Too many Sexual Orientations?

[illumine]

It seems weird that people treat attraction in such a way that each new feeling requires a new term unrelated to any overall systematic. Attraction which is essentially arbitrary has more commonalities than it has differences. In that sense, such multiplication of terms might appear fairly amusing, as well as directionless, ultimately. Whether or not calling something an orientation makes people feel good or hurts their feelings, to whatever extent, is not the question. It seems slightly circular or queer in the context as well. Systematisation requires some degree of detachment rather than identification.

Of course, if a person can have one feeling, and this is just an orientation or urge, then this in no wise excludes another, and in that sense the positing of 'orientations' also seems to posit each form of attraction as exclusive of the others to a degree which is artificial. It might have made more sense to try to understand the fundamental properties of the thing and hence how sexual attraction might sub-divide, instead you just have a multiplication of such to the point where nobody seems that concerned about the object of their own attraction, which is all relative.

Evidently, an urge is indifferent to the specifics of its object, and as such snobbery on the behalf of some sexual orientation is inherently without basis. They just happen to be attracted, instinctively, to one gender or another, it's not life-defining or fundamentally different.

As for Asexuality? That's just ridiculous, I'm sorry. You aren't interested in sex, that's fine. But you are still more physically attracted to one gender or the other. We are by nature a sexual species, so don't try to say you're not.

While 'asexuality' as an orientation is a case of just hypostatising 'lack of sexual attraction' and then people trying to group it in with all of the other orientations, with the same traits, as if asexuals somehow had an inability to relate to other humans sexually or want this - a weird species of colour-blindness, for after all an inability to objectify for instance might be a moral result, but not a result of eyesight -, but nonetheless a human being can do just as well without sexual attraction, and there is nothing inconceivable about this - if people didn't want to have sex, and hence didn't, they could quite plausibly avoid such attraction to people as well -, such that it doesn't come across as too foreign an orientation.

The general portrayal of asexuality by official organisations, such that asexuals just masturbate and so on, except that the target of this is indeterminate, mostly just comes across as queer, though. They'd like sex, perhaps, but they don't care with whom.

Genders are not numbered as gender is a spectrum.

From where to where?

Anyways I'm not really sure how a discussion about sexual orientation derailed into a debate over gender as the two have nothing to do with each other.

This is, of course, true.

 

[Psychic]

Gonna reply to you via, VM, Sopheria!

I agree that it is important for people to have ways of identifying themselves, but in the process we are creating more and more categories for people to fall into. Categories in humanity is a playground for unhealthy connotations and stereotypes. I think the act of distinguishing every subtle difference along the spectrum of sexuality is not an innately positive thing.

Maybe in an ideal world there would be zero labels and just one great spectrum of sexuality where people would be free to have relationships with whoever they choose, without the addition of names that are begging for misrepresentation or misinterpretation. Of course, we do not live in an ideal world, but I think the additions and sub-divisions of sexual definitions is at least precarious.

I don't offer a better solution. Just my thoughts.

The thing about humans is that we love categories, though. Categories allow us to better understand our world, because humans like patterns, and we can recognize patterns and label them, which helps us better understand them. Whether or not it's good to categorizing things is up for debate, since as you said, sometimes it can have some really bad consequences. That said, if the issue is that "humans create unhealthy stereotypes based on labels," which is true, the solution is not to eradicate all labels, but rather to better educate people so they're less likely to stereotype. We start breaking down stereotypes by teaching people, and by exposing people to those they're stereotyping - we've seen that people tend to become less racist and homophobic when they personally know black people or gay people, for instance.

A lot of academics posit that if we can create a world without gender labels, everyone (including those who simply identify as "male" or female") would have more freedom to live authentically and experiment with and try new things. (So women perceived as tomboys and men who seem very feminine would be more free to be that way, for example.) I'm actually rather curious to see if people in this thread would like such a world. Personally, as much as I may like the idea, I just don't think it's realistic, because people rely so much on labels to understand and make sense of the world.

