Miriam Perez on the main Feministing blogs recently covered the serious issue that was debated by Rachel Maddow and Richard Cohen on Maddow's show recently. And seriously: mad props to Maddow for handling that so smoothly.The entire situation is absolutely terrifying. I had a baffling experience talking to a man from Ghana who told me that homosexuality was created by white tourists turning their inhabitants "gay-for-pay." It's astonishing to realize that the same religious conservatives, self-help gurus, and politicians who are putting the disenfranchisement of the queer population and of women on the American policy agenda are attempting to have the same effect globally -- and even worse that they appear to be, in the case of Ugandan politics,
Anyway, I wanted to raise a few general issues about the philosophical underpinnings of whether or not one makes a "choice" to be gay. AND, I would also like to ask the defining question of this issue: did one of those headlines on the Maddow show actually say that Cohen believes "homosexuality can be cured with touch therapy?" Really? What does that look like? Are they sending gay men to massage parlors? That is one of the funniest things I've seen all day.
Ahem. While I think that, strictly speaking, my choice to identify as a queer woman is "under my control," I need to emphasize that I don't have any concern with debunking the personal experiences of those who feel it was not their choice. Seriously, not at all. What I want to say is that I think it's problematic (even if it might be politically necessary, for the time being) to emphasize the claim that homosexuality is not a choice so strongly, because evading homophobia with that line doesn't dig deep enough and get to the real issue -- which is that, whether it's choice or not, homosexuality is not wrong.
Let me explain what I mean here. A sample conversation:
Homophobe: "Homosexuality is wrong, and people should not choose to participate in it." Opposition: "Homosexuality is not a choice. It's caused by genetic factors, et al. Therefore you can't blame gays."
While this kind of response may be disarming the homophobic demographic, what it doesn't do is acknowledge that even if homosexuality turns out to be a choice -- it shouldn't matter at all whether homosexuality is a choice or a state of being. Homophobia is still wrong, because homosexuality is not unethical.
Personally, I believe in behaving; we have as much free will as possible, in a limited sense, until proven otherwise. There isn't space to really flesh that out here. I will say that personally, I did make a choice personally to systematically question the norms I had been handed in identifying myself as queer. I chose to risk social alienation and rejection from my extended family (my parents But this is a totally different kind of choice than what these people are referring to. This is a choice that I made, for my own sake -- not a choice my parents forced upon me, and not a choice that my Christian faith put me in the cross-firing of (I was not raised by a religions family). In one sense, the "choice" I'm talking about renders the conversation meaningless, because it is not a man who would choose to explore his sexuality further and find he was really attracted exclusively to women, it's a man. His identify is and should be up to him.
The whole Freudian idea that homosexuality is a result of insufficient attachment to your same-sex parent is clearly bogus, not just because Freud's Oedipal theories are bogus but because if that was true, it would mean that in order to be straigh
t, you'd have to have a messed-up relationship with your opposite-sex parent. LOL. When people say that homosexuality is wrong, what they are really saying is that either that it goes against Nature, because doesn't further the reproduction of the species, or that it goes against God's will. Usually both. Unfortunately, this logic dates at least back to ancient Greece. The French philosopher Michel Foucault, in the third volume of his History of Sexuality, entitled The Care of the Self, demonstrates this by analyzing the section on sexual dreams in a dream interpretation manual written in Ancient Greece by Artemidorus. In this text, Artemidorus described sexual relations between women, which signify the transmission-production of "feminine knowledge," to be as "unnatural as those with beast or god."
The understanding is the strange claim that, although homosexuality goes against nature and god, does not disappear of its own accord; it needs moralizing speeches and laws to keep it from overtaking our species. It is as if someone suggested both that the law of gravity was a law of nature and that it needed a literal police force to keep it in place. The idea is that our civilization will crumble without this moralization. But in reality, it doesn't even make sense to say that there is no evolutionary function for homosexuality. Sure there is. Sexuality in any form encourages cohesion in a group and the formation strong social bonds. It's beneficial for there to be female-female solidarity or male-male solidarity just as much as it's beneficial for there to be male-female solidarity.
