Gay Christian Apologist Stirs Controversy By Calling LGBT Identity A Choice

Previously Ambrosino has written articles about his experiences being gay at Liberty University, an article on how opposing gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot, a piece suggesting that we shouldn’t silence anti-equality celebrities and an MLK-Day column on how gay activists should try listening to and loving their enemies more.

Many LGBT bloggers have refuted  Ambrosino’s piece, including a comprehensive take-down by Evan Hurst at Truth Wins Out comparing Ambrosino’s rhetoric to that of anti-gay advocates, a critique by John Aravosis suggesting that Ambrosino needs to get current with Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Noah Michelson's at Gay Voices which says electroconvulsive therapy, exorcisms and “corrective rape" all stem from the idea that people can un-choose their sexual and gender identities.

However, the New Republic also ran a refutation piece by Gabriel Arana stating that most LGBT people do not feel like they have “chosen” their identities and that, "The idea that it's empowering to choose one’s sexual orientation may have some allure, but in practice it's the very basis for much of the discrimination gays and lesbians face."

Comments

  1. Tigernan says

    I guess minding your own damn business instead of speaking for an entire collective of people with no research to back up a single statement just isn’t possible. Glad you think what you think, dude. Now, go away.

  2. petensfo says

    Okay, you think you made a choice. I’ll take you at your word. Millions upon millions of us, however, did not. Not even close.

  3. Daniel says

    What an appalling lack of logic at work. Why not simply choose to be straight? That’s what this muddleheaded man doesn’t address.

  4. Loch says

    I guess christianity scooped out his soul and turned him into a puppet. The manipulated living; how sad. I pity him.

  5. SpaceCadet says

    Of course no one chooses to be gay no more than anyone chooses to be straight. But whether it is genetic or a choice, it shouldn’t matter. No one is being harmed simply by being gay.

  6. john patrick says

    Apparently Ambrosino read in one of Liberty U’s two library books that sexual orientation is a choice.

  7. Chuck Mielke says

    There’s a very interesting text, “The Mismeasure of Desire,” that proposes that choice, in fact, plays a role in sexual orientation. The author, Edward Stein, reviews the then-current biological science on the matter and finds it inconclusive. He proposes that choice, beyond the obvious “will I have sex with this person?” decision, entails decisions that may not involve sex directly but imply or entail particular approaches or assumptions about sexuality and one’s future conduct. I found the reasoning compelling.

    In the final analysis, here is a question: suppose sexual orientation really is nothing more than a personal choice. Why should tradition, society, “morality,” or whatever, rationally prefer one decision over another? Obviously, the fate of the human race doesn’t rest on the sexual decision of any individual. Why should _this_ choice be forbidden, but _that_ choice be blessed? It is clear, historically, that other societies have held other values and progressed along just fine. Our own socio-cultural preference has little to commend it save an ancient whimsy and historical repetition.

    I can see no reason to consider the choice of one kind of sexual partner or another rationally constrained in any way. In other words, the need to have sexual orientation inborn might arise from a kind of sexual phobia — among heterosexuals, the fear of being or doing the unexpected; among homo- or bi-sexuals, the fear of being or doing a wrong willfully. Why should we consider self-willed behavior to be wrong? What, indeed, is the social value of non-conformity?

  8. secret identity says

    If he chose to be gay then he’s probably bisexual and has chosen to be with men. That’s the only explanation I could see. Cause it certainly wasn’t a choice for me and the people I know.

  9. Choosy Muthuh says

    I’m sorry, but isn’t Ambrosino the same little cute-face-of-the-day dancer twerp who defended Phil Robertson from withering attack by the LGBT community back in December?

    And before that didn’t he incoherently (and unconvincinbly) muse that being against marriage equality didn’t make you a homophobe?

    To an extent, I can see the point he’s making–some people choose their sexuality, some people don’t. That doesn’t have to be a terribly controversial proposition. However, ALL people should have the right to choose how they express their sexuality, just like ALL people have a right to choose their religious beliefs, or whether to believe at all.

    Among the choices I made, was not to marry a woman to whom I was not sexually atracted; not to father children with a woman to whom I would not stay married; not to lie to family and friends about whom I loved and wanted to build a life with. People who oppose my right to those choices are ignorant, right-denying, homophobes.

