I do not understand why some people continue to confuse what one chooses over what one obviously cannot choose.
I was reading a blog post today, and it dealt with, among other things, veganism, and drinking. A comment was made, with regard to "lifestyle choices," which I thought was not properly applied.
Let's get some things straight.
Unless you have, from birth, not been able to eat meat, or poultry, or fish, because your system rejects it without fail, you have "chosen" vegetarianism, or veganism. That is a lifestyle choice.
If you have been raised Catholic (or any other religion), and rejected it, that is a lifestyle choice. By the same token, if you have not been raised to embrace any religion, then later do so, that is a lifestyle choice.
If you choose not to drink, or to do so, that is a lifestyle choice.
If you abhor wearing pants, and choose not to, ever, or only on occasion, that is a lifestyle choice.
See the pattern here?
Please note: You can choose something that goes against your natural inclination. You can. I could choose to have intimate relations (read: sex) with men (many women do, gay or straight), but that goes against my natural inclination. I'm actually not that comfortable with men, nor do I feel safe in the presence of most men. My lifestyle choice then, is to not have frequent contact with men if I don't have to.
Having said all of that, it is entirely possible, I suppose, that one's natural inclination is to not eat meat (or attend Catholic church, or drink alcohol, or even wear pants), from the time one is sufficiently cognizant of what feels inherently right; that to do so feels utterly foreign, and one only does so because to not do so would be to buck the social norm. And one must fit in, right?
And so, when it comes to a definition of "lifestyle choice," who decides what fits within the parameters of that definition? Or if there are parameters at all? This, then, is why there is so much confusion on the topic.
But make no mistake, there is lifestyle, and then there is life.
To clarify: My life would never feel complete were I with a man. I would not feel complete. And therein lies the definitive difference.
I will tell you this one other thing: I have conclusively, and without fail, been attracted to, and fallen in love with, women. I did not have a choice in my sexual identity. I no more had a choice in that, than I had a choice in my eyes being brown, or my build being slender. I knew from a very young age that I had brown eyes and always would, that I was scrawny and always would be, and that I liked girls and always would. I found certain males attractive, but those males, in retrospect, always had feminine qualities, and females were always infinitely more attractive, even so.
And so, once again, I think it safe to say, if you don't know what you're talking about, you should keep your mouth shut. If you have some conclusive proof, of one or the other, by all means, speak up. Show us the facts.
Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.
And those you are persecuting and tormenting and judging will thank you for that.