Ever since it was reported the other day that actress Cynthia Nixon, a bit indignantly, said that for her, being gay is a “choice,” I’ve been trying to get my thoughts together on exactly how I feel about what she said, and why it bothers me. Here’s the exact quote, and then I’ll tell you what I think about it:

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. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

Writer Alex Witchel reports that “her face was red and her arms were waving” as she continued, “It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate,” Nixon said. “I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.”

Cynthia Nixon’s experience is Cynthia Nixon’s experience, of course, so to be clear, we are not debating that. I think that the biggest problem with her quote is that it’s irresponsible, because it introduces a concept and a reality that is really hard to capture in a sound bite. The trouble with that is that the very same bigots she refers to are simply not going to go beyond the sound bite, and choose instead to point at her and say, “see? She said it’s a choice! Now change.”

The truth of the matter, as science has been discovering for a while now, is that sexuality is far, far more complex than we’ve understood in the past, and that indeed, one of the major “x factors” involved in how people experience sexuality has more to do with how many x chromosomes they have, and less to do with whether they’re homo-, hetero- or bisexual. Tracy Clark-Flory examines this at Salon:

Activists have long combated extremist attacks on LGBT identities by highlighting the science showing that homosexuality is genetic — or, in the words of Lady Gaga, that gay people are “born that way.” It may be that simple for some, but research increasingly suggests that it isn’t for all — especially for gay women.

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, spent over a decade tracking sexual identity changes in a group of 100 women for her book “Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire.” She wrote, “Women’s sexuality is fundamentally more fluid than men’s, permitting greater variability in its development and expression over the life course.” Based on her research, she describes three main ways that sexual fluidity is expressed: “nonexclusivity in attractions” (i.e., the capacity to find all genders sexually attractive), “changes in attractions” (i.e., suddenly becoming romantically involved with a woman after a lifetime dating men) and the capacity to become attracted to ‘the person and not the gender’” (i.e., a partner’s sex is irrelevant).

[...]

Copious research has revealed striking differences in male and female sexual orientation and arousal. In immensely awkward studies measuring men’s hard-ons while viewing various sexual stimuli, most guys have a strong response to either males or females; and their sexual orientation generally predicts their physical reaction. On the other hand, Bailey explains, “Women’s genital sexual arousal pattern is much less predictive of their sexual identity and their stated preferences,” he says. “Lesbians have a relatively weaker arousal preference for female sexual stimuli, on average, and straight women have no preference at all, on average.”

Okay. so, if you’re an honest person and you pay attention to this stuff, you already knew all of this. If you’re a decent person, it doesn’t change your support for things like marriage equality and nondiscrimination acts. Because it doesn’t matter! On that point, Cynthia Nixon and I agree. However, where it gets difficult, in this sound bite world, is in explaining that, even acknowledging the fact that men’s sexuality tends to be pretty much what it is, from the first time we get boners associated with sexual thoughts, whereas women often experience sexuality in a much more complex way, that still doesn’t do a damn thing for the Religious Right’s argument that people should want to change from gay to straight. And because we’re dealing with the Religious Right, we are in a situation where we are not arguing with people who are willing or even capable of rational, detailed discourse. For them, it’s all about their ideology and about preserving white male conservative Christian heterosexuality as the only truly “okay” state of being. Also, it’s about control.

But they will, as I said above, use sound bites like that against us, which is why I think it’s irresponsible. Cynthia has lent her voice to our cause in very powerful ways over the years, so this is in no way an attack on her. I feel that, perhaps, maybe she could have said a bit more on the subject, perhaps not casually throwing the word “choice” around and instead talking about how her sexuality evolved in the way it did. Readers on this side of the spectrum pretty much get what she’s saying, I think, but the Religious Right hears “choice,” and they think “well that proves it. Cynthia Nixon woke up one morning and decided to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.” Cynthia is free to correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that her story is that simple, or that the story for any other women who have experienced a more fluid sexuality is that simple.

Moreover, what of bisexuals? One of the silliest Religious Right lies out there, one that truly makes me shake my head in the direction of whatever rock they live under, is that bisexuals naturally will want/need to marry one person of each gender. Indeed, when bisexuals decide to settle down into relationships, they tend to choose a partner they’re compatible with, regardless of gender. Sometimes they end up with same-sex partners, sometimes they end up with opposite-sex partners. Because they’re bisexual! I don’t think Cynthia is necessarily bisexual — she surely disavowed the concept in her statement — but there are many bisexuals out there who, when settling down with partners, make a choice to settle down with either a man or a woman. This, of course, still shouldn’t give the Religious Right any reason to feel stronger in their argument that, due to unreasoned bigotry hiding behind a third-grade reading of an ancient holy book, those people should opt for opposite-sex partners.

