Gay is a choice?

Is being gay a choice? It is according to demented wingnut and VP candidate Sarah "Bible Spice" Palin and the disingenuous frauds of the ex-gay "ministries." On the other hand, talk to any reputable, legitimate medical/mental health expert and, of course, the answer to the question is unqualified "No." Sadly, telling the truth is not a strong point with the Christianist set when it gets in the way of their delusion religious agenda and desire to turn the USA into a theocracy. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times has a good op-ed column by Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, that takes the Christianists to task and not only refutes the "choice myth" but also argues why it should be irrelevant to civil legal rights. Frank also correctly makes the argument that religion is NOT innate and is itself a choice. Thus, in my view, if one employs the Christinaists anti-gay argument, employment protection and similar laws affording protections based on religion need to be repealed. Here are some highlights:

*

Calling homosexuality a choice is the time-tested way politicians signal their belief that it is the wrong choice. Which is why Palin's comments prompted predictable anger from gay rights advocates. . . . But insisting that homosexuality is wholly involuntary does little to defend gays and lesbians from social disapproval. After all, the subtext of the "choice" debate is that opposing gay rights is only appropriate if gays select their sexuality, since it is unfair to punish someone for something one does not control.

*

It is past time to retire the question of whether being gay is a choice -- not because it's been settled but because it never made sense in the first place. Indeed, when it comes to other aspects of our identity and behavior, we generally don't dwell on the question of choice. To ask whether a practicing Catholic or a professional dancer has "chosen" to be a Catholic or a dancer seems bizarre.

*

Yet too many Americans continue to view sexual orientation as just that. At the same time, they cast other spheres of identity -- particularly religion -- as matters of unchosen conviction and deep principle. In fact, the parallels between sexual orientation and religious faith may be more marked than their differences. Religious Americans often speak of a surge of emotion from deep within them, of hearing a calling from something outside of themselves and of following the dictates of their conscience. Likewise, gays and lesbians frequently describe same-sex attractions as an undeniable force or a deep-seated feeling that they must respect if they are to be true to themselves.

*

Why not champion a homosexual's right to honor erotic, romantic and emotional callings in the same way, so long as doing so doesn't harm others? The concept of choice should be no more -- and no less -- applied to sexual orientation than to our religious, political or vocational identities. . . . . If Palin's gay friend is like other gays and lesbians, her sexual orientation is neither a choice to be tolerated nor a sentence to be served. It's an expression of her freedom to be herself, a freedom that, as Palin said in the debate, "is always just one generation away from extinction."