I honestly think labels are too valuable for us to dismiss, and that applies whether we're talking about sexuality or gender. While I do agree that having labels for every subtle spot on the spectrum is just too much, I think that with time, the most useful/used categories will become mainstream and serve us well. While you're right that people will always create stereotypes, I strongly believe that the solution is to better educate people, which can almost avoid the problem entirely. :)

So you mean the academics of that guy who not only drove his experiment to suicide? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take the failed experiment of David Reimer as proof that this stuff is clearly true. He didn't even want to be a girl and was forced to. Not only this, but much of these academics tends to flip-flop from "gender isn't biological" and "gender is biological" (see some of the arguments about transgendered folk for this kind of stuff), which is clearly something they seem to not string together. If they cannot even make up their mind of that, what's going to make me think that I'm going to believe it?

Besides, you're putting words in my mouth. In my post, I'm talking about the "new" stuff and not anything that has originated before Tumblr.

No, I'm not talking about Dr. John Money, though what he did to David Reimer was disgusting and is the literal proof that gender is not something you can force onto others, and is exactly why it's so important to allow people to have the freedom to identify the way they feel is necessary. What he did to David Reimer is literally the exact opposite of what you should do to anyone, ever, because it takes away agency from people to choose how they identify. This is also related to why it's so abhorrent that within the medical community, doctors are encouraged to operate on intersex people without their informed consent.

No, I'm talking about people like Judith Butler, who lay a lot of the groundwork for our new understandings of gender and sex. I think the best place to start is "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity" (and while knowing some Foucault would help in parsing some of the text, I think you'll be fine without it). I can brainstorm a few other books/essays if you'd like, but this is definitely where you should start. :)

As for your last paragraph, I know you're referring to "new" stuff, but do you know precisely what was created by Tumblr and what is fringe queer/feminist theory? If you don't know gender theory, how do you know that the stuff you're deriding originated on Tumblr?

Just to add on that: denying the existence or legitimacy of sexualities or genders is simply a position. It can be supported or unsupported, snarky or not. If someone claims that by merely holding a position you leave no room for discussion or debate (and therefore that position should not be held), then wouldn't that be leaving no room for discussion and debate?

Except that a lot of people were stating their position as fact, and more than one person has specifically said they're not even willing to consider any other possibility. I can believe that Judaism is right and all other religions are wrong, but if I state my beliefs as immutable fact and act like everyone else's views are ridiculous, it becomes impossible to have a conversation.

From where to where?

I find the following image to be extremely illustrative, and definitely helped me wrap my head around this. :)

~Psychic

 

[King Elizabello]

What i think the best is to be with the gender that you like you like being straight or all the others (too lazy to post them again and again lol) but only some more words of me. To not and i say it again and again no matter what promote a new gender to the new era but let them choose freely (it doesn't happens no offense but indeed it doesn't happen) which i find it sometimes annoying and secondly we have really an overrated topic like sexuality like all the other problems are fixed.

P.S If i ever was a guest in a talk show and this question was directed to me here it is how i would respond: I think that sexuality over the years have changed for various reasons. I think that in our parents era or even a little before we didn't have so many genders(at least even if they exist they weren't open as much today) like today so call me old fashioned or anything but there has to be some kind of cause which took place. I think of 3 paremeters. First of all, the internet/technology we all know that it progresses at an amazing rate without stopping and even affects people's life everyday and you need to be ''updated'' everyday or sooner or later you will feel like an alien lol. I'm more directed to the social media which they started for meeting people but as all the things in life that they have 2 faces most of social media were directed to children not over 18 and there were some heavy problems because of criminals,random people who troll e.t.c Secondly, school yes that thing that every person has to pass is school indeed where the person starts to socialize after their home it even affected many people by becoming jealous,having less friends (feeling of loneliness) so if for example i went to high school and have 1 gf and the other have none and couldn't find one that matches with him/her then they headed for the other gender without knowing consequences. Indeed noone likes being fooled or staying back from others so some people decided to take that path without any knowledge at all. Not because they were stupid or something like that but because they rush at a very young age and that feeling of regret filled their mind. The last parameter is the society after seeing that being of another gender has some success too doesn't matter if it is priority in job e.t.c but they see the results everyday.
To sum up, i think that the other genders were somewhat created and are labeled and i think that gender thing is just a small illness of mind nothing more nothing less. Just try to find some help or speak with people that can help you rather than some people who can make fun of you. From what i have learned all those years that i still live 20+ to be honest i always think male+female the others well i will try speaking to that person if they wish if they don't then i wish they become straight and punch the TV screen because it does so much damage to us and we don't understand it.

