LGBT News Gay Man says sexuality is a choice

yes

 

That man should be arrested for depriving a village of an idiot.

 

I can already hear people go "TOLD YA" -_-'

 

I too myself have some trouble understand sexual behavior and sex orientation
Although I'm starting to get it a little .
But this guy seems more confused than me It's like he's saying that everyone can be gay together or straight together regardless of orientation ? Like what the hell
personally I don't agree with his theory sorry I believe I was born a lesbian it didn't just fall in my lap just because it took me a long time to find out what I am and I'm not screwing guys sexuality maybe fluid not fluid enough to make me want to screw a guy . You know why because I was born a lesbian :tantrum:
Any one get the feeling he is trying way too hard to be liked ?

 

I think the article was off on some points, and was intentionally provocative. However, I think the core message is correct. Whenever we argue that it isn't a choice, we're philosophically undermining the dignity of our sexual autonomy.

What if being gay WERE a choice? Would it be a wrong choice? I don't think so. So why does it matter?

Here is why I think the choice argument is a bad argument to make publicly: bisexual and pansexual members of the community.

At it's core the bigotry directed at us, and what ultimately unites the entire queer community is a fight against gender normality. When two men are together it's "wrong" because they're supposed to be with women. When a man acts what is considered socially feminine he is "wrong", because he's supposed to be masculine. When a trans person begins their transition, they're "wrong" because they're going against their assigned birth gender.

It's easy to argue from a gay or lesbian perspective the choice argument. If we aren't allowed to live our lives openly - we're fairly fucked. As a gay man I have no romantic or sexual attraction toward women. Did I "choose" to be this way? No, of course not. But I am choosing to act on it, because I've weighed the options and decided that living a lie and depriving myself of love and enjoyable sex is too heavy a price to pay.

However, what if you're bisexual or pansexual? You don't choose the way that you feel, but you do have a choice on whether or not to act on it. If the root of our argument is that it's not a choice, what happens when we're talking about people who can choose not to act on their same gender attraction, and only act on their opposite gender attraction? What's to stop our opponents from saying that since someone who is bisexual obviously has a choice - since they're attracted to both genders - that they should only choose the straight and socially acceptable choice? What's to stop them from saying that they should ignore their same gender attractions? The answer is nothing.

We've ceded ground to our opponents by making the argument about choice, rather than about sexual and romantic autonomy. We did that, as the article says, because it was convenient. It was the easiest way for us to show unfairness and discrimination. ...but even if it were a choice, why should it matter? Whose business is it? Why should the state be involved in regulating the sexual and romantic lives of its citizens?

That's actually a much deeper argument, and one that actually serves to benefit the entire community. It's an argument that even serves to benefit the straight community, because not every sexual act performed by straight people falls into socially acceptable categories.

I would have written the article differently, but I think the core message is on point.

 

I do understand what the author is saying. His point is that acceptance of non-heterosexual non-cisgendered behavior shouldn't be tolerated only because someone was born that way. What about people who could choose to live as straight but are in fact queer? They could deny themselves happiness and freedom by conforming to society, but that doesn't mean they should.

The point is that tolerance should not only be extended to those who "can't change even if i tried, even if i wanted to", but rather to all those who feel like they wish to explore non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered experiences, even if they aren't severely depressed when they live within the box.

And this author does acknowledge that it isn't a choice for many people; but perhaps he has tried to come out to people who pointed out his past straight relationships and said he wasn't really gay and therefore its a choice and therefore he isn't deserving of acceptance/tolerance.

All this being said, if the wrong people read this article this could be misconstrued. But generally I agree with his point of view, that people should view non-straight/non-cisgendered behavior as a right, and not a symptom of a genetic anomaly.



In reaction to Aldrick, I am bisexual and I have had people ask me if it was a choice and doubt my motivations ("Oh you're just sick of guys cuz you had a few bad experiences and therefore we are dismissing the legitimacy of this phase you're going through").

For sure, the driving force thus far is from LGT people who do have no choice and therefore convinced conservative members of society that this movement deserved to be taken seriously. But now that we're here, we can't leave out the bi/pan/demi/ace/etc (not to mention catchall identities like queer and genderqueer) because their choices are valid and important.

 

Saying you choose to be gay is like saying you choose to be white or black.
-_-

 

The author of the article is an idiot and there is a lot wrong with Same Love, but the part he's complaining about is one of the smaller parts of it.

He basically acknowledges that being gay isn't a choice, but sexuality is fluid and hidden sometimes. He's not a good or consistent writer.

 

I understand all of that, and I too went through a long period in my life where I wanted desperately to be straight. In fact, before I was an atheist, I prayed - pleaded - to be made straight constantly. Then when I didn't become straight, I prayed - pleaded - to be made bisexual so I could pretend to be straight.

I still carry heavy scars from that period in my life. So, I understand the damage that the article causes as well as it's offensive nature.

I think the article failed on a number of counts, and the reason it failed was because the author was attempting to be intentionally provocative. As a result the core message - what he was really trying to say - became muddled and obscured.

I understand why people had the reaction that they had. I just think that if we look past the intentionally provocative nature of the article, that there is a valid point worth discussing.

 

The writer just wants to cause some drama. What a senseless article.

 

He's not saying that being gay is a choice, anywhere in the article.

 

(referring to some posts further up)

I don't think it's right to drop the 'it's not a choice' argument, we need to focus more on the positive side of it(No, it's not a choice, but there is nothing wrong with us either way).

Adding in the 'if it was, why would it matter' I personally think would do more harm than good really. It's going to add fuel to the 'so it's a choice, but you won't admit it' fire and is going to put us stuck at the extreme(and multi's who lean our way/go this way) in a stickier position. It'd pretty much give them even more of a reason to say that we CAN be changed(as in our identity as a whole) and may get them to work even harder at it.

Sure, we can choose to not act on it, but how many people out there have lived perfectly happy lives pretty much lonely and celibate? Look how much damage it can do in general feeling like you have to keep your feelings(in regards to a bigger part of life at that) locked away like that.

 

^It's not even just the sexual aspect. Why should we be talked into a trying to bend our emotions/feelings in a way a lot of us know we cannot? As you said, NOT all of us are bi(pan)sexual or fluid.

 

I was agreeing with you, just was adding in otherwise.

I wasn't saying their orientation is fluid, that was just an 'we are not all either' statement. I may have worded that slightly off.

 

Someone take this off the internet.

I understand the "why does it matter" point he's trying to make, but WHY IN THE NAME OF EVERYTHING GOOD WOULD HE SAY

You're not helping the situation buddy. Just go back to whatever hole you came from.

 

Ok I see what you guys are saying. And I am not at all trying to deny that sexual orientation is an immutible trait for the vast majority of people. I just thought he was coming from a place of frustration with how sexual orientation can be "tolerated" just because it's not a choice. But it's something he could have said more tactfully. And it's also not a topic in which he should project his own personal experience on everyone.

I agree with a few points he made, but he was being hostile towards those who actually cannot choose.