Sexuality: Constructivists vs. Essentialists

Defining homosexuality, bisexuality and trans persons is a source of polarized battles between social constructivists and essentialists (biological and religious). People in same sex relationships are trying to gain social acceptance to enhance their quality of life. The gays right movement, longing for empathy and understanding, have gain great support by our society in the past decades. Better understanding of our inherent free will should help those who are against homosexuality to appreciate the fact that love sees no boundaries as age, race, religion and gender.
Constructivists understand sexuality as a social constructed reality. It takes into consideration the history and culture of a certain society. Sexual orientation and gender identity is an occurrence external to the person. There are several factors that influence sexuality as biology, culture, religion, politics, family values and individual choices. Sexual identity, orientation and behaviors are influenced by limits set by the society and therefore impact ones choices. Within a society there is a pattern of behavior demonstrating the power that the society plays over its people in conforming with the social norms. Thus, different cultures have different norms on sexuality. Gender roles, regulations of the institution of marriage, employment opportunities are relevant factors in the formation of homosexual behaviors. Homosexuality is defined not universally or innate but in a cultural context and in a given time. Constructivists believe that the person makes a conscious choice about their sexual preference and partners after hearing discourses made by different institutions within the society.
Religious essentialism has its focus on creation and naturalism. Human sexuality is given to us and it is universal and unchangeable over historical time. When one is born, one is either homosexual or heterosexual and there are no variations in one’s lifetime. Therefore, sexual orientation and gender dwell within the individual and it is not a conscious choice. All deviations are morally wrong because they go against God will. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence though abnormal. Homosexual relations are sinful because they are imperfect manifestations of the essences.
Non religious essentialists are very secular. They are also called biological essentialists. The norms are based on human biology. They use social biological explanation to justify several occurrences in sexuality such as male innate tendency to promiscuity due to natural instinct in the preservation of the specie. Sexual desire is biologic driven. Genetics influence sexual orientation in both men and women.
In my view, the constructivists have the broadest understanding of free will. They acknowledge the individual ability in making their choices regarding sexuality. Even if they are confronted with social norms, they still are free to make the choice. This is very contradictory if we are talking about free will which is given to us by our Creator. That implies a religious connotation to it and it would make sense to assign the religious essentialists as the group who better understands free will. To me, it is even more disturbing to think that the religious essentialists who are the ones who claim that homosexuality has a natural causality fervently oppose it.