First of all, allow me to show my cards: I like women, sexually.
Although I’m a bit of a ponce, somewhat of an effeminate fella – I dress in a way that some would consider flamboyant, I wear nail polish, I hug and sometime kiss my friends, males included, and I can occasionally overly animated, again, perhaps the right word would be flamboyant – I’m a raging hetero. Straight as a pole. Gay as a muddy hole is white.
And the reason that I mention this is because I’m comfortable with my sexuality. I’ve questioned my sexuality. I’ve contemplated the idea of finding men attractive. I’ve even, at times, convinced myself that because of my rather outlandish ways, I must, MUST, be gay; after all, what sort of straight guy paints his nails and knows who Karl Lagerfeld is?
Nevertheless, despite these ambiguous societal standards woven of pure grey that I’ve, on countless occasions, applied to measure my own sexuality, my love of woman has proven irrefutable.
I like girls. I’ve no choice in the matter.
Wherein lies my point:
I like women. I don’t have a choice. Boobs, butts, feminine legs (sometimes this is misleading), long hair (also, on occasion, misleading) and vaginas (usually not misleading), respectively, turn me on.
And in the same way that this is the case for me, so it is the case for the gays and their ways.
Recently, I watched a video on Youtube, where one of the topics of discussion was whether or not being gay was a choice. To me, it’s not really a discussion worth entertaining.
And so, I wrote a post about it? Anyway…
The video’s panel comprised a wide range of participants; ranging from the likes of Richard Dawkins – an evolutionary biologist and an atheist “campaigner” – all the way through to evangelical pastors, and equally evangelical politicians.
When the topic of homosexuality was specifically exposed for debate, one of the highly religious people of the panel, Betty King, made a comment, running along the lines of, ‘you make a choice to be a homosexual, and you are not forced to.’ She also mentioned that in her mind, homosexuality was not morally right, and that without a man and a woman, the man sitting next to her, a rather well-known gay activist, could not have come into being.
Here, Dawkins, in his usual jeering manner, outlined, very bluntly, how her views were totally irrelevant and invalid.
This was then promptly scoffed at by some of the panel, saying how Dawkins, and people like him, were blind to their arrogance, because of their unwillingness to accept the validity of other’s views. Adding that people are all entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, and that we should not write each other out because of them.
However, and as Dawkins highlighted, those who’d decided to argue this had completely missed the point he was making.
Yes, indeed, everyone is entitled to believe whatever it is that they like. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong because of your biblical persuasions, fine; that’s your prerogative, and so be it. That’s not what this post is about.
And in this sense, there is nothing at all wrong with what Dawkins said: Her views very much are invalid. Meaning, they are quite simply, wrong.
The truth is (relatively) the truth whether we like it or not. It’s indifferent to our beliefs, and insensitive to our maudlin fantasies.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is exactly one of those things; the answer isn’t based on one’s own personal belief regarding the matter, but rather on scientific based inquiry; on measurable analysis.
And I’m not sorry to say, but love, attraction, or whatever you want to call it, is blind.
Though, I’ll even concede that there is one argument to say that being gay is a choice: simply put, you could remain celibate. I mean, in order to “be gay,” so to speak, you’ve got to actively fuck someone of your own gender. And in that respect, you’ve a choice to follow through, literally, with that action, the act of pursuing someone, sexually, that you find attractive.
But that’s about as far as that train of thought extends. It’s vague and silly. And it doesn’t expose the root of what is actually being inferred, which is that one chooses his or her sexuality.
Again, love (attraction) is blind, folks. It knows no bounds, and sees no gender. It – attraction – is embedded into our human genome in the form of a primordial driver, forcing us, not necessarily to procreate, but to mimic the act of procreation. And that’s all. It doesn’t take a scientist to fathom how this is so.
In conclusion *taps cue cards on desk* homosexual acts are actively pursued, and thus chosen. Actually being a homosexual is not.
It’s genetic, yo.
Humans-are-lovers. And how you wanna love is none of my business.