“Until homosexuality is cast and understood as a valid choice, rather than a biological affliction, we will never rise above our current status,” writes Stephanie Fairyington for Utne. “We will remain Mother Nature’s mistake, tolerable (to some) because our condition is her fault, not ours.” Well, this is going to go swimmingly.
Particularly if you don’t finish the rest of the piece from Fairyington, who’s written for The Advocate and Out when not holding down her fashion editor day job.
By choice, I don’t mean that one can choose one’s sexual propensities any more than one can choose one’s personality. What I mean is that it’s a choice to act on every desire we have, and that acting on our same-sex attractions is just as valid as pursuing a passion for the Christian faith or Judaism or any other spiritual, intellectual, emotional, or physical craving that does not infringe on the rights of others. And it should be respected as such.
As a firm Kinsey 6—with 6 being the gayest ranking on sexologist Alfred Kinsey’s 1-to-6 scale of sexual orientation—I understand the resistance to putting choice and homosexuality in the same sentence. My same-sex attractions were awakened in me at such a young age that they felt as much a part of me as my limbs. In the late 1990s, when I was coming out, had someone told me that I had chosen my deepest, most tender and passionate affections, it would have been like telling me that I had chosen the arms and legs I have.
But I have plenty of desires, like throwing my fists in the faces of conservative Republicans, which for one reason or another, I don’t act on; my desire for women is not one of them. Biology is not destiny, and I am the architect of my own life, as is everyone. My point is not to challenge or even enter the debate about whether or not some combination of nature and nurture contributes to the formation of an inclination toward one’s own sex. My point is that most inquiries into the origins of homosexuality are suspect, and their service to us is limited, if not perilous.
Her point is also to enter a very, very dangerous framework.
First, if sexuality is understood as predestined and therefore fixed, it poses less of a challenge to the hetero monolith than does a shifting spectrum of desire. It protects straight people, in other words, from the threat of homosexuality. Second, by presenting homosexuality as a biological fact as firm and absolute as race or sex, gay activists have formed an identity the law can recognize and can follow in the footsteps of civil rights legislation. Third, it’s conceptually easier to understand sexuality as a permanent trait rather than the complex, ever-morphing mess that it often is.
But for all the success this politics has had, in the end, it’s not only shortsighted but rife with limitations—and dangers. As lesbian activist Joan Nestle told me, it’s not good politics to cling to the “born gay” edict because “the use of biological ‘abnormalities’ was used by the Nazis when they measured the nostril thickness of imprisoned Jews to prove they were an inferior race; and when colonizers measured the brains of Africans to make a case for their enslavement; and when doctors at the turn of the century used the argument that the light weight of women’s brains proved their inferiority to men. I do not want to enter into this sad history of biological dehumanization as the basis for gay rights.”
If instead we frame the debate as, while biologically we may be gay, but we still have a choice to act on same-sex attraction, are we going to get homophobic people to start rallying around our community because they, too, recognize the value of a human being’s right to choose?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
By affirming that homosexual practice and identity are a choice, we can attach an addendum—it’s a good choice—and open the possibility of a more nuanced argument, one that dismantles the logic of the very premise that whom we choose to love marks us as sinful and immoral and interrogates the assumption that heterosexuality is somehow better for the individual and society as a whole.
Tee-hee.
[Utne]
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
NO!!
Cam
This is the most ridiculous psting I’ve seen and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this woman has joined the ex gay movement. Her article mirrors their writings quite closely.
My response to her would be to say, I was born to require food. My deciding this week to no longer eat food doesn’t make the biological fact of my birth any different, the result, I starve. Her article is the very basis for laws like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” In other words, you may be gay but don’t act on it.
A ridiculous excersise in intellectual masterbation that sounds like it came from a sophmore trying to impress her sociology proffessor.
wmcarpenter
I appreciate the effort, but no.
Pseudo-post-structuralist-neo-feminist garbage.
AxelDC
Why does sexuality have to be equated with a disease. What is implicit in this piece is that there is something wrong with being gay. Choice or not, the author views homosexuality as a deviance or aberration, not a natural alternative, despite the many examples in nature of homosexual couplings.
Is being left-handed somehow deviant handiness? The word “sinister” means left, and “left-footed” implies clumsiness, “out in left field” as eccentric, and “left over” as inferior food (j/k). We used to punish people for preferring their left hands for writing, to the point of slapping them with a ruler for their gauche tendencies. Nowadays, we recognize that it doesn’t matter what hand you use, but what you do with it that counts.
This is a much better analogy for homosexuality than comparing it to scoliosis, spina bifida or some other congenital disease or birth defect.
The question is not “is it a choice”; the question is “what’s wrong with being gay?”
The only thing wrong with being gay is being discriminated against, and that’s not an excuse to abhor your gender or ethnicity. It’s a problem that is external to the gay individual and not an internal problem to be fixed or overcome.
Being gay is neither bad nor good. It just is.
Richard
Sad to see that so many people have an issue with choice as a paradigm for sexuality. Yet, this is not a new argument at all. Vera Whisman’s “Queer by Choice” makes the same argument, and was penned in 1988. Check it out: http://bit.ly/queerbychoice
Personally, I’m with Whisman and Fairyington. Remove choice from the paradigm, and the ambiguity of sexuality becomes something that can be “fixed” or otherwise genetically removed. We need to have full social acceptance and understanding before any determination of how sexuality is formulated can be definitively constructed.
Cam
No. 5 · Richard
Sad to see that so many people have an issue with choice as a paradigm for sexuality. Yet, this is not a new argument at all. Vera Whisman’s “Queer by Choice” makes the same argument, and was penned in 1988. Check it out: http://bit.ly/queerbychoice
Personally, I’m with Whisman and Fairyington. Remove choice from the paradigm, and the ambiguity of sexuality becomes something that can be “fixed” or otherwise genetically removed. We need to have full social acceptance and understanding before any determination of how sexuality is formulated can be definitively constructed.