    Ambrosino is branding himself as the Gay Contrarian Cutie in the Equality debate, which will only last for as long as he’s cute. Unfortunately, Stupid sticks around a lot longer. He is an intellectual Judas to the concept of Equality, arrogantly selling his community out for a fleeting 15 minutes of spotlight.

    Preening homophobe apologists like Ambrosino deserve to feel the full weight of the LGBT’s opposing views.

  10. jarago says

    I don’t believe there is a choice in homosexual desire- there is a choice in how we choose to express it- from the closet or out and proud.

  11. Bryan says

    @Secret Identity: Exactly, that’s the only sensible explantion here, and even in that case, he wouldn’t have chosen to be gay as technically he’s still bi, just not exploring the other half.

  12. PeteG says

    I have always said the defence that we didn’t chose to be gay is weak and pointless. Black people didn’t chose to be black, do you think the KKK cares? No, they don’t. Saying we didn’t chose to be gay is not an argument. It also makes it seem like we’re saying “Look, I know I’m dirty and not natural, but I didn’t CHOOSE it. So feel sorry for me.” Choosing ones sexual orientation is impossible. Period. We (humans) cannot believe us so above nature that we would have the power to do so. But to use it as the main defence isn’t going to get us anywhere. I’d rather be hated than pitied or (even worse) “tolerated”. As the comment above said: everybody should just mind their own business(as long at that business is equal under the law).

  13. says

    More than a bit self-aggrandizing. Even if you accept him at his word that his concept of his orientation is a choice it’s still beyond presumptuous of him to pretend to speak for the community. His narcissism and lack of sense of community is sickening.

    What’s even worse is that a national journal would publish this drivel as anything other than an op-ed or opinion piece.

    Sad commentary on the state of journalism when controversy and hits is worth more than journalistic integrity.

  14. The milkman says

    It wasn’t for me, but what if it had been? What if I chose to be gay? I’d have had my reasons, and I’d still deserve equal civil and human rights. It’s a distinction without a difference.

  15. sjaeger says

    When I was young I was trisexual. Tried it all, found only one type gave me emotional bonding and pleasure. And it wasn’t with girls. My only choice was whether to live how my body told me to be or to live a life built upon deceit. Since I felt I’m generally a truthful person; I felt I had to be truthful to myself.
    I don’t know if he’s being truthful to himself or trying to fit into a flying spaghetti monster version of what he thinks he should be. I hope he figures himself out.

  16. RK says

    Self-loathing piece of garbage. I guess he will remain single for the rest of his life. Who would want to be married to this piece of self-hating turd that lacks any intellect on this issue. What a traitor!

  17. ophu says

    Right. I must’ve made a choice and then some Satanic vacuum cleaner came along and scooped the memory of it right out out of my brain, so that now I think I was born this way. Are you reading this, Brian Fischer et al? Here’s your next halfdose antigay theory.

  18. jimstoic says

    I don’t think sexual orientation is a choice for most people, but there are people on the cusps of categories who have some choice, and others for whom something other than orientation drives sexual choices. He’s right about choice being a poor basis for the legitimacy of our orientation. There are people with mental disorders they cannot change, but that doesn’t make their behavior acceptable. Homosexuality is acceptable not because it’s not a choice, but because it has its own beauty and greatness, and it brings joy to people without harming anyone. But there are people, especially very religious people, who need it to not be a choice before they can accept it. It’s not a lie to say it’s not a choice, because it isn’t for many people, and that seems to benefit to the equality movement. I think eventually, however, “choice” will become irrelevant. It’s a transitional factor.

  19. NY2.0 says

    I’ve never heard of this man before and would like to know what gives him authority to speak for the millions of gays that populate this earth? He’s certainly entitled to his opinion but what makes him so special as to have this opinion published? Is it because he claims to be a gay Christian?

  20. etseq says

    Edward Stein’s book was crap – hyper textual analytic philosophy and a very misleading read of history and science. Queer Theory was always the preserve of insulated academic elites and its contempt for gay activism was evident from the start. Anyone who seriously thinks we could have made the social and political progress we have to date by trying to play 12 dimensional politics and asserting that sexuality was a choice, has been reading too many Slate contrarian think pieces! The main problem with these highly abstract post-gay nostrums is that its just not true. Science, common sense and the failed efforts at torture and exorcism has shown otherwise. It is never a good idea to base a political strategy on a lie.

