I think and feel I am a unique soul. -But not unique by determination of sex, sexual preference, gender-identity or gender-expression. It is the other way around: I am free to choose in these matters. Of course this choice is limited to a certain degree by nature (bringing about more or less talent) and history (bringing about more or less support), but my heart (free will) is decisive in the end. Sexual freedom is not only about the liberty to explore and practice any sexual behaviour. To me this liberty is just a condition for emancipation, not the work itself of making your own choices. Positive freedom is about realizing values in imagination and commitments, development of yourself with worth. In this view I think for example homosexuality should be praised, as a form of contact with it's own unique features and advantages for your selfhood and sociability. It doesn't make much sense to me to be proud of it, when you look at it as a basic orientation given by nature alone, while leaving spiritual enrichment outside it's origin and at best in a supportive role. True pride consists in creativity, making your own sexuality a matter of choice on grounds you have taken to be suited to your life and destiny. So I agree with some religious people that homosexuality is largely a matter of choice. But I disagree with a negative evaluation of this choice. This makes my strive and strategy for sexual emancipation differ radically from main stream freedom fighters. In my opinion, we should realize the whole distinction of heterosexuality and homosexuality as natural difference in sexual orientation is invented (about only 150 years ago) in a war against the force of one-sided monosexual normativity and not yet against the thought of it. What do you think about this?
I think the question of free will is complicated. What does free will mean when it is inherently influenced by what you called nature and history? This free will will be different depending on the nature and the history you are given. I think perhaps you mean the agency in sexuality, the ability of making such a decision and the fact of actually making it. While it is not a free choice per se, but it is a choice by your own agency. However, it is because that there is nature and history that the argument is complicated too. If homosexuality is "normal", a part of the spectrum of human sexuality, then it should neither be praised nor be denigrated, because it is merely "normal" like anything else. But it is not considered "normal". So starting from a lower point, one becomes compelled to move up the echelon, or really, to regain the normality status once loss. From the outside, it may look like pride, but it is merely a reclamation of what it is, normal, because the starting point is lower. Going back to the free will, choice, agency, pride should be in the fact that you realise you have agency and you exercise this agency to present yourself in the most original manner possible (which is similar to what you said), but not on the choices that you actually make, because there choices are not always free (if they ever are). There are probably a lot of holes in this piece, but this is what I've got right now and feel free to respond.
