The Complicit Media is in a twitter about the ascendance of Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown to the Governorship because she is alleged to be the first “openly bisexual” Governor in history.
She is married. Somehow the implications of this escape the Emperor-Has-No-Clothes crowd.
Soon-to-be Governor Brown’s elevation requires more concern than the “what’s becoming of our culture?” concern. It is troubling because it solidifies the “B” in the LGBTQ acronym.
Until now it has been possible to debate the “B” issue on its merits alone. Even 10th grade Logic Class students could recognize the internal inconsistency of the “B,” i.e. bisexuality. On the contrary, the “L” and “G” and “T” (Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual), and perhaps even “Q” (Questioning) constituencies demonstrated a reasonable case for receiving special rights, even though such “special rights” issues in all realms (women, race, etc.) are superfluous, or should be, in a Constitutional Republic.
Bisexuality is another matter entirely, because it is grounded in “choice.” In that bisexuality is a “choice” how can it lay claim to special rights for its adherents? What of bestiality then? Bestiality is a choice as well. Does it deserve special rights?
Whatever one thinks about LGBTQ issues, the “choice” inherent in self-identification as bisexual is inescapable. To the extent one is “capable,” willing, or even predisposed to have sex with either gender there exists a clear choice regarding whether one will have sex with the other gender. Consequently, even were bisexuality to be an inescapable genetically-based biological predilection to sex with both genders, or even a command to sex with both genders, whether one will act upon such a predilection or command, or not, is a choice.
Bisexuality is in fact a choice for the same reason homosexuality is widely understood not to be a choice. To the extent one is bisexual one is capable of (or desiring of or driven to) having sex with both genders. Consequently a bisexual person is presented with the option of a fulfilling sex life with either or both sexes. This means the bisexual person is afforded the option (which homosexuals are not) of a fulfilling sex life with the one gender (heterosexual opposite sex gender) even were they to forevermore forswear a sex life with the other gender.
Thus, even in the instance in which a bisexual person believes themselves to be compelled to sex with both genders they nevertheless posses a choice homosexuals do not. Homosexuality is widely understood to be a biologically-based “identity,” one that does not permit the option of a fulfilling sex life with the opposite gender. There is no “choice.” In the case of bisexuality, even if it is biologically derived, it is possible to choose to act heterosexually without being condemned to absence of a fulfilling sex life.
Similar to the bisexual choice is the multiple sexual partners choice, the adultery choice, or even the sex addiction (non)-choice. These last three choices have in common one thing. They are inconsistent with widely accepted ethical standards. Regardless, even were these last three choices to be sanctioned enthusiastically by the community, none could presume to qualify for special “rights,” or for celebration.
Hence, why is there a “B” in LGBTQ?
This whole bisexual issue has begged this question for so many reasons and for so long. I believe it is founded upon the conflicting allegations of the LGBTQ community. On the one hand, the LGBT community declares they should receive no censure even if being LBGT is a choice (a different kind of “right to choose”). In fact, it was the LGBT “choice” allegation many in the wider community rightfully focused upon in objecting to the whole enterprise. Again, if there is a “choice” whether or not to engage in socially unaccepted behaviors why should such “choice” deserve any more legal/psychological support than other choices people make about their sexuality?
This “choice” issue is at odds with the more prominent allegation of the LGBT community, i.e. that there is no choice. If we admit it most of us would agree we had friends in high school or college who were homosexual or lesbian. We would also admit that even were we to later develop a general distaste for homosexuals or lesbians, in the particular cases of our friends, knowing them personally and to be of good character, we understood viscerally there was no choice. Most likely our friend would have explained this to us, explained they were horrified to find they were attracted to the same sex whereas the opposite sex was repugnant to them, the inverse of the situation most of us find ourselves in.
For those of us in our 50’s, this allegation of “no choice” held greater weight in years past. Given the attitude towards gays and lesbians in our earlier years, who in their right mind would CHOOSE to be gay? On the basis of logic alone then, the most reliable presumption was that “something else” was going on with this homosexuality thing, likely genetically and/or biologically (fetal development and hormones, etc.).
In the “no choice” universe, “gay pride” parades and militant homosexuality make a certain sense. A homosexual person did not “choose” to be homosexual – yet he, or his lesbian counterpart, suffered horribly because they were. Hurt and anger would be understandable. A demand for equal rights would be understandable as well, at least to the degree afforded other minorities, (though in understanding this demand for “special rights” would be considered as injurious to a Constitutional Republic as have been “equal rights” for minorities, women, etc.).
Why are “equal” or “special” rights required in any case? Or at least why are they required now we are well past the close of the age of President Wilson and Louisiana Governor Orval Faubus, and where we now bask in the glory of a black President?
Arguing from the “bisexuality is a choice” paradigm, why should there be celebration of a Governor who declares herself bisexual?
Why is there still a “B” in LGBTQ?
