Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
Oopsie-daisy...one has strayed from the reservation. I never watched that show called Sex and the City, primarily because it all seemed to be about sex and cities. But I do know that it was a big show that was watched by a lot of people. For my part, I would just as soon remember Sarah Jessica Parker only for her role in the classic 80s Disney movie "Flight of the Navigator." Now that was a show worth watching.
But anyway, one of the stars of that show, named Cynthia Nixon, has followed the fad of "announcing" her enjoyment of homosexual conduct. The only problem is the way she worded it was not exactly pleasing to the folks running the whole homosexual political machine. It's all about image, Cynthia...you've got to stay up on the memos of what is okay to say and what is not. Here's how it started:
Earlier this month Cynthia told The New York Times: "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."
Yikes, Cynthia! Even I knew that acknowledging sexual preference as a choice was a big no-no for your movement. Sure, you're just being honest about your sexuality, but that's not what is wanted by the homosexual lobby. They don't want people thinking that those who practice homosexuality are not forced into that behavior by nature or by God. If people believe that way - if people believe that sexual conduct is a choice even if temptations aren't - that totally destroys the faux civil rights cloak that the activists are advancing their political and cultural revolution under.
There are a lot of ex-homosexuals who would say the same thing as Cynthia, just in reverse order. They would say that they practiced homosexuality but find heterosexuality better, and they choose to live that lifestyle. But the viciousness with which they are treated by these folks who claim they just want everyone's sexuality to be respected proves the utter contempt the homosexual lobby has for any position that differs from their rigid agenda.
So, as you can imagine, Cynthia's remarks did not sit well either. And she has issued a clarification for those remarks:
"My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can't and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive and disempowering," Cynthia said.
"However, to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship."
Are we really going to pretend that "we all have different ways we came to the gay community" is some deep, philosophical explanation? Are we going to pretend that this isn't all a bunch of nonsense masking itself as serious thought? I really tire of the game we play where we think by attaching these words like "dialogue" or "journey" or "uninclusive disempowerment" that we're actually saying something. We're not. Here's what the deal is: Cynthia decided she wanted to practice homosexuality. She does. She apparently enjoys it for whatever reason - for the physical pleasure, emotional pleasure, psychological or societal or whatever - and has chosen to continue that relationship. That's it.
And she can do that because sex is an activity. It's always chosen behavior. Pretending that we are somehow mandated and compelled to mate with things we didn't choose is absurd. Temptations or attractions may be affected by deeper psychological or environmental and upbringing issues, no doubt. But sex is behavior, not a civil rights designation. Pretending otherwise confuses us all - including, apparently, those who are supposedly part of the movement.