Thanks so much for your replies. I could probably crash the servers with what I have to say, but I'm trying hard to condense it into something more workable. The reason I asked in the first place is because my own thoughts on the subject are often quite hard for me to understand, so I am not really surprised people had a hard time understanding what I was trying to say. I didn't make myself very clear in my first post, so I should probably go into more detail about just why I'm wary of the idea of “sexual orientation” before I try to respond to anyone.
First off, I am not religious and I don't have an agenda. I realize that for most people who identify as anything other than heterosexual, it's all they can hope for just to get society to tolerate their behavior, let alone worry about what I'm talking about. I do not mind at all if someone says that they are gay or bisexual, so I really hope no one is offended at what I have to say. Also, sorry if it looks like I think I'm the smartest guy in the room or something. This has just been a source of considerable anxiety for me on a personal level, and honestly, I would love to be wrong.
When a man says to me that he is gay, I interpret that to mean that he believes there is “something about him” which produces his sexual attraction for other men, and likewise there is “something about him” which makes women unattractive to him. Indeed, most people think that whether they are attracted to one sex or another or both is determined by something about them called their “sexual orientation”.
I think this is false. The American Psychological Association (something else I am very skeptical of...) seems to agree, saying that sexual orientation amounts to “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes”. In other words, when someone experiences sexual attraction, we label them as homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual because their behavior was homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, not because “they themselves” are any of those things. So “sexual orientation” is descriptive of sexual attraction, not prescriptive.
I think the best reason I can give you for believing what I do is an argument from the existence of sexual fetishes:
If someone is sexually aroused by a certain stimulus, then there is something about them that produces that arousal.
Something about someone that produces arousal given certain stimuli constitutes a “sexual orientation” within that person.
Therefore, your sexual fetishes are the direct outcome of your sexual orientation.
Doesn't sound quite right does it?
If you say that your attraction towards your own sex is the outcome of your sexual orientation, why not also say your sexual fetishes are? What's the relevant difference? We know full well that there are mechanisms within us that can cause us to experience sexual attraction to objects which are totally irrelevant for reproductive purposes. Using Occam's Razor: we already know about a way we can come to be attracted to our own sex, so the concept of “sexual orientation” is superfluous; therefore, we should discard it.