove it; must they actually engage in and document homosexual activities to prove homosexual status? Very odd the attempt to equate homosexual status as an innate state of being independent from the only thing that differentiates it from the norm of heterosexuality when considering that heterosexuals are heterosexuals even if remaining celibate virgins.
Should rights be based upon sexual feelings or even more on sexual activities that must be proven? It is a fact that feelings are subjective. Consequently, how can any rights be derived from something subjective? In fact, 'buying into' the subjective argument by default implies that rights are given to individuals arbitrarily by the State and as such can be taken away arbitrarily by the State. The whole 'feelings' argument kicks our Founder's recognition of unalienable rights which is basis for our Independence, Union, and Constitution to the curb...
YES -the whole 'feelings' argument guarantees that rights are and will be always subject to the whim of those 'in charge'... How bizarre is it to seek a goal with an argument that if accepted actually nullifies the goal? This is the way of the left...
The homosexual portion of the culture war debate is not about rights -it is all about homosexual sex. Homosexuality is subjectively determined and or declared -NOT objectively determined or declared. I myself can not objectively identify a homosexual person -hence stereotypes are meaningless as are any anecdotal 'things' e.g. 'knowing one or many homosexuals (those you may 'feel are homosexuals or those who may feel they are homosexuals or those who may declare they are homosexuals). One can not rightly judge the heart of an individual; however one can judge an activity.
Assuming people are not animals driven by instinct -that people possess an authentic freedom to choose what they do or do not do (unless they suffer some disorder) THEN one can come to but only one objective and rational conclusion. As to homosexuality -truly, it is ONLY sexual activity one chooses to engage in that objectively differentiates homosexual from heterosexual -regardless any subjective 'feelings'...
If one truly understands the subjectivity versus objectivity arguments then one should see clearly the fatally flawed premise underlying subjectivity arguments for homosexual 'rights' and anyone should easily realize that subjectivity flies directly in the face of establishing any objective 'homosexuality' rights or pursuing any objective 'homosexuality' discrimination claims or even objective claims that there is a hatred of homosexuality using the much espoused homophobia meme that some in this discussion indignantly cite.
Legislation and or social mandate regarding just versus unjust discrimination with subsequent social fostering reward versus social penalizing can only be legitimately based upon objective innate characteristics e.g. race and or constitutionally guaranteed activities e.g. religion.
Religion is a constitutionally guaranteed activity -homosexual sex is not. If homosexual sex was guaranteed by the Constitution then I would suggest that at a maximum it would not be mandated, at a minimum like religion there would be the misinterpreted yet very applicable separation clause e.g. a separation of Sex & State... One would not see mandated public school 'indoctrination' of "homosexuality is normal or a valid option" stuff being mandated upon children by judges or homosexual agenda activist groups...
Judges that attempt to create or groups that advocate for special rights above and beyond already realized human rights advocate for these special rights premised upon either a totally subjective self-declared 'orientation' or ones choice of sexual activities. The advocates and judges are simply plying a smoke and mirrors approach in attempt to hoist homosexual activity into acceptance under the guise of providing human rights to individuals already possessing such human rights.
Case in point: US Federal, State, and Local Government entities at this time both set aside contracts and give preference on contracts to minority business owners. I can state unequivocally that 'homosexual' business owners will never be afforded such favor. Answering why I can make such an assured observation quickly gets to the root of the matter and completely knocks down the card house that homosexual agenda proponents attempt to erect...
BTTT for your analysis.