____________________________
So you’d rather lie because you in order to hold true to a sadly outdated 3rd wave theory from 1998.
Richard
@Cam: No, I didn’t say that at all. But, the fact of the matter is that there ARE those who chose homosexuality (for whatever reason), and we must support and defend their choice.
People get virulently angry when confronted with this question. It’s pretty clear that the ones who are so angry become that way because of their own sexual insecurities. I didn’t declare whether I “chose to be” or “was born” homosexual, yet I’m blasted as being a liar because I raised a point contrary to the norm?
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
@Richard: You are so far off the mark that it is scary. Being Gay is no more of a choice than being Black, Asian, Hispanic, having blue eyes, black hair or being male or female. The people you refer to as “choosing to be Gay” are those who have been afraid most of their lives to come out because of the garbage that is being spewed in this thread. The majority of these persons have lived the “straight” life most of their lives because of the hateful campaigns waged against anything Gay. Many of these people marry, have children and basicaly ruin all the lives they touch because of the fear of accepting themselves as they were born. Those who cast hate on the Gays work every single angle to attempt to show that we should be denied equality because it is a choice as opposed to being born Gay. They claim we chose to be Gay, and that the “Ex-Gays” are “proof” that it is nothing more than a “phase”. Yet the founder of the “Ex-Gay” movement comes out and admits that he has never seen a successful “convert”. It is pathetic that anyone identifying as Gay can give even the smallest bit of credence to those who wish to basicaly destroy our community.
We didn’t chose to be Gay, yet they have chosen to be hateful, vile bigots…………….
Richard
@PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: You’re making grand assumptions. The people I was referring to are people who have specifically made the choice to be homosexual. Those people admit that they are heterosexual, but wish to be homosexual for a variety of reasons. If you actually did some fucking reading on the subject matter, then you’d be a little better equipped to follow my argument.
What can I say – the readers of this blog have finally proven themselves to be more fucked in the head than its writers. I never thought I’d see the day. Go wax something, you ignorant piece of shit.
Cam
No. 7 · Richard
@Cam: No, I didn’t say that at all. But, the fact of the matter is that there ARE those who chose homosexuality (for whatever reason), and we must support and defend their choice.
____________________
Thank you, I knew if you posted a few times your true agenda would come out.
Cam
No. 9 · Richard
@PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: You’re making grand assumptions. The people I was referring to are people who have specifically made the choice to be homosexual. Those people admit that they are heterosexual, but wish to be homosexual for a variety of reasons. If you actually did some fucking reading on the subject matter, then you’d be a little better equipped to follow my argument.
___________________
“A variety of Reasons” yeah, the typical post by the anti-gay. No back up, no facts etc…
Richard
@Cam: Honey, I am gay, and I posted my facts/backup in my very first post. It’s called a book. You should read one sometime.
Cam
No. 12 · Richard
@Cam: Honey, I am gay, and I posted my facts/backup in my very first post. It’s called a book. You should read one sometime.
_____________________
No, Richard….Sweety, what you did was post a link to a book where the author interviewed a small number of people for a dissertation.
Richard
@Cam: And where is your evidence? Where is your backing? Do you want me to start posting the basic links? I can go get Gender Trouble if you really want me to…
Sam
@Richard: Who could possibly choose to be gay? I can’t imagine not loving men. I tried to like girls for a while when I was young, and I just couldn’t do it. I think most of us did the same thing. And we had every reason to “choose” to be straight. What possible reason could a straight person have to go through the same process (I imagine that for a straight man, trying to like guys is as difficult as it is for me to try to like girls) so they can become second-class citizens, get disowned by their parents, and risk gay-bashings? It just doesn’t make any sense.
This is all semantics. Even the ones here saying that being gay is a choice aren’t ACTUALLY arguing that being gay is a choice. They’re saying that coming out and identifying yourself as gay is a choice. Well, duh. You’re not saying anything new, you’re just muddying the waters. Because guess what? A disturbingly high percentage of straight people do think being gay is a choice – and they’re not talking about coming out – and they use that belief as a basis for discriminating against us. And you’re just confusing them more.
Baxter
@Richard: Maybe you’re right that there’s a very, very small number of people who choose their sexual orientation. That doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of people are just rolling with what their bodies tell them.
Richard
@Sam: That is exactly my point, though. We need that confusion. Without the confusion, sexuality is reduced to mere biological impulse, and that is something that can be genetically manipulated. Sexuality is a complex matter, but when we simply base it on “this is my experience, therefore it must be EVERYONE’S experience,” we do a disservice to the topic.
I have to take a step back and apologize for the anger I’ve exhibited here. I’m going to head off for a while, because clearly my argument is falling on deaf ears. Sorry to those I’ve upset. All I was trying to do was present a viewpoint that actually supports homosexuality as a valid social construct.
And, for the last time – yes, I am gay, and I’m very happy to be so.
Poor Richard
I’d love to meet these heterosexuals who chose to become homosexual. Where can we find them? Who are they? Are they just a hole’s a hole prison inmates? While I don’t dispute that in a world as large as ours, theren’t a couple, I would say that, in general, the sampling would be too insignificant to draw any conclusions. There’s a logical fallacy at work: the long persecuted homosexual has a reason to feign heterosexuality. What rationale would a straight man or woman have for pretending to be gay throughout their life (excluding immediate goal-related choices such as avoiding the draft or such)?
Cam
No. 14 · Richard
@Cam: And where is your evidence? Where is your backing? Do you want me to start posting the basic links? I can go get Gender Trouble if you really want me to…
__________________
You claimed to have posted evidence. How about a study or a quote? I could just as easily say “The sky is made out of root beer, and here is a link.”