  21. Bill says

    I think some comments directed towards him are too harsh. Remember that his audience is ultimately Christians with a sexual hangup. You know, that statement Paul made that it is better to be celibate but if sexual desire is too much for that, at least get married and do it only to make babies.

    While Ambrosino might have expressed it poorly, I think what he might have been trying to say is that people have a right to express their sexual nature – the only constraint being a requirement for mutual consent with no coercion or taking advantage of someone – and that Christians should get over their silly hangups. He is also saying that gays shouldn’t use their biological nature as a reason (presented as an excuse) for doing what they should have a right to do. The reason is that hung-up Christians will abuse such a reason by equating being gay with having some condition like Downs syndrome. He might have a point given that he probably has a good idea of how certain Christians think.

    My guess is that some Christians will think what he said is scandalous.

  22. FYoung says

    There are two words that beg to be shouted at Ambrosino. They both end with “ool!” but one begins with “f” and the other with “t.” And neither is cool.

  23. wct says

    “In the article, Ambrosino never actually says that he chose to be gay. Rather, he conflates sexual activity with sexual identity, saying that “ I’ve convinced a few men to try out my sexuality.”

    Um…I suspect you to offered to blow some straight frat-boys, and they accepted.

  24. AZXPAT says

    I’m with the MILKMAN here. It wasn’t a choice for me. But if it had been a choice, so the F what? I appreciate the “don’t rock the boat” animus here, but the “it’s not a choice” argument does feed into the “damaged” therefore still unacceptable argument. There is NOTHING wrong with living my life the way that makes me happy as long as I hurt no one else. That is freedom. That is this country. Pursuit of happiness, responsibly actualized.

  25. ACe says

    Devil’s advocate: I’m disabled and can no longer have sex. Does that mean I’m suddenly transformed into a str8 person even though I still identify as gay?

  26. Rick says

    You know, the very concept of “homosexuality” did not even exist until the 19th century, nor did the word “homosexual”.

    It is funny how so many of you are quick to talk about how “straight” men are threatened by homosexuality because “they are afraid of what is in themselves”….at the same time that you are obviously deeply threatened, yourselves, by the idea that most people have at least some degree of sexual attraction to both genders.

    And Ambrosino correctly idenfifies why you feel so threatened.

    Our goal should be liberating men to pursue whatever combination of sexual interests they want to…rather than trying to put everybody in a box that is either labeled “gay” or “straight”.

    Maybe some day when the taboo against male-male sex and intimacy has been further eroded, we will reach that point.

  27. Rafael says

    Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Even bisexuals don’t make the choice to have a fluid sexuality. Not all human traits can be observed in one’s phenotype.

  28. Randy says

    I somewhat agree with the segment of the article you posted, for two reasons.

    1. It is important to acknowledge that, regardless of any capacity to freely choose an orientation, the law should still act as if such a choice is possible, so that a person should still have the legal and moral choice to choose their own sexual, affectionate, and life partners, regardless of sex. This is also important because we ought to demand protection under sex/gender, rather than sexual orientation. Sure, great, the 9th Circuit finally said we deserve heightened scrutiny. Well, sex already has that, and without sex, there is no sexual orientation (at least, as defined currently: hetero, homo, bi — It COULD be defined as male-attracted, female-attracted, etc and that might actually be something different from sex, but that hasn’t caught on). This is an unnecessary and pointless layer. We are most simply and directly discriminated against on the basis of our sex, not our orientation. (I could go on, but…)

    2. As the GLMA stated in their brief on the Prop 8 case (I think it was at the Supreme Court) there are absolutely some people who perceive a change in their orientation, not just their identity. They aren’t the majority, but they aren’t just a few outliers either, and their stories are valid. For some people, sexuality is fluid. AND for some people, it is set in stone. In no case can you force a change, and attempts to do so are harmful. These are the facts.

    So that’s where I agree. But I disagree on the attacks on music, or the absurd idea that we’re “post-gay” (man, they’ve been trying to make us drink that kool-aid for decades… it won’t happen in my lifetime).

    When Gaga sings “Born This Way”, or Mary Lambert sings “I can’t change”, they are singing true words, for most people. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    But it would also be nice to have some songs for those who have changed. The problem is, in the current environment (here, and certainly in Asia and Africa) where there is still a strong anti-gay element demanding gay people become straight, a nice song about a legitimate life story risks becoming an anthem for bigots.

