An Article, Misconstrued

In the latest issue of Mother Jones, Gary Greenberg writes an article titled, “Gay by Choice?” The subtitle says “If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we’ve been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?”

As I feared, this subtitle has already led some anti-gay and anti-SSMers to rush to the lines shouting “Told you so!” to SSM supporters.

One blogger writes: “There's a fascinating article in the far-left magazine Mother Jones questioning the conventional wisdom about the fixed nature of sexual identity. Such C.W. is a studied part of the gay rights movement. Homosexuality as a fixed and immutable trait (like race) must be maintained in order for the judicial/legal theory of same-sex “marriage” and other claims to successfully move forward.”

As if any of our arguments depend on the immutability of homosexuality.

The crux of our argument doesn't depend on science to prove that we are born gay. What matters is that we don't think it's okay to discriminate based on orientation, the same way it's not okay to discriminate based on religion.

Whether you are born gay, environment makes you gay, or choose to be gay, or some combination of the three (most likely) what matters is that sexual orientation is "so deeply woven into a person's identity that it is inseparable from who they are" to quote Jon Davidson, Director of Lambda Legal.

Further, "the capacity for sexual orientation to change—with choice—the ability to change it at will. Trying to change your attractions doesn't work very well, but you can change the structure of your social life, and that might lead to changes in the feelings you experience."

For, if one were to read the entire Mother Jones article, one would discover that the main subject “Aaron,” a “reformed” homosexual, lives a life without any close contact or intimacy with anyone. He doesn't enjoy sex with women, has never had sex with men, has never had a long-term relationship with a man or woman, and he doesn't date. He lives an asexual life. He is 51 years-old. And, let me repeat, has never had a long-term relationship.

So sure. I suppose some people can, in fact, change their sexual orientation. But I would not call that a happy life for most people. Aaron may indeed be happy. But I don't think it's fair to say "gayness is a choice, see everyone! you can all change, too!" When most people would not consider an asexual life a happy one. I definitely would not call the reparative therapy he underwent a "success."

The article explains Aaron's life now post-"treatment:"
"He's dated women, had sex with them even, although "I was pretty awkward," he says.”It just didn't work." Aaron has a theory about this: "I never used my body in a sexual way. I think the men who actually act it out have a greater success in terms of being sexual with women than the men who didn't act it out." Not surprisingly, he's never had a long-term relationship, and he's pessimistic about his prospects. "I can't make that jump from having this attraction to doing something about it." But, he adds, it's wrong to think "if you don't make it with women, then you haven't changed." The important thing is that "now I like myself. I'm not emotionally shut down. I'm comfortable in my own body. I don't have to be drawn to men anymore. I'm content at this point to lead an asexual life, which is what I've done for most of my life anyway." He adds, "I'm a very detached person."

In other words, anyone CAN change their orientation, but like "Aaron" are they going to lead happy lives?

Most of the time, I think that answer is no.

I also have a hunch that most gays and lesbians would not even choose to be straight if they could so choose, because they just can’t imagine being attracted to the opposite sex. The same way straight people say they wouldn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex, if they could so choose. Even truly bisexual people can’t “simply choose” to only be attracted to the opposite sex just to make their lives a little easier. People fall in love with people, not genders, not sexes.

The “choice vs. born-that-way” dichotomy is old hat.

I know strictly heterosexual people. There are strict lesbians with their “gold stars” (never slept with a man), and solely homosexual males. I know women who only date men yet make out with girls when they are drunk (who I think are probably really gay). There are girls who have sex with girls only to please their boyfriends. And gay football players who would never consider entering into a relationship with another man. There are bisexuals. There are even “trysexuals.” There are “hasbians,” (a former lesbian who is now married to a man). And I even know some former heterosexual women who are now Birkenstock-wearing, vegetarian, cat-owning, toaster-oven-collecting, PFLAG card-carrying, full-out lesbians. And there are many more in-betweens. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find a person who hasn’t at least thought about it once in a while.

In a world with this much diversity, why do we continue to only legally protect one of those types of relationships by marriage (in the U.S.)? If you can find one person in this crazy world that makes you happiest, why does anyone else get to tell you that it is not acceptable? That your relationship isn’t equal to theirs? Those are rhetorical questions. I already know all the opposing arguments by now.

The concept of “fluid” sexuality isn’t a new idea. For our entire argument to hinge on the idea of homosexuality being rigid, immutable, and strictly biological would be insane. People are multi-faceted, in that their behaviors are usually the result of a complex combination of biology, society, psychology, sociology, etc. Likewise, for anti-SSMers to state that homosexuality is a “choice” is also too simplistic.

The point for most of us pro-SSMers is that people should be able to be with the person who makes them happiest, regardless of gender. Any two (non-related, for the incest-obsessed) people who want to get married and have equal marriage rights and protections under the law should be able to do so. Regardless of gender.

For Greenberg to insinuate that homosexuality shouldn’t be a protected right if it is a “choice,” is careless at best and reckless at worst.

He’s feeding right into the greedy, hungry mouths of those who desperately want and need some “authority” to finally tell them they are correct.