This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/21/whats-wrong-with-choosing-to-be-gay

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
What's wrong with choosing to be gay, anyway? What's wrong with choosing to be gay, anyway?
(4 months later)
With the election of Mike Baird as the new premier, New South Wales With the election of Mike Baird as the new premier, New South Wales is potentially about to embark on a sharp social conservative turn. Baird not only opposes same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption, but is he also anti-abortion and against heroin injecting rooms. In other words, he is the antithesis of Barry O’Farrell's social liberalism.
is potentially about to embark on a sharp social conservative turn. Baird But it is one comment in particular which has got people riled up: a statement in which Baird implied that people “choose” the “homosexuality lifestyle", a line which led comedian Tom Ballard to wonder whether Baird was drunk on a $3,000 bottle of wine. On a more serious note, NSW deputy opposition leader Linda Burney also demanded that Baird explain whether he still held this "backward" view, stating that:
not only opposes same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption, People enter same sex relationships on the basis of love, not because of some lifestyle trend.
but is he also anti-abortion and against heroin injecting rooms. The question has long been a point of contention for lesbian and gay people, but the idea that we are "born this way" has become an article of faith in recent years. If we are "born gay", we should not be discriminated against, since you cannot and should not discriminate against what is "natural".
In other words, he is the antithesis of Barry O’Farrell's social liberalism. It is this argument that is forming the backbone of the reaction against Baird’s social conservatism. Unfortunately however, the attack buys very much into Baird’s philosophy.
But it is one comment in particular which has got people riled It has to be acknowledged that the "born this way" theory is not necessarily exact. Research shows that people can and do actively choose their sexuality at times, and that sexuality can be fluid.
up: a statement in which Baird implied that people “choose” the “homosexuality lifestyle", a line which led comedian Tom Ballard to wonder whether Baird was drunk on a $3,000 bottle of wine. On a more serious note, NSW deputy opposition leader Linda Burney also demanded that Baird explain whether he still held this "backward" view, stating that: Anecdotal evidence points to this as well. Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon for example has publicly stated that she actively chose to be a lesbian, Hunger Games star Josh Hutcherson has spoken about a potential willingness to date men in the future, and Olympic diver Tom Daley has described his experience of being a man who "fancied girls" but entered a relationship with a man.
People All of these stories describe experiences, or at least a willingness, of people to change and adapt their sexuality and sexual practices throughout their lives. We all make active choices – whether it is who we decide to have sex with, how we have sex, and how much sex we have.
enter same sex relationships on the basis of love, not because of some lifestyle trend. And herein lies the problem. When we attack Baird for saying people choose an homosexual lifestyle, we are implicitly saying "who would want to choose this lifestyle?" – something I’ve actually heard gay people say –, in turn buying into the very idea that non-straight sexualities are not desirable. In doing so, we open up those who make these sorts of active choices to discrimination. We open the opportunity for oppression (social or legal) on people’s legitimate sexual agency.
The question has long been a point of contention for lesbian and We can already see this playing out internally within the gay and lesbian movement. When Nixon said that she chose her sexuality, she was ruthlessly attacked by gay and lesbian advocates. When Daley announced that he had a boyfriend, many were determined to put him into the "gay" or "bisexual" box, even though that wasn’t how he described himself. Quite simply, they were told they had to accept that their sexuality is all biology.
gay people, but the idea that we are "born This is not the way it should be. We shouldn't discriminate against people’s sexuality or sexual habits not because they’re "natural", but because there’s nothing wrong with them.
this way" has become The people of NSW deserve to be worried about the conservative trend Baird may now be poised to take the state on. Many of his positions deserve to be fought against, but his belief that people choose their sexuality is not one of them. Next time we hear him say it, our only response should be “yes, and what’s wrong with that?”.
an article of faith in recent years. If we are "born gay", we should not be discriminated
against, since you cannot and should not discriminate against what is "natural".
It is this argument that is forming the backbone of the reaction against
Baird’s social conservatism. Unfortunately however, the attack buys very much
into Baird’s philosophy.
It has to be acknowledged that the "born this
way" theory is not necessarily exact. Research shows that people can and do actively
choose their sexuality at times, and that sexuality can be fluid.
Anecdotal evidence points to this
as well. Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon for
example has publicly stated that she actively chose to be a lesbian, Hunger Games star Josh Hutcherson has spoken
about a potential willingness to date men in the future, and Olympic diver Tom Daley has described his
experience of being a man who "fancied girls" but entered a relationship with a
man.
All of these stories describe experiences, or at least a willingness, of
people to change and adapt their sexuality and sexual practices throughout
their lives. We all make active choices – whether it is who we decide to have
sex with, how we have sex, and how much sex we have.
And herein lies the problem. When we attack Baird for
saying people choose an homosexual lifestyle, we are implicitly saying "who
would want to choose this lifestyle?" – something I’ve actually heard gay people
say –, in turn buying into the very idea that non-straight sexualities are not desirable. In doing so, we open up those who make these sorts of active
choices to discrimination. We open the opportunity for oppression (social or
legal) on people’s legitimate sexual agency.
We can already see this playing out internally within the
gay and lesbian movement. When Nixon said that she chose her sexuality, she was ruthlessly attacked by gay and lesbian advocates.
When Daley announced that he had a boyfriend, many were determined to put
him into the "gay" or "bisexual" box, even though that wasn’t how he described himself. Quite simply, they were told they had to accept that their sexuality is all biology.
This is not the way it should be. We shouldn't
discriminate against people’s sexuality or sexual habits not because they’re "natural", but because there’s nothing wrong with them.
The people of NSW deserve to be worried about the
conservative trend Baird may now be poised to take the state on. Many of his
positions deserve to be fought against, but his belief that people choose their
sexuality is not one of them. Next time we hear him say it, our only response
should be “yes, and what’s wrong with that?”.