And while I'm at it...This article about gay marriage is real and was published. I think this is amazing(ly scary). There is nothing so uncanny as the phenomenon of a person who could potentially be intelligent if it weren't for something having gone horribly wrong. Everything he says about what the historical function of heterosexual marriage is in some sense "accurate," but the fact that he thinks that there is no such thing as gay lovers who relate to each other based on shared values, and that he thinks all they do is have really hot sex indicates to me that he does most of his research about homosexuality via the "illicit" avenue of hardcore pornography. The terrifying psychological subtext -- where he basically says, why don't you pity us, gay people, because we have totally given up our erotic gratification to march down the aisle with a ball-and-chain so that you can do whatever you please and we can keep society intact -- makes it so embarrassingly obvious that he feels that if he were to give into his homosexual desires his personal life would spiral totally out of control because he would be so erotically satisfied. He finds it impossible to believe anyone could be in a queer relationship without doing the same. Ted Haggard, anyone? Also, for any academics out there, can we believe that he uses the phrases "a priori" and "vis-a-vis" in the following sentences: "These four aspects of marriage are not rights, but obligations. They are marriage's "a priori" because marriage is a part of the kinship system, and kinship depends on the protection, organization, and often the exploitation of female sexuality vis-a-vis males."
Anyway! I don't know; this is just the level I'd like to see the debate engaged on. But it's probably going to be a while after we defeat wingnuts like Richard Cohen that we can do that in the mainstream media. So for now I guess I'll open the floor up. If people have experiences feeling that their sexual orientation either is or is not under their control, I would really love to hear them. I hope we can keep it civil.
All yours,
Alexandria Brown
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Question Of Choice In Sexual Orientation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17519
Haha, okay... all my formatting got lost. The sentence in which I wrote "This article about gay marriage is real and was published" was supposed to be a link to the following article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
ALSO, I think some of the confusion might be coming from another formatting error in my post. The last sentence of paragraph 5 should read:
In one sense, the "choice" I'm talking about renders the conversation meaningless, because it is not a gay man who would choose to explore his sexuality further and find he was really attracted exclusively to women, it's a straight man.
That's a pretty important part of my argument.
There was a recently a post about discrimination against transgendered individuals, ie one's refusal or choosing to date a pre-op transgendered individual. I think for some people sexuality is a choice.
As a heterosexual woman I am attracted to males, physically and biologically/anatomically. I wouldn't get turned on by touching anyone's vagina but my own. It could very well happen that I meet a man who- unbeknownst to me has a vagina- and be physically attracted to him but then when it comes time to have sex I am no longer aroused or attracted to this man because he doesn't have a penis. Is that a choice? Could I just will myself or somehow "get over" there being a vagina and just enjoy it as if it were a penis or is a penis essential to me reaching sexual satisfaction?
Is a penis being essential to me reaching sexual satisfaction make me a bigot? Does my heterosexuality depend on anatomy as well?
I think if sexuality was inherent to anatomy then no, it isn't a choice. Because even if for all you're worth you were ready and willing to go a few rounds with this person and that desire to do so slips because their anatomy turned you off then you didn't CHOOSE to be turned off, it was your natural reaction.
But if it isn't, if say you could just close your eyes and go for it anyway, then it IS a choice and presentation is physical preference, like height, weight, eye color, hair color and everything else.
>
Hi Phenicks,
Thanks for your comment. I see where you're coming from, but I think there's kind of a false semantic dichotomy here, because the definition of "heterosexual" is someone who chooses to have sex with and is exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. By definition, someone who willed themselves to "get over" this preference wouldn't be heterosexual, they'd be some stripe of queer.
Personally, there was a psychological process of choosing to make myself comfortable with the idea of having a relationship with a woman, and the sexual attraction followed that. I had to unlearn thinking of sex as solely based on male orgasm, on intercourse, along with a lot of other things before it really made sense to me. I also had to overcome a lot of cultural conditioning to view other women as sexual competition (for real or imaginary male attention), and not potentially rewarding sexual partners in their own right.
We have to remember that it's much easier to go along with the general current in the water and be straight than it is to be queer in our society. All of our advertising hinges on heterosexuality, and we are constantly getting (dysfunctional or otherwise) messages affirming that we are doing the "right thing" by being an obedient, heterosexual, gender-conforming person.
What seems like a gut, visceral aversion to being with a partner of the same-sex just mightbe the result of years of massive cultural conditioning to find such a thing disgusting.
