robertlove said:

She isn't gay by choice, she's bisexual and now she chooses the be with a woman instead of a man. That what a bisexual person can do.

Gay people can't. So she is with a woman by choice, she's not gay by choice.

Stupid woman.

Efan said:

I like what she says here a lot.

“I totally reject that,” she said heatedly. “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. 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. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.” Her face was red and her arms were waving. “As you can tell,” she said, “I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”

The more I read, the more she starts to annoy me...

"Why can't it be a choice?". BECAUSE IT ISN'T A CHOICE.

What is wrong with her?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is just as bigoted to attack her for her choice as it is to attack someone who says they were born that way.

it shows that there are underlying agendas among some in the community.

on the other hand: if one is born gay then there may be a gene for it, if there is a gene then use of say stem cells may allow it to be reversed or turned off. or maybe tested for and used as a rason to have an abortion.

Good points. Never thought about that. I don't know about other states but in Cali, particularly the bay area, they are starting to add an E to LGBT to cover "exploring" whatever that truly means. Maybe she is exploring.

However, at the end of the day, we all CHOOSE to be in a relationship or have sex with someone so she in fact is telling the truth. Anyone can make a choice. She is choosing to be gay and she is being honest about it. How many gay men out there have had sex with women, even married them and produced kids, only to state they were gay? Its okay for them but not her? She probably getting criticized because she is female and a bit of a celebrity. IMO

Now her character Miranda from SATC? That chick gay.

I have no issue that 1% of the gay population actually chose to be gay. I have an issue that this would be used to legitimize right wing lies and propaganda. This is good for her and it's good for the propagandists. Unfortunately.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I have no issue that 1% of the gay population actually chose to be gay. I have an issue that this would be used to legitimize right wing lies and propaganda. This is good for her and it's good for the propagandists. Unfortunately.

TD3 said:

Ms. Nixon has a right to express how she she feels about her sexuality. Some people are all to ready to bully and push people to express, feel, and see things as the collective group does. Who gives a flyin' fuck what the "relgious right" thinks, you don't try to change their narrow ass minds; you do however demand and insist on equal rights and protection under the law.

===============one of these days i'm gonna learn how to type.

[Edited 1/24/12 20:17pm]

Your statement after the bolded part is exactly why people give a FF what the religious right thinks. They have legislative power in this country.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I have no issue that 1% of the gay population actually chose to be gay. I have an issue that this would be used to legitimize right wing lies and propaganda. This is good for her and it's good for the propagandists. Unfortunately.

Aw come on Supa....one percent? Can we bump it up to say....7%? I bet there are a lot more people out there like Cynthia.

I bet though, the right wingers wouldn't care for her views and self-identification because she is a woman and a mother. I mean if Lindsay Lohan says it, its one thing, but Cynthia? Eh not so much.

Efan said:

I like what she says here a lot.

“I totally reject that,” she said heatedly. “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. 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. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.” Her face was red and her arms were waving. “As you can tell,” she said, “I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”

On the otherhand, while adults can defend themselves against right wing hatred, children cannot. These words and sentiments like them could be used to legitimize aversion therapies and embolden lawmakers and communities to encourage the literal torture of gay youth.

I realize they already do this but we don't have to give them bullets for their gun.

HotGritz said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I have no issue that 1% of the gay population actually chose to be gay. I have an issue that this would be used to legitimize right wing lies and propaganda. This is good for her and it's good for the propagandists. Unfortunately.

Aw come on Supa....one percent? Can we bump it up to say....7%? I bet there are a lot more people out there like Cynthia.

I bet though, the right wingers wouldn't care for her views and self-identification because she is a woman and a mother. I mean if Lindsay Lohan says it, its one thing, but Cynthia? Eh not so much.

Even if it is 10%, it is not the defining experience of the majority.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

HotGritz said:

Aw come on Supa....one percent? Can we bump it up to say....7%? I bet there are a lot more people out there like Cynthia.

I bet though, the right wingers wouldn't care for her views and self-identification because she is a woman and a mother. I mean if Lindsay Lohan says it, its one thing, but Cynthia? Eh not so much.

Even if it is 10%, it is not the defining experience of the majority.

True and I think that's the point that Cynthia is trying to make. What I get from her statement is that she doesn't want the majority of gays nor the majority of straights to define her as only bisexual hence her "litnus test" comment. She considers herself gay regardless of what the rest of us think. The real question(s) for me is, why doesn't she approve of being called bisexual and what are her views on it?

I'm reminded of that chick that used to date Melissa Etheridge. One day she just up and said she wasn't gay after several years and a couple kids with Melissa. She called herself straight.