Here’s what we know. Men, due to our biology, tend to have a fixed, lifelong sexual orientation that we experience regardless of any “choices” we make. Alan Chambers “chooses” to live in what I would assume is a fairly sexless marriage with a woman, while admitting that he still is very much into guys. Many women experience a sexual orientation that is fixed in just the same way, but others experience it in a more fluid way that can change over the course of their lives.

Here’s what else we know. All major, grown-up mental health and medical associations have stated that reparative therapy, religious attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation through outside force, are somewhere between ineffective and harmful. Moreover, all major, grown-up mental health and medical associations have very politely stated that there is nothing inherently unhealthy or disordered about being gay, bisexual or straight.

Here’s another what else we know. Religious wingnut arguments against homosexuality have absolutely no place in rational discourse, as they do not involve rational thought, but rather stupid bigotry dressed up in religious language. We also know that the Religious Right has a pattern of using the same “biblical” arguments against whatever the hell it is that they hate these days. For them, it is all about control and their petty unwillingness to play well with others in a secular society that doesn’t automatically give them blow jobs, ponies and first prize ribbons simply for existing.

We on the side of fairness, equality and reality should be comfortable with dealing with science and reality, as they are. Reality doesn’t threaten us. But we do, until this battle for equality is fully won, have to be careful with our rhetoric and our casual comments, because our enemy is not upstanding and is not honest.  As I said above, perhaps with this issue, it’s better to explain more of the reality, not less. We are only beginning to truly understand human sexuality from a scientific perspective, and what we’re learning is fascinating. But it’s nothing as simple as “a choice,” and certainly not in the way the Religious Right uses that word.

Of course, I also agree with Cynthia that, however sexual orientation works, it shouldn’t matter when it comes to things like equal rights. I mean hell, we’ve given the Religious Right carte blanche for decades for their beliefs, and those beliefs are clearly chosen. No, this is about dignity, fairness and equal opportunity.

So maybe this is a teachable moment, for those willing to learn. Sexuality is far, far, far more complex than people often understand, and is fascinating to study. People deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. Those two ideas shouldn’t have a hard time coexisting, as they haven’t a damn thing to do with one another.

Yesterday, people were appalled when it was reported that Rick Santorum, a man who holds such grotesque opinions on a host of topics that he repels all but the worst wingnuts, had seemingly outdone himself by telling Piers Morgan that women who become pregnant by rape should accept it as “a gift in a very broken way.” Here’s the quote:

Last Friday, CNN’s Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that “it’s not a matter of religious values,” Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should “accept this horribly created” pregnancy because it is “nevertheless a gift in a very broken way” and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has “to make the best out of a bad situation“:

SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, you silly ladies, and sometimes it comes in the form of a brutal rape! So saith Frothy. Or as Tbogg put it, Santorum is saying that “when life gives you rape, you should make rapeanade.”

Here’s video [via Wonkette] of that, and then some more thoughts:

My god. I must pause for a moment, quickly, to point out that just after 1:35, he says, “this is not an easy choice.” That is the point, wingnut! It’s a choice that only a woman can make! C-H-O-I-C-E!

But that gets to the larger point here. This is not about abortion. This is not about morals. This is not about religious belief. This is about men, like Rick Santorum, believing in a worldview that says that they, as white, straight men are superior, and the rest of us — women, people of color, LGBT people — are all subject to their control. I want to quote a lot of what Tbogg said on the subject, because though people know him as a “funny writer,” he’s remarkably on point on the greater implications of this worldview:

Twisted version of a living thinking human being Rick Santorum is not a “the uterus is half empty”-kind of guy. To him the uterus should always be popping out babies like a Pez dispenser because, what are women after all, besides elaborately constructed EZ Bake Ovens for man batter. And if you happened to be raped (which Rick, always angling for the lady vote, thinks is “horrible”) well you should look at the bright side of things: you might just get to be a mama!

[...]

God gave you a gift albeit through a horrible violent soul-crushing emotionally scarring way that you will carry with you every minute of your life until you die. And, if you choose to not accept God’s very mortal man-like awkward attempt at gift giving and you say “no thanks” and give it back to Him, well, you’re an ungrateful bitch. And probably a whore for leading your rapist and God on so you don’t deserve the baby, just the rape.