So again, by definition, a person who identifies as homosexual going to have to systematically choose to ignore those messages if you want to choose to pursue an interest in same-sex relationships. You're at least choosing to encourage your desires in the absence of support, even if you don't choose to have those desires (I feel like I chose to have them, personally).
What I encourage, and what it really comes down to, is making sure that you have psychologically undone the predetermined bias towards heterosexuality, and are making the decision on your own. There are probably many fewer straight people who are making the decision on their own, simply because our culture is so heteronormative. Obviously there is nothing wrong with the choice of opposite-sex partners, so long as it's made as an individual's own choice, and not as the result of fear or groupthink. And really, the same goes for any lifestyle decision, sexual or otherwise.
The difference, again, is that gay-converters are asking people to look to someone other than themselves (God, nature, the general public, Freud, their parents, the flying spaghetti monster) for confirmation about what the right decision is for their sexuality. I am asking for people to acknowledge that we live in a society which unfairly predisposes us towards heterosexuality, and to make sure the choices you are making are informed choices -- and your own choices.
This is an extremely interesting theory you have here, about how we are conditioned in a heteronormative society, and that might be why alot of us are straight. But it scares me because if what you say is true - it's like proving the conservatives right.
I.e., conservatives love to say that gays are corrupting their children and turning them gay.
I absolutely reject this argument because I absolutely do not believe it to be a choice (not for most anyways) nor do I believe that most people are capable of "switching sides" even if they wanted to.
Being a part of feminism almost makes me want to be a lesbian. Because so many women are, and because of the nature of feminism and our criticisms of men and the patriachy, I almost wish I could be a Lesbian. But I can't. I'm simply not *sexually* attracted to women. I find them attractive at times. I like to look at them. I like boobs for example. But I don't get turned on by them. They don't come across as "hot" to me the way men do. They don't make my knees shake. And I were to think about a woman during sex it would kill the moment for me not help it.
For me, to Phenicks point, if I discovered a potential partner was trans and had a vagina, I couldn't go through with having sex with them. I just wouldn't be attracted to them anymore. The things that turn me, the sex I like, etc. is in large part centered around a certain anatomy. I really don't think I'm being homophobic at all. I have huge support for the community and gay marriage, etc. I just am not gay myself. I'm heterosexual. I didn't choose to be, I simply am.
I think that there is a scale between 1 and 10 of homosexual and heterosexual. Some people are closer to the middle, and thus they probably can choose a side. But some of us are closer to 1 or 10 and for us it really isn't a choice. It really is just who we are. I believe that for both homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
But I have to admit your posts are very interesting to ponder. I just get scared of giving the conservatives even more fodder.
Honeybee,
Thanks, I'm glad you find it interesting. Since this is a Feminist blog, I'm trying to debate the topic in terms of what I think is actually true, not in terms of sound bytes to launch at conservative politicians. We're in safe(r) place here. ;)
Also, a subtlety that I don't think the conservatives will pick up on, that feminists might, is this: this attitude is not "creating" gay people where they didn't exist before. A successful undoing of heteronormative culture just liberates people to choose for themselves either way.
As I just said to Phenicks, you don't have to force people to become gay in order to have them question their heteronormative assumptions. Their desires might end up looking exactly the same from the outside (unlikely if they were previously both heteronormative andsexist, but whatever), but so long as the decisions they make about their partners are coming from a state of 1) self-determination and 2) tolerance for the rights of others, it's fine!
Importantly, regarding the trans issue -- I'm not talking about a "test" scenario where you discover a trans man or woman with the genitalia of the opposite sex from the one they identify with. I am talking about a person, on their own time, solitary or with friends, contemplating what their desires are and whether their desires are being artificially constrained by the prevailing social morality. The trans issue is entirely different territory. Frankly, that scenario doesn't have to do directly with homosexuality at all, because if you don't want to date a trans man, that is because you don't like vaginas, not because you're not attracted to women -- because a trans man is a man, and not a woman. Whoops!
One thing you're saying that I really don't understand is "I like boobs, for example. But I don't get turned on by them." Do you mean... you like your own breasts? Or do you just like other women's breasts in the abstract? Hahaha. This is actually funny because Immanuel Kant defines art this way -- as the disinterested appreciation of beauty. And when I took that aesthetics course I thought he was full of it. But maybe I should reconsider. LOL.