Doesn’t mean crap. My proof that we are born gay, is not only drawn from my own life and the life of every gay friend I have but from numerous scientific examples of gay couplings in the animal kingdome…unless of course you are trying to tell me that those animals made a choice because they wanted to upset their parents.
Here is a quote from the publishers Weekly review of “Biological Exuberence”
“”Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. Biological Exuberance is the first comprehensive account of the subject, bringing together accurate, accessible, and nonsensationalized information. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting—even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.””
Kevin
To be honest, I think all this “It’s a choice!” “It’s an immutable characteristic!” shouting misses the point alltogether. If I’m being honest, I think it’s probably some combination of genetics, neonatal development, and a person’s emotional growth throughout their lives. It’s difficult to discount the many tales of those who only came to realize their homosexuality in the later lives. It doesn’t mean they were “in denial” for the rest of their lives, it can very generally mean they changed, and it’s mean spirited and bad science to just discount their claims because it doesn’t match your theory.
I’ve heard sexuality compared to your pet preference. Some people are dog people, some people are cat people. Some people could go either way. Some people like ferrets, which is weird. Nobody really knows how exactly this preference comes about. There’s likely some proclivity one way or another from birth, but a person’s life experiences definitely impact where along the spectrum they end up. There may very well be some slight choice involved. At the very least, choice has a huge impact on your life experiences. What’s most important to note is that nobody holds your preference against you. That, to me, is a great model for how we should understand sexuality.
Stitch
You’re all missing the point. Everyone has a choice. I am biologically and psychologically gay, and I have made the choice to own that, live it, and love it. Some people make the choice to hide it, deny it, and repress it. The choice is not in whether or not we ARE gay, it’s in whether or not we choose to own it. The whole point of this very complex piece of journalism is that if we continue to say “But we can’t help it!” we give up control over our destinies to fate, or genetics. The message should be that we are gay, and that we have made a psychologically healthy choice by accepting ourselves for what we are. Only thn can others truly accept us in a healthy way.
Sam
@Richard: I read all of “Queer by Choice” that Google Books would let me. The only gay person in that sample who came anywhere close to saying that he chose to be gay was “John Chambers,” a 23-year-old Roman Catholic who said, “I don’t like saying I’m gay because I really don’t want to be gay. If I had a choice, I wish I was heterosexual.” Then he went on to say, “I guess I’ve chosen to be gay because I put myself in situations where I’ll meet men and I’ll have relationships with men.” Just like Stephanie Fairyington, when he says he chose to be gay, he actually meant he chose to ACT on his homosexuality, not that he chose the homosexuality ITSELF.
The rest of the sample was a critique on basing the entire gay rights movement on the argument that we were born that way – but not because anyone chose to be gay, just because it shouldn’t matter. And it shouldn’t. But it does. And politics aside, the fact remains that it’s not a choice.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
@Richard: Ahh, another hater who can needs to stoop down to school yard name calling when they are confronted with an intelligent argument responding to their nonsense………What are you like 6???
Lamar
Too many people use sexual orientation and sexual acts as if they mean the same thing. If a man has sexual desires exclusively for women then no matter how many men he sleeps with he won’t turn gay and likewise with a gay man. If society gets over this hurdle then the world would be a better place. Saying that we choose to act on certain desires and that makes us gay will turn people off from us as they will identify homosexuality with choice and won’t see the need to end discrimination against us since we have ‘chosen’ to put ourselves in a category that is against societal norms.
romeo
I’ve known a few straights that “chose” to play gay. It’s known as COMMERCE!
As for the article, she sounds hopelessly naive about our position in this society, not unusual for people who do everything in their minds without letting the actual world creep in at all.
Or, as has been suggested, this is just some stealth ex-gay bullshit, which, from the looks of it, is what I suspect.
the crustybastard
Choice is irrelevant.
The issue is whether one specific kind of adult, consensual, lawful sexual behavior may constitute a valid basis for imposing a constellation of legal disabilities on the presumed actor.
No law denies driver’s licenses to presumed sadomasochists. No law denies hunting licenses to those presumed to enjoy anal sex. Enjoying watersports doesn’t presumptively disqualify one from adopting.
Even where the sexual behavior is UNlawful, the law scarcely inquires. For example, I’m not aware of a single state that denies marriage licenses to convicted rapists or pedophiles.
If a state like California allows Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez to marry while he’s on death row (and nobody cares or amends their constitution to prevent such future outrages), then adult consensual gay sex seems a mighty flimsy basis to deny marriage to gays.
V
You are underestimating the argument for freewill, people. We ALL have the right to be self-actualized; to think, believe, fuck (given mutual consent), live, do, express–whatever, whomever, wherever we fucking please. It is our immutable right as human beings to live according to our will.
Neither the desire, nor the impetus nor scope of that desire, matters in this argument; the desire exists, it’s valid, and you can do with it whatever the hell you please.
THIS is the winning argument. Stop defending a disempowered position–“I can’t help it!”–and start standing up for your freewill: “It’s MY life, I’ll do as I please. Now, STEP OFF!”
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and BTW, all men are created equal)… It’s the American way, it’s the arch of human evolution, and it will win you your freedom.
romeo
@ V: HaHaHaHaHa !!! Yeah everybody here agrees we have that right. But everybody here is not the problem. My own attitude is totally, “It’s MY life, I’ll do as I please. Now, STEP OFF!”
Problem is, we still have a lot of douches that don’t agree with that. And there are still a lot of them. And they’re like chihuahuas on a pant leg when it come to us. They just won’t let go. And we don’t dare ignore them, which is what you’re suggesting.