P.S Sorry if i sounded offensive but it was an opinion i would like to add some more (YEAH TO THAT WALL lol) but i think it would have become super offensive

P.S 2 Sorry for the big wall of text

P.S 3 I'm happy to share my opinions/thoughts with you :)

P.S 4 Peace and Joy to the world ;)

 

[Esper]

I haven't gone through the whole thread so my apologies for any redundant info.

There's always going to be someone pushing the boundary and someone who doesn't want it pushed. If you are okay with gay people (or not okay with it) and are still struggling to wrap your head around (or accept) trans people then the idea of demisexuality is probably even further away from you. If you feel like a term like homoromantic suits you then you're probably on the fringes of socially accepted (or understood) identities and so for you other terms aren't strange because they're only one or two steps from your own understanding, whereas the person who is still uncomfortable with gay people is miles away from the idea.

Do people really take issue with the ideas behind the terms? Isn't it usually just a jump in specificity, like how you can go from "tree" to "conifer" to "juniper"? All are correct, but for some people it's enough to know that a juniper is a tree because it doesn't mean anything to their lives. Is this some kind of thing where people don't like that the terms are being used as identities? Because an identity means one has to accept it or take it seriously? And are people seeing these new terms and thinking that "new to me" means "new in general" and therefore "artificial so not legitimate"? Seemingly illegitimate identities, is that what people don't like and take issue with?

 

[PkmnTrainerElio]

In my opinion all these new sexualities are stupid. What happened to being heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual? Asexuality has been around for a while too, but Jesus Christ, do we need all these sexualities? I remember reading somewhere that there are a lot of gender identities too... Jesus Christ.
(And no, I am not bigoted, I just think all these new genders and sexualities are annoying, I have nothing against transgender individuals or homosexuals).

 

[Nah]

In my opinion all these new sexualities are stupid. What happened to being heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual? Asexuality has been around for a while too, but Jesus Christ, do we need all these sexualities? I remember reading somewhere that there are a lot of gender identities too... Jesus Christ.
(And no, I am not bigoted, I just think all these new genders and sexualities are annoying, I have nothing against transgender individuals or homosexuals).

Why though? "All this shit's annoying" isn't exactly what I'd call a great reason.....

 

[Grey Wind]

Why though? "All this ****'s annoying" isn't exactly what I'd call a great reason.....

Yeah, I find it really funny that most of the naysayers' reasoning boils down to "I just don't like it". Real open minded opinions there guys.


I personally wouldn't feel the need to label myself so specifically (gay does just fine), but at the same time I recognise that finding a term to describe how you're feeling is important to some people, so the various minor sexualities don't bother me. I don't see why it should bother anyone else either.

 

[Deleted member 143209]

Ever since I was a young boy I believed that sexual orientations were useless. If someone says "no" to your advances then that should be it. I understand the need for identifying ones self in terms of their sexuality but being gay/straight/bi/whatever should have no influence on the law, and that's my problem with sexual orientations.

All sexual orientations have done is create social barriers and give people reasons to discriminate against one another. If people weren't labelled like cattle based on their likelihood to breed with a member of the opposite sex then we wouldn't have such modern prejudice against people expressing sexuality in the way they're most comfortable with.

Sexual orientations as a linguistic construct to categorise individuals is a deeply rooted form of prejudice that has slipped its way into worldwide acceptance. If you want to categorise your interest in other gender-types, by all means. But be aware that it gives bigoted leaders more ammunition to systematically build laws to prevent you from getting married, stopping men who have sex with men from preventing blood, stopping same sex couples from adopting, or in some cases being sentenced to death.

So yeah, I believe sexual orientations in general to do more harm than good. There's not much that can be done to unstick their firmly cemented constructs in social society but one thing people can stop doing is attempting to create more and more orientations. What people don't realise is that sexual orientations are getting people killed. We should keep fighting to ensure that people are accepted. It's extremely important to work on building a more inclusive society, which means we need to keep campaigning for the LGBT community. But as history has taught us we're a world that won't stop electing zealot leaders to power.

A change in mentality by putting less and less importance on defining sexual orientations is always going to be more effective than changing laws.

 

[Psychic]

Ever since I was a young boy I believed that sexual orientations were useless. If someone says "no" to your advances then that should be it. I understand the need for identifying ones self in terms of their sexuality but being gay/straight/bi/whatever should have no influence on the law, and that's my problem with sexual orientations.

