Cynthia Nixon faces LGBT backlash after saying she is gay by choice

examiner.com/celebrity-headlines-in-boston/cynthia-nixon-faces-backlash-after-saying-she-is-gay-by-choice

Oh, no, couldn’t be… :eek:

That makes sense. For her, she can be attracted to both sexes but is more attracted to women. But she does clarify that she knows for others, they are only attracted to the same sex.
Her choice to use the word “choice”, in this case, is empowering for her. I think that’s her message here.

She’s bisexual, now whether she’s just not bright enough to use the proper words or has just fallen for the nonsense idea that bisexuality doesn’t exist is anyone’s guess. Or maybe she just thought it would be good publicity for her current play.

A lot of bisexuals are afraid to come out of the closet as bisexuals because they are poorly treated by the gay community.

Yeah, they really are. Bi-erasure is an unaddressed shame but with this comment, she’s really, really not helping. It just ticks me off, she should know better.

Which is funny, since the B in LGBT stands for bisexual. :shrug:

The reality is that the origin of same sex desire is still unknown. It is stronger in some (“transgender”, “gays” and “lesbians”) and weaker or non-existant in others (“bisexuals” and “straights”). We all choose what to do with our desires. We are all, with the exception of the intersexed, male or female. There is no state of being “gay,” “lesbian” or “straight.” those labels are descriptive of our desires, and only the “straight” desires are properly ordered. To act on disordered desires and label oneself accordingly does not change one’s state as male or female.

I think the existence of “bisexuals” makes this truth evident, which is why “gays” and “lesbians” have a problem with them. Their existence challenges their “I’m born that way and have no choice” lie.

Well it depends. If I remember right, studies generally show that female sexuality is more fluid than male. It is possible that she is not bi, and doesn’t find males sexually attractive at all right now, and really is ‘gay’. :shrug:

Wow, I have to say that this is just a very strange comment. I mean, I can’t even figure out how on earth bisexual garbage can be understood, much less defending one sin from another sin.

Both homosexuality and bisexuality are evil. They are both slimy and absolutely perverse.

What, isn’t she helping?

Know better than to do what?

Cover up the fact that some people are bisexual (as opposed to gay.)

She isn’t toeing the gay agenda line.

No, that’s not it.

That’s it.

The article in the first post is not a news article. Examiner.com is a super-blog which allows anyone to declare themselves to be an expert on anything they want, and then post anything they want with minimal standards.

There is nothing in the article to suggest the Cynthia Nixon is encountering any kind of backlash from the LGBT community. Indeed, her view is not uncommon among gays and lesbians.

There are two lines, really. Officially, the LGBT line defends bisexuality. But in practice, a lot of gays actually discriminate against bisexuals and try to pretend they don’t exist.

newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-can-be-a-choice-cynthia-nixons-comments-spark-online-backlash/

I agree.

People want to label other people. Put them in a little pigeon hole. That person is gay. That person is a lesbian. We all have desires. Some peoples attraction for the same sex is stronger than others. We choose to act or not to act on them.

Some women were tramatized by a male and can’t find themselves in a relationship with one. It is especially difficult for these women (and men). People with strong desires for the same sex may feel it is not a choice, but it actually is.

Why can’t the LGBT admit that at least in some cases it is a choice?

Because that is not part of their agenda.

I think it is generally hard to deny that there is in fact a natural component to sexual orientation. Studies of biological siblings (included adopted ones not raised with their siblings) have pointed toward the influence of the fetal stage of development on sexual orientation (I think the study found that a male with many older biological brothers is significantly more likely to be gay, for example, indicating that changes in the uterus over the course of several pregnancies may effect things). Others have speculated on genetic factors, but of those I’m less informed. Generally speaking, like in other areas of life, it is a continuum rather than a black and white issue; there is a certain measure of choice, but it is not remotely total.

Where did I deny any natural component? That point is irrelevant to what I posted. It’s like stating that there is a natural component to alcoholism or kleptomania or murderous rage. You can label people alcoholics, kleptomaniacs or “natural born killers,” but that doesn’t make them a different class of human being. “Gay” and “lesbian” are the same sort of labeling.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.