Cassandra
“Stop defending a disempowered position–”I can’t help it!”–and start standing up for your freewill: “It’s MY life, I’ll do as I please. Now, STEP OFF!”
From the person using a strawman argument. Real GLBTQ people do not describe our experience as “I can’t help it”. That is how homophobes paraphrase “sexual orientation is not chosen”.
It is not unusual for homophobes to participate in discussions about civil equality for GLBTQ people, pretend to be gay or lesbian, and then stridently, abusively, vehemently advocate for position, ideas and actions that are destructive to the case for civil equality for GLBTQ people, that are dishonest and corrupt, and that put GLBTQ people in the position of being inauthentic and deceitful
all of which are the very traits homophobes assign to us to justify discrimination.
How tragic that someone thought he/she could convince others that the truth (sexual orienation is not chosen but innate) is a ‘disempowered position’, implying an endorsement of deceit and fraud.
The truth, not convenience or cleverness or pseudo-intellectualism, will set us free.
Cam
No. 29 · Cassandra
“Stop defending a disempowered position–”I can’t help it!”–and start standing up for your freewill: “It’s MY life, I’ll do as I please. Now, STEP OFF!”
From the person using a strawman argument. Real GLBTQ people do not describe our experience as “I can’t help it”. That is how homophobes paraphrase “sexual orientation is not chosen”.
__________________________
Can you “Help” being a woman Cassandra? As for your contention that homophobes class being gay as “I can’t help it” you are actually 100% wrong. Homophobes aregue AGAINST people being born gay because they know that hating somebody because of how they are born is anathma to the majority of people out there. It is the deepest definition of bigotry. your little “I chose my way!” sounds like a pathetic little chant from a womyns studies empowerment seminar. Go ahead and empower yourself all you want, but do not try to lie about biology and nature to do it.
SSCHIEFRSHA
So all those nights I fantasied about and desired my male class mates and acted upon said desires, you mean I could have done the same with a girl?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL, write yourself off this comedy called life.
Cam
@No. 29 · Cassandra
I’m sorry Cassandra, your post seemed like you were advocating that position, not that you had cut and paste somebody else’s rant and were responding to them.
My rant at you was rather directed at “No. 27 · V”
Dave
*sigh*
Look, this whole argument is pointless. Trying to decide if “being gay” is a choice or not is pointless, because “being gay” is composed of at least three distinct things: attraction, behaviour, and identity.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a right-wing mouth breather who will argue that same-sex attraction is a choice. They exist, but they’re far from the norm. Most right-wingers get that people don’t choose who they’re attracted to. We may disagree as to the ultimate origin–whether the inborn desire is biological, as we believe, or pathological, as they believe–but they aren’t saying it’s a choice. They just don’t think you should be allowed to act on that desire.
What they *do* think is a choice is behaviour, and, well, strictly speaking, they’re right. It *is* a choice, inasmuch as I’m not *compelled* to have sex with anyone. And yes, strictly speaking, identity is also a choice: I don’t *have* to identify as gay just because I am attracted to other men.
Where we really differ, though, is that we, as gay men, know that the “choices” we make in terms of behaviour and identity are the only healthy ones we *can* choose. When they say “being gay is a choice”, all they really mean is that they want us to deny and repress our attractions and adopt an identity and behaviour that we know is contrary, destructive, and harmful to us. And when we say that being gay is not a choice, what we really mean is that in order for us to be whole, unbroken people, we must be allowed to adopt behaviours and identities which embrace and support our in-born attractions rather than contradicting them.
Why does this matter? Because, unfortunately, not everyone’s attractions, behaviour, and identity line up in a healthy fashion. And *that* matters because different laws and issues impact each aspect of our sexuality differently.
Think about it. DADT effects behaviour and identity, not attraction. Same-sex marriage is mostly an issue of identity. Yet we’re throwing so much effort into worrying about a gay gene that really only proves attraction, a point which doesn’t really address our need to adopt healthy behaviours and identities consistent with those attractions. We think it’s going to magically cure homophobia, that people will just accept us wholeheartedly if we can just show that we can’t help it.
They won’t.
Lots of people don’t accept people of other races, or genders, or nationalities–none of which is even arguably a choice. And so many of our opponents already concede that same-sex attraction is not a choice anyway. We’re talking mostly about people who still think homosexuality is pathological, that it can (and should) be cured. Does proof that it is biological in origin change anything for them? They’d argue that lots of diseases are genetic; is it wrong to try to cure Tay-Sachs, or Downs Syndrome?
The gay gene is not the answer, or at least it’s not the only answer. Until we can prove to these people that our “choices” are just as important and valid–that the apparent choice is only an illusion, really only the choice between health and illness–then we really aren’t any better off.
Alfonzo
I do believe it is worth it to argue with people who believe it is a choice. It’s not for your benefit, neither is it for the benefit of those with whom your are arguing.
It is for the benefit of the young people (or any people for that matter) who may be struggling with their sexuality. It may change their perspective to hear someone say “There is nothing wrong with you.”
I’ve had preachers try to beat me over the head with their talk and what they understand the Bible to say. I came right back with what I understand it to be. I will take those verbal beatings if it benefit one kid from going to “conversion therapy” or prevents one person from committing suicide because they don’t know how to deal with their sexuality.
Yuki
Does this author not realize that while biological elements were used to discriminate against Jews by the Nazis… that that discrimination was a TERRIBLE thing?
It’s always a choice to act upon something, but if we start going with that then all that will happen is that the anti-gay people will start saying, “Then don’t act on it!”. I should think it’s not particularly good for your mental health to deny who you are.
Dave
@Yuki:
It’s always a choice to act upon something, but if we start going with that then all that will happen is that the anti-gay people will start saying, “Then don’t act on it!”