Can you specify what you mean by "being gay/straight/bi/whatever should have no influence on the law"? Because right now in many parts of the world, it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone based on their sexuality. I think it's impossible to claim that this is fair, just as it is unfair to refuse to hire someone based on their gender, race or religion. We are making great strides by creating laws ensuring everyone receives equal protection for this, regardless of their sexuality. Are you saying you are for or against this?

I think we all agree that everyone should be able to say no to sexual advances from others, but I'm not sure what this has to do with sexual orientation.

All sexual orientations have done is create social barriers and give people reasons to discriminate against one another. If people weren't labelled like cattle based on their likelihood to breed with a member of the opposite sex then we wouldn't have such modern prejudice against people expressing sexuality in the way they're most comfortable with.

Sexual orientations as a linguistic construct to categorise individuals is a deeply rooted form of prejudice that has slipped its way into worldwide acceptance. If you want to categorise your interest in other gender-types, by all means. But be aware that it gives bigoted leaders more ammunition to systematically build laws to prevent you from getting married, stopping men who have sex with men from preventing blood, stopping same sex couples from adopting, or in some cases being sentenced to death.

If I understand what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), this way of thinking is not only victim-blaming, but is factually wrong. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

It seems you are saying that the reason gay people can't marry, donate blood, adopt children or perform certain sexual acts (that, by the way, heterosexual people perform as well) is because they said "we are not heterosexual, and we are giving new names to our sexualities." This falls apart, however, when you learn that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were coined by a psychiatrist.

Gay people did not create the terms in the first place, but let's pretend for a second that you're right, and they did. By your logic, if gay people hadn't said "we're gay, not straight," then they would be allowed to marry/donate blood/adopt children like everyone else. If they hadn't given a name to their sexual orientations, nobody would be discriminating against them. Somehow, categorizing things gives others "ammunition" that they supposedly wouldn't have otherwise.

Even this makes absolutely no sense. We've been discriminating against gay people long before the term "homosexuality" existed. Whether or not we give it a name has literally nothing to do with it. Gay people have tried everything from staying in the closet to denying being gay to being open, and yet society still does all the things you listed. You have not provided any evidence for causation here. By your logic, black people deserve to be discriminated against when they identify as being black. But the reality is that whether or not they call themselves black, they will still be discriminated against due to the colour of their skin.

So yeah, I believe sexual orientations in general to do more harm than good. There's not much that can be done to unstick their firmly cemented constructs in social society but one thing people can stop doing is attempting to create more and more orientations. What people don't realise is that sexual orientations are getting people killed. We should keep fighting to ensure that people are accepted. It's extremely important to work on building a more inclusive society, which means we need to keep campaigning for the LGBT community. But as history has taught us we're a world that won't stop electing zealot leaders to power.

A change in mentality by putting less and less importance on defining sexual orientations is always going to be more effective than changing laws.

The solution is actually to better educate people so they can grasp new understandings of gender and sexuality as we learn them. The reason gay people are more accepted now is because we understand them better and we're used to seeing them both in the media and in our everyday lives. The fact that your logic is "having names for sexual orientations is getting people killed" instead of "people discriminating against those with differing sexual orientations are killing people of different sexual orientations" is disturbing in how far you are going in blaming the victims, the people who are being discriminated against and dying, instead of blaming the people who are doing the discriminating and murdering.

You're right that the law can't do everything - just because the laws change doesn't mean people will change (à la Kim Davis), but it's still vital that we ensure everyone is protected equally under the law. That way, if someone does get discriminated against over something they cannot control (be it their sexual orientation, gender or race), they'll be able to do something about it.

We know from history that we are getting better as a society. But by pretending we are all the same and ignoring our differences, we are erasing those in the minority, those whose voices and experiences often go unheard, but are important and enrich our world. We do best as a society when we acknowledge and embrace our differences and listen to each other.

~Psychic

 

[Kanzler]

Can you specify what you mean by "being gay/straight/bi/whatever should have no influence on the law"? Because right now in many parts of the world, it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone based on their sexuality. I think it's impossible to claim that this is fair, just as it is unfair to refuse to hire someone based on their gender, race or religion. We are making great strides by creating laws ensuring everyone receives equal protection for this, regardless of their sexuality. Are you saying you are for or against this?

Doesn't this answer your question? It's literally what your post was originally in response to.