Anyway, if you believe that heterosexuality "is just who you are," it's totally your right. Even if philosophically I think it doesn't make sense, that's on a certain technical level that I don't expect everyone to be worried about. If it's what works for you, I'm really happy for you to embrace it.
However, I will say I dislike the Kinsey scale, I think it's still exclusionary. You still create a binary so long as there are only two poles, one on either end of the "spectrum" (gay and straight). This leaves out genderqueer, asexual, or intersexed people. Instead, I propose a new model: The Rhizomatic, De-centered, Aerial Lemon-Green Vines Growing Simultaneously In All Directions... In a Thriving And Brightly Colored Tropical Rainforest model of sexuality. :.)
But I didn't grow up in a conservative household. Most of my friends are bisexual. Yet, I just *cant* do it. Even as a married woman I find myself *noticing* other men but not cheating on my husband or anything like that but I notice. I don't *notice* women in that way. If she has a nice hairstyle or nice clothes or shoes I may take notice and wonder where did she get it and if I could find it on sale lol but thats about it. I don't see a woman and get all hot and bothered the way I could if I saw an attractive man.
I think its a little insulting to say that every heterosexual person is "programmed" to be heterosexual, like straight people are all drones who are secretly homosexual or queer. I don't agree with that.
I think heterosexuality serves a purpose in nature for reproducing- but that there ARE people , like myself, who REALLY enjoy sex with the opposite gender. I also think that homosexuality occurs simply because there are people who are attracted to the same sex and the only thing that turns them on more than their own genitals are the genitals of a hot person of the same sex. The only "choice" in people who are "inherently" hetero/homosexual is that they choose not to conform to what others tell them is ok. IE, a heterosexual woman being told she's only straight because "THEY" told her to be straight or even douchebags pushing her into tapping into her inner lesbian *just for him* or a homosexual woman being told she's only a lesbian because she can't find a man. Both sides face pressures to either be queer or outright bisexual. For men its definitely a stronger push to simply be heterosexual, unless he isn't masculine enough then everyone calls him emasculating names and question his heterosexuality and treat him (a cis man) as if he identifies as a woman.
Phenicks:
Please read again what I said about semantics -- if this doesn't apply to you, then I'm not talking about you -- I'm talking about people who would prefer not to identify as heterosexual but feel pressured to do so. Again, my concern was never to legislate anyone's private desires. Your private desires are yours and yours alone, to be shared with, if anyone, your partner. Nothing I say here should make you feel threatened, and I'm sorry if it did.
I don't exclusively have sex with women and I absolutely believe that it's possible to have sex with opposite-sex partners for its own sake. I think you're missing a distinction between identifying the structures of a culture and describing personal motivations for participation in what looks like that culture. Or a distinction between a) expanding the types of pleasures that are normalized -- versus b) replacing one type of normative pleasure with the other. My goal is a.
I am not saying that there is anyone walking around thinking "I think hetero sex is sexy because this is the best way for me to reproduce my species!" Obviously, people are doing it because they find pleasure and emotional comfort in it. This is clear.
However, they also find: normative approval of their values. I absolutely can't get into a debate about whether heteronormativity exists in the United States, because that it does is patently obvious to me. I am not using a conspiracy theory to refer to the phenomenon. You simply can't say that, given the state of human rights globally (look at Uganda, as I mentioned at the very beginning of this post), men and women face equal incentives to be queer OR straight. We have very narrowly escaped seeing the death penalty be implemented in Uganda. Heternormative privilege exists worldwide, and that is all that I am concerned with undoing. Not any unwilling women's dresses. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
I just think having females and males is part of reproductive nature because you need both gametes to reproduce, however I dont think heterosexuality is a prerequisite for reproduction since many homosexuals have kids and many heterosexuals dont. Reproductive impulse is seperate from sexual orientation.
Good point! And as we've seen on the blog before, homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. Most interestingly in bonobo society, it serves a very specific function of increasing social and political cohesion among the group.
Kingdom? lol!
Bonobos seem to be the only animal I'm actually jealous of.
haha. queendom.
There's lots of animal societies that do this...I posted an article recently, of a scientist who found upwards of 400 examples of homosexual behavior that serves a social function in each of these animal societies.
