All too often, the religious right in this country falls back on the "choice" argument when it comes to ensuring the rights of gay people in this country. While the LGBTQI community argues that "We the People" covers everyone in this country regardless of age, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation, the conservatives out there argue that being gay is a choice, and therefore is not something that should be protected by law or given any "special rights" under the law. Never mind that the LGBTQI community isn't asking for any special rights, just the same rights that straight people everywhere enjoy.
All that aside, since when has choice been a justification for denying someone rights? In fact, wasn't our country founded on the idea that we are all free - able to choose for ourselves as we see fit - and that freedom is an inherent right granted to us by God? It's my perception that some of our most basic rights are founded on choice itself and yet these are not seen as optional.
While I KNOW that being gay isn't a choice any more than being straight is, my argument is "why does it matter?!" Why do I have to prove that I had no choice in the matter in order to gain the same rights as everyone else has? My argument is that the government and other private citizens have no right to get into my personal business be it a choice or not, and that the whole "choice versus nature" argument is meaningless when it comes to rights - because rights are all about preserving the sanctity of freedom of choice.
Let's take a look at some of the rights that we hold dear to our hearts encapsulated in the Bill of Rights - and decide whether they are based on choice or something you have to be "born a certain way" to claim.
Freedom of Speech - You CHOOSE whether to speak or not, and yet it is preseved as our most precious of rights.
The Right to Assemble - You can get together with people of like mind to demonstrate, speak out, etc. You aren't born needing to speak out against injustice - but you choose to.
Freedom of Religion - You aren't born a certain religion, you choose it. And you have the right to choose it, no matter how violent or despicable its history is, and no matter how much hate speech it dishes out into the public. Ironic that it's the religions who are the most outspoken against gay people when the only choice between the two is religion, not sexual orientation.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - You aren't born with a gun, you choose to own one.
The Right to Privacy - You choose to be private. No one is born private, in fact we are born naked to the world with multiple people all around us.
All of these rights are CHOSEN rights, but I as a gay man have to somehow prove that my "condition" is not my choice in order to gain the same rights as my fellow citizens: the right to marriage, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to be protected from descrimination and hatred, the right to merge property with my lover, the right to inheritance laws, the right to tax breaks, the right to custody of children, the right to power of attorney for my lover, etc. All of these things are naturally bestowed upon married straight couples - but I don't get them because my manner of loving isn't what the majority thinks is acceptable.
My point is that choice or nature doesn't matter in this. As long as I am a citizen, I have the right to the same protections and treatment under the law as my straight friends.
The sad truth of the matter is that the majority follow what the churches tell them, and the churches have never cared for what science has to prove in life. Scientific data are demonstrating time and time again that homosexuality is inherent, natural and not a choice, but the churches just don't care. Frankly, even Jesus could come down and say that he doesn't care about gay people and they still wouldn't believe him because they are drunk on their own judgmental attitudes and a human-written "holy book" that is cherry-picked to justify their bigotry.
We won't see any reform in this country until the American public wakes up, applies a little logic and reason and steps away from the death-grip the churches have on their minds and their wallets. In the mean time, I will continue to support their right to CHOOSE their religion. If only they would see the irony in that.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RenaissanceLady
Leonce Gaiter
J.A.K.
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
For quite a long time. I choose to commit a felony. I am convicted. My state says that those convicted of felonies can't vote. So I don't have the right to vote, based on my choice.
There are all sorts of laws that limit or deny rights. Under the equal protection clause of the Constitution the Supreme Court has identified three criteria under which those laws have to be analyzed under "strict scrutiny," rather than under a "rational basis" test. (Laws typically survive a rational basis test.)
For a law to be analyzed under strict scrutiny, the impacted group has to be deemed a "suspect class." There are three criteria under which a group can be deemed a suspect class:
1) a history of discrimination against the group
2) the group is defined by an obvious, immutable [unchangeable] trait
3) the group is considered to be politically powerless
If homosexuality is a choice, and not an immutable trait, then it fails the second test, and laws discriminating against homosexuals would be considered under a "rational basis" test, which means that the great majority of them would be upheld.
(Interestingly, religion is considered to be a suspect class even though many would consider it to be a choice. But that's how it is.)