  29. JackFknTwist says

    I’m gay since I was four. I remember the day I was attracted .
    No, I wasn’t making a choice.
    I knew this was for me.

    I also knew the fear of having to hide it.
    It has never remotely been a possibility of choice, never , never.
    So this clown write a bland article of his opinion and it is given publicity and credence ?
    By whom ? The ex-gays, the evangelicals, the religious ?
    As they say, paper never refused ink.

  30. Quicksilver says

    All you have to do is spend a minute reading this clown’s Twitter feed to see what a deluded, self-absorbed craphat he is.

  31. Quicksilver says

    All you have to do is spend a minute reading this clown’s Twitter feed to see what a deluded, self-absorbed craphat he is.

  32. judson says

    @jimstoic

    i’m not going to push the censors by calling you names. your comments are ignorant of science. if you can choose between orientations, then you are a bisexual and that is your orientation. can it.

  33. borut says

    One day some scientist will find a pedophile gene. And then what? Will pedophilia become socially acceptable and will laws banning discrimination against pedophiles be introduced?

    I don’t think sexual orientation is a choice, but i also think this shouldn’t matter. People’s traits are ok or bad regardless of whether they are inborn, acquired through upbringing, or a choice.

    If everything that is inborn was ok, then there would be no such thing as an inborn defect. But they exist and they are treated medically.

    And if you say homosexuality can only be tolerated because (at the moment) there’s nothing one can do about it, the moment it actually becomes possible to change a person’s sexual orientation, say through gene therapy, gay rights become a thing of the past and those who refuse to be made straight can be discriminated against again.

    Yes, Gaga and Mary Lambert are sending the wrong message. I cringe whenever I hear them.

    And by the way, I also think that the basis for eqaul rights for black people is not the fact that the poor things didn’t choose to be black and just can’t help it.

  34. borut says

    One day some scientist will find a pedophile gene. And then what? Will pedophilia become socially acceptable and will laws banning discrimination against pedophiles be introduced?

    I don’t think sexual orientation is a choice, but i also think this shouldn’t matter. People’s traits are ok or bad regardless of whether they are inborn, acquired through upbringing, or a choice.

    If everything that is inborn was ok, then there would be no such thing as an inborn defect. But they exist and they are treated medically.

    And if you say homosexuality can only be tolerated because (at the moment) there’s nothing one can do about it, the moment it actually becomes possible to change a person’s sexual orientation, say through gene therapy, gay rights become a thing of the past and those who refuse to be made straight can be discriminated against again.

    Yes, Gaga and Mary Lambert are sending the wrong message. I cringe whenever I hear them.

    And by the way, I also think that the basis for eqaul rights for black people is not the fact that the poor things didn’t choose to be black and just can’t help it.

  35. drinpt says

    He’s one of those -it’s ok if you give gays some of their rights, just not all of their rights- and that means that you’re gay friendly and not a homophobe.

    “Rob Schenck, current chairman of the Evangelical Church Alliance, told me that while he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, this belief is a “source of internal conflict” and “consternation” for him. How, he candidly asks, is denying marriage to gay people “consistent with loving your neighbor?” Schenck has no plans to change his social stance on this issue, but he serves as a good reminder that not all gay-marriage opponents are unthinking and bigoted. Sure, there are plenty of religious people who are actually homophobic, and find in their Bible convenient justification for these biases. But let’s not forget about people like Rob who, though he opposes marriage equality, appreciates the reminder from gay advocates “that love is as important as anything else.”-Brandon Ambrosino

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/

  36. Paul Mc says

    @Borut – people of colour deserve equal rights because skin colour, an immutable characteristic, is not a rational basis on which to discriminate between humans. Stating this plain fact is not the same as pitying them for the fact they are born with that colour.

    Handedness is inborn. It is not a defect. Red hair is inborn. It is not a defect. You need to pull your head from your ass and discern. A hole in the heart is a defect that must be fixed or you will likely die.

    Sexuality is a product of many genes, fetal neurological development and hormonal environment. There is no ‘fix’ for sexuality. You might as well (stupidly) say, ‘one day when there is a gene therapy for being human’. WTF does that mean? Saying something is genetic is not a determinstic reduction, it is much much more nuanced esp. when multiple genes are involved.