This is ONLY recent because of ART (artificial reproductive technology). Before then, if you wanted to have children, gay or straight you HAD to be part of a heterosexual sex act and if you were a male you HAD to climax or no deal.
But I don't think sexuality has anything to do with an urge to reproduce because 1) most pregnancies are unplanned and 2) most of those unplanned pregnancies were teh result of BC failure and 3) many infertile people are heterosexual and 4) many fertile heterosexuals have no desire to procreate or parent 5) there are homosexual people with biological children who had a desire for those children.
But the very reason puberty exists is to prepare your body for reproduction regardless of what your sexuality is or even if you can reproduce. SO heterosexual sex/sex acts owe a thing or two to nature's will to continue the species.
Okay, I really have no idea where you're going with the sexuality-reproduction distinction, but I just want to point out that, despite popular conception, male climax is, technically speaking, no more or less necessary than female climax. That is why the withdrawal method of BC doesn't work.
And just to provoke y'all --
http://aletheia-in-the-shortwave.blogspot.com/2009/08/thought-of-day.html
I think its a little insulting to say that every heterosexual person is "programmed" to be heterosexual, like straight people are all drones who are secretly homosexual or queer. I don't agree with that.
But that's not what the parent commenter is saying. If I understand correctly, she's saying that everyone is programmed to be heterosexual to some extent. For some people, this matches up perfectly with their natural desires. For some people, it's so at odds with their natural desires that it's a no-brainer to identify as queer. But a lot of other people's sexuality is fluid enough that, if they never question their cultural programming, they can quite easily identify as straight--but if they take the time to examine that programming, and their own desires, the possibility of queer attraction is opened up as well.
Of course there are as many variations and shades of grey as there are people in the world. Speaking personally, heteronormative cultural programming squicked me the hell out ever since I was a small child, and at the onset of puberty I realized I found women attractive and started identifying as a lesbian. It was only later that I could accept that there were certain circumstances where I was attracted to men as well, because it was easier to sort out my own desires from heteronormative expectations from the standpoint of being queer. Just one of the weird, complicated ways that cultural programming can interact with one's sexuality.
Yeah, you've stated what I was trying to say very clearly, Fortuna. Thanks. :.)
I consider myself queer by choice, natural inclination, and due to experience. I didn't feel sexual attraction to women until I learned that this was an option; unlike many queer people, I didn't know at an early age that I was somehow different than the other girls. (Well, at least not in terms of sexuality.) So I think there's an element of choice, at least for me. Once I opened myself to the possibility of romantic attraction to women, I found myself seeking it. But it was initially an intellectual argument for me. (ie "What does it matter what bits they have?" I was completely unaware of trans people at the time.)
I don't think, though, that I would have felt this way if I were not somewhat naturally inclined to be attracted to women. I don't understand monosexuality on a gut level, but I believe people when they say that they are monosexual.
Then, the thing that I'm definitely not supposed to talk about is how being raped changed my sexuality. Before, wangs were awesome. I loved them. Now, I feel nauseated just thinking about coming into contact with one. I feel romantic attraction to penis-bearers, although the penis does dampen that a bit, but I don't think I could be sexual with one again, not for a long time at least. But, of course, I'm not supposed to say any of this, because queerness is purely genetic and to say anything else is blasphemy to mainstream gay rights political dogma.
My experience was very similar to yours. Thank you for sharing it. And, thank you for the blasphemy, lol.
I think sexuality's a complicated thing - there's a tremendous interplay between our biology and our social and cultural conditioning.
The most important statement you made in this post is that whether it's a choice or not shouldn't matter. Discriminating against someone for sleeping with a consenting adult is flatly ridiculous.
I think sexuality's a complicated thing - there's a tremendous interplay between our biology and our social and cultural conditioning.
The most important statement you made in this post is that whether it's a choice or not shouldn't matter. Discriminating against someone for sleeping with a consenting adult is flatly ridiculous.
This post, and this discussion, gave me a "privilege recognition" moment.
My initial reaction was, like many others, a little...affronted. I'm a heterosexual woman. I am simply not attracted to women. At all. Never have been. I have no interest in breasts or in cis female genitals, I've never fantasized about a woman, I've never had a crush on a woman...and I feel like this knowledge has always informed my anti-homophobic sentiments. Since I couldn't "choose" to be gay, then it logically follows that homosexual people can't "choose" to be straight, either. (Granted, there's a continuum in between, but bisexual people can't choose to NOT be attracted to a certain sex either.) I've always taken this for granted.
