Why I Think it's Funny when Someone Vehemently Claims that Homosexuality is a "Choice"

Why does it seem such claims are made most forcefully by the Paul Bunyan types — outdoorsy, with a thatch of whiskers you could lose a Hungry Man TV dinner in — or by "ex-gays" on a holy crusade who can only hint coyly in the form of religious koans that as long as they keep shucking the bearded clam they'll have tricked the sky pixie into letting them into the great country club of the hereafter?

I don't need to refer to scientific studies or quote passages from scripture in exploring the hangups these raving bigots have in defining sexual orientation as a choice. I only have to consult the single best authority on sexual preference that I know: me. And all I know is that if Brittany Spears and Ricky Martin are on the same stage, gyrating on my TV (which presumably has the "mute" setting engaged) my eyes will be drawn magnetically to the bead of sweat on Ricky Martin's face as it arcs down his sculpted cheek to the impish, upturned corner of his mouth where a flash of his hypnotic smile urges the droplet to the edge of his chiseled jaw where it darts under his chin and down his muscular neck, slowly curving around to the front to finally come to a rest in the hollow at the base of his throat, the whole time his sinewy body undulating like he's going to climax with the explosive force of firecrackers going off inside a stick of dynamite inserted in a cannonball that's in the nose cone of a nuclear missile detonating under a volcano that's on a planet hurtling to the center of a sun that's about to go supernova. And that alone is enough to nullify the most emphatic "choice" argument.


I've seen enough interviews with
Ricky Martin to know it's the only way.

If one is making a choice between options, one is making a conscious decision. I find my attraction to the same sex automatic, unconscious, natural. I think this is why most thinking people find this insistence on "choice" so fundamentally preposterous. Because it doesn't matter if you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or sometimes one and sometimes the other — the attraction itself is not a choice.

Take, for example, the Al Franken Show blog troll "LeftWinger" who once claimed he chose his sexual orientation every minute of every day. Note how he unwittingly proves my point for me in this comment:

If I wanted to, I could sleep with a male, but I have chosen to have intimate relationships with females all of my life. If I wanted to, I could easily sleep with a male at sometime in the future, but I really have no desire to do so.
Posted by LeftWinger at 06.17.2004 09.09 PM
(emphasis added)

His "desire" for the opposite sex prevents him from "choosing" to be attracted to the same sex. Neat how that works out.

Which leads me to why it's funny when one of these love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin hypocrites sits down to pound out a little "choice" screed with one hand while picking bits of salisbury steak out of their facial hair with the other.

If I find sexual preference a natural and automatic process based on my personal experience, I can't help but think that the knuckle-draggers' unwavering insistence that sexual preference is a choice is based on their personal experience. Which can only mean that they feel they must choose that which does not come naturally.



This goes a long way towards explaining the "lady doth protest too much, methinks" behavior exhibited in ostensibly "traditional values" blogs and websites so obsessed with homosexuality that they end up being much more about gays than about "traditional values" ("pastor" DL Fister), the voyeuristic tint of lurid sex descriptions which allows these tortured souls to indulge their fantasies under the pretense of condemning them (A Breaking Wind), and even something as simple as providing web links to graphic images or pornography complete with warnings in order to absolve the author of any responsibility (another one out of the DL Fister playbook).



Ultimately, the more vigorously they complain about homosexuality, the more suspect their protests become.

Dubya Bushytail

Nitwit Tidbit III

LaShawn the Barbarian proves once again why she is the Language Fartist...

Just as many witnesses to John F. Kennedy’s murder died under suspicious circumstances, so have witnesses to Slick Willie’s, including Vince Foster, who was the White House deputy counsel when he supposedly blew his brains out in Fort Marcy Park in Virginia.
(emphasis added)

Is there a note of panic in her post? Did she let slip some top secret intel? Does LaShawn possess some terrible knowledge that has doomed her to the same fate as many of the witnesses to JFK's murder? Or is it just that she's a horrible writer?


Two-Fer-One Tuesday

I just noticed this, shall we say, howler on the homepage of the Language Fartist:

"A yawp is a sharp cry or yelp, and the first place I’ve ever saw the word was Walt Whitman’s poem Song of Myself"

Phew! Somebody open a window! LaShawn's been writing again!

Write Your Own Caption



___________________________________________________
For my birthday, my S/O got me the first few seasons of Red Dwarf (a show which I had never before seen, but had heard about). So we've been disappearing into the far reaches of time and space every evening after work to see how Lister and Rimmer and Holly and their cat are doing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Pinky and the Brain, except that I figure we might have some fun writing captions for the picture above until I'm smegging ready to reenter the world of current events.

Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun!

Chicago City Council Relaxes Zone to Accept Great Erection

The City Council gave developer Christopher Carley and world-renowned architect Santiago Calatrava the zoning change they need to proceed with the $550 million project at 420 E. North Water, opposite Navy Pier.

"He's a great architect. It's really unique and different," Mayor Daley said. "It's a great symbol. We have great skyscrapers here. And they employ a lot of people in construction -- and even afterwards. So, it's great for the city."

Daley has such a great way with words!

All Politics is Loco

"A trial is set to begin Oct. 3 for the mayor and 13 others charged in an investigation of voting fraud and government corruption in a tiny southwest Virginia coal town, the prosecutor in the case said Tuesday.

"Most of the 14 face multiple felony counts in the 269-count indictment that alleges a conspiracy to rig the 2004 council election in Appalachia, a town of less than 2,000."

[...]

"The investigation began after several residents of a government-subsidized housing complex said they were approached by a supporter of one of the candidates and offered cigarettes, liquor and in one case a bag of fried pork skins for their votes."

By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer

Unclear on the Concept

“Homosexual activist groups like GLN and Rick Garcia’s Equality Illinois call Jim Oberweis a ‘bigot’ merely for supporting the [sic] Protect Marriage Illinois,” [Peter] LaBarbera said. “What is hateful about giving Illinois voters a chance to cast a vote for marriage as one-man, one-woman this November?”

Well, Peter, from your own FAQ (or "FAQS" as it is called on your site -- what does the "S" stand for, I wonder):

Q: Is the definition of marriage an appropriate topic for a constitution?

A: Yes, absolutely. The constitution is a place to enshrine fundamental rights, basic liberties and the limitations of government.

You're absolutely right about what the constitution is for. Unfortunately, a marriage amendment corrupts all three facets you listed. Instead of enshrining fundamental rights and liberties, it restricts rights, effectively stripping liberty from some; instead of limiting government, it would give power to government, enshrining discrimination based on nothing more than a sense of moral disapproval. Legalizing bigotry.

Get it, bigot?

____________________________

Update: Ex-Gay Watch is reporting on how LaBarbera is so disenchanted with the gay-friendly Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Barr Topinka that he says he "may vote for the Constitution Party candidate or simply not vote for governor at all."

The Constitution Party candidate is Randall C. Stufflebeam (presumably having a part in an upcoming J.K. Rowling book), who exclaims in a Freudian slip on his site, "I don't not fear the homosexual!"

The Constitution Party is opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. That's because they would simply make it illegal to be gay. Ex-Gay Watch notes that "the Party counts white supremacists among its candidates, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

State Fare

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal seeking marriage for same-sex couples. The webcast of the arguments can be seen here. Lambda's case was made by a Mr. Buckle who seemed slightly, but endearingly, nervous. His argument, however, was concise and familiar: the New Jersey Constitution provides protection for all citizens under the law and therefore discriminating against same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

How did the state's argument come off? Well, here's the reaction when confronted with this quote by Sandra Day O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas: "... we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."



Patrick DeAlmeida: "But she notes that it was moral disapproval with nothing more. Here, the state is asserting something more. It's asserting an interest in maintaining marriage as it has been."



Justice Virginia Long: "Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage 'as it has been'?"



DeAlmeida: "Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people."



Justice Barry T. Albin: "Didn't Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage -- in fact criminalizing them?"



DeAlmeida: "They did."


At which point Ogre interjected:


"NERDS!"

So, the next time you hear neo-cons say that you can't make the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage, just remind them that their side is doing exactly that.

(By the way, Ogre, calm down. That's not Lewis.)

Turnabout is Fair Play

Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

_________________________

Ohio lawmaker to propose ban on GOP adoption
BY CARL CHANCELLOR
Knight Ridder Newspapers

AKRON, Ohio - If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

[...]

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

Hat tip to InternetJunkie and jillan.

A Brief History of the Gay Cowboy

2006

Willie (ahem) records "Cowboys Are Secretly, Frequently (Fond of Each Other)"
.
.
.

2005

Brokeback Mountain
.
.
.

2003

The Rawhide Kid
.
.
.

1995

Woody. Need I say more?
.
.
.

1989

It was only a rumor, although Troy sure likes his sausage.
.
.
.

1977

Well, duh.
.
.
.

1976

International Gay Rodeo Association
.
.
.

1930
.
.
.

1890
.
.
.

c. 1,000,000 B.C.