The myth of choice

Yesterday, the Supreme Court did one thing right by refusing to hear the appeal of a California ban on “conversion therapy.” In the accompanying New York Times article, there was this…

Some conservative and religious groups continue to argue that sexuality is not innate and that a person could change his or her sexual orientation.

I could say something like, “anyone who knows anyone who’s gay knows that ‘choice’ with regard to sexuality is ridiculous,” but really, anyone should know that choice is a myth. All you have to do to prove this is to “choose” to have sex with someone opposite your preference. You know, for science.

I think this choice myth is rooted in the bisexual experience but also in a simplification of what human sexuality is.

The myth of choice

Gay Rights Movement in Uncharted Territory

Reinhardt wrote that government actions that treat people differently based on sexual orientation “are subject to heightened scrutiny,” like actions singling out racial minorities or women. And he concluded that lawyers aren’t free to strike jurors just because they are gay. That differential treatment, he said, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

That seems so patently obvious to me it’s hard to believe it’s even at issue. Singling out people because they’re gay is like singling out the left-handed or blue-eyed.