From Lady Gaga to Macklemore, it seems the mainstream media is locking into a method of talking about sexuality. Traditional media presents sexuality very clearly as something that is strict and unchanging -- something people are born with. The only challengers to this claim seem to be bigots who claim sexuality is something that can be chosen. This debate is something that might be hindering the depth of our understanding of sexuality.
Those who believe sexuality is morally wrong will call it a choice. Those who disagree have to cling to the other end of the spectrum and claim that sexuality is not remotely flexible and that anyone who identifies as LGBTQIA+ was "born that way." We understand sexuality merely as a part of our genetic makeup and as something that cannot possibly be influenced by social factors.
How accurate can that claim be? In a world quickly moving toward understanding that gender is largely socially constructed, how can we rule out that social factors might shape sexuality as well? It seems as if constantly having to defend against bigotry and repeating LGBT 101 a thousand times to an ignorant person is stopping us from having deeper conversations about the complexities of human sexuality.
We cling to this idea that sexuality is a key part of a person's identity and that it is a strictly biological phenomenon because we think it will quiet the homophobes. If this is not something one can change, then how can it be sinful? How can you blame a person for a core part of their identity? The truth is that people can and do discriminate against even core and unchangeable parts of a person, so this stance is doing nothing productive for us.
Shouldn't we be taking a bolder stance here? Why settle for the idea that anyone who is not heterosexual is only justified because they were born that way? Instead, we should be proclaiming that even if it was something shaped by complex social factors, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT+. Even if being LGBT+ was a choice, there would be nothing wrong with it. Implying LGBT+ people are morally respectable because their identity is engrained in their genes is not acceptance. Understanding that LGBT+ individuals do not have to justify their existence should be the goal.
