
I know it's not consistent with the zeitgeist to say one can choose one's sexual orientation. People with whom I associate, who fight with me for equal rights for LGBT Americans, often get ruffled when I say I don't believe we are all "born this way."
I tend to believe what I read of Kinsey and Freud, both of whom claimed that we are essentially bisexual, by and large, that most of us have at least some small middle-of-the-road propensities in this regard. I'm certainly a member of the gray area between exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual. Interesting work done in recent years about gender and sexuality by such researchers as Joan Roughgarden and Lisa Diamond suggest that not only are sexuality and gender identity based at least in part on environment, the studies also put forward the idea that they are not immutable. People and other animals DO shift in selecting their objects of attraction. This throws a lot of water on the notion that we homosexual folk are all born one way and never change.
That makes sense if you look at what we know about complex behaviors like mating. If you look at addiction, for example, a lot of research has gone into trying to prove that addiction is mostly a genetic feature, but a lot of actual shaping behavior must go into even beginning to use a particular drug. Forgive me for comparing homosexuality to addiction, but the parallel is clear. Virtually no complex behavior is thought to be 100% genetic. Some percentage of these behaviors are affected by environmental influences. If a behavior is rewarded in some way, ties to that behavior are strengthened.
I think it's even counterproductive to lean on this old story. If this "condition" of homosexuality is entirely genetic, people who oppose LGBT people as a class have impetus to try to find a way to genetically alter or otherwise cure the "disease." In truth, the argument should be whether Americans of all stripes should have the right to choose their own lives. Blocking Americans' right to choose is antithetical to how we perceive the "American" way. We all believe--perhaps to a fault--that we have the right to pursue our own happiness.
Some people have argued that they would not have chosen this miserable LGBT life had they been given the choice, but that presumes there are no benefits. I have put it to several men like this: "Is your life so unhappy that you cannot think of ONE or TWO benefits you have over heterosexual couples? If you were really that miserable, would you continue to live the way you do?"
The truth is that there are some benefits. When my personality didn't lend itself to traditional heterosexual pairings, and I felt largely excluded from them, I found acceptance and love among women. Because I believe in equality in relationships, I benefit from a much more egalitarian relationship with my spouse. There is no one person who wears the pants in the family; in fact, we both wear pants, literally and metaphorically. I like the fact that my spouse knows her way around my body as well as she knows her way around her own. I like that we can communicate in ways that women are more comfortable utilizing; emotions are shared and discussed rather than withheld and drowned.
I have had friendships and a few relationships with men. I have been put on a pedestal, and that was truly uncomfortable. I wanted to be understood and loved for who I truly am. I have been treated as a second class citizen by being forced to be the passenger of a vehicle while the man drove for fear of what others would think should they see me driving rather than the man. I have been shut down and belittled by men. I don't have any of those problems now. I am known for exactly who I am, and I am loved on that basis alone.
This is not to say that heterosexual relationships cannot share a similar bond, but it is not as common as one might think. It takes work and commitment on both sides to draw the boundaries differently. And I never found anyone of the male persuasion who was willing to do those things to build an honest and open relationship with me.
So I chose my spouse, setting aside all men, because I wanted to, because it benefits me in some very fundamental ways. Should this relationship come to an end unexpectedly, someday, if I can bring myself to move on, I would choose another woman, in spite of my attraction to both sexes. It's a wonderful life, and it's one I freely chose.


Salon.com
Comments
Lezlie
Of course we=all bisexual.
No doubt. For heaven’s sake: the clitoris is the Grandmomma
Genetically
Of the scorge, the evil on the land, the horror,
The , uh, penis.
Polymorphous perverse we were thrust into this world of negligible Touch.
U say: “it benefits me in some very fundamental ways.”
Fun! Fundamental ways are best. Gawd bless ye.
James - The difference between the sexes seems entirely constructed by social context. We are made of the same basic stuff. Thanks for your comments.
`
From what I have seen (said Stephen Jay Gould) . . . Human birth is a joyful experience when properly rescued from arrogant male `
`
GYN physicians. Odd?
I think we'd not judge?
Male physician control?
Arrogant male controls?
Men often want control.
They can't have a child.
Men seem overly rude.
I need to be articulate.
It's not easy to speak?
I understand? I aim.
I Love Women, You,
and I've listened too.
I was speaking today.
My youngest son ask?
My mind is weary too.
Thank You. My respect.
I am at a loss to counsel.
However - Your adorable.
I 'pop-off' from my heart.
Your a Teacher. Bless You.
