I think Andrew pretty much sums up the problem of choice. We choose our friends, but when it comes to love, the notion of choice is, at best, compromised and subsumed. Those who argue that homosexuality is a choice view us, and view our relationships, as friendships either perverted or at best gone wrong. We have often been called, even sometimes sympathetically, “friends” (Uncle Albert and his “friend” will be coming to dinner), but that was a nice way of avoiding the real subject. It kept the language of same-sex relationships in a closet of its own, a frame that helped everyone cope.
You don’t hear that kind of language from our supporters any more. Only our opponents are clinging to that outmoded notion of choice. They think the whole debate over same-sex relationships is about our choice of friends. They still can’t, or won’t, imagine that the flood of emotions and connections that they recognize as love can occur between two people of the same sex. I’m sure that a lot of them don’t even think it’s demeaning to our relationships to view them as falling within the kind of choices we make about our friends. They want us to have friends. They just refuse to believe that the powerful and mysterious forces they remember and/or experience with love can happen, for some people, with members of their own sex, and are every bit as gratifying and amazing — are, in fact, the same thing they know so well.
All we have been trying to do for the last half century or so (“All!”) is edge the public’s understanding of our relationships closer to what we actually feel and live. We have friends, sometimes lots of them. We choose them and treasure them. But when it comes to love, we aren’t the ones doing the choosing. Heterosexuals know that about themselves, and as Jonathan Rauch notes below, an emerging majority of them are coming to understand that we are sometimes lucky enough to be swept up in the same wonderful mystery.
14 Comments for “Friends and “Friends””
posted by Wilberforce on
I think the perfect argument against the choice question is to ask if straights are equally attracted to both sexes, but they just choose the oposite sex. That would shut our enemies up real quick. The very idea of being attracted to both sexes would send them screaming to the monster truck rally to guzzle beer and heave it up under the bleachers, while trying not to think of John Goodman’s humongus breasts.
posted by Houndentenor on
Even if it were a choice, why shouldn’t I be allowed to choose who I wanted to be in a relationship for myself (assuming we’re all consenting adults, obviously)? No, I didn’t choose to be gay. But even if I had, why would that be wrong?
posted by BobN on
I agree with the gist of the article, but we don’t chose our friends, either. There’s really nothing much different about the process of forming a friendship and the process of falling in love. You meet someone. There are feelings or there aren’t, or they develop over time. They’re either reciprocated or not. You proceed to experience life’s adventures and activities together or you don’t.
Americans, it seems to me, confuse “friends” with “acquaintances”.
posted by Jorge on
There’s really nothing much different about the process of forming a friendship and the process of falling in love. You meet someone. There are feelings or there aren’t, or they develop over time. They’re either reciprocated or not. You proceed to experience life’s adventures and activities together or you don’t.
Five minutes after thinking “Daaaaamn!” because he’s got a girlfriend, okay let’s be friends.
posted by Ken Spreitzer on
We need to stop entertaining this discussion of whether being gay is a choice.
There is expert testimony — that of gay people themselves. They know the truth.
If a straight person wants to claim that being gay is a choice, the burden of proof is on them. Until then, end of discussion.
posted by Pauliji on
While I agree with the content of the article, I feel it’s unrealistic to expect devout religious believers to ever change their minds on this subject, for a number of reasons.
First, it’s built into the fundamentalist interpretation that the bible is inerrant, and therefore anything that runs counter to the bible must be wrong, since the bible can’t be wrong. Don’t underestimate this point. If anyone could ever prove, even for an instant that there were even one single, tiny error in the bible (and it’s really quite easy to do that) then the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Homosexuality is exactly in that position. Empirical evidence, and science so clearly contradict the bible in every way, that for a fundie to admit the science is correct would imperil his entire world view by extension. Fundies tend to have their dogmatic religious beliefs at the very core of their lives, so it’s highly unlikely that they will ever entertain any doubts, or evidence which might have such catastrophic consequences. And if they were to doubt their faith, they would also likely lose their friends and families too, since they tend to stick to their own kind, and that kind doesn’t look kindly upon dissenters or heretics.
