"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,"
As the article notes, its a spectrum, not a switch. She rejects the term bisexual, which based on her own words would probably be an accurate description of her sexuality. That she feels that everyone is against the bisexuals, I think it was damned irresponsible of her to throw others under a bus like this. Unfortunately the fears of the pro gay activists are probably bang on, unfortunately. Thanks for posting.
it's quite simple. a person's sexual history is private. and while some people like to talk about theirs in public, the fact is, It's Still Private and no one's business. It certainly isn't the business of bigots like santorum and bachman, for example. They only wish to practice their bigotry. While I can appreciate that no one likes being shoved in a label: saying "nobody likes bisexuals" is just silly. who cares if some morons don't "like" bisexuals? a person should just be true to themselves. a 'bisexual' or gay person or heterosexual has one "choice": admit to themselves who they are - live the truth. OR lie and then live that lie. We have often seen the people who are gay but are afraid to admit the truth to themselves and end up in politics making laws to be hateful to gays....because they really hate themselves. If they had chosen honesty we not only wouldn't have all these stupid anti-human laws, we wouldn't be spending time hearing about everyone's sexual behavior.
People like things to be easily categorized into black and white. Problem is that the universe is grey.
Thing is Cecilia, a bisexual can choose to enter either a hetero or homosexual relationship by definition. @red For a lot of gay activists this does cause a problem because one of the single biggest charges against homosexuality is that its a "lifestyle choice". The defence has been that your orientation is fixed. The problem there is, for for people who are bisexual, some choice does exist, thus undermining the principle defence. And yes, they cop flack for it from some in the gay community. And now this. Whilst she does have every right to define herself however she pleases, in using such a poorly fitting definition she inadvertantly confirms what many puritans have been screaming about for decades. The fear is they will point to her as a justification of their abuses in the future. Personally I hope this fear is unjustified, but my gut feeling is that in the future we will hear stories where abusers cite her for their defence.
yes, I get that. But I see it as a bisexual person (like Nixon, the actress in this case) fell in LOVE with a man and had a relationship, then later Fell in LOVE with a person who happens to be a woman and is having a relationship with her. You can't help who you fall in love with. no matter what the sexual orientation. I can't waste time worrying about labels. I just don't give a shit about people's private lives. I'm not living with these people. the ONLY people who "care" are the bigots who think it's their right to tell everyone how they are supposed to feel and the people who are afraid some wacko is going to oppress them. The Gay and Lesbian community has to learn to not knee-jerk to the bigots' music. Take back the conversation, STOP being "nice" and say, {bleep} You and mind your own damn business. They need lessons from me