That’s what they’re *already* saying. It’s certainly what the “ex-gays” are saying: “sure, you have these attractions, but you don’t need to act on them”.
This is Fairyington’s point exactly: we need to be arguing that we have to be allowed to make the “choices” which make us healthy, not that we can’t help who we are, because the choices we have in terms of behaviour and orientation are false choices.
It’s like offering someone a choice between orange juice or battery acid and then making a big deal about how they *chose* to drink orange juice.
But arguing that our behaviors and orientations aren’t choices isn’t particularly helpful, because straight people know that we choose to have sex and we choose to identify as gay. They need to understand that those are choices we need to be able to make, not made to believe that we are somehow victims of our biological attraction.
Dave
@Alfonzo: I agree completely, insofar as you mean attraction. Young people need to know that there’s nothing wrong with what they feel.
However, they also need to know that there’s nothing wrong with acting on those feelings, or making those feelings a part of who they are by identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And those *are* choices they will have to make: do I pretend to be something I’m not? Do I fight against what I know is in my heart?
This is the message they’re getting hit with nowadays: that it’s perfectly natural to feel what they feel, but that they need to “overcome” it. That’s just plain awful.
Telling them they don’t have a choice seems like a bad idea. It makes being gay seem like a life sentence. Instead, we should be helping them make healthy choices: accept how you feel, embrace who you are, and pursue that which makes you happy.
V
Cassandra, I’m not your enemy, I just have a different perspective.
I think Dave worded things very nicely.
I’m advocating for choosing the BEHAVIOR of homosexuality, be it the only appropriate healthy choice, or an otherwise easily subverted exploration. We should all be free to choose our behavior, no matter how hard-wired the driver of that behavior.
Not everyone is the same, but we all have the right to be who we are, and to act in accordance. What about all the young bisexuals, who are told they can only be one way or the other? How do you think they will choose to behave, given such an oppressive environment? How ’bout some breathing room? There is nothing wrong with them, and there is nothing wrong with what they choose to DO.
We can only be free of “love the sinner, hate the sin” kind of thinking, when we love the “sin”.
A “real” Q, just representin.
V
I heart Dave.
Cassandra
@V: You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about idiot. You’re just a homophobe pretending to be gay to push your agenda.
Cassandra
Cam
Recognizing that much of what you were responding to was my quote from someone else, there is a point that needs clarification and correction.
You wrote:
“As for your contention that homophobes class being gay as “I can’t help it” you are actually 100% wrong. Homophobes aregue AGAINST people being born gay because they know that hating somebody because of how they are born is anathma to the majority of people out there.”
In response to my statement:
“Real GLBTQ people do not describe our experience as “I can’t help it”. That is how homophobes paraphrase “sexual orientation is not chosen”.”
My statement is correct. When GLBTQ people tell homophobes ‘sexual orientation is not chosen, it is innate’ – homophobes rephrase that as “I can’t help it” as the premise for a new attack on homosexuality. In other words, the conversation goes sort of like this:
Homophobe: Homosexuality is a choice, you chose be depraved and disgusting.
GLBTQ person: No, I did not chose my sexual orientation anymore than any heterosexual did. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make same-sex lovemaking depraved or disgusting.
Homophobe: Oh, I see, so that’s how it is – now you can’t help it that you are depraved and disgusting . . .
Admit it, if you’ve argued with homophobes even a relatively short while, you’ve seen the above dialogue. Homophobes are very good at the moving target thing – counter one argument of theirs, and they fabricate another, and another, and another, and just when you think you’ve shot down every possible reason, excuse, guess, fantasy – they start over at the beginning. They aren’t seeking to be rational, just over-powering.
And that is the deeper failing in Fairyington’s proposition: it is an argument that invokes the logic of the opponent, but homophobes have abandoned logic and reason pretty much completely.
Even if Fairyington’s proposition were anything more than a semantic game, it is wasted on homophobes. Their response is “just chose not to engage in the behavior” or “Don’t act and you won’t get beat”. They don’t respect anything about our lives, choice or not, innate or not.
But, homophobes are not the only people in the discussion. There are lots and lots of people who are just confused or uninformed about the lives and experiences of GLBTQ people. The “even if it were chosen, there is nothing wrong with being gay” argument only confuses them.
They can understand “I didn’t chose to be gay just as you didn’t chose to be heterosexual”. And they get that, acknowledging our civil rights is just a matter of personal growth, compassion, and time.
Cassandra
Dear liar, whoever you are
Please stop posting the contents of your soul under my nom de plume. You are not fooling anyone other than your own teen friends.
If you lack the ability to actually refute what I have posted, go play on 4chan where your behavior is celebrated. Or clean your room and finish your homework.
Cassandra
Leviticus 18
Forbidden Sexual Practices
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. I am the Lord your God. 3 So do not act like the people in Egypt, where you used to live, or like the people of Canaan, where I am taking you. You must not imitate their way of life. 4 You must obey all my regulations and be careful to obey my decrees, for I am the Lord your God. 5 If you obey my decrees and my regulations, you will find life through them. I am the Lord.
6 “You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the Lord.
7 “Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.
8 “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives, for this would violate your father.
9 “Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.
10 “Do not have sexual relations with your granddaughter, whether she is your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for this would violate yourself.
11 “Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister.
12 “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative.
13 “Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “Do not violate your uncle, your father’s brother, by having sexual relations with his wife, for she is your aunt.
15 “Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, so you must not have sexual relations with her.
16 “Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, for this would violate your brother.
17 “Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. And do not take[a] her granddaughter, whether her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives, and this would be a wicked act.
18 “While your wife is living, do not marry her sister and have sexual relations with her, for they would be rivals.
19 “Do not have sexual relations with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity.
