In our culture, there's a default assumption of heterosexuality. In the absence of clues to the contrary, most of us expect a random person we meet or hear about to be het, if we think about their orientation at all.
How about politics? Here's another aspect where a label is a shorthand for a lot of things. I think most of us `assume the uncertain' for political leanings, in the absence of other clues, although political clues may come forth more readily. And the nature/nurture bit applies as well -- you could just do what your family has always done, or you could have personal convictions. A big shortcoming here is that the two major labels (Dem/Rep) have so many things rolled into their platforms that neither fits well on the people I know, and the niche labels aren't well understood by the masses. (Heck, if these major labels were really understood by the masses, they'd stop electing people who advance hurtful policies. So much for the masses.)
And when you consider the ruckus over gender-free marriage (and gender orientation in general), you tie these two threads into a knot.
another aspect of our persona
How about politics? Here's another aspect where a label is a shorthand for a lot of things. I think most of us `assume the uncertain' for political leanings, in the absence of other clues, although political clues may come forth more readily. And the nature/nurture bit applies as well -- you could just do what your family has always done, or you could have personal convictions. A big shortcoming here is that the two major labels (Dem/Rep) have so many things rolled into their platforms that neither fits well on the people I know, and the niche labels aren't well understood by the masses. (Heck, if these major labels were really understood by the masses, they'd stop electing people who advance hurtful policies. So much for the masses.)
And when you consider the ruckus over gender-free marriage (and gender orientation in general), you tie these two threads into a knot.