I am at loss to expound too.
Often, it's wise to listen too.
Please speak. Be You. Bless.
I've been pondering. no judge.
I learn more from listening.
Well said. I'm listening too.
In this way, we are all part of one great whole.
Thoughtful and well written.
Even Kinsey acknowledged the existence of hard 0's and 10's on his scale. Also since most of Kinsey's research and all of Freud's there have been tremendous leaps in understanding of genetic and medical causal influences.
I'm also not saying that for many people environmental factors don't come in to play, but it certainly isn't a universal rule.
Additionally, while I personally believe that some folks are born bi, I do not think that there is this huge peak of "self denying bisexuals" in the middle of the continuum. ('Course, I also don't believe that the scale is linear either).
Lastly, as an addiction specialist, you certainly are familiar with Cost/Benefit Analysis. I would doubt that every queer person considers the costs to be less than the benefits. There are many of us who cling to the few benefits we garner, in spite of the costs, because we truly have no other choice. A lot of us don't have the "choice" of kicking the addition of being queer (a comparison I find repugnant, BTW) because it is and always has been a part of us.
I could have chosen another analogy than addiction, but it is a complex behavior. I knew people would find it repugnant, but if writing doesn't disturb someone, I'm not doing it right.
Is it more hard-wired for men, or is that a function of anti-gay rhetoric? Lisa Diamond, in her book Sexual Fluidity, suggests that women are more flexible, but I wonder about that. There are an awful lot of men running around who claim to be straight but have had sexual relations with other men. It's a conundrum, isn't it?
Interesting! I will look into that!
Probably every law or policy discriminates against or disadvantages some group in one way or another, and this is not necessarily unconstitutional. In fact, in the great majority of cases it isn't. One of the criteria for analyzing the constitutionality of a law is whether a group is being disadvantaged based on an "immutable" trait.
With respect to marriage, there is no "right" to marry anyone you want, and we have a number of legal restrictions on who can marry whom. I might want to marry my sister, but laws against incestuous or consanguineous marriages prohibit that, and it doesn't matter how much I love my sister, how much I want to marry her, or how convenient it would be if I could.
Likewise, I might want to dress in a "goth" style and wear nose rings. But if a prospective employer won't hire me because of that, that's not a violation of my rights. Even if I really enjoy the goth look, and even if that look is a central part of my identity, the employer's refusal to hire me is not a violation of my rights, as with few exceptions there is no "right" to a particular look.
One of the arguments for same-sex marriage is that sexual orientation is immutable, and thus for homosexuals marrying someone of the opposite sex is not really an option. But to the extent that sexual orientation is a choice, that undermines the immutability argument for same-sex marriage. Thus, at least with respect to the immutability argument, prohibitions against same-sex marriage would not be unconstitutional.
So to the extent that homosexuality is a choice, that can present a problem for the advocates of same-sex marriage. If the argument goes from "homosexuality is not a choice," to "sometimes homosexuality is a choice," I think that pulls the carpet out from under one of the main arguments for same-sex marriage.
One can argue that it shouldn't matter if homosexuality is a choice. That's fine, but at that point you're not making a constitutional argument, but some other kind of argument -- perhaps a libertarian argument. And the argument that "I should be able to marry anyone I want" has already been rejected in every state. Your situation is interesting, but it certainly doesn't help the proponents of same-sex marriage.
I think you're right about people having attraction to both genders.
Goodness of heart is the most important thing to consider when choosing a mate, I think. Man or woman, it is the love part and the character part that matters most of all.
Additionally, there ARE many like me who have 0% romantic, physical or sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Are you saying that for us, that it would be more constitutional than for Leslie? (which is patently ridiculous, like all of your other arguments).
I understand that you feel that way, but I don't see anything in the laws of the states or the Constitution to support that feeling. Show me a state that allows an adult to marry any other consenting adult without any restrictions.
Safe Bet writes: "Arguments like yours didn't work very well in preventing interracial marriage, and the same applies with us."
Your statement begs the question. The issue is whether "the same" does in fact apply to you. I don't think it does.
Safe Bet: "Additionally, there ARE many like me who have 0% romantic, physical or sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Are you saying that for us, that it would be more constitutional than for Leslie?"
I'm saying that when people assert that their same-sex attractions are a matter of choice, to some extent that undermines the immutability argument for a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage. But there are other ways of making a constitutional argument, and there are other arguments (e.g., fairness, personal liberty) that don't invoke the Constitution. So even if a particular constitutional argument doesn't work there are other arguments and venues that might work.