20 “Do not defile yourself by having sexual intercourse with your neighbor’s wife.
21 “Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
23 “A man must not defile himself by having sex with an animal. And a woman must not offer herself to a male animal to have intercourse with it. This is a perverse act.
24 “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for the people I am driving out before you have defiled themselves in all these ways. 25 Because the entire land has become defiled, I am punishing the people who live there. I will cause the land to vomit them out. 26 You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you.
27 “All these detestable activities are practiced by the people of the land where I am taking you, and this is how the land has become defiled. 28 So do not defile the land and give it a reason to vomit you out, as it will vomit out the people who live there now. 29 Whoever commits any of these detestable sins will be cut off from the community of Israel. 30 So obey my instructions, and do not defile yourselves by committing any of these detestable practices that were committed by the people who lived in the land before you. I am the Lord your God.”
V
Cassandra, you make me sad, with your hate and judgement.
But, I still heart Dave, and his kind and clear communication. Better than mine!
So, you know, whatever… all is not lost.
V
Whoa.. things just went from weird to weirder.
Wow, just wow.
Cassandra
To the author of Post 43:
You really have given your fraud away. I have multiple posts here on Queerty refuting the very interpretation/translation from Leviticus that you just posted.
By the way, that part of the Bible was written in Hebrew, at a time when it had no word for homosexuality, neither the word, nor the concept, appears in the actual text.
And if you invoke the Septuagint, remember that Koine greek had two words that meant men who have sex with men, and neither appear in the Bible.
The word translated ‘sin’ in the version you posted, doesn’t mean sin at all, something most Bible scholars know. It means ‘ritual impurity’ with a specific association to idolatry.
If you have to lie to make your point, and you clearly do, then there is something fundamentally wrong about your argument.
V
Cassandra, I have no idea what’s up with your split personality, various impostors, and boogie men, but you type faster than me, so no doubt I’m behind the curve.
Let me say this: I am not a homophobe or pretending to be anything I’m not. I personally think self-determination is a stronger argument than biological imperative when it comes to the fight for equal rights. But that’s just my opinion; whatever gets the job done is fine by me.
The Bible shit does provide a little insight into your perspective, however. You seem a little hung up. The whole “depraved and disgusting behavior” line is your argument, not mine. Sure, there are people who believe that, and people who troll, but that’s not me. Those are your demons to work through, I’m afraid.
Being an atheist, and having grown up an atheist, I am mercifully unburdened by religion. When I said love the “sin” I was just using the parlance of the culture at large–I don’t believe in any of that nonsense. I really couldn’t give two fucks about people who say to act out homosexual behavior is wrong or sinful or to be overcome. That whole sex=revulsion thing just isn’t in MY DNA.
I truly believe sex and love is a beautiful, wholesome, GOOD thing, no matter what form it takes. So it’s easy for me to say, “Do what the hell you want, freewill, blah, blah, blah.” I get that. It’s easy. I hope to make it easy for other people too.
randy
People do choose to be gay for a variety of reasons. In prisons, for instance, you certainly can’t argue that the men who are having sex with men are necessarily gay as others are. Yet they are having a sex.
Our construct of gay is actually only one. Go to other countries, and you will find quite another. In Thailand, it’s quite common to raise your youngest son as a girl, and the son will dress and act like a woman his entire life, and often have sex with other men. Are they gay? If so, how can it be that so many just happen to be born gay when this happens in most families? In Cambodia, men have sex with men all the time because women are difficult to find (unless they are prostitutes). By the time they do get married, they prefer sex with men because that’s where their experience has been. ARe they gay or not?
Go to places like Italy or Greece or other mediterranean places. You’ll find lots of guys having sex with men, but they certainly claim to not be gay. In the middle east, it’s not unusual to be a mentor to a younger male and have sex with him until his is ‘of age.’ In man of these cultures, pleasure sex is with men, but procreative sex with your wife.
Pat
@Cassandra #43 LOL. Don’t pull that shit out here and call it an argument. That hateful book can be used to justify everything from slavery to genocide. I’m quite certain from his writings that Moses detested the gays. His hatred doesn’t “prove” anything.
tony
I have been reading the comments on this page and thought I would put my 2 cents in. In my experience, the choice was in telling people I was gay. First let me back up and say that my family and some close friends are very much religious, as am I. I had a hard time accepting who I was and when i was finally ok to tell people, I told one of my friends first and she told me she was disappointed in me and we could talk when I found God. I don’t want to make this a story about how hurt i was, but rather about the choice. My choice was coming out, and telling her. My choice is also what I do when I get a boyfriend. I still have morals, and ideas about relationships. I am not going to go sleep around with everyone that is gay. I think that when you tell people you are gay they assume that you are going out to bars and hooking up with strangers and have lost all sense of moral standards.
Dave
Let me try this one more time from another angle.
The reason it’s important for us to distinguish between attraction, identity, and behaviour is because discrimination affects each element of our sexuality differently.
In the past, most if not all of the problem focused on our behaviour and our attraction. People were punished for having gay sex or “treated” for having same-sex desires.
While that is still a problem, these days in our part of the world most discrimination focuses on identity. ENDA isn’t about people getting fired for having gay sex or for feeling same sex attraction; it’s about protecting people’s right to (voluntarily) adopt a gay identity. Ditto DADT. Ditto same-sex marriage. Ditto adoption.
Notice all of these issues allow us the reprehensible alternative of pretending to be something we aren’t, and notice how often our opponents make a point of telling us this. Don’t want to get fired or discharged? Stop “ramming it down people’s throats”. Want to marry? Marry an opposite-sex partner you aren’t attracted to. Want to adopt? Sure, gay couples can’t do that, but presumably sexless single people can.