Ever since I was a young boy I believed that sexual orientations were useless. If someone says "no" to your advances then that should be it. I understand the need for identifying ones self in terms of their sexuality but being gay/straight/bi/whatever should have no influence on the law, and that's my problem with sexual orientations.

 

[Grey Wind]

Also... how can you NOT give something a name? Like, if the terms gay and straight didn't exist people would just do exactly what you did - say men who have sex with men or use some other descriptor. Not having a specific term to describe someone's orientation wouldn't suddenly stop someone from being a bigot.

Your entire post is completely baffling, honestly.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Also... how can you NOT give something a name? Like, if the terms gay and straight didn't exist people would just do exactly what you did - say men who have sex with men or use some other descriptor. Not having a specific term to describe someone's orientation wouldn't suddenly stop someone from being a bigot.

Your entire post is completely baffling, honestly.

I'd hate to agree with you for once, but I have to say this;

Just because you remove labels doesn't meant humans will still not be indifferent. We are a species that will never fundamentally change; we will always have people who are against this and will attempt to strike it down at any moment's notice. Just because we don't have a descriptor for the word "gay" or "lesbian" doesn't mean you won't be executed in a theocracy and be disenfranchised because of "traditional" values.

 

[Kanzler]

I'd hate to agree with you for once, but I have to say this;

Just because you remove labels doesn't meant humans will still not be indifferent. We are a species that will never fundamentally change; we will always have people who are against this and will attempt to strike it down at any moment's notice. Just because we don't have a descriptor for the word "gay" or "lesbian" doesn't mean you won't be executed in a theocracy and be disenfranchised because of "traditional" values.

I have to disagree here. Labels and identities gain a life of their own. They take up space in the marketplace of ideas and can become targets for attacks. Creating labels can fundamentally change the way we behave towards one another, because creating distinctions can instil a sense of otherness that justifies persecution.

In Ancient Rome and Greece, as well as China and Japan of yore, there was no "homosexual" label, as there is now. There were men who had sex with men, and there wasn't really the persecution for it as we've seen in Western Europe. You might have had the excuse to say that their behaviour was deviant, but there was no reason to say that they, as people, were deviant, that they, as people, were somehow more degenerate, that they, as people, were of inherently lower value.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I have to disagree here. Labels and identities gain a life of their own. They take up space in the marketplace of ideas and can become targets for attacks. Creating labels can fundamentally change the way we behave towards one another, because creating distinctions can instil a sense of otherness that justifies persecution.

In Ancient Rome and Greece, as well as China and Japan of yore, there was no "homosexual" label, as there is now. There were men who had sex with men, and there wasn't really the persecution for it as we've seen in Western Europe. You might have had the excuse to say that their behaviour was deviant, but there was no reason to say that they, as people, were deviant, that they, as people, were somehow more degenerate, that they, as people, were of inherently lower value.

The major difference between these groups and those that persecute these affected groups are that they weren't told morally to do anything to "these" people. It wouldn't matter that these groups didn't, because other religions such as Judaism forbid it, saying it was abhorred. Judaism has originated around the Bronze Age, meanwhile Rome had originated around 700 BC and Greece around 600-800 BC. Realistically, Judaic provinces in Rome would also tend to have a populous that hated gays. Therefore, there was still a minority of people in Rome (which had no label for homosexuality) that hated gays because of their religion saying that a man having sex with another, or a women having a sex with a women, is inherently immoral.

 

[Esper]

or a women having a sex with a women

In historical records and laws you don't normally see female same-sex attraction/love/etc. being talked about much. In a lot of places that had (or still have) laws about who men should have sex with, they're usually pretty silent on women.

Labels have benefits and downsides. They give people words for ideas that they may only vaguely be able to verbalize. Being about to express what you mean, who you are, can give you power and confidence and help you accept yourself. If you can only think "men who have sex with men" it's describing it in terms of actions, what you do rather than what you are. That, I think, is an interesting debate: are people (or should people be) defined by what they do or what they are?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

In historical records and laws you don't normally see female same-sex attraction/love/etc. being talked about much. In a lot of places that had (or still have) laws about who men should have sex with, they're usually pretty silent on women.

I am going on about the technicality in the religion I am talking about, and I'm pretty sure theocracies under it's religion or derivatives of that religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) have done the same to women. Though, that point would also make an interesting debate.