    Saying we deserve equal rights for our innate nature is unchangeable is not admitting to a defect, it is putting ourselves on the basis of our humanity as everyone else.

    The whole ‘choice’ thing could be boiled down to this. For those that have a choice (they say it, not me), the fight for equal rights is not theirs as the base passion and compelling story of their lives. It is ours who have no choice. We exist. We fight for equal rights because we are gay, lesbian and bisexual and transgender. Period.

    So, so far we have Ambrosiana who says it is a choice and he gets off on guys. We have Cynthia Dixon who says it is her choice – she is with a woman. What kind of choice is that leaves you no choice in preferring and being with the same sex?

  37. jmartindale says

    Choosing to repress your sexual drive is not the same thing as choosing your sexual orientation. This clown is as stupid as the man pictured in the background.

  38. borut says

    @ PAUL MC

    Whether a characteristic is immutable or not is irrelevant to establishing whether it represents a rational basis for discrimination or not. Otherwise it should be allowed to discriminate against everyone who converts to a certain religion. Or anyone who was brought up in one.

    Yes, you are discerning between various inborn traits and conditions, proving my point that the mere fact they are inborn is irrelevant to whether they are something positive, neutral, or negative. But you are forgetting there are numerous non-life threatening conditions that get treated as well.

    You can do without phrases like “pull your head from your ass”, thank you.

    You are assuming science at present knows everything about the formation of sexual orientation and whether or not it can be changed. I find that short-sighted. Progress and change are inherent to science.

  39. CodyJ says

    The picture in front of JF and graduating from lib uni says it all,I would ‘nt let this dude take out my garbage…jus ANOTHER relig/fundie/nutcase

  40. L G. says

    like all the others
    this person got his day in the news
    THAT IS a CHOICE…whore self and the news helps for that glimmer of recognition and the news aids

  41. says

    Religion is a choice and the latest fad for religious people is that they need laws to protect their “right” to discriminate against other people.

  42. james st. james says

    If it’s a choice then it can be unchosen. That means every straight person could potentially choose to be gay. That opens up the market place for sexual adventures considerably.

    See what happens when you start with a false premise and apply logic to it? It falls apart.

  43. disgusted American says

    ..Most if us knew something was different about us, a “Bit off” from an early age of self-realization….In first grade – I had 2 crushes on 2 diff. boys…did I express “that”…not outwardly that I remember, and I didn’t know why… – but I knew I was attracted too them….I remember watching Batman and robin , and being attracted to them….starsky and hutch…..it’s almost a similar story for many of the gay people I know too

  44. kdknyc says

    “Liberty” University. Enough said. He isn’t prepared for any USEFUL career, so being a fun die sock puppet is how he’ll pay off those student loans. Because you can believe they don’t “study” there for free.

  45. chasmader says

    I’m Gay the same way I’m righthanded or have brown eyes.

    What I am NOT is LGBT. I’m tired of being pigeonholed with dykes, trannys and bisexuality -don’t get me started.

  46. EchtKultig says

    Let me put this in terms of a 1980s PSA:

    “This is your brain.”

    (image of eggs cooking in butter…)
    “This is your brain on Abrahamic religions”

    “Any questions?”

  47. borut says

    @ C.F. Girard

    He is not alone. Unfortunately, it seems most gays think it makes all the difference.

  48. james st. james says

    First I chose to be born in the 20th century in America (because I knew the standard of living would be higher) then I chose to be male because I knew I would earn more money; after I got through the menu for height, hair and eye color, and body build (again I chose a nice one) then I chose to be gay (because I thought it would be fun, and it was).

    But today is a new day. I’m going to be straight all day long. If I like it I will keep it up (so to speak). If nothing comes up I’m going to un-choose being straight and re-choose gay.

  49. says

    We should acknowledge that sexuality is not as fixed as many would have us believe. That is true. But how would calling it a choice (for some, at least) help us gain equal rights under the law, especially when the chief argument by social conservatives is “it’s a choice”? this is wrong-headed and bafflingly nonsensical. But then what can one expect from someone posing in front the portrait a charlatan like Jerry Falwell.

  50. Rafael says

    @BORUT We don’t enact laws based on our DNA. Laws exist to protect the common good. And in that interest predatory behavior must remain criminalized.

