Cynthia Nixon says she's gay by 'choice.' Is it really a choice?

[Martina]

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.

Originally Posted by Kobi

I tend to see it a little differently.

I prefer a healthy dose of difference. I find when I dont venture out of my comfort zone, I get bored, stagnant, and intellectually rusty.

I also find people who think differently than me have much to teach me. They teach me tolerance which is a huge asset in a very diverse world. They also teach me patience and who cant afford to be more patient. But, most of all, they teach me a lot about the person I am and the person I strive to be.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Martina

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.

I hear what you are saying.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Let me explain.

Like it or not, people come with preconceived notions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings based on their experiences and teachings. We may not always agree with these. They might not be the type of thing we want to hear. They are obviously things that rarely go unchallenged.

To me, we can strive to just stop stuff like this from occuring because it offends us. Hence the goal might be seen as to just shut someone up.

Or, we can have a different type of goal. Changing someones heart is more lasting and more beneficial and advantageous to the whole. To me, that is a heathy response and coming out of ones comfort zone. It is a royal pain in the ass to do it, but since when have we ever backed down from a challenge?

I base this on my own experiences. I came here with outdated knowledge and a lot of stuff that was challenged a great deal. I didnt understand a lot of what the challenge was about until I was given the knowledge as to why something was seen as this or that. It taught me a lot. It made me and still makes me see things differently. It makes me more mindful and careful when posting stuff.

To me, the healthy part, is not what was initially done, but how we choose to deal with it and why we choose this way.

Perhaps this makes it clearer?

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by WolfyOne

Bet, I get what you're saying, but not everyone can put in words why they think what they think. I'm not making excuses for anyone, it's just how some are. Like me, I'm better writing my thoughts than speaking face to face. I don't know why, but it is. I have learned a lot just by reading what others have posted in this thread. My verbal words may come out tongue twisted but my written word is usually pretty darn good. I do think to ask someone why they feel as they do may be a private issue. We all have baggage, just some of choose to check it at the door before we enter a room. If I'm so upset or concerned over what a person posts and they don't want to elaborate in another post, I may want to PM them and ask. I personally have a lot of old baggage I keep locked away. Sometimes someone says something or I read something that brings it to the surface. It makes me think about it, but am leery to talk or write about it. I don't know if any of this makes sense to you, but it does in my mind. I wasn't jumping on you, but I think you already know that

You, my friend, have taken the time and effort to explain yourself (and you do just fine). I know that I personally was specifically referring to the 'this is what I think/feel and I don't have to say anything else about it, so there' issue.

In a forum like this, one cannot say something....anything...and not be prepared to discuss it in some manner. That's the price we pay for the privilege of being able to post our beliefs. Others may inquire about them or challenge them or expound upon them. Once we hit submit our thoughts belong to the great WWW.

[nowandthen]

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.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

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.

[AtLast]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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."

[mariamma]

I came out as a lesbian at 16 but was with men for 18 years out of choice. A major issue is ... I expected the men to be as capable emotionally as women. This is why I have never felt bi or straight. I can say I love women. Can't say I love men. I like them. I respect them. I just can't have a deep, meaningful relationship with men.
I can see how Cynthia might feel similar. I can see how some women or men can choose to be with a gender that fits better with soul, spirit and mind before the body

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I still want to know why she sticks with using "gay" and "homosexual" rather than using "lesbian" tho.

Maybe she doesn't identify as a lesbian. Maybe she doesn't like that word or doesn't feel that it fully describes who and what she is.

I identify as Queer, not gay (although, in mixed company I have allowed it for the sake of ease of conversation and being too tired to delve into the world of gay vs. queer as it relates to me), not lesbian, and although I am a homosexual in the most basic of definitions, I do not use that word to describe myself unless I am in a clinical or sterile environment (clinic, hospital, etc).