Born this way is irrelevent

A SYTYCB entry

The debate about homosexuality will, in all likelihood, continue ad infinitum.  At least as long as oppressive ideas of boy/girl, gay/straight, moral/amoral continue to be the mainstream discourse.  Unless you’ve been living under a big gay rock, you may have noticed the conversation’s turn to the inevitability of gayness.  That someone is born this way, or that they haven’t chosen this lifestyle and therefore cannot be faulted is a predominant argument in the LGBT movement.  From the conservative side, the idea that it is a choice and can be fixed/changed/altered if only you try hard enough is an equally predominant discussion.

I call shenanigans.  As a culture we have spent a long while seeking reasons for orientations other than straight.  We’ve forgotten that the reason doesn’t matter.  (Interestingly, the modern idea of homosexuality v. heterosexuality only dates back to the late 1800’s.)

The conversation should not be whether one was born gay or chose that ‘lifestyle’.  That is irrelevant – it is the red herring to a much larger issue.  It creates a dialogue that excludes those who live outside of these rather confining ideals.  People whose sexual orientation is flexible throughout their lives or who feel that they did or could or would or don’t want to choose an orientation.  Even people that have defined their sexuality are susceptible to the rigid boundaries of nature versus nurture.  Cynthia Nixon (Miranda from Sex and the City) spoke about being bisexual and that, for her, being gay was a choice.  This was, and continues to be, a radical idea.  So, radical, in fact that she rectified some of her statements after public outcry.  And I believe I know why.  It’s a radical idea because it completely dismisses a massive cultural conversation we’ve been having.  It says, “Hey – hey you guys!  You’re dumb.”  Because sexuality doesn’t exist in two worlds, it manifests itself across a spectrum of (to use Lady Gaga’s term) “born this way” and “lifestyle choice” and “haven’t given it a second thought but now that you mention it…”

This is not about labels; this is about the inherent freedom to pursue happiness.  And that goes back even further than the ever-loved Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.  Something Thomas Jefferson referenced as the ‘rights of man’.  So, if we are going to get all up in the Constitution’s grill, pursuit of happiness is a pretty basic freedom upon which the Constitution is built.  And our culture is constantly infringing upon this right based on the incorrect conclusion that ours is a Christian nation and the Constitution is a theocratic document.  It’s not.  Let me say that again:  We are NOT a Christian nation.  We are a nation founded on the principles of personal freedom.  And, for the record, your own inability to infringe upon another’s basic human rights is NOT an infringement upon your own rights (and that’s not me talking, it’s Thomas Jefferson).  Not having the ability to force others’ to live by your values is not an affront to our founding fathers, it’s not affront to Jesus either – it’s one of the most basic foundations of our country (and coincidentally, Christianity as well, but the two are unrelated).

I’m getting off track (that happens so easily, doesn’t it?).  This debate cannot be won because it does not promote freedom from or freedom to, it simply promotes the already existing dichotomy of straight versus gay.  It promotes the idea that sexuality is a static state, unchanging throughout a person’s life.  And it ignores the realities of our existence:  people are gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, trans, queer, androgynous, feminine, masculine, celibate, nymphomaniacal, any, all, or none of those.  People are things as yet unnamed.  The personal opinions and values about a specific sexuality are irrelevant.  The discussion needs to change because this is not about sex or religion or marriage.  This discussion is about preserving individual freedoms.  Period.