You’ve got it backwards. It can’t be the original sin unless it’s ubiquitous, and impossible to free yourself from. That’s kind of the point of original sin.
You’d still call the person who doesn’t want to rent a bedroom to a member of a protected class a bigot, though, right? Even though it’s legal. So presumably sexual preferences are also bigoted.
I don’t think society has decided this. If someone refuses to date black people (and only black people, or only non white people, etc.), this is probably due to racist beliefs, conscious or not. It’s personal and legal, but that doesn’t necessarily make it not racist.
Lenny Bruce covered this in a bit over 60 years ago. He talked about Southerners who would only date a white woman versus a Black woman. But, he asked, what if the black woman was Lena Horne and the white woman was Kate Smith. (You young people can look it up.)
Sure there is all kinds of baggage in there, but a lot of the increase in cross racial relationships come not only from decreased bigotry but from more availability and less segregation.
And original sin, in the theologies that preach it, is redeemable (just that you can’t shake it off by your own mere will) and what it does do is establish that everyone (save perhaps one special Chosen Individual) is equally in need of redemption… so it is not something one can accuse and condemn another for. So it doesn’t quite really map.
As mentioned by others upthread, I further agree, bias and bigotry are not necessarily always one and the same, and when it comes to sexual preferences the consensus up until now in our culture has been to grant it to be de gustibus non est disputandum (there’s no debating tastes) because it is so intimate. “Bigotry”, meanwhile, has a connotation of being a grave moral failure for which there’s no defense.
(BTW, FWIW, IMO, Whatever Other Intitialism, “how do you know you won’t like it until you try it” is fine for cuisine or music… but not for interhuman sexual relationships. If you are open to exploring, more power to you. Don’t condemn those who aren’t.)
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on a lot of things to me. Is the bedroom in the basement or the attic with a separate entrance and bathroom so the renter doesn’t need to pass through owner’s living space? Bigoted. Is the owner a 65 year old woman who wants to rent the bedroom right next to hers to a similarly aged woman rather than a 40 year old man? Not a bigot.
And just a reminder- there is no such thing as a “person who doesn’t want to rent a bedroom to a member of a protected class” . Everyone is a member of multiple protected classes.
Now you’re just showing up my lack of knowledge of theology. 
The idea that everyone is unconsciously biased, and this cannot be cured but is something you need to continuously struggle against, strikes me as somewhat of a replacement for the Christian idea of sin. But maybe original sin is the wrong comparison?
In the wilds of the internet I have seen members of various groups call dating preferences bigoted. Racial preferences, ‘genital preferences’ aka sexual preferences, incels claiming women’s preference for successful or attractive men is unfair discrimination against them. I don’t believe this is the majority view, though.
Bias and bigotry are so frequently conflated I’m not sure of the difference any more. I don’t think having sexual preferences is a grave moral failure, it’s normal and common. But if everyone has unconscious prejudices and that makes you bigoted, who knows?
Yes, but in practice only discriminating against certain groups will get you called a bigot. Is there a better term for those groups?
There’s not a better term but there’s better phrasing - “ a person who doesn’t want to rent a bedroom to someone because of their (protected characteristic)" .
I think this is a really difficult one. I don’t know and don’t know if a simple answer is possible.
I can imagine one’s environment shaping your preferences in some cases. e.g. for some ethnic and cultural groups the external appearance may be so very different that it acts as turn-off. Not sure that counts as bigotry, certainly not if you just shrug your shoulders at this and and treat them decently regardless. There are many people I don’t feel sexual attraction to and couldn’t put my finger on why and I see no need to question it.
Someone could also be brought up in an environment that preaches and teaches that certain groups are verboten and I’m sure that could also colour your sexual preference to some extent. That seems nearer to bigotry as such a scenario would probably lead you to other discrimination.
That’s not very helpful or insightful is it?
IIRC there were a lot of white men raping black women going on in the slave era of the US.
Didn’t president Jefferson have children with a black slave?
To the OP I would say no. Preferences are fine. Hook-up with whomever you like for whatever reasons (assuming the other person is willing).
If you are a bigot it is for reasons other than your preference for a partner. Bigotry may well play into your choices of partner. But the choice of partner, by itself, says nothing about bigotry.
Lenny was a long time ago, but still 100 years after the end of slavery. And I think he was addressing a thing back then about white men rejecting public interest in Black women. (Hidden fantasies and lusts were different.) What they expressed was bigotry. It was not that they preferred one type of woman, but that they claimed they’d take the ugliest white woman over the most beautiful black woman. He was asking “oh, really?” What he was saying is that they were probably hypocrites also. Like the slave rapers.
