bisexuality – Memphis Flyer

Is Gay a Choice

I want to thank John J. Smid for raising some important questions in the recent “Letters to the Editor” (March 29th issue). Is there conclusive scientific evidence of a biological cause of homosexuality? Can people who are gay choose to be straight, and can straight people easily choose to be gay?

I find it hard to believe that people choose to be heterosexual, homosexual, or even bisexual. It would be difficult to get a heterosexual man to voluntarily spend a lot of time, energy, and money seeking out sexual encounters or long-term intimate relationships with another man to the level that this same heterosexual man seeks out the same thing with a woman. Bisexuals may choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle because it is easier in our society; however, I doubt heterosexuals and homosexuals can flick that switch so easily — if at all.

Jason Grosser

Cordova

The Iraq Pullout

It appears that alliances are forming on the prospect of the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq. President Bush’s authority is being undermined by legislators such as Senator Hagel (Letter from the Editor, March 29th issue). Hagel’s comments reveal not the low point of the executive branch but the continued incompetence, lack of integrity, and lack of intelligence of the legislative branch.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has decided to not attend an April event in Washington D.C., likely because he wants to distance himself from Bush, pending a United States pullout in Iraq forced by the unconscionable and partisan acts of the House and Senate.

The U.S. pulling out of Iraq could be a real mess for the entire world. There are millions of Islamic extremists around the globe. With the U.S. out and the conflict in the Middle East in the hands of sects that want to either control (or “cleanse”) each other, these jihadists will be free to continue the attacks they have been distracted from since 9/11.

Earl Barnett

Speedwell, Tennessee

Walter Reed

The firing of two Walter Reed Army Hospital generals and the deliberate misinformation advanced by Army officers (including four generals) concerning Pat Tillman’s death remind me of the assertion by H.G. Wells: “The professional military mind is by necessity an inferior and unimaginative mind; no man of high intellectual quality would willingly imprison his gifts in such a calling.”

James A. Easter

Memphis

The Fall of Republicans

After the presidential election of 2004, I was not happy with the results. However, part of me kept telling me that it was a good thing. Now I know why. The Bush administration has fallen so far that now the future of the Republican Party is in jeopardy.

You could see, in the election of 2006, Republicans scrubbing the word “Republican” from their Web sites and campaign literature because they saw then that Republican was becoming a dirty word in the eyes of the electorate. Now, as we move on to the election of 2008, Republicans are trying to find more and more ways to preserve their political careers from the disaster that is George W. Bush.

The Karl Rove belief that Republicans would be a permanent majority in this country has vanished. Their politics of pitting American against American, taking the side of lobbyists over that of the American people, and the disaster of the Iraq war will continue to destroy all trust in the GOP.

The way Bush is going, by 2008, even the South won’t be a stronghold.

Aaron Prather

Cordova

Guns and Progressives

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia says people in his position should be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves. The translation: “I get to and you don’t.” Rosie O’Donnell gives a nationally broadcast speech saying people who own guns should be thrown in jail. Then we find out that she filed papers that allow her bodyguard to carry a loaded weapon.

It would seem that these “progressives” have more than one thing in common: hypocrisy and a lack of common sense.

Frank Boone

Memphis

Editor’s note: In last week’s Flyer, we neglected to credit Flyer reader Joe Mercer for his photograph of I-240 that was used in “Fly on the Wall.” And in Living Spaces, the photo of the CityHouse interior was courtesy of Diane Gordon of See the Difference Interiors.

The religious right has traditionally argued that homosexuality is a choice and that gays and lesbians can, and should, “change” (i.e., become heterosexual through reparative therapy or religious conversion).

In response, liberal advocates for gay and lesbian civil rights argue that homosexuality, or sexual orientation in general, is not a choice and that gays and lesbians should have civil rights protections because they are born gay or lesbian and cannot change their sexual orientation. Both of these arguments are misleading and oversimplify scientific facts and research on sexual orientation.

The argument that human sexuality is biologically determined is contrary to social scientific research, which suggests that sexuality is largely socially constructed. It ignores not only the sociological evidence against an innate, unchangeable sexuality but also the radical insight of Freud that humans are not born “heterosexual” or “homosexual” and that the development of an exclusive “heterosexuality” requires the repression of homosexual desire.

Even Kinsey, the much misunderstood and misquoted sex researcher, rejected the concept of an innate sexual orientation, preferring to categorize people based on their sexual behaviors.

Kinsey never argued that heterosexuals and homosexuals were two separate innate sexual orientations. Like Freud, he believed that all human beings were potentially bisexual.

Why do many in the mainstream gay movement argue that it is impossible to choose to be gay or lesbian? Many radical feminists argue that women can choose to be lesbian — that identifying as a lesbian is a social and political choice available to women to liberate themselves from patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality.

The early radical gay liberationists argued that gay liberation requires the sexual liberation of everyone from the socially constructed hetero/homo dichotomy. They believed that everyone could be “gay.” They rejected the scientific claim that homosexuality was a biological or psychological pathology or that same-sex desire was even “abnormal.” The gay rights movement created a modern “gay” identity.

There have not always been “gay” people, so it is erroneous to claim that people are “born” gay. Bisexuals are also left out of the “sexual orientation is not a choice” paradigm, since they can choose their sexual identity. If we base gay/lesbian rights on the argument that it is not a choice, then we exclude bisexuals and deny their right to choose.

Why all the focus on the question of can gays change? Why not ask, “Can straight people change”? Both questions focus on the same issue: If we could change our sexual orientation/identity, do we have a right to make that choice? This is the important issue.

The purpose of the “ex-gay” ad campaign (and the public focus on whether gays can change) is to undermine the central claim of the gay/lesbian rights movement that people are born gay or lesbian and that it is not a choice since no one can change their sexual orientation. The religious right is exploiting an opportunity handed to them by the misguided strategy of the liberal/mainstream gay movement.

We should focus the political debate on the freedom of people to be gay, lesbian or bisexual regardless of how or why they arrive at their sexual identity, not wasting time on the futile “nature vs. nurture” debate.

The argument for “gay rights” should not be based on questionable scientific claims of the biological immutability of “sexual orientation” but rather on the right of gays and lesbians to CHOOSE their sexual identity! This argument sets aside the biological argument and bases gay rights upon the constitutional right to speak and the freedom of conscience guaranteed to religious groups.

Our right to be gay or lesbian or bisexual is the right to be free from religious and government interference in our private lives, to make our choices about who we have sex with and who we want to have intimate relationships with (as long as they are consenting adults). Let’s not let those opposed to sexual equality take away our right to choose.

To be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight involves making a series of choices. Those choices should be a right like any other basic human right and not dependent upon scientific opinion about how and why a person arrives at their sexual identity. Let’s defend the freedom to choose our sexual identity and quit hiding behind questionable scientific dogma.

Jim Maynard is a local gay activist. This piece is a modified and abbreviated version of a longer essay.