| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The '''sexual orientation theory''' asserts that a person's sexual preferences are immutable and should therefore be accepted by society,<ref>[http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/sevensteps/Chapter3/index.html Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child]</ref> as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.
| + | '''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,<ref>[http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/sevensteps/Chapter3/index.html Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child]</ref> 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. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Natural sexual orientation== |
| | + | 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."<ref>"On Narcissism"</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | 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== | | ==Historical background== |
| − | On several occasions, ''The Advocate'', magazine of [[LGBT]] [[pressure group]], 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."''<ref name="MumbarakAdvocate">{{cite web |title=Why Are We Gay? |author= Dahir Mubarak |publisher= |url=https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-76577630/why-are-we-gay |quote=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 ... |accessdate=12 Mar 2017}}</ref> | + | On several occasions, ''The Advocate'', a mainstay magazine of [[LGBT]] [[pressure group]]s, published information that |
| − | Thus, delivering 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 [[Ideomotor effect|born gay]] – even though [[Sexual disorientation|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."''<ref name="Mohler2015">{{cite book |title=We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong |author=R. Albert Mohler, Jr. |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2015 |pages=38 |isbn=978-07180-32487 |url=http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/10/27/we-cannot-be-silent-released-nationwide-today/ |quote=}}</ref> | + | |
| | + | :"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."<ref name="MumbarakAdvocate">{{cite web |title=Why Are We Gay? |author= Dahir Mubarak |publisher= |url=https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-76577630/why-are-we-gay |quote=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 ... |accessdate=12 Mar 2017}}</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | 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 [[Ideomotor effect|born gay]] – even though [[Sexual disorientation|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."''<ref name="Mohler2015">{{cite book |title=We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong |author=R. Albert Mohler, Jr. |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2015 |pages=38 |isbn=978-07180-32487 |url=http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/10/27/we-cannot-be-silent-released-nationwide-today/ |quote=}}</ref> |
| | | | |
| | ==Ideological thinking== | | ==Ideological thinking== |
| Line 13: |
Line 34: |
| | ! style="font-size:120%; background:violet; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" |Two wrongs don’t make a right | | ! style="font-size:120%; background:violet; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" |Two wrongs don’t make a right |
| | |- | | |- |
| − | | style="padding:15px;" |''"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'''."'' | + | | style="padding:15px;" |''"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'''."'' |
| | <div style="padding-left:40px;">— Scott Lively<ref name="Lively2009"/> | | <div style="padding-left:40px;">— Scott Lively<ref name="Lively2009"/> |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| Line 48: |
Line 69: |
| | 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. | | 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== | + | ==The Bible on sexual orientation== |
| | Some [[Bible]] passages suggest that the normal, God-given ''orientation'' for human beings is [[heterosexuality]]. In the [[New Testament]] [[Jesus]] taught, | | 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? | | *"Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not? |
| Line 54: |
Line 75: |
| | *"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) | | *"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 [[Epistle]]s. | + | Nonetheless, no explicit condemnation of homosexuality is ever ascribed to the Jesus: all explicit condemnations are found in the [[Old Testament]] and the [[Epistle]]s. But this is probative of nothing, as Jesus often spoke in parables. |
| | | | |
| | ==See also== | | ==See also== |