The other things that kinda trouble me are the motto ‘we are born this way; we don’t choose who we love‘ and the ‘comforting’ words some gays/lesbians offer to straight people that they ‘don’t fall for straights‘. These are linked to each other at a certain degree; let me explain. Can we really say we don’t choose when we put an effort in hanging around certain people in order to avoid very bad results? Many gays and lesbians try to limit and control their circle of friends and potential lovers not to fall in love with someone who might be a homophobe or the chances of reciprocating their feelings is minimal.
Then there’s also the fact that such a general statement is not taking in account bisexuals- in the end how many lgb are on scale 6 of the kinsey report out of the 10% they consist of the general population? The comment Synthia Nixon made for her private life -that she chose her life- put in akward position many bisexuals and upset many gays and lesbians. But isn’t it to an extent the truth? She chose to be happy with a female partner instead of hiding behind a heterosexual marriage that would bring her stress and sorrow, like other lgb individuals do in many countries across the globe.
Lastly, do we really know that sexual orientation is only determined during our stay in our mother’s body? Is it even good to support such a theory that is based on the ‘lack of’ some substance? Isn’t it another mild form of presenting homosexuality/bisexuality as a medical case? Isn’t it burdening for the parents to believe such a theory that implies that they do share responsibility for their child’s situation? As Rachel from Social Justice League says:
[…]The first problem with relying so heavily on this idea is that we don’t actually know for sure if we are born this way. […] It is not at all out of the question that our understanding of how human sexuality develops will be radically altered in the future. (Some people clearly do experience their sexuality as fluid, in any case). Relying on the idea that we are “born” queer as the major pillar of our defense is too risky: if one day we get strong evidence that queer sexuality is heavily influenced by easily-alterable environmental factors we are fucking screwed.
The second issue with this argument is that it’s a version of the naturalistic fallacy. The fact of some or all people being genetically coded to do something doesn’t make that thing right or wrong! […]Argue for or against something based on its merits, not based on its origins.[…]
But I think the most serious problem with this argument is that it reinforces the idea that we need an excuse to be queer.[…]