When does “Alternative” cease to be alternative?

When it’s biological. I hear a lot of people who say that homosexuals lead “alternative lifestyles”, yet these people insist that homosexuality is not a choice–that it is a “biological thing”. I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and I’ve come to a realization: if you believe (as I do) that homosexuality is _not_ a choice, that it is innately biological, _stop referring to it as an “alternative lifestyle”!_

I know that there are some people out there who will disagree with me, but hear me out. If you insist that homosexuality is alternative, you’re insisting that there is another choice for gays and lesbians. That’s like saying that I _chose_ to be white, or that I _chose_ to be straight. I didn’t, I was just born that way. When was the last time you heard about ostriches exercising “alternative transportation” because they’re flightless birds? Biologically, homosexuals don’t have a choice. Of course, they can _choose_ to live contrary to their biology, creating unhappy relationships and dysfunctional families, but is that really a valid choice?

So why is this straight, white, Christian chick doing writing about this, and why is it important? It’s important because saying that something is alternative is to imply that there are other choices. This provides fodder for bigots, which encourages them to propose legislation like [House Bill 515](http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2006/02/10/3). It allows people to think that openly bigoted “Defense of Marriage” acts are permissible because, after all, these people _chose_ this lifestyle, right?

Will changing the way people think about homosexuality also change the way people judge homosexuals? Will it keep people from equating homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality? Probably not completely, but it may be a start.

Just as there are still racists out there that insist that some races are less intelligent and genetically inferior, just as there are sexists that insist that some of us belong to the “weaker sex”, there will always be bigots that insist that homosexuality is twisted, deviant and dirty. These people will hopefully be in the minority. The common sense crowd, which will hopefully, will then see defense of marriage acts and bans on adoption (or co-adoption, also illegal in Ohio) for what they are: hateful, fear-filled and bigoted actions. Sure, it’s idealistic, but maybe it will work. Until then we may have a woefully overcrowded foster-care system, if certain legislators have their say.