Equally oriented

George Takei, best known as Sulu on Star Trek, and Stephen Baldwin, better known as Alec Baldwin's looney Christian brother, got together and debated gay marriage and homosexuality with A.J. Hammer on his show, and responded to Kirk Cameron's comments to Piers Morgan about his views on the same topics.

Cameron used to be on Growing Pains, playing Mike Seaver, a rambunctious teenager, always getting into trouble, crazy about girls, and learning valuable lessons on each episode. He was handsome, and a major teen heartthrob in his day, living a carefree lifestyle. I still think he's handsome even now...until he opens his mouth. Cameron became a born-again Christian, and has since become a celebrity voice supporting right-wing Christianity and related positions with regard to social issues. He's even made movies based on Christian ideologies, and has gone evangelical. He and Pat Robertson probably have a secret love language.

My personal opinion on Cameron's beliefs and actions? It's his life. If he's happy doing that, more power to him. The only bad news is that doing that hurts and continues to marginalize those who don't live or see life the way he does. What I see with so many born-agains is that they are so devoted to the Bible, that they become self-righteous. They no longer see life in all the shades of gray it has, but rather in black and white. They see themselves in the white part (probably), and anything that doesn't fall in line with their beliefs is in the black part, and MUST be converted, or be excluded from the really all-inclusive love I truly believe God has for all his children.

When I saw this debate with Takei and Baldwin, Takei made some great remarks that I give him major props for. In one moment, Baldwin mentions he knows people who live a gay "lifestyle". Takei interrupts and corrects him: "It's not a lifestyle, it's an orientation."

I loved his remark because it's so true! After hearing Takei say that, I felt he gave true meaning to the word itself, which, according to dictionary.com, means "the state of being oriented". When I think of an "orientation" and how that word is being applied to sexuality, the only times I know of when we use the word "orientation" or anything similar to it is in the following contexts:

1. new employment
2. medical side effects
3. familiarizing oneself with anything

When we start a new job, we usually attend employee orientations to familiarize ourselves with our new surroundings, and the upcoming expectations and requirements we'll need to meet to do the job correctly. Or, we'll be prescribed or take medications, and their side effects may include disorientation when you don't know who you are, where you are, what you're doing, or anything like that. I know for a fact that if you wake me up abruptly from a nap, I'm a little disoriented until I'm finally good to go. Or maybe you've bought a new software program, a new machine for your home, or whatever. You need to work with it to understand it. You need to orient yourself with it.

Taking that meaning to that level, now let's apply it to our sexuality. Part of how our bodies work is to enjoy sexual pleasure with another partner. Any (reasonably intelligent) adult knows this. We'll see someone, and our own chemical make up makes our brains respond to how we interact with that person. We may find them physically attractive to the point where we'll be sexually aroused. We may find their personality to complement ours, and therefore be more drawn to spending more time with them. Further, through more time with that person, you find you'll develop strong feelings which will lead you to want to share intimate, even sexual, experiences with them. With sexual orientations, we don't tell our body what to feel. Our body tells US what IT is feeling, because it's oriented to respond a certain way to what it experiences, be it with a member of the opposite or same sex as us.

I believe that THAT is Takei's point in his amazing statement. That's why the words "sexual orientation" are so powerful, and that's why gay rights organizations are fighting to get those two words included in so many legislations right now!

At another point in the debate, Baldwin mentioned Cynthia Nixon, the red-head cast member of Sex and the City who is an out lesbian. Nixon came under fire by the gay community when she said she "chose" to be gay. Needless to say, this pissed off a LOT of gay rights organizations who constantly fight right-wingers from telling gay people it's a choice, and that - even worse - it can be cured...as if it were a disease. Nixon was asked to change her comments to saying she was bisexual, but she stood by her comments saying, "I've been straight, I've been gay, and gay is better." Nixon was with a guy for 15 years, and had two kids with him. Now, she and her long-term partner have a boy together, too.

Most gay people would probably label Nixon as being bisexual, a label she disagrees with. Speaking for myself, I've met people who claim a bisexual orientation, two of which happen to be good friends of mine. Do *I* believe people can be bisexual? Yes. Other gay people, and even some straight people, disagree with the label claiming that it's a label for gay people who want to be straight, or that one is just "on the fence" and needs a push in either direction.

If you're bisexual, and you're truly equally attracted to both the male and female sex, that is pretty much the only context I, personally, can see anyone choosing to be gay or straight. Bisexuals may fall in love with a same-sex partner and choose to live their life with them exclusively, or they'll fall in love with an opposite-sex partner, and do the same. In that context, you can choose to be "gay" or "straight".

If that's the case for Nixon, then she's bisexual, but just rejects the label, which is fine. There's no crime for doing that. But for years, the gay community has been fighting the notion that one's sexual orientation is a choice, a switch you can turn on and off.

One of the other points Takei makes against Baldwin is that both Baldwin's and Cameron's perspectives are faith-based, and many others whose faith-based oppositions to gay equality influence what they support, oppose, how they vote, and especially who they vote for. Takei makes the point that though he respects Baldwin's faith-based perspective, he reiterates that the argument has nothing to do with faith, but with civil equality, which is granted in the U.S. Constitution.


Despite any argument anyone can have about gay equality, my argument in favor of it is extremely simple, like, elementary school simple:

If you were gay, wouldn't you want to be treated equally too?