Defining the Problem
This is a term which is often used differently in different circles, the implications of which lead to confusion, misunderstanding and intolerance. Therefore, to minimise confusion, this article will first give its definition of sexual orientation. It is important to keep this definition in mind since the conclusions and suggestions wrought from such a definition will seem invalid if placed upon other meanings of the term.

Sexual orientation: This determines the criteria necessary for a person to become sexually aroused. It is an unchangeable character trait in that person. It does not apply to any physical actions which that person does, only to their feelings (so a homosexual could still sleep with members of the opposite sex without being heterosexual).

Categorising Orientations
Science has attempted to split sexual orientation into categories many times. These have taken the form of grouping sexualities with a common focus together, such as those dealing with gender (homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual), grouping all unusual or deviant sexualities together (paraphilia, watersports etc.) and many others.

The only moral component to something is whether it causes harm to others. Since sexual orientations are 1) unchangeable and 2) not tempered by action, the question becomes whether thoughts can harm another person. Since it is either impossible or unreasonable to get another person to change their sexuality, any offence that another person feels must be considered their problem. Therefore, no sexual orientation is immoral.

However, it is the ways in which these orientations are expressed where they can be split into categories. The dividing line is consent which presents us with 2 groups.

This puts all the sexual orientations which involve informed consent by all participants or inanimate objects into one group.
Orientations involving non-consenting participants are placed into the second.

It is important to remember that, before a person acts on their sexual orientation, there is no difference between them and a member in the opposing group and so they should not be treated any differently. However, people in the second group should not be allowed to put their sexual orientations into practice because this would be causing harm to another being, thereby making the act, not the sexuality, morally wrong.
The Details

• Is sexuality unchangeable or innate? Here is an unbiased series of articles that look at what might be the cause of sexuality and therefore whether it is unchangeable or innate. Make your own conclusion. Causes of sexuality. Whilst this focuses on the causes of homosexuality, they are actually talking about the causes of all sexuality.

• What is meant by informed consent? Anybody who has the ability to understand and reflect on the implications of taking a particular course of action is considered to have the ability to give informed consent. Therefore, any animal lacking the mental capability to comprehend the act or physical ability to communicate their decision cannot give informed consent. This would cover prepubescent children, people with certain disabilities which provide them with either of the aforementioned conditions and non-human animals.

Conclusions

• Sexual orientation is amoral therefore people should not be discriminated against based on their sexuality

• All sexualities are equal and should not be treated differently in terms of that person’s rights, privileges or freedoms except for the following caveat.

• Some sexualities can only be tolerated up to the point on which they are acted upon. These sexualities are placed in the non-consent group.

- Fluffy

Sources used in the making of this article: www.religioustolerance.org, www.pfox.org, http://www.geocities.com/southbeach...1/biobasis.html, www.kinseyinstitute.org  

Article Tools
Show Printable Version
Email this Page