AmericanNationalist's muse of the day: The nonexistent difference between preference and orientation

So, Democrats did democrats in the confirmation hearing, and in so doing committed further intellectual errors. Today, I take a nip against the Democratic theory that was postulated in the hearing. That there's a difference between sexual preference and orientation. Actually, they went deeper in suggesting that the term "preference" allows one to discriminate against someone with an orientation.

Philosophically, this is absurd. Linguistically, it's just laughable. So let's get some basic definitions of preference and orientation.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orientation

A preference is a choice that one makes. An Orientation is "a usually lasting direction or thought". These are synonyms, not antonyms. Once you make a choice, once you decide to go in a direction, you orient yourself to that direction.

Therefore, it is not possible to undermine someone by calling it a 'sexual preference', nor is it elevating it by calling it a 'sexual orientation'. They are for all intents and purposes one and the same thing.

So, how has this illogical liberal theory come to be? if it's so linguistically and intellectually flawed as to be swayed in a matter of seconds. It came to be, because of the idea that if people could choose, that would mean that the States(particularly, States that were against gay marriage) would not be morally forced to host such events since it is a choice.

But this idea(by conservatives) was as intellectually flawed as the Liberal statement of the same. I love Pizza, it is my preference. A vegetarian cannot discriminate against me, due to my love for pizza. The reality is I love pizza's, whether I was compelled to love it, or whether I made the choice to compel myself to love it is irrelevant.

So the same is true of sexuality. It's not a chicken or egg, whether a person was opened to differing sexuality, or whether the person was naturally homosexual(or other sexual) is irrelevant to the natural rights of the person.

99% of Vegetarians of course, would not actually act against my Pizzeria love. And the same is true for Christianity(and other secular faiths). So, there must be a deeper conflict that exists and is more real than the irrelevant and philosophically fallacious arguments that were present in the parliament today, and were historic precedent that led to Oberefell.

For the later part of the last 200 years, religion became symbolic, more and more so as times have advanced. This symbolism became important to those who(not ironically much like orientation) were either indoctrinated into it, or chose naturally. Either way, it didn't invalidate their fate.

These symbols had become prominent in what I term the "public sphere"(IE: Outside, towns and villages, daily mass gatherings like sport teams and churches.). Because of this, there had to be a majority approval for these gatherings. And even if there was a disturbance, this disturbance had to be quieted, lest a greater social conflict(as inevitably rose in the last 30 years) would come to be.

Gay Marriage, in essence was a new public celebration that a substantial handful of people were uneasy with, and because that substantial handful was uneasy with it, those who might've supported it, also were 'uneasy' so as to stabilize the public ordering.

That is all. it's really quite that simple(and in fact, one could argue this is the bane for all historic discrimination, but we're not going to go there, we're just going to stick to this one.). If one acknowledged a interpretation that there was no "choice", then that would mean the public sphere would also have "no choice" but to accept it, and the unqueasiness would increase.


I was wary of this, in 2013 when it went to the Supreme Court. To me, it's a matter of assuring the absolute rights of the LBGT community, meanwhile the recognition or not was irrelevant to said rights. In seeking this line, I wanted to avoid the crisis of the public sphere.

Instead, the SCOTUS, as its opt to do these days, assured the absolute rights by assuring it completely with no divisive line. However, as the Jerusalem capital is showing me, perhaps resolving conflicts by absolute determinism might be superior to giving each side a bone.

Because in giving each side a bone, each side decides that they want more bones. This process is gradual and slow, but it's inevitable. But by resolving the argument with an absolute determinism, the "law" is settled and the State must live with and abide by it.

This will be bitter, and will have a bitter taste in one side. But the bitter taste will dissipate in time, so long as they are not given new and new forms of bitter tastes. In other words, that the LBGT can marry, fall in love and be in love does not invalidate Christianity, or its origin or its principles.


So long as there are no new bones, both sides can now coexist as the bitterness fades in time. But if Ms. Hirono and Mr.Booker and their allies keep picking at old wounds, and forcing new drinks of bitterness, the conflict will never end and in great irony the LBGT Community will never feel as accepted as they should be.