Not saying its right but that I'm sure there are a lot of people who would agree with Cynthia. A lot of people we'd call bi.

A bisexual person seeking a monogamous releationship is forced to make a choice. That is her challenge and it's true that we don't need to define it for her, however what she doesn't have a choice about is being bisexual. She is not and never was heterosexual.

Jestyr said:

A bisexual person seeking a monogamous releationship is forced to make a choice. That is her challenge and it's true that we don't need to define it for her, however what she doesn't have a choice about is being bisexual. She is not and never was heterosexual.

Agree. But does she think she was straight by choice during her relationship with her kids' father? Just when it starts to make sense.....

Yeah, from my understanding, for whatever reasons, there are some people (especially women) who actually choose to be gay. But, I understand why her making that statement would upset some gay groups because there are those conservative and religious groups who will take this and say, "See! We told ya! They all choose that lifestyle!" Sexuality is so complicated. I know people like things to be either black or white but sexuality has so much grey area.

HotGritz said:

Jestyr said:

A bisexual person seeking a monogamous releationship is forced to make a choice. That is her challenge and it's true that we don't need to define it for her, however what she doesn't have a choice about is being bisexual. She is not and never was heterosexual.

Agree. But does she think she was straight by choice during her relationship with her kids' father? Just when it starts to make sense.....

No. She was bisexual

The strange thing is that its not the religious right jumping on her comments. Its her own community/group that is giving her a hard time. The fact remains that she is with a woman now and probably will stay with that woman so by basic definition, she is in a gay relationship and chose to be in that relationship.

Ok its starting to make sense again....I think.

I remember her when she had blonde hair. She looked like Sissy Spacek.

Genesia said:

TD3 said:

Ms. Nixon has a right to express how she she feels about her sexuality. Some people are all to ready to bully and push people to express, feel, and see things as the collective group does. Who gives a flyin' fuck what the "relgious right" thinks, you don't try to change their narrow ass minds; you do however demand and insist on equal rights and protection under the law.

===============one of these days i'm gonna learn how to type.

[Edited 1/24/12 20:17pm]

Except that, in this case, it isn't the "religious right" that is bullying Ms. Nixon. It is "one of her own" - who is giving her a hard time for not expressing herself in politically correct, group-approved terms. In other words, "I will defend your right to free speech as long as I agree with it."

That, my friends, is fascism.

I understand who's trying to bully who.

My comment was directed to Mr. John Aravosis obvious handwringing; 'oh my goodness the Right is going to us this against us.....'

Again, who gives a fuck what the Right thinks. My experience with white racism /supremacy, these people play a never ending shell game of keeping one off balance and fighting over the mundane. In my opinion Mr. Avaosis has given credence and power that equal rights and protection under the law is hinged upon.... we just can't help being gay. So respecting and protecting the rights of others should be based on biology vs choice? I don't think so. I can't kill you if you were born gay but I should be able to kill you if you've chosen to be gay. Does that makes sense to anyone? Mr. Aravosis advised Ms. Nixon to grow up; I'd advice Mr. Aravosis reach back and find his backbone.

That what I was meant.

===================

[Edited 1/25/12 21:20pm]

TD3 said:

Genesia said:

TD3 said:

I understand who's trying to bully who.

My comment was directed to Mr. John Aravosis obvious handwringing; 'oh my goodness the Right is going to us this against us.....'

Again, who gives a fuck what the Right thinks. My experience with white racism /supremacy, these people play a never ending shell game of keeping one off balance and fighting over the mundane. In my opinion Mr. Avaosis has given credence and power that equal rights and protection under the law is hinge upon.... we just can't help being gay. So respecting and protecting the rights of others should be based on biology vs choice? I don't think so. I can't kill you if you were born gay but I should be able to kill you if you've chosen to be gay. Does that makes sense to anyone? Mr. Aravosis advised Ms. Nixon to grow up; I'd advice Mr. Aravosis reach back and find his backbone.

That what I was meant.

===================

[Edited 1/25/12 16:52pm]

Yes, I know. I wasn't taking issue with what you said - just making a broader point about who the real bully is, in this case.

You need to defriend your friends then

Genesia said:

TD3 said:

I understand who's trying to bully who.

My comment was directed to Mr. John Aravosis obvious handwringing; 'oh my goodness the Right is going to us this against us.....'

Again, who gives a fuck what the Right thinks. My experience with white racism /supremacy, these people play a never ending shell game of keeping one off balance and fighting over the mundane. In my opinion Mr. Avaosis has given credence and power that equal rights and protection under the law is hinge upon.... we just can't help being gay. So respecting and protecting the rights of others should be based on biology vs choice? I don't think so. I can't kill you if you were born gay but I should be able to kill you if you've chosen to be gay. Does that makes sense to anyone? Mr. Aravosis advised Ms. Nixon to grow up; I'd advice Mr. Aravosis reach back and find his backbone.