  51. borut says

    @ Houndentenor

    That “chief argument” is irrelevat to the debate about gay rights and that is what our message should be. If we let social conservatives dictate what we can think and what we can say about homosexuality, then they win.

  52. borut says

    @ Rafael

    “We don’t enact laws based on our DNA.”

    That’s exactly what I’m saying. But most people here seem to believe it is the fact that we are born gay that constitutes the basis for our equality before the law, i.e. that anti-discrimination laws should be based on our DNA.

  53. says

    my identity my be elective, my orientation is not.

    what is a choice? this boy’s cowardly doormat approach of sucking up the people who loathe him. *barf*

  54. billmiller says

    He must have sent in the coupon in the back of a comic book to get his gay, like I did…or maybe he saved box tops……why would ANYONE even say this kind of thing?? The man is an ass!

  55. Bernie says

    sorry, Mr. Ambrosino suffers the same as gay Republicans; internalized homophobia……..look at his statement about marriage equality when he says that those who oppose are not bigots!!!! What are they then?????? And, the issue of choice is strictly from the Christian right wing play book……..And, I may be sorry I write this, but the only time choice and gay should be in the same sentence is whether YOU choose to act upon your sexuality…. but one is still gay even if they do not act upon it……….sexual orientation is an immutable trait, where as sexual behavior is a behavior….two totally different issues

  56. andrew says

    Every gay guy that I know or have read about, when he first becomes aware of his same sex attractions, wants to get rid of them. We run from them, try to ignore them, deny them, pray they will go away. It is only after a futile struggle that many of us embrace who we are and attempt to live meaningful and fulfilling gay lives. Tragically, some never accept and embrace their homosexuality and live angry and hate filled closeted lives. If homosexuality were a choice, there would be few if any homosexuals.

  57. GregV says

    “The aversion to that word (“choice”) stems from the belief in our community that if we can’t prove that our gayness is biologically determined, then we won’t have grounds to demand equality.”

    When he says that this belief is “in our community,” is he referring to the community of brainwashed anti-gay types he meets at Jerry Falwell’s so-called “university?”… because that is the ONLY place that I have ever heard that feeble argument made… and always by people who hypocritically believe that their choice of religion deserves such protection.

    It’s one of those right-wing talking points that bigots put on their lists of something like “10 Wrong Things Homosexuals Think,” etc., etc… I never hear a gay person say that (or most of the other things they claim we say).

    My saying that I am naturally gay or blue-eyed or right-handed is motivated simply by the fact that it is TRUE. I have also never seen a single person EVER make a convincing case that they chose to be gay or straight or bi.

    Yes, a dwarf can call himself “tall” if he compares his height to a cat’s and a 7-foot-tall woman can call herself “short” (compared to a giraffe) and that is a lot like a gay man saying “I’m not gay anymore; I’m same-sex attracted” (and other such relabeling exercises that DO NOT change the individual’s orientation).

    If he were writing that he’s chosen to identify as black or as a dwarf, then we could all brush it off. But when the leader of an African country is saying that he will choose not to pass a law persecuting gays if he finds proof (of the FACT) that it’s not chosen, this kind of misinformation is dangerous.

  58. Lexis says

    Right. It’s a choice, much like choosing to breathe air is a choice. If you don’t, you’ll eventually suffocate.

  59. Bill says

    @ Little Kiwi : I wouldn’t call him “cowardly” if he is telling that to fundamentalist Christians.

    What he’s doing is more or less the equivalent of walking into “Teetotalers R Us” and saying, “I like having an occasional glass of wine with dinner and you should accept that as something I have a right to do and not treat me as a second-class citizen because of it, regardless of whether I’m genetically disposed with taste buds that react favorably to wine. It’s not like anyone is trying to force you to have a drink.”

    He may be a “sinner” in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians (who think we are all sinners who should “ask for forgiveness”), but he is being an “unrepentant sinner,” and what they really hate is someone who refuses to grovel. It’s having to grovel that helps keep people coming in the door and that all-important collection plate full.

  60. andrew says

    @KDKNYC: I don’t want to alarm you but there is a Trans people hater posting on another thread that goes by KIDJ/NYU. Hopefully people won’t confuse the two of you.

  61. TheSeer says

    Radical.

    I did not choose to be gay. For 10 years I desperately tried to “choose to be straight”, but I failed miserably.