Reading about the development of sexual attitudes in America
 

is a fascinating discussion.

One or two salient points. Perhaps it is obvious to others, but to me it was not.

First, until recently, our culture did not think in terms of "sexuality" as a separate concept. People did not think of themselves in terms of hetero and homo, but only that it was something you did, not a character trait.

Second, the reforming movement for marriage here and in England was a power play, the ministers wanted additional authority. And the puritans wanted it for marriage as opposed to how may settlers used it for a committed relationship. Yet puritans were not victorian, they enjoyed and encouraged rich sexuality within marriage.

So you're saying sexual preference used to be a do and now it's a be?

Do they suggest how or why this change came about?

It's interesting, because if you define it as something one does rather than something one is, then it might be easier to define it as sin.

It really had a complex description; it quoted one southern gentleman as bemoaning his masturbatory tendencies polluting his love for his wife.

There wasn't a discussion of sexual preference. In fact, people until the latter half of the twentieth century didn't see it in those terms. I get the feeling that some people were more "bi", not exclusively "homo". Historically, bisexuality was a more common occurrence, and exclusively "homo" was rare. But I'm using improper terminology. The author is quite effective.

A couple of months back in the Atlantic Monthly they had an article about homosexuality in Sadi Arabia and how it is thriving based upon these very same notions of sexuality as a thing you do, not a thing you are. Also, the severe strictures on the interactions of men and women has led to homosexuality as a release valve (pun intended) for male sexuality, since the really bad punishments are reserved for hetero sex. I'd provide the link but it is a subscriber link and it won't let ya'll see it. But it was provocative reading. And totally unexpected aout Saudi Arabia.

It's this book, "Sexual Revolution in Early America" by Richard Godbeer. It is written in decent prose with reasonable justifications and citations. Now I have checked the sources, but everything sounds plausible.