I don’t think a lot of us do. Sure, the dating sites seem reluctant to take those down. But, whenever I see those profiles discussed anywhere, people seem to assume the person who said those things is indeed racist and looking for a fellow racist.
This is not, however, true with gender. Someone looking for a man is not assumed to be misogynist, nor is someone looking for a woman assumed to be misandrist. We know that there is a biological reason that people might not find some genders attractive.
In the first case, it’s assume the person looking only for a particular race is also racist in other parts of life. But the person looking for a particular gender is not assumed to be sexist in other parts of their life.
I suspect this is because the majority of us have gender preferences, and we know from experience that these do not correlate with bigotry. But, when I think of any person I’ve ever known who said they wouldn’t date black people, they were also all the type who had said racist stuff about black people.
If you don’t think of black people as lesser, then there is way too much diversity in the phenotypes of black people to be sure you’d never find any of them attractive. And the same is true of any other race.
In the past on the SDMB we have had discussions about what men find sexually attractive in a woman. The women were convinced it was big boobs and some other features. The men’s response was all over the place. Tall/short, skinny/curvy, blond/brunette…you name it.
I read an article (can’t find it now…sorry) that said there were only two universal metrics around the world for beauty. Youth and health (youth being young but post-pubescent). Aside from that…anything goes.
All that is a long way of saying black people are beautiful…and ugly. White people are beautiful…and ugly. Hispanic people are beautiful…and ugly. You (general “you”) can see where this is going. It’s all just personal preference. No group is inherently beautiful or ugly.
YOUR BODY YOUR CHOICE!!!I for one support the marriage of heterosexuals. The gays would not have come this far without them. The chbcb (curious/hetero/bi/confused/breeding) community will make for a great future.
I’ve known several men (no women have told me similar) who said they only find women of their own race attractive. And they were not the type who said racist stuff. I can only guess that there is some kind of familiarity/exposure effect.
It might well happen sometimes, in the same way it happens to lesbians. A minority of TRAs (trans rights activists) do say that lesbians should be willing to date transwomen, meaning all transwomen, even those who are physically still men and often present as men. Transwomen are women, and that’s what, even when it comes to which genitals you want to interact with.
I know you’re going to ask for cites, but it’s mostly comments I’ve seen on Twitter, and I’m not willing to hunt for them, plus a couple of conversations in real life that I obviously can’t provide a cite for.
Most TRAs I know in real life, or have talked to online about this topic, do not subscribe to this POV, though part of the reason I know this is because they have also encountered the same idea (as TRAs themselves) and argued against it; they wouldn’t claim that the idea doesn’t exist. I’ve also encountered a few people who genuinely, without trolling, do think that lesbians should be willing to date women who still have penises, and not wanting to do is bigotry.
Maybe gay men don’t get the same stuff aimed at them - it’s entirely possible. It’s probably kinda the same thinking that leads to people assuming that bisexual men are actually gay men in the closet, and bisexual women are straight women experimenting: the penis rules all!
Aaanyway… No, being attracted to one gender only doesn’t make you a bigot. Especially when it comes to actually wanting to have sex with them; that is your body, your choice, and that’s that.
My answer to the OP is no. Bigotry is defined along the lines of “a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”
There are people I find attractive and people I don’t. But if we examine the elements of the definition:
-
I don’t have anything against those I’m not attracted to and I’m not antagonistic towards them.
-
I don’t think my preferences are unreasonable for two reasons - firstly my preferences are I think accidental and quite possibly innate - I guess they derive from accidents of experience, and/or biology. I can’t do anything about them. And secondly they don’t matter - who cares if I’m not sexually attracted to someone? It really doesn’t matter.
-
I don’t think it makes sense to talk about someone being “obstinate” in their preferences in this context - one is only “obstinate” about something if one can, and should, not be attached to a belief, opinion etc which I don’t think is the case here. I doubt I can change my preference, and I don’t see why I should since really, who cares?
And finally there needs to be a balancing of interests here - my interest in deciding who I’m attracted to, vs your interest in being attractive to me. And given that that the latter really doesn’t exist, it’s a no brainer how the balance tips.
Youth, symmetrical features, and clear skin from what I can remember from my anthropology course.
Ultimately, a person who prefers white sexual partners (because that’s who they’re attracted to) is different than a person who prefers white waitresses (because they don’t want black people touching their food).
It serves no purpose to take the word that currently distinguishes the two, extend the definition to encompass both situations equally, then have to create an entirely new word to break “bigots” into two categories.