Now, you haven't changed my mind on that. But, you have given me a somewhat eye-opening experience. The suggestion that perhaps I "chose" my sexuality insulted me. The idea that I could have potentially been brainwashed into being straight hurt my feelings. I felt affronted. I felt defensive. And then I realized...this is what LGBTQ people have to deal with every single day. People questioning whether or not their gender and/or sexual desires are really "natural." People thinking there's a possibility of changing these desires. People openly stating that they "chose" to be that way. They have to feel like this every day. All the time.
Thank you for this. Even though I disagree with your premise, I see it as a valuable exercise. It gives those of us with straight privilege a slight glimpse of just one of the challenges facing those in our society who don't identify as straight.
Melissa,
Thanks, that is a really interesting interpretation. And thanks for taking it one step farther than the simple defensiveness -- because my post was never intended to be an attack at heterosexual people.
It should be clear, I don't have a problem with someone else deciding that their sexual orientation was not their choice. I just personally am willing to take full responsibility for my sexual orientation, and since that is so anathema to mainstream gay-rights dogma I found myself in the strange position of asking myself, "Am I not authentically a lesbian because I feel like I chose to be one?" Or, in other words, because this is not only something I want but also want to take responsibility for, am I going to face discrimination? And something is wrong with that.
Thank you so much for writing this! I very much dislike the whole "but they didn't choose to be gay" argument - as you say, it is very effective in the current political and cultural environment, but it still implicitly suggests that there is something wrong with being gay. Especially in the way it is usually used: for example, my grandmother who claims that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral will sometimes resignedly say, "but they really can't help it, that's how they're born."
I very much choose my sexuality, as I choose many other aspects of my personality and character, and I think this is very feminist - to strive throughout your life to make your identity the most liberating and non-violent identity you can construct. I find it strange that so many feminists dislike this idea, because to me it is a crucial element of how I practice feminism.
I also think the 'you are born with your sexuality' perspective has broader connotations in that it suggests that everyone must take a specific view of selfhood and identity as something static and immovable, which is problematic in and of itself.
Icy Bear,
Thanks for commenting! I agree with you, totally. And especially regarding the last paragraph -- I was just thinking about this last night. Ultimately, just like the ladder that you throw off when you've climbed up it, I think that sexual liberation is only one pathway to generalliberation.
Sexual liberation, in addition, doesn't just come from being willing to talk openly about sex. One could imagine someone with totally messed-up sexual ethics who was nonetheless quite open and frank about their preferences. Just because sex has been taboo in the past doesn't mean that all you have to do to liberate yourself from that past is to be really loud about your sex life. So long as we're expected to make our sexual identity our first and most important form of identity, we're still not totally "sexually liberated."
(This is all Foucault-inspired, by the way -- anyone who is interested in learning more about this, I highly recommend checking out his three-volume History of Sexuality).
I find the whole "choice" in homosexuality to be really, really insulting. If I could "choose" to be straight I could actually have a decent relationship with my family again! If I could "choose" to be straight I would not have to worry about employment discrimination. If I could "choose" to be straight I could go anywhere in the world and "blend in". I wouldn't have to worry about where I was going and if I would be harassed there.
I didn't "want" any of those things mentioned above and I certainly didn't want to be gay.
I just am, which is fine.
I have tried to "choose"(oh man did I try!) to be heterosexual and "straight acting" and it just ended up making me really awkward and depressed. I could never pull off authentic heterosexuality or femininity.
anglerfish --
i'm really sorry that you have had such a difficult experience with your sexuality, but please don't feel insulted by me, because we are talking about fundamentally different things and i in no way mean to delegitimize your experience.
so long as you are talking about the rejection that you have dealt with from other people, you're talking about external social pressures, which in this essay i argue are precisely the things that interfere with someone's ability to freely express their identity (the identity of homosexual) -- whether or not they came to have that identity because of biology or because of personal preference, they should not have to apologize for freely expressing it, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. even if you didn't choose to be homosexual, nonetheless, homosexual relationships are presumably the ones which you really want, and you deserve to live in a society that doesn't make you feel the need to choose between your sexual orientation and, for example, a healthy relationship with your family.
that is the point i'm trying to make in this post. my personal experience may be one of choice, but in order to be consistent with the very idea of individualism, i have no desire to judge anyone else with regards to whether or not they chose their orientation. i just wanted us to compare experiences.
