[color=indigo]rikuoamero[/color] wrote:What if one day, there's very strong evidence that sexuality IS a choice? Will you allow it to be called such then?
This is like asking "what if one day, there's very strong evidence that the Earth is flat?" It's an unrealistic scenario. We know, through years of study, that sexuality isn't a choice. Any new explanation will have to account for the evidence we already have, and one based on choice is very unlikely to do that.
I'm all for human rights and individual rights. As far as I'm concerned if a person could "choose" their sexual orientation I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I personally feel that the LGBT community is actually playing right into the hands of religious fundamentalists when they insist that sexual orientation is not a choice. It's almost like they are "confessing" that if it was a choice this would loan support to the religious claim that it's a "willful sin
And here's the problem I have.
To begin with I don't doubt that for some people sexual orientation is not a choice. Being extremely heterosexual myself I would suggest that my sexual orientation is not a choice. So I can certainly understand this position.
However, bi-sexual people cannot be ignored. And while a bi-sexual person could claim that they have "no choice" but to be bisexual, they would still clearly have a choice of which type of relationship to enter into.
So clearly sexual "preference" is a "choice" for some
I have also had conversations in the past with bi-sexual people who did not seem to be concerned about the whole "choice" thing. In fact, they were totally open to the idea that they are freely choosing to be with whomever they choose to be with. Their argument is not "defensive" against the religious claims that if this is a choice then it must be a "sin". They openly confess that they couldn't give a hoot about the religious concept of "sin".
They argue that in a "Free Society" they should be free to be with whomever they choose to be with, without being judged on that choice.
I have also heard "bi-sexual" people argue that, for them
, sex is not even an issue at all. On the contrary, they argue that they seek a "person" as a partner. And whatever sex that person happens to be is totally irrelevant.
For for them it would actually be an "insult" to even suggest that their relationship are based even on "sexual orientation". Because even that implies that sex is the prime motivation for the relationship.
So I wonder, and my question would be
, where do these people fit into this "LGBTQIA" picture? They are insulted by the very suggestion that their choice of a relationship has anything to do with sex at all.
I mean, the relationship itself my be sexually intimate, but what they are saying is that the choice
to enter into the relationship was not based on sexual orientation at all. It was based entirely one compatibility with the other person as a person
So actually for them, it was nether a 'sexual-orientation' or a 'sexual-preference'. Instead, any sexual issues were merely the result of two people who were attracted to each other for entirely other reasons, unrelated to sex entirely.
So how do these "bi-sexual" people fit into this LGBT picture if the LGBT community is arguing that it's "Not a Choice
Clearly for some people it is a choice.
If it wasn't a choice there would be no such thing as "Bi-Sexual" people.
How does the LGBT deal with this? Do they reject "Bi-Sexual" people as not being part of their community?
In fact, doesn't the B in LGBT stand for "Bi-Sexual"?
Like I say, I personally stand behind everyone's right to do as they please. So for me, even the argument that they merely want to "choose" the right person to be with is totally cool.
But it just seems to me that bi-sexual people would have a hard time claiming that they don't have a choice, when the freedom to choose is high on their list.
And like I say, "What's wrong with that?"
Demanding that it isn't a choice, seems to me to be nothing more than handing the religious zealots precisely what they want on a silver platter. It's almost like an admission that if it was a choice then the argument that it's a "willful sin"
would have some sort of merit and could be made to stick.