Exactly exactly exactly. And lest you think he’s being hyperbolic, think of many of the “typical” things people say on the subject of women avoiding rape. They’re all focused on the victim and suggest that, well, as long as the lady doesn’t wear a certain thing and as long as the lady doesn’t walk alone and so on and so forth, as if violating one of these rules means somehow that the lady had it coming. Perhaps what’s most striking about Santorum’s quote isn’t the general worldview behind it — we’ve lived around that for a long, long time in the United States, but rather that he is able to move from “brutal rape” to “gift from the Lord!” in a whiplash-inducing two minutes.

Amanda Marcotte suggests in a piece yesterday that modern fundamentalist Christians [whether Catholic or Evangelical -- they've really blurred together over the past few years over common hatred of others] don’t really believe in Jesus anymore, but rather in Sperm Magic. If the term doesn’t make sense to you now, it will in a minute. In writing about the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and where the pro-choice movement stands today [on shaky ground], she discusses the larger worldview of the cultural fight that is often reduced to being simply about abortion, using this image of the Duggars as a springboard:

Amanda:

…[I]t’s important to realize that this battle is not and has never been just about abortion. It’s about women’s rights and women’s roles, and whether we should be full citizens or be managed and controlled by fathers, husbands, ministers, etc.

[...]

In a single image, we get what anti-choicers believe men have lost, and what they believe stripping reproductive rights will return to them: Woman as pet dog.

We don’t even get the dignity that cats get, in their worldview. No wonder they don’t care if Gingrich told his second wife she should just put up with the third one. Your dog doesn’t get a vote when you get a new dog.

[...]

What Oppenheimer [the writer of the piece Amanda was criticizing] doesn’t talk about. but that picture illustrates so well, is what anti-feminists really feel is lost with what they call “contraceptive culture”: men’s god-given right to have a woman—perhaps several (though in a row, mostly)—who follow them around, worshipping their every move, submitting completely and joyfully. I suspect this fantasy never was a reality, but I suspect a lot of Christian fundamentalists have convinced themselves that giving women the power to say “no” to men is what made us so maddeningly unwilling to play the supplicant. No to sexual overtures, no to marriage, no to demands that we wait on you, and most importantly, no to letting your magical seed plant itself in our bodies whenever it wants. That’s why I believe that modern conservative Christians don’t worship Jesus so much as Sperm Magic.

So taking this belief — that women are, as Tbogg said above, little more than Pez dispensers for the products of what Amanda calls Sperm Magic — to its conclusion, it’s not at all surprising that Rick Santorum is more concerned that “God’s will” be done by forcing a woman who has been raped to carry that rapist’s child to term. Though he knows he has to appeal to at least a few female voters and remembers to say rape is bad, it’s obvious that once the idea of conception is on the table, Santorum is no longer thinking about a brutal crime, but about the great will of God to keep women in their place by relegating them to the status of babymakers and nothing more.

Indeed, they believe that this is the natural “gift” of women, that a woman’s highest calling is to churn out babies for God’s little army. Have you heard of the Quiverfull movement, of which the Duggars are members? The Santorums may be involved in creepy Catholic versions of these fundamentalist Christian movements [Opus Dei comes to mind], but it’s the same general idea. Women are the property of men, women are worth less than men, and if The Supreme God of All That Is deigns to use a man’s Sperm Magic to multiply the human race, then that harlot had better comply, regardless of how God decided to deliver that sperm magic, even if it was through violent rape or incest.

When you believe women are inferior, it’s not a big leap to punishing women for being raped. Look at much of the Islamic world, and continue to tell me how different their fundamentalists are from our fundamentalists. Sure, stoning women for being raped wouldn’t fly in the Western world, but I highly doubt it’s because our Fundamentalists wouldn’t find their way there if they didn’t have several centuries of the Enlightenment and the United States Constitution holding them back from exercising their true beliefs.

This is just about perfect:

[h/t Joe]

Rod Dreher is one of those writers I don’t mess with much,  not because he doesn’t consistently churn out nonsense — he does — but simply because there are a lot of bloggers who really revel in messing with him, and they do it well. We have our favorites over here too.

But, to make an exception, here is Rod Dreher writing at the American Conservative about how he completely believes Rick Santorum when he claims that he would love a gay son just as much as a straight son. Frothy’s quote first:

“I’d love him just as much as I did the second before he told me.”

