Well, then it's just a matter of semantics, isn't it? i.e. how you define 'gay'. If we're talking about the sexual orientation, then yes, people are born gay. But if we're talking about relationships and/or sexual behaviour or just self-identity, it's a grey area.
However, most of the time in such discussions we're referring to the former.
either because of something traumatic that happened to them as a child
In which case they're not actually gay, because their true sexual orientation was warped and distorted by the trauma. In such cases, they do actually benefit from therapy, because they need to heal from that trauma. Many cases of alleged 'ex-gays' actually follow that trauma narrative - where (usually sexual) trauma caused the creation of a false gay identity as a coping mechanism, the 'acceptance' of which caused them pain rather than the fulfillment it would bring for a naturally-gay person.
I read an 'ex-gay' testimony where the guy talked about how gay relationships and sex repelled him but he did it anyway, because of that psychological pain that pushed him towards it; and then with therapy he rediscovered his innate heterosexuality and all the beauty and joy of relationships with women. Whereas I don't know any actual gay man who finds gay relationships to be repulsive and straight relationships to be joyous and life-giving; pretty much the opposite.
or because they jumped on the gay band-wagon
In which case they're just pretending, and aren't actually gay. It's like how an 'ex-gay' man who still experiences attraction only to men but who nonetheless marries a woman and only ever has sex with her is still not straight, because he's only attracted to men. If a straight man who is only attracted to women nonetheless engages in gay sex/relationships for the rebellious/trendy/thrill of it, it still doesn't make him gay.
To use your race analogy, there are people who identify as a particular race even if they're not completely of that race - particularly those of mixed race who identify more strongly with one side. e.g. if Obama refers to himself as a black man, even though he's half-white. In that sense, they have a 'choice', but that doesn't make race itself a choice.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42.
reply
share
tamtrina
9 years ago
Hi Anakin_McFly
My race analogy is the main reason why I posted, because it makes no sense for the whole "gay" community to compare being gay to being black on every level because that just is not true. Everyone who dates their same sex is not naturally gay i.e. born gay. Some chose homosexuality because of influence and not because they always knew that they were interested in the same sex. But it doesn't matter if you are born of multiple races or of one race, I'm saying the science of it still shows that your genetic make up is what it is whether it is one race or a mixed race and it is a natural occurrence, that you cannot choose, that happens to everyone who is born. Now, what you call yourself based on which race you prefer to claim IS a choice but it does not change the fact that you are still of two or more different races. Those who are born gay are naturally gay and I do not question it, but for those who chose to be gay when they have always had natural heterosexual tendencies should not use the argument of comparing the plight of gays to that of the black person. And further more, although gays have a very sordid history filled with hate crimes and persecution, they were not a race that was taken from their own homeland to be enslaved for hundreds of years only to also be hated for being somewhere they never even asked to be taken to. The plight and the fights are different and the acceptance was still given a lot quicker than it has for the black race and any other race that has been enslaved and killed off for that matter. It's just not the same and it never will be.
reply
share
Anakin_McFly
9 years ago
Those who are born gay are naturally gay and I do not question it, but for those who chose to be gay when they have always had natural heterosexual tendencies should not use the argument of comparing the plight of gays to that of the black person.
Yes; but from my experience, the people using that comparison
are the people who were born gay and had no choice in the matter. Otherwise, as you say, it wouldn't make sense.
they were not a race that was taken from their own homeland to be enslaved for hundreds of years only to also be hated for being somewhere they never even asked to be taken to.
Yes. Though that applies only to people comparing homophobia to racism. Whereas if they're comparing them as both being something that people are born with (in cases where people are born gay), then that other stuff isn't relevant.
and the acceptance was still given a lot quicker
I disagree with this, though. Even in the US, the gay rights movement only really picked up steam about two or three decades after the civil rights movement. Meanwhile, in many parts of the world (including my country), being gay is illegal and can subject people to jail or the death penalty, which at the moment isn't true on that same scale for race, even though it was in the past.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42.
reply
share
activista
7 years ago
@tamtrina
*clap clap* That's the truth, especially that last part.
reply
share