It’s about rights, not helplessness
There’s a bit of a flap going on because a famous person named Cynthia Nixon said she’s gay by choice. (Full disclosure: I’ve never heard of her. I only visit this planet now and again)
Saying it’s a choice is supposed to be very bad because it falls into a “right wing trap.” Everybody must say gays are born that way, that they can’t help themselves, that it’s-not-their-fault-they-found-it-that-way. Otherwise wingnuts can insist that re-education could work.
Bullshit.
Any kind of sex between any kind of people who can freely and knowledgeably consent is nobody’s business but their own.
The point isn’t whether you have a choice or not. That has nothing to do with it. The only point that matters is that nobody gets to tell you what kind of sex to have. Or not to have.
The only real “right wing trap” is granting the crazy premise that it’s okay to meddle in somebody else’s sex life if you can. Because that’s what the Aravosises of the world are doing. They’re saying it’s genetic, so they can’t help it, so give up already. Which means that if they could help it, then meddle away.
Again: bullshit.
People who freely and knowledgeably consent and are doing nothing to hurt others have a right to do anything they damn well please. Genetics and choice have nothing to do with the basic right to mind your own business.
Just because some gay people have made their stand on illogical ground is not Nixon’s fault. All she’s done is shine a light on it.
(I’d tell you to go read my chapter on Rights, but you know that already, don’t you?)
This post is right-on.
I always hated the implication that *of course* one would choose to be straight if one had the choice.
Branjor on February 3rd, 2012 at 17:40
Yeah, indeed. Plus, we get to choose our religions without losing religious freedom. We get to choose to speak without losing freedom of speech. There’s no other right that depends on being genetically incapable of choice!
quixote on February 3rd, 2012 at 18:17