That what I was meant.

===================

[Edited 1/25/12 16:52pm]

Yes, I know. I wasn't taking issue with what you said - just making a broader point about who the real bully is, in this case.

Gotcha and understood.

HotGritz said:

The strange thing is that its not the religious right jumping on her comments. Its her own community/group that is giving her a hard time. The fact remains that she is with a woman now and probably will stay with that woman so by basic definition, she is in a gay relationship and chose to be in that relationship.

Ok its starting to make sense again....I think.

I remember her when she had blonde hair. She looked like Sissy Spacek.

I'm not sure I follow the idea that just because she chooses to be in a relationship with a woman that makes her gay.... unless she is no longer attracted to men. And again, that's the part I don't understand because I can't relate to the concept of choosing your sexuality.

Graycap23 said:

What is the REAL issue here? She stated her truth.

The issue is how her stating 'her truth' is going to result in a lot of other people being given a hard time based on her comments.

robertlove said:

She isn't gay by choice, she's bisexual and now she chooses the be with a woman instead of a man. That what a bisexual person can do.

Gay people can't. So she is with a woman by choice, she's not gay by choice.

Stupid woman.

Exactly. I don't know who she is nor do I know a thing about her but her statements remind me of those stupid "Girls Gone Wild" bitches that kiss and rub all over girls in front of men because that's what those men want to see. Then, they turn around and sleep with the man at the same time that they sleep with the woman fulfilling his "fantasy" but if he was asked to sleep with both a man and woman at the same time, he'd raise hell and think it's degrading but yet he wants them to do something that he considers degrading. That's what you call a weak minded bitch and they always have the option to run back and call themselves "straight" when the heat gets too bad from the rest of the world. If they ain't got the guts to stand up and face the heat that we do when the times get rough, then they need to stay their ass with men only, sit down, and shut their fucking mouth.

Like I said, I've never heard of her and know nothing about her, but her statements sound to me like she's still holding onto a way to keep the door open to call herself straight one day if she should ever catch a lot of heat from the straight world. Catching a little heat from us is nothing like catching heat from them because they're the majority and what's considered "normal".

I agree with her words about whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. People should respect it.

However, words are fodder for weapons. We're talking about a very spririted, hateful, and fundlementalist opposition to a simple request--to be treated equally. So, in the spirit of that I find her stance a bit selfish. It's fine if that's her view, and it should be respected--but given the history of the right-wingers, could she not err on the side of caution and help the cause?

I don't know much about homosexuality, nor do I profess to.

But I know from a clinical standpoint, not every man who sleeps with other men (that includes women who sleep with other women) are considered "gay". Mostly because they don't identify themselves as such.

All in all, she really needs to watch her wording. I don't like the right wing anymore than anyone else here does.

Per wiki:

Fluidity of sexuality

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".^[34] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".^[35] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."^[36] A community may change over time.^[37] In a joint statement with other major American medical, psychology, educator, and religious organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".^[38] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".^[39] "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."^[40]

"[A number of] lesbian women, and some heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual orientations."^[41]

[edit]Born bisexual, then monosexualizing

Innate bisexuality, or predisposition to bisexuality, is an idea introduced by Sigmund Freud, based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess. According to this theory, all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development, which includes both external and internal factors, become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.

[edit]

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

I don't know much about homosexuality, nor do I profess to.

But I know from a clinical standpoint, not every man who sleeps with other men (that includes women who sleep with other women) are considered "gay". Mostly because they don't identify themselves as such.

All in all, she really needs to watch her wording. I don't like the right wing anymore than anyone else here does.

It's called denial.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

I don't know much about homosexuality, nor do I profess to.

But I know from a clinical standpoint, not every man who sleeps with other men (that includes women who sleep with other women) are considered "gay". Mostly because they don't identify themselves as such.

All in all, she really needs to watch her wording. I don't like the right wing anymore than anyone else here does.

It's called denial.

Richard, come on. Why do they have to identify as anything?

Vendetta1 said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It's called denial.

Richard, come on. Why do they have to identify as anything?

They don't but really, come on. What IS a man who sleeps with other men if not gay? I know we could call him anything and everything but for all intents and purposes....

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Vendetta1 said:

Richard, come on. Why do they have to identify as anything?

They don't but really, come on. What IS a man who sleeps with other men if not gay? I know we could call him anything and everything but for all intents and purposes....

You know how I am about putting labels on folks.