Jul 14, 2011 12:02 AM GMT
Rockbiter saidOverall, I think the article makes valid points, especially about separating sexual orientation from sexual attraction.
What I don't like is this:
People often talk about "what caused someone to be GAY", when I think the better question is to ask "what causes sexual orientation." This includes heterosexuality. The article got this correct a few times, but there is still a heavy slant in the article implying that heterosexuality is the good and normal and society needs to figure out what caused this crazy thing called gay. "What caused it?"
On a deeper note, I think it is important as gay men to rise beyond the biology. Heterosexuality is seen as "normal" or "ok", not because it is biologically driven, but because it embodies things that are easily recognized as beautiful, valuable, good. For example, the romance between a man and woman is seen as good and valuable in society. If gay men only hide under the protection of "born this way", we will miss expressing and experiencing our own humanity and relationship with Creator (metaphysically neutral to include any religious, spiritual, or purely scientific way of understanding where we came from) for our own unique beauty, value, and goodness. I believe that it is better to acknowledge that, fundamentally, a gay man must be gay in his core (biologically and/or spiritually, however you wish to understand it), and his own conscious self acknowledged that core, recognized the good, value, beauty, or "ok-ness" in it, and accepted to live his life in a matter that expressed his core. The bases are covered. We have been created, and chosen to exist in a manner that heightens what we consider good, valuable, beautiful, or "ok".
Please pick this apart, because I'm looking to refine this idea.
Rockbiter saidPlease pick this apart, because I'm looking to refine this idea.