I actually don't care,
I want to know what being gay is defined as because in order to be someone who claims that they can't help it, there has to be something about not having a choice and I don't see it.
Is it a lifestyle or sexual orientation?
Is it defined by the individual or a group?
Why can someone be gay one day and not the other?
The interesting things are the dilemmas produced by the two terms, "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference", as both are double-edged swords with political ramifications and how they are used. Obviously, "sexual preference" implies that one makes a choice, while "sexual orientation" implies a state of being, or who you are. Some people claim your sexual orientation is determined at birth, or even in the womb by hormones, but since no definitive genetic or biological marker can be found, it's a weak case at best. Yes, there are some physical and biological differences between gays and straights, like some differences in the brain, and even differences in the comparative lengths of the index and ring fingers of gays and straights, but the differences are not there in all cases, and are only there in a small minority of cases, barely above a 50/50 chance. So no definitive markers there.
Some people (virtually
all of them heterosexual) claim it's a choice, yet that doesn't really hold water, either. No one can pick and choose who they are attracted to or who they will fall in love with, whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, or somewhere in between. A heterosexual who claims they merely chose not to be homosexual fails the test when they admit there are some people they are not attracted to, or some people that cannot fall in love with. Otherwise, everyone would be picking and choosing people to be attracted to and to fall in love with based on some criteria other than attraction and love. Oh, sure, on some esoteric, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair way people are picking and choosing who they fall in love with, but that's a far cry from picking this or that brand of cereal, which is what a pure choice comes down to.
What makes someone gay or straight, or makes someone go gaga for blonds or brunettes, is likely some terribly complicated combination of brain chemistry, hormones, nature and nurture. Even if researchers can find some definitive cause, they aren't likely to be able to "correct" it. Homosexuality has always been there, and there's no reason to think it won't always will be. The fact that homosexuality exists at all in humans is quite normal, and homosexual behavior is certainly normal behavior to the homosexual, but homosexuality is nonetheless an abnormal condition, and homosexual behavior is anormal behavior within the species.
To label homosexuality and homosexual behavior as a sexual deviancy, begs the question of, "Normal sex, does it exist?" Some say "normal" is anything done between a man and a woman, but I can think of many things done between a man and a woman that is hardly normal or typical. Good girls wear high heels, bad girls wear high heels...
to bed. You want a cherry on top, dear? Honey?
A deviancy is a departure from the norm, but homosexuality is not a mere departure from the norm, it's anormal behavior, it goes against the type. Meaning, for example, 6 digits on one hand is abnormal, but the abnormality is still of the correct "type", all of the digits are digits, all are of the same "type". But if you have 6 digits, and at the end of each digit is a fully formed foot instead of a fingernail, that's way beyond abnormal, since feet aren't digits, feet go against the "type".
All things being equal, it shouldn't matter if a homosexual is a justice on the Supreme Court. But all things are not equal, not since the justices began to interpret the Constitution as colored by their own personal beliefs and agendas. The last thing we need on the Supreme Court is a justice who thinks anormal behavior is normal, and then coloring their decisions based on their own sense of normal.
Bottom line, though, is that when they're young and hot, lesbians are gnarly, but when they're old enough to be on the Supreme Court, no, that's not right, no one wants to see that.
