I am proposing that the use of the phrase “sexual orientation” be laid to rest once and for all. The implicit nature of the phrase unfairly implies that homosexuals cannot help the lifestyle they live due to genetic influences that made them prone to it. Even if there are genetic influences, one does not have to act upon them. It is most unfair is that the term “orientation” has simply been used in association with sexuality, and thus has never been applied to other lifestyle choices that are believed to have genetic influences such as alcoholism, gluttony, and pathological deceit. We do not refer to alcoholics as having a “drinking orientation,” to gluttons as having a “food-consumption orientation,” nor do we refer to those who practice pathological deceit as having a “truth-disclosure orientation.” Why then do we feel it necessary to refer to people’s sexual lifestyle choice by using the more politically correct term “sexual orientation?”
The use of the term “sexual orientation” was originally coined as a politically correct way of describing homosexuals to imply that they had no choice in the matter of the sexual lifestyle they would practice. It was shoved down society’s throat using arguments that make a case that homosexuality is influenced by genetic factors and therefore those who were living the lifestyle had no choice in the matter. Such a notion is completely absurd. Have we ever argued on the behalf of the town drunk that constantly begs for money so that they can buy more booze that because their condition is genetically influenced, we should give them money to support their uncontrollable desires for alcohol? Do we incessantly give cake to the glutton because we know that their over-eating habits are genetically influenced? Should we not require honesty of those who practice pathological deceit on the witness stand, because their genes played a role in influencing them to lie?
Since the term ”sexual orientation” implies that people can not help who or for that matter what they are attracted to, should we just learn to accept the fact that some people might want to undress themselves in public so as to give into their uncontrollable desire to have sex with a tree in the park or the pole of the swingset. After all, the defense of those who practice the homosexual lifestyle is that their actions do not affect any of us and do not do harm to society. While a pole or a tree can not mutually consent, these are inanimate objects and therefore we have no reason to be concerned. Children that might see this in the park can simply turn their heads.
All of these are things we must consider when we choose to be politically correct and use the phrase “sexual orientation.” It is time for the use of the phrase to be retired in the recesses of history. I personally refuse to use the term “sexual orientation” to refer to anyone’s sexuality because it implies that there is no choice in the sexual lifestyle they live. I am increasingly concerned that the use of the term could lead to children thinking it is okay for them to commit adultery with several misters or mistresses, because they have genetic influences that have predetermined their “swinger orientation.” Rather than using the phrase “sexual orientation,” I will always use the phrase “sexual lifestyle choice” because whether or not there are genetic influences, the lifestyle choice is clearly up to the individual.