Yes, that's my understanding. A gay man who may occasionally dally with women, but whose primary sexual and romantic interest lies with men, may call himself homoflexible. And vice-versa. My understanding is that some people don't like to use 'bisexual' because the word implies that there are two genders.

That said, people just loooove to try on IDs, find them too restrictive, and then demand that the label expand to meet who they feel they are. Once that happens, new labels are invented once again.

Frank Bruni: NYT
 

"[T]he born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it? Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected. Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative. Among adults, the right to love whom you’re moved to love — and to express it through sex and maybe, yes, marriage — is surely as vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a Glock. And it’s a lot less likely to cause injury, if that’s a deciding factor: how a person’s actions affect the community around him or her." - New York Times columnist

Frank Bruni, on Cynthia Nixon's controversial comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/op...-not.html?_r=1

Interesting how the chicken & egg paradigm or the nature/nurture debate continues- no matter the population.

It isn't the debate or choosing to buy into one or the other that is important to me. The discussion is. And discussions that are not filled with negative judgement.

Bi-sexuality has been one of the most negatively judged forms of sexuality as I have developed through various stages of queerdom (speaking individually).

Although I personally embrace the bio-physiological nature of sexuality, I respect those that do not.

I find bi-bashing disturbing as an individual.

This is not an opinion like "meat is murder," which could challenge you and take you out of your comfort zone. It is an opinion that makes it conveys hatred toward members of our community. If we are committed to including bisexuals among our members, then we need to do what we can to prevent statements like that from being made. People can think and feel whatever they like. They can explore and research and discuss with friends. But to make a statement like that where there are undoubtedly bisexuals is to knowingly risk hurting and alienating others. i do not think that is what we want to do here.

There's nothing "healthy" about that kind of remark.

Yes born this way or born not this way
 

I have read several articles and find Ms. Nixion's comment to be truthful. The falseness of Enlightenment ERA science and many of the modalities/pathologies born of that time is that they constructed and spurred the need to define "natural" as a location "normal". For me any form of biological essentialistism is scary as it permits a binary expectation of human variance.
There are not two choices, this is the fundamental issue, trying to erase difference by constructing false expectations of "other" as only two. The scientific method in its need to name and prove, prove's by excluding difference, not by acknowledging difference.
One may be born gay or not, just as one may be born bi or not. The social construction of difference as needing to be in a hierarchy is about power, specifically economic power.

Clearly, you're flirting.

Genetic or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away
By FRANK BRUNI
Published: January 28, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

I Guess she got a little heat for her statement....
 

Cynthia Nixon Releases Statement to Clear Up Controversial Gay Comments.
Next.RadarOnline, Monday, January 30, 2012, 12:00pm (PST)

By Amber Goodhand - Radar Reporter


Cynthia Nixon recently caused a stir when she did an interview with The New York Times in which she said for her, homosexuality is a choice.


But now she's taken it a step further, giving a statement to The Advocate to explain what she meant in the interview -- saying bisexuality is not a choice, but her decision to be in a homosexual relationship is.


"My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can't and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive and disempowering," Cynthia said.


"However, to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship."


Earlier this month Cynthia told The New York Times: "I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line 'I've been straight and I've been gay, and gay is better.' And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice."


The notion that being gay is a choice is something that has ruffled the feathers of the LGBT community for quite some time, as most believe their sexual orientation is something inherited at birth and is not a choice, just as much as heterosexuality is not a choice.


"As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community -- as well as the majority of heterosexuals -- cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex," Cynthia continued in her statement to The Advocate.


"Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens."

This post may not sit well with some, but...
 

Well, I would. I've certainly had to struggle as a consequence of being a lesbian. Yes, I've been discriminated against. Yes, I was very confused at first, but I thank the Goddess on nearly a daily basis that I was born a lesbian.

The biggest reason I would choose to be gay if given the option, is that I don't have to seek partnership from among the available stock of heterosexual men. I'm sure there are plenty of nice straight men. Somewhere. I do know a few, but most of the straight men I work with and meet on a daily basis act like... men. I'm often astonished and baffled by their behaviours. They don't make sense to me, and I sometimes need a translator to explain their motives. Really. Plus, for the last 49 and 1/2 years I've been fighting off threatening, unwanted sexual attention from them. So much so that I've come to expect straight men to act like jerks, and I'm relieved when they don't. I don't hate them, I just expect certain levels of behaviour from them, and they mostly fulfill my expectations.

Why else would I choose to be gay? Because in my protected corner of the world in an artist's community in NYC, I have friends and associations with other gay people who are SUPER cool, that I would otherwise never have made, because we're all members of 'the club'. My extraordinary life would have been a lot more pedestrian had I been just another straight person.

Finally, I'm sooooo relieved that I don't have to worry about being feminine enough to catch a man. I ride and fix motorcycles, and my work as a sculptor is very dirty and physical. I may doubt myself at times, but I have never had a butch woman tell me that they're anything but impressed. Straight men are mostly frightened by a woman like me, which works really well for me as a lesbian, but that would really bum me out if I were interested in them romantically.

YES, I would choose to be a lesbian, and I know quite a few straight women who wish they could make that choice for themselves.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Well, to be perfectly honest, I feel slightly superior to those that think they don't have a say in the matter.

Also, I could never be okay with participating in a relationship out of a desire for normalcy.

And, the personal is political.

Also, if being queer is the worst thing that's ever happened to you I think you live a pretty fucking charmed life.

And as someone who -does- have a choice / other potential options - I gotta say landing here isn't half bad.

"Here’s the problem with that argument [it's not a choice]: It hinges on the notion that what is problematic about the idea that Nixon’s gayness—or anyone else’s—being a choice, is that we shouldn’t choose it. The rhetoric of shame tells us that either LGBTQ folks had no choice and therefore are gay, or, if we had a choice and chose to be gay, we made the wrong one. But what if we made the right one? And we keep making it every day?"

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/...revolutionary/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/op...&smid=fb-share

Losing your family, losing loved ones, being discriminated against, losing a job or being turned down for a job, getting beaten and murdered for being Gay/Queer, being treated like a second class citizen for being Gay/Queer. I would hardly call any of these situations a charmed life.

I'm pretty f**king glad I turned out to be gay.

I'm particularly glad I was born at a time when gayers were fighting for the right to be cheery.

I would hardly call being a straight woman in a highly misogynist world to be a charmed life either.

I am VERY happy being a butch and lesbian and definitely wouldn't want it any other way.