Willful Grace asked last week:
Here’s a question. Please comment. Let me know what you think about this. What if…..we are born not really sexually attracted to any certain gender in particular. What if…..we are born with certain personality traits and temperament… and… according to the way we are raised (or, “yanked up” as I’ve humorously heard it put), we develop our sexuality. There’s such a myriad of sexual preferences out there. Really. That would explain genetics and biology playing a factor and dispell the issue of there actually being a “choice”, wouldn’t it? Maybe not. I’m just, again, thinking out loud (in type) here.
The question made A Tenable Belief a bit uncomfortable, and so ATB began to respond to Grace’s question with another question:
What if… we are born not really inclined to any religious beliefs. What if… we are born with certain personality traits and temperament… and… according to the way we are raised … we develop our beliefs?
Read more at A Tenable Belief.
What if both of those “what ifs” are accurate?
Do you mean beliefs and attractions are two separate things that are sometimes at odds with each other, Dr. Throckmorton?
Hmmm,If people didn’t mix sexual attraction and sexuality in the same breath… we may be able to go somewhere with the discussion.Sexuality is far more encompassing. Not just what attractions the person has; but how and when and where and with whom these attractions are “permitted” (or not).It is, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, a gendered World. Clearly. A core attraction to either “male” and “female” (or both) needs to be seen apart from whether the woman “has to be” blonde or curvy or if he “has to be” taller or work on Wall Street. She has to be a left-voting vegan. He has to be the life of the party. Is that what Grace meant by a myriad of sexual preferences?What I do know is that gay groups don’t go door-knocking on weekends looking for recruits… perhaps in there lies the answer??? 🙂
Grantdale,
Actually, I meant more than just that by “myriad of sexual preferences”. I was thinking more along the lines of all sorts of preferences people have about the actual act of sex…if that makes sense. I mean, it can be a pretty individual thing, on the whole, ya know? No matter the orientation.
Hope I’m making sense and have not said anything offensive.
love,
grace
Nah, no probs Grace. That’s the lines I thought you were thinking, but wanted to make sure.And agree — (in decreasing order of what’s hardwired from my perspective) — someone could think 1) it has to be a women 2) she has to be blonde and 3) she has to like to do this… The last part, in all regards not just sexual, is where partners in successful relationships know when to speak up… and when to shut up 🙂
Warren,
My point is that it may be true that certain genetics, personality traits, or events in early childhood predispose folks to choose certain religious beliefs. (A person with an innate preference for order and control may feel most at home with beliefs that offer clear, external structure, for example.)
What that led me to, though, from Grace’s question, was the potential to distract oneself from dealing with what is — that I am gay, that my neighbor is a fundamentalist Christian — in order to fish for reasons why I am gay or my neighbor is fundamentalist.
Even if specific factors from my neighbor’s genes or childhood predisposed him to choose the beliefs he now holds, the relevant fact is that he has chosen those beliefs as an adult. Apart from an extremely close friendship, his childhood, how his parents treated him, and his genes are none of my business.
I feel similarly about being gay — if someone wants to talk to me about it, I want to encourage them to talk about what it means to me being gay today. Attempting to probe my childhood, my parents, or my genes is irrelevant in light of the fact that I identify as gay not just because of same-sex attractions but because of my beliefs which don’t hold same-sex attractions and relationships to be any better or worse (morally, functionally, or whatever) than opposite-sex attractions and relationships.
Warren Throckmorton at May 21, 2006 05:14 PM
What if both of those “what ifs” are wrong. Or, more specifically, what if:
Some people (but maybe not all) are just born gay.
Some people are born with a stong inclination based genetically/hormonally/predetermined towards finding fulfillment in faith. And even if they are raised in a household that is agnostic and doubtful of anything that cannot be readily observed, they will still find themselves drawn to spirituality, be it church or the occult or even strident atheism.
I’ve actually thought a bit about the idea that (crazy as it may seem) ministry may be something that is passed from generation to generation in the genes. Perhaps some genetic soup that pushes a bit for ability to speak publically along with an inclination for religous zeal and perhaps even the looks and voice that encourage trust. It seems a bit wacky, but who knows. In tracing my ancestry, I found that on my father’s line that there were far more ministers than could be expected. But it may just be coincidence. Or environment.
This is an interesting question. But it’s simpler than the posts would entail.
One’s sexuality is inborn. Individuals have different DEGREES of how intense it is.
Highly sexually sensitive to asexuality.
Same sex attraction is obviously not dictated in terms of what side of the brain is involved, genetic mutation or the size of a brain part.
Not conclusively anyway.
But we can say that it’s not taught in books, to be sexually attracted to one’s same gender.
However, religious instruction usually starts at the initiation of a child’s formal education, sometimes before.
It was the ONLY instruction and still is in many cultures.
At about the same time a youngster naturally begins to have physical and emotional changes with the onslaught of puberty, that’s also the time they naturally become more self determined and begin to form their own opinions and experiment with other points of view (other religions, atheism or informal spirituality).
The self knowlege of attraction isn’t confused until the intervention of counter information (usually negative and prompted by earlier religious conditioning).
Religious belief and teaching is insinuated (and still is) in how people respond to GAY people and homosexuality.
If left without this primary instruction, I doubt anyone would think negatively of it, and especially wouldn’t try to change it.
Because homosexuality doesn’t RESULT in what religious teaching says it does.
Nor do the results insisted on by ex gays occur in most cases, nor is there a cause insisted on by the same.
Sexual activity, tempered by common sense and ethics.
How someone is TREATED for their sexuality isn’t a part of what a person’s sexuality IS.
And how a person TREATS another person with their sexual orientation, isn’t an issue of morality or ethics, but companionate identities.
Obviously the conditioning and influence of religion is strong and often damaging to gay people, and often women in particular.
The fact that religious texts have been written exclusively BY males and presumably hetero ones, is reason enough to question the validity of their expertise on those who are not those things.
But yet are most impacted by it.
A better question would be, why are those who wrote and control most religions are so resistant to others determining their own identity, and understanding when that identity is simply that and really doesn’t affect anyone else’s well being or trust in whoever they are sexually active with?
Mores the point, I’m more concerned with civil laws and religious influence on them, rather than religious influence on sexuality-which when it comes down to THAT.
There is more investment in restricting the privacy and sexual activity of women and gay people, rather than those of the same identity as who wrote the religious rules in the first place.