The message they’re sending us isn’t framed as “don’t be gay”. It’s framed as “sit down and shut up”.
Most of the hot-button issues aren’t about what we feel or do, but about who we declare ourselves to be. And trying to fight for them using the same rhetoric we used when trying to, for example, get under the thumb of sodomy laws or the DSM just isn’t all that helpful.
So it’s not that identifying and confirming the biological origins of same-sex attractions isn’t important–it obviously is. It’s that it only gets us so far.
Lots of bigots–and I suspect eventually all of them will get there, once sufficient proof of the biological origins of our attractions surfaces–have no problem accepting that we are “born gay” in terms of attraction. You hear this in their rhetoric–to them, being gay is something you can fix, or cure, or pray away, or just overcome by not giving in.
Even those who accept that it’s part of our biology and immutable have no problem denying us equality. Their arguments are rife with “I have no problem with gay people, but…” (But: “making me hire them violates my religious freedom!”, “letting them marry destroys the sacred institution of marriage!”, “letting them serve in the military hurts our fighting effectiveness!”, “letting them adopt is bad for children!”, and other sensationalist, slippery-sloping bilge). Most of our current opponents are by-and-large willing to concede our existence, even if their lunatic fringes are still trying to cure or fix or deny us.
Straight people are not stupid. They know that coming out and living openly–which is essential to identity issues like ENDA, DADT, adoption, and same-sex marriage–is a choice that each of us must make. If our only proffered defense is that we’re born this way, then it makes it easy for lots of folks in the middle to side with the bad guys. “OK, you’re born this way. Great. Be gay. But do so quietly and without expecting ‘special treatment’.” These are folks who concede our existence but don’t see that equality needs to follow on.
In short, even if they accept that we have no choice as to what we feel, they see no need to accept our choice to be who we feel we must.
WalkderDC
@ No. 51 · Dave
Dave, your problem isn’t that people aren’t understanding, the problem is that they disagree with you. Born gay, Born Black, Born a woman etc… This isn’t about our decision to live openly. This is about bigotry’s first step. Step one, dehumanize or get them to hide, if people don’t see them then we can start discriminating against them. It is irrelevent if people are out about being gay or if they’re sneaking around acting straight and quietly sleeping with same-sex peopl on the side. Everybody is subject to discrimination. This “Decision argument” is just a flighty intellectual argument. It’s like telling Latinos that they shouldn’t fight against bigotry against their race, but against people who don’t like them for admitting that they are Latino.
WalkderDC
One last thing, Somebody up earlier said that the person on here sounded like they were an ex gay arguing that position. I have to agree, do you notice all the screenames who have never posted on here before, suddenly advocating that homosexuality be classified a choice? Total ex gay argument.
Dave
@WalkderDC:
That’s cool. If people would rather believe in a quick-fix panacea that doesn’t really do any good, rock on.
It’s interesting that you bring up Latinos because race is pretty germane to the inborn trait/identity distinction. Sure, people are born Latino, but they’re discriminated against because they’re perceived to be Latino (whether they actually are or not).
And a born Latino who is perceived to be white faces the same problem a gay person does: if they choose to make their Latino heritage a part of their identity, then they will face anti-Latino discrimination. If they don’t, they will face far less discrimination from people who perceive them to be white. For that person, being born Latino isn’t the end-all, be-all that determines whether or not they will face discrimination, or how much.
And your ex-gay comment makes even less sense. Ex-gays will be the first to tell you that they didn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. Lots of them will even tell you that they were born gay. They just don’t think that being born gay means you have to be gay, the logic of which I’ve never really understood.
But it highlights my point: what they think of as “being gay” (behaviour and identity but not attraction) and what we think of as “being gay” (behaviour, identity, and attraction) are not the same thing. As long as we continue to lump all three elements of our sexuality together and pretend they’re the same, we’re never going to be able to convince anyone who just isn’t using the same vocabulary. And when we unbundle our sexuality, we have to acknowledge that while the sum-total of what we think of as our sexuality isn’t a choice, some of the individual parts may well be.
jason
I think we should always argue that sexual orientation is not a choice. By sexual orienation, I mean the thoughts and feelings that come to you automatically. This can be thoughts and feelings for one gender exclusively or for both genders.
However, I do believe there is benefit in arguing that sexual behavior is a choice. You can choose to be promiscuous, you can choose to be chaste. These are choices that are based on personal morality – in other words, your own set of values.
I honestly don’t see a risk to the gay community in arguing behavior is a choice.
Dave
@jason:
Yes, this, exactly.
Also, thank you for defining your terms. That matters.
The trouble with saying “homosexuality is not a choice” without defining “homosexuality” is that lots of people hearing it don’t define “homosexuality” the same way we do. When I say “I am a homosexual”, I mean that I am attracted to other men, that I pursue sexual and romantic relationships with other men, and that I call myself gay. When you say “homosexuality isn’t a choice”, you mean an attraction to the same sex (and I agree completely). When James Dobson says “homosexuality is a sin”, he means buttfucking. When a South American man says “homosexuality is disgusting”, he may mean only homosexual identity, and may even engage in homosexual behaviour himself.
There’s also a potential problem because things don’t always line up as neatly as we’d like. We may not think of it, but straight people also gained rights when same-sex sodomy was decriminalized; even if most of them will never use those rights, some will. Same-sex sodomy isn’t a gay right, it’s a human right, or more precisely an indivisible part of the human rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. We didn’t deserve to be able to engage in it because we never chose to be attracted to our own sex; we deserved it because it’s a part of a basic, inalienable human right.
If we limit our definition of ourselves to our inborn biological desires, we limit what we can accomplish. We are more than that, and we deserve more than the right to be tolerated because we didn’t choose to be born with a particular set of attractions. We deserve the right to define ourselves and our relationships and to enjoy every right that allows us to pursue those relationships to the fullest, the same as everybody else.