As a result of this vulnerability, fundies have erected a very strong firewall against logic and reason, and science. They have all kinds of justifications. You’ve probably heard most of them before: that’s the devil talking, render unto god, etc., etc.. In addition, it has been observed that lately they have adopted the tactic of simply turning away from the evidence and have trained their children to simply ignore anything which runs counter to their world view.
This is why they must insist that homosexuality is a choice. Otherwise they would have to admit the bible is wrong. The bible clearly doesn’t reference homosexuality directly. No such concept existed at the time. But all the references to homosexual activity are negative, the few of them which are there. Therefore, the bible literalist cannot and will not admit of any interpretation which might allow that homosexual persons are healthy, happy, free individuals with a right to choose.
Second, there’s a huge anti-gay industry built up around this kind of literal interpretation of the bible. It’s been very good to those who propound it. Nothing unifies like a common enemy. They’ve got Islam, abortion and the gays. Every one of those issues has been used to gain power and money for those who want it. There are lots of professional homophobes working overtime to promote their religious wingnuttery against gay people and their civil rights. The list includes Tony Perkins, Brian Fisher, Don Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, Maggie Gallagher, Papa Ratzi, and so on. They all make quite fabulous salaries by disseminating falsehoods about gay and lesbian people. Without this income, they would be unqualified to make any real money at anything else, since none of them have any professional credentials in the real world. They are lining their pockets at our expense, and are never going to stop doing so willingly. It won’t be until the overwhelming majority of their audience turns away in boredom that they will shut up.
Third, now that the world has trained up this latest generation of homophobes, it’s unlikely they’re capable of change. It’s really true that most of them will have to die before it changes. Their kids, if not homeschooled and carefully protected against outside influences (and there are plenty of unfortunate kids in this position) are likely to be exposed to positive images of gay people nowadays, at least once in a while. And they are likely to be exposed to people who will discourage dogmatism in general, and encourage thinking independently. And they might get acquainted with a gay person. All of which tends to lead to egalitarian beliefs, regardless of religious affiliation.
Our only hope is to be out. Time is on our side. However we must continue to advocate for our rights. We must loudly and constantly proclaim the truth whenever we encounter those religious wingnuts who lie about us. This way, we can preserve that little light in the darkness for those struggling to find a way out of religious oppression and homophobia.
posted by Houndentenor on
There is a poster on display at my parents’ Baptist church in Texas that traces the decline of modern man back not to Darwin but to Galileo, Copernicus and Newton. If only we hadn’t figured out that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe!
posted by Infovoyeur on
All these comments are good. The quick-and-dirty question about “did you just choose” an opposite-sex person. The simple “but what’s wrong with it as a choice.” The complex entanglements of fundamentalism world-views as psychologically-Velcroing people. Things do start to get clearer…
posted by Pat on
I was and still amazed that there are still people that think sexual orientation is a choice. A couple of years ago, GayPatriot delisted a site (I forgot which one) because it was too homophobic. I ventured on that site to see for myself, and it was pretty bad.
Almost all of the posters there really thought that homosexuality was a choice, and many of them believed they are attracted to the opposite sex because they chose it. I asked them if that was true, why are there rabidly anti-gay preachers who were caught having sex with boys or men? I couldn’t believe how deep their head was in the sand, as they never heard of such cases and demanded proof. Of course, that was easy. That shut them up.
posted by Justin Raimondo on
There is zero evidence that homosexuality is “inborn” — and the decision to advance this “scientific” thesis as a political stance is the gay rights movement’s version of Lysenkoism.
posted by Tom on
Does the question of inborn or not make a difference in terms of whether gays and lesbians should be treated on an equal footing with all other citizens? If so, why? If not, why is the question any more relevant than whether a woman was born with blond hair or dies it?
posted by Houndentenor on
So please explain why some of us are gay. I’m sure we’d all love to know.
posted by Jorge on
Don’t forget to show some “evidence,” to back up your “thesis”. It’s been a slow week.
posted by Pat on
So Justin, could you explain how you became straight. Was that really a conscious decision? In other words, you could just as easily have been gay if you chose? And could you explain why there have been pastors who spew anti-gay rhetoric, who you think would be the last people to engage in homosexual sex was a choice, have been caught having such sex? Thanks.