So yes, choice does matter.
"My point is that choice or nature doesn't matter in this."
Nope. It does matter. Sorry about that.
using your own citation, the California Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation, namely gays and lesbians, are a suspect class to be protected by the laws from discrimination.
It was the hateful "christian" churches who lobbied long and hard to steal our rights away from us, thus codifying their bigotry into statutory law. By that definition, Proposition 8 is a hate crime, and yet it still stands as constitutional.
The argument of suspect class and whether homosexuality is an immutable trait have already been established in courts, in science and in medicine. Your point, therefore, is invalid.
To go a step further, Congress recently passed the "Matthew Shepard Act" which officially designates as hate crimes those that are committed against people because of their sexual orientation. As such, not only the state, but the federal government as well is being to recognize the LBGTQI community as "a suspect class to be protected by the laws from discrimination."
Yes, and what I'm saying is that viewing homosexuality as an immutable trait is one of the criteria for finding that gays and lesbians are a suspect class. In that regard if homosexuality is a choice, then there's no basis for the finding of a suspect class, no basis for analysis of laws under strict scrutiny, etc. That's what I mean by saying that whether it is a choice matters. It matters in the legal realm.
And by the way, the state of Washington (Andersen v. King County) did not find that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. That point is not quite as established as one might think.
What you seem to be arguing is that we shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. But surely that wouldn't work. For example, should an elementary school be forced to hire a convicted pedophile? Should a state not be able to suspend the drivers license for someone convicted of DUI? There are all sorts of choices people make, and most of them aren't constitutionally protected. And most discrimination is constitutionally protected -- e.g., requiring job applicants to have college degrees.
Another point is that sexual orientation does not equal a sexual act. Men in prison my engage in homosexual behavior, but are not gay. Additionally gay people might never have sex their entire lives. The simple fact here is that a person's tuning is being used as a reason to deny them rights that are guaranteed to others, when my point is that the fallback defense against gay people's rights is usually the choice argument - and that choice isn't a consistent or legitimate reason to deny someone rights.
My comment goes to the “it a choice” element...and while Leslie made some good points in its greater ramifications, I will deal exclusively with the "sexual turn-on" feature.
How in the name of all that exists is it a choice as to what turns a person on sexually? How can that even be argued?
How does anyone actually suggest that someone simply is “choosing” to be turned on by same sex individuals…and “choosing” not to be turned on by opposite sex individuals?
I am straight…and there is no way any guy is going to turn me on sexually! (Well, maybe Adam Lambert, might turn me on a bit…but that shouldn’t count.)
I can only assume anyone arguing that it is a choice…is capable of making such a choice. The person must be turned on by both same sex and opposite sex individuals…and then able to make a choice (what they consider the correct choice)…because to me as a straight male, the argument just does not make any sense at all. I am turned on by women (boy, am I ever) and not turned on by men. There is no choice involved.
If a person says, “I am turned on by same sex individuals and individuals of the opposite sex not only do not turn me on, but actually turn me off” how in hell can anyone suggest that the person is lying? Why would anybody (other than someone who is sexually ambivalent and making a choice him/herself) seriously suggest that the person actually is turned on by both opposite sex and same sex individuals…and is just making a choice?
Could it be that the “it is a choice” argument is only around because bi-sexuality is much more prevalent than we suppose?
nicely put- exactly
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the thought of having sex with a woman actually makes my stomach turn. I can imagine it is the same for someone who is a heterosexual man entertaining the thought of having sex with a guy. But I propose an even better argument; why, in this intolerant and hateful society, would anyone chose to be part of a group that is universally persecuted across all racial and religious boards? Oh yes, I grew up and said to myself, "I'd like to join that group so that I could be persecuted my whole life!" Trust me, after enduring a gay bashing, and being fired from a job for being gay, there is no reason anyone would chose such a hard life. It's simply a ridiculous argument.
The only choice I ever made in life was to love and accept myself, instead of living a lie.
This is a battle that is being won...and there will come a time soon when people will look back on it and wonder...."what in hell was that all about???"
Freedom and liberty, once hallmarks of this country, are based on the idea that we have choices and a right to exercise them.