Cam
No. 55 · jason
I think we should always argue that sexual orientation is not a choice. By sexual orienation, I mean the thoughts and feelings that come to you automatically. This can be thoughts and feelings for one gender exclusively or for both genders.
However, I do believe there is benefit in arguing that sexual behavior is a choice. You can choose to be promiscuous, you can choose to be chaste. These are choices that are based on personal morality – in other words, your own set of values.
I honestly don’t see a risk to the gay community in arguing behavior is a choice.
______________________
Jason, the problem being that groups like Fred Phelps aren’t out there with signs that say “God hates people who decide to behave in a way that makes them seem like fags.” They are out there with signs that say “God Hates Fags” no behavior is listed.
Xilch
I thought most gay men, myself included, felt they were choosing to have sex with men rather than women because it worked better for them, felt hotter. I didn’t really think of myself as gay until I was about 20, after having had sex with women starting at 15, then men and women starting at 18, and then chose to exclusively be with men. It was downright natural, really. There are plenty of anonymous commentators who will no doubt say “WTF? You were gay all along blah blah blah” but I arrived at the realization that I preferred men to women after trying out all the available permutations. Once you decide you’re gay, you can then fine-tune what positions you like, etc. You get to try out a variety of positions and they are all pretty fucking fun.
A lot of gay men probably prefer the “I was born this way!” mantra, and no doubt felt different and out of place growing up. This can actually be destructive, as it reinforces the self-victimizing or defensive tone that winds up on the comment board here more often than not, strangles most gay men’s repressed and potentially creative personalities, and worst of all, it’s a tone and stance that winds up putting us exactly where bigots want us. “I was born this way…I’m a freak… won’t you love me anyway? … sob sob…”
Did I say that or just think it?
ewe
IS THERE ANY BENEFIT TO ARGUING HETEROSEXUALITY (AND ACTING ON IT) IS A CHOICE?
Cam
No. 57 · Xilch said…
“A lot of gay men probably prefer the “I was born this way!” mantra, and no doubt felt different and out of place growing up. This can actually be destructive, as it reinforces the self-victimizing or defensive tone that winds up on the comment board here more often than not, strangles most gay men’s repressed and potentially creative personalities, and worst of all, it’s a tone and stance that winds up putting us exactly where bigots want us. “I was born this way…I’m a freak… won’t you love me anyway? … sob sob…”
______________________________
Born this way isn’t an excuse, it just is. By your logic, black people or women should claim that they decided to be black or decided to be women because if they were born that way it somehow makes them victims. You are posting using the same phrasiology as the earlier posters…my guess is we have one of them back under a different screename. Fake posters are usually the only people that feel the need to list out their sexual history to validate their comments.
ewe
@Xilch: Being gay is more than how you have sex. It is very disappointing that i have to still say such a simple thing to so many people.
ewe
I knew all those straight guys who turned me down were choosing not to be with me but really wanted to.
FlopsyMopsyCT
OK, did anyone else think the woman’s article cited in this post was absolute crap, and not specifically in content, but just in general? I had to read that stupid thing twice to get a glimmer of what she was talking about. Thanks to everyone who provided clarification.
I think the problem with the argument she makes, and what other people on this board who support her, is that it takes the same-sex rights debate out of context. Yes, obviously there is some element of choice when it comes to sexuality. However, I think what she makes is a distinction without a difference. The fact is, gay rights opponents are not thinking of the debate in these abstract ways. What they fear is some booming declaration from our nation’s highest court declaring homosexuals a protected class under the Constitution. The debate relies heavily on the nature v. nurture dichotomy. I think proponents of the woman’s words are on to something, it’s very interesting, but I don’t think it does any good given the structure of the current debate. Should the debate ever change to allow a broader rhetoric, then yeah, maybe it would be useful. However, at this point, arguing that homosexuality is a choice, in any sense of that word, would do a great deal of harm to the GL movement. Indeed, I think it would sound the death knell. All the conservative camps care about is whether there is a glimmer of heterosexuality that a person can cling onto in order to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Yes, we make a choice to engage in homosexual sex with others, but it only goes that so far as to determine specific people, not gender. That is key and coming out with rhetoric like above is a bad bad move.
One last thing, which again adds to my frustration with the above article, is the reference regarding the use of biological abnormalities for genocide and slavery really necessary? I realize that there are camps out there that don’t like homosexuals, but does anyone really fear there is going to be some kind of government-condoned genocide of gays and lesbians, or laws that will bring them into slavery? Urg! I realize there are other countries that are grazing those lines, but the US is probably not one of them.
FlopsyMopsyCT
“[U]nless of course you are trying to tell me that those animals made a choice because they wanted to upset their parents.”
This is the funniest thing ever.
Cassandra
“One last thing, . . . is the reference regarding the use of biological abnormalities for genocide and slavery really necessary? . . . but does anyone really fear there is going to be some kind of government-condoned genocide of gays and lesbians, or laws that will bring them into slavery?”
Actually, there are many people in the U.S. who seek to institute the death penalty for homosexuality. If you look up theocracy watch, or the name Rushdooney, you’ll find information on the extreme right edge of the Religious Right, which seeks to create a theocracy in the U.S., and install and enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. Several of the leading Republican candidates in the last presidential election were tied to this movement, and the seed money for Prop 8 came from a wealthy “disciple” of Rushdooney’s. People with ties to the same ideology went to Uganda, with the result of inspiring the pending proposal to criminalize homosexuality there.
Historically, times of economic upheaval and collapses have been exploited by extremists to impose radical and otherwise unthinkable changes on societies.
Those who are truly driving anti-gay legislation in the U.S. are playing for keeps.