Well, that’s nice. Personally I’m quite sure Santorum is using one of the lesser definitions of “love,” but that’s neither here nor there for Rod:

I completely believe him.

That settles that. Wait, there’s more:

I found out that in my small, very conservative and churchgoing Southern town, there’s a lot of affection for Ginger Snap, a local black drag queen. Ginger Snap has her own float in the community Christmas parade. I guarantee that if you polled the people along the parade route, both white and black, nine out of 10 would say that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed. But they will also watch Ginger Snap roll by on her float and wave.

You see? These wingnuts think that Ginger Snap is a “morally wrong” person, and should not have the same rights as the parade-watchers, but they are willing to wave, and that is all you should be asking of fundamentalist Christians! I mean, it’s not like we live in a secular republic or anything or…oh, wait.

The idea that holding a critical moral position on homosexuality obliges one to hate this young gay man would strike most people around here as strange.

Sort of like how half of Mississippi still can’t get behind interracial marriage, but it doesn’t mean they hate the nice black lady who works at their kids’ school. It seems more to me, Rod, that what we are dealing with is Southerners who are ingrained with the notion that you can say or believe anything as derogatory or bigoted as you want about any human being or group, but as long as you begin all statements on the subject with “Now you know I’m not racist but…” and end them with “bless their hearts,” you remain officially in line with polite Southern decorum.

What’s strange is that Rod seems to notice that there is a Southern thing at play here, but draws asinine conclusions:

If you want logic to dictate social life, stay out of the South, and especially stay out of southern Louisiana.

That’s true, but when he next describes his town as a Love Your Neighbor kind of place, he doesn’t see that the people in his town don’t really love Ginger Snap, just like they don’t love the nice black lady who works at their kids’ schools, just like many wealthy white conservative Southern women are more than happy to have a gay interior decorator or hairdresser, but will vote against gay rights at the drop of a red hat, given the opportunity.

In short, this is the residue of the age-old Southern tradition of “diversity is great, as long as everybody knows their place.” Those of us who are Southern liberals tend to recognize this for what it is, because as the late, great Molly Ivins once said [I am paraphrasing], “Once you realize they’ve been lying to you about race, you question everything.”

But I reckon when you belong to a party for whom such meaningless platitudes know not the boundaries of dialect [refer to above Santorum quote], it’s a little bit easier to rationalize institutional bigotry and discrimination. After all, I’m sure Frothy Mix would wave at a drag queen if you asked him nicely, and Michele Bachmann’s husband might even add, “Oh that wig…bless her heart.”

I could spend a lot of time rebutting this List of Whine Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has put out, pointing out, as Joe does, that the one incident that approached violence on the list was probably a hoax, but I think I’ll just remind readers of how sadly often we have had to report in the year 2011 of gay teens taking their own lives due to relentless bullying for their sexuality or their perceived sexuality. Then I would also like readers to remember where anti-gay messages originate, and who gives tacit permission to bullies.

Then read Gary Cass whining about how “victimized” fundamentalists are.

If you’ve been following The Gay News for a while, you probably remember the story of Jennifer Keeton. She was a counseling student at Augusta State University who wanted special treatment from the school based on her fundamentalist beliefs. Specifically, she wanted to be able to go against accepted mental health guidelines when it comes to treating gays and lesbians. When the school politely explained to her that if she was to graduate, she would have to make sure that her beliefs did not interfere with the accepted standards of that profession, she cried “victim!” and sued. That has not been going well for her:

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a lower court’s ruling against a graduate student who had sought a court order preventing Augusta State University from expelling her from its school-counseling program.

The student, Jennifer Keeton, sued the Georgia university in July 2010, saying that it had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her Christian faith when it told her that, in order to stay in the program, she would have to change her beliefs about homosexuality—that it is immoral, unnatural, and a “lifestyle choice” that can be reversed through “conversion therapy.”

[...]

The court noted that the requirements of the counseling program—needed for its continued accreditation and compliance with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics—are similar to the rules for judges, who must apply laws even if they consider them erroneous.

“In seeking to evade the curricular requirement that she not impose her moral values on clients,” the court said, “Keeton is looking for preferential, not equal, treatment.”

Oh, ouch, that must have burned when she read it.