There is sometimes a dichotomy which is done between "by choice" and "at birth", but I think it is not necessarily the case : I'd tend to think that there is a social influence (which doesn't mean that there isn't anything that comes from birth) to one's sexuality and desires, which doesn't mean that it's necessarily a choice you had.
Personally, I feel like I made a conscious choice by starting to challenge my gender and sexuality. On the other hand, maybe it was not really a choice and it was because I didn't fit in the straight word, it's hard to say.
Similarly, today I'd tend to consider that I am a lesbian by choice, as I am globally attracted to some guys but choose not to have sex with them because I don't feel as safe, and because I feel more "connected" to dyke "communities". On the other hand, the fact that I don't feel safe with men and that I happen to fit better with a "dyke identity" might not, in itself, be really a choice...
What I mean is, I don't think it's an either/or. You always make a choice according to some constraints and some experiences you already have.
I'm glad you wrote this and I agree with a lot of what you've said (I actually tried to comment on the original response comment on the Rachel Maddow show post, but my comment was never OK'd...). It makes sense to me why the movement has used this rhetoric, and I don't doubt anyone who says that they were born gay, the end (my little brother, in fact, has been showing "classic signs" since age 4). BUT I agree that relying only on the issue of whether or not it's a choice is doing a disservice to the movement. The implication is that gay sex is so wrong that someone could only ever do it if they had no choice in the matter.
I'm also upset that this isn't talked about more within the gay and queer rights movement because it makes me feel personally excluded. As a bi/pansexual woman who didn't realize her queer attraction until later in life (particularly after spending 4 years at a university where sexual exploration is the norm and many of my friends were queer), it does feel like there's been a strong element of choice in the matter for me. I was politically opened to the idea, and slowly developed a queer crush here and there, before I realized maybe I ought to cast my net a little wider. Now, I'm not saying that all heterosexual women will come to the same conclusion in the same circumstances, and so in that regard maybe the ability to have queer attraction is inborn. But, I do think that being a woman in American society made it a longer road for me to recognize I had any queer attraction - I'm constantly bombarded with images of "sexy" women, so at what point do I think they're sexy because I'm supposed to or because I just do? Furthermore, I'm primarily attracted to women who are a little butch, and these women are all but excluded from mainstream media (maybe I didn't know how many hotties there were until I went to college with them!).
Anyway, regardless of why it took so long for me to acknowledge my bisexuality, I am now in a place where I am comfortable dating across the gender spectrum. Therefore, I have the "choice" to be in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. If I choose to be with a man, I have access to all of those privileges, and if I choose to be with a woman, suddenly I am rejected by society and don't have the same rights. If the religious righter's had any say in the matter, they'd say I ought to just be with men and then I'm fine. Many gay rights activists, on the other hand, would happily include me in the movement if I were in a gay relationship, but my experiences become less legitimate if I'm in a heterosexual relationship. The fact that many bisexual people do, in fact, have a choice in the matter is something I wish were better acknowledged.
That's a really good point. I think this issue may be more pronounced, in general, for bisexual people because of the issues you raise.
This issue of "choice" could be expressed in rather plainer terms:
Who cares if homosexuality is a choice or not? Being PRESBYTERIAN is a choice, and THAT'S protected by law.
The other problem with the "it's not a choice, so don't blame gays," argument is this:
Kleptomania is not a choice. Does that mean we should accept petty theft on a daily basis, if the thief can be shown to have a compulsion to steal? That exact rebuttal is used time and time again (substitute various other crimes) by homophobes.
"It's not a choice" still conducts the argument on the playing field of the homophobe's choice: namely, under the presumption that homosexuality is wrong. Make them defend that proposition. They will find themselves having to resort to all manner of nonsense: meaningless defenses like the fact that it says so in their big black book; circular reasoning like "if we allow this change, things won't be the way they were before;" ridiculous, arbitrary, hypocritical judgement calls like a given "deviant" sexual act being perfectly fine when performed by Man And Wife(tm), but being an abomination otherwise.