 

[Universe]

clip

I can only assume that you are a person who's never had non-heterosexual tendencies, otherwise you would already know how wrong this was of you to say. This deduction can only come from someone with heterosexual privilege, because victims of sexual prejudice don't usually blame themselves these days. Sexual orientation would definitely be useless to someone who is considered normal in our society.

If you have no idea about the subject at hand you really shouldn't speak about the victims, and you definitely shouldn't be enabling the oppressors; which is exactly what this kind of thought process does.

You are effectively telling anyone who isn't heterosexual to suck it up and be quiet about themselves so other people won't judge or harm them. That they shouldn't have an identity or a word to relate to because killing, marriage-stopping, and no-baby-having will happen to them. You're choosing to do that instead of educating the people doing the hating on non-heterosexuals. Sexual orientations aren't all "created", the terms are-- for conditions that already exist. You claiming that deleting words from our usable vocabularies and dictionaries will solve prejudice ignores the fact that the hatred and abuse existed before those words were created.

If I misunderstood any part of your post, please correct me. I don't want anything you put in there to be what you truly think afterall.

We should keep fighting to ensure that people are accepted. It's extremely important to work on building a more inclusive society, which means we need to keep campaigning for the LGBT community.

Should you really feel this way, please do your research before coming in here and shooting sexual identities down. We appreciate acceptance, not "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't do that"s.

 

[Kanzler]

The major difference between these groups and those that persecute these affected groups are that they weren't told morally to do anything to "these" people. It wouldn't matter that these groups didn't, because other religions such as Judaism forbid it, saying it was abhorred. Judaism has originated around the Bronze Age, meanwhile Rome had originated around 700 BC and Greece around 600-800 BC. Realistically, Judaic provinces in Rome would also tend to have a populous that hated gays. Therefore, there was still a minority of people in Rome (which had no label for homosexuality) that hated gays because of their religion saying that a man having sex with another, or a women having a sex with a women, is inherently immoral.

Well Jewish Romans were certainly a very small (and deeply oppressed) minority. I'm talking about the majority, pagan, population, the ones who built Rome.

 

[Sopheria]

I can only assume that you are a person who's never had non-heterosexual tendencies, otherwise you would already know how wrong this was of you to say. This deduction can only come from someone with heterosexual privilege, because victims of sexual prejudice don't usually blame themselves these days. Sexual orientation would definitely be useless to someone who is considered normal in our society.

If you have no idea about the subject at hand you really shouldn't speak about the victims, and you definitely shouldn't be enabling the oppressors; which is exactly what this kind of thought process does.

You are effectively telling anyone who isn't heterosexual to suck it up and be quiet about themselves so other people won't judge or harm them. That they shouldn't have an identity or a word to relate to because killing, marriage-stopping, and no-baby-having will happen to them. You're choosing to do that instead of educating the people doing the hating on non-heterosexuals. Sexual orientations aren't all "created", the terms are-- for conditions that already exist. You claiming that deleting words from our usable vocabularies and dictionaries will solve prejudice ignores the fact that the hatred and abuse existed before those words were created.

If I misunderstood any part of your post, please correct me. I don't want anything you put in there to be what you truly think afterall.



Should you really feel this way, please do your research before coming in here and shooting sexual identities down. We appreciate acceptance, not "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't do that"s.

I mean, I liked his post and agreed with pretty much everything in it, and I'm not heterosexual *shrug*

What Gav said was actually quite an articulate way of expressing how I feel about sexuality and is, for the most part, why I rarely if ever talk about mine: I like who I like, and I prefer not to be categorized or labeled on the basis of such things. There's just a single identity group that I'd like to associate with: human-being. Any details about whom I'm attracted to or what category of people I'd choose to date are just details that don't define who I am as a person, so I'd just rather not bother with nomenclaturizing them.

Also,

You are effectively telling anyone who isn't heterosexual to suck it up and be quiet about themselves so other people won't judge or harm them.

I didn't see anywhere that he stated he intended to apply his reasoning exclusively to people who aren't heterosexual. The fact that we even make such a distinction between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals is silly, imo. People are just people.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Well Jewish Romans were certainly a very small (and deeply oppressed) minority. I'm talking about the majority, pagan, population, the ones who built Rome.

That is true, but you cannot deny the fact that there was still hatred towards gays by this minority even though the Roman lexicon has no word for homosexual.