This is a parallel issue to the one we highlighted with our ad in the Ithaca Journal recently. In that ad, we took to task town clerks in the state of New York who are unwilling to perform their jobs acceptably, using their religious beliefs as an excuse, and are demanding a special pass to discriminate against gays and lesbians by refusing to issue marriage licenses. Obviously, the clerks are a government issue, whereas the standards of the counseling profession are not, but it’s a similar theme these days. Religious Fundamentalists want reality to impose to their weird notions of how things are, and when reality intervenes and treats them the same as everybody else, they have a temper tantrum. We’ll be seeing a lot more of these in the coming years.

[h/t Joe]

It’s been a while since we’ve posted a video from Molotov Mitchell of WorldNetDaily. He’s a sad attempt at right-wing humor and “biting” commentary, which fails for all the reasons right-wing “comedians” and commentators always fail, and honestly, unless you really go looking for his work, you’re not going to just run across it. As with all right-wing attempts at being cool, what comes across is a sad, weakling of a man who is so frightened of the world around him that he simply spews hatred at all the people who are smarter than he is. He believes he has gay friends, like so many bigots do. “I have a black friend! I have a gay friend!,” they are known to say. In reality, it’s usually that there’s a gay person or a person of color who lives in their neighborhood, and who tolerates the right-wing idiot in their midst, while making fun of them behind their backs. He expressed support for the Ugandan “Kill the Gays” bill, of course claiming, like so many stupid right-wingers, that it wasn’t about killing gay people, except for the times he pretty much advocated for genocide.

Anyway, Porno Pete is excited about Molotov’s new video where he goes after Dan Savage for saying mean things. I’m not going to defend every single thing Dan has ever said — Dan doesn’t even defend every single thing he’s ever said — but I will point out that while there are those on the side of fairness and humanity who are lit fuses and sometimes pop off, we are actually fighting for good. This is in direct opposition to fundamentalist religious bigots who tend to value “civility” in discourse, all while advocating, for instance, for non-existent policies on teen bullying and promulgating hateful messages which lead to kids taking their own lives. I’ll side with the people who actually fight for good, with a liberal use of the word “f*ck,” thank you.

Moreover, Molotov claims that Dan has bragged about “cheating” on his spouse. Um, no. Dan has explained the arrangement of his marriage many times, and all literate people are free to look that up. But as Dan and Terry’s arrangement is “consensual,” it wins the moral contest over the Fundamentalist Christian version of open marriages, which tends to involve a lot of lying and closet homosexuality.

In this video about Dan Savage, Molotov also expresses his adoration for Rick Santorum, which makes sense, as overgrown WATB child-men with bizarre fixations on gay sex tend to flock together.

Hey Molotov? Actually, a majority of Americans support marriage equality. I know you simply can’t get your small head around that fact, but it’s true. You’ve lost.

Porno Pete adds:

If you haven’t seen Molotov’s previous video “My Gay Friends,” please watch this YouTube of it as well. It is compassionate yet honest Christianity in action and I believe the finest short video ever produced on this H. issue.

The video he’s talking about was universally reviled by gay people. But I will agree that it’s a good example of Porno Pete’s perverted version of Christian love in action. If you want to see it, click on Molotov’s name above and do some scrolling.

Bryan Fischer is so stupid that he thinks that guys had unprotected sex and contracted HIV/AIDS because Barney Frank “modeled a lifestyle” for people. Yes, everybody was just a-followin’ Barney Frank’s lead.

It’s sad that there are people in this country who are uninformed/fearful enough to believe this crap. The good news is that their numbers go down every day. Fundamentalist idiots just aren’t replacing themselves in actuarial tables.

[h/t Joe]

Maggie Gallagher, whining about gays and stuff:

“It’s becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you’re like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife,” explained Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. “They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles.”

Maybe I should leave it to one of my Christian friends to say this, but it’s adorably quaint listening to a representative of the Religious Right say this, since the entire “family values” Christian Right pretty much ripped the Gospels out of the Bible as the first order of business for their movement. Isn’t that sort of the basis for the religion they claim to follow?

Am I right, John and Kathy?

[h/t Jeremy]

[Warning: There is some, ahem, language in this piece.]

This was making the rounds yesterday and I didn’t get to it. There was a post on Daily Kos the other day about how refreshing, and how different in tone, pro-gay messages are when they come from straight guys. Rather than making long, well-thought out arguments about why marriage equality is right, etc., the messages from straight guys — and I know this to be true with my own straight male friends — tend to be more along the lines of “who cares? And go to hell if you don’t like it!” The Kos piece used Clint Eastwood’s message of support as a springboard — if you don’t remember, it went like this:

(Read More)