I agree with the intent of the piece: that those of us who strongly support LGBT rights should not attempt to "out" LGBT opponents who are "closeted," to use the vernacular. I hope my comment will not be controversial, as I do not mean it to be. I don’t think someone can be "outted" as gay, because I don’t agree with the gay/straight binary, at least in the context of identifying other people. I do not identify as gay or bisexual, although I have had what would be called sexual relationships with other men when I was younger. I considered it, and still do, as a kind of experimentation. I identify as straight to the extent I must identify with a sexual orientation, because I am at present exclusively interested in romantic relationships with women. I think "gay" is something a person can identify themselves with, but not a label that can be thrust onto someone, even if they have sex with people of the same gender. Coming from this reasoning, if you will indulge me, it is not really possible to "out" someone as gay. If someone says they are straight, they are saying that they are interested in romantic relationships with the opposite sex; if someone says they are gay, with the same sex. It’s not a biological absolute. Put under the right circumstances, who is to say what we would and would not be capable of? I will identify someone as gay if they identify themselves as gay, and I will identify someone as straight if they identify themselves as straight, regardless of other factors. The labeling of public figures of something they don’t profess to be to me seems somewhat backwards. Sexuality is complex. Attempting to "out" someone—public or privately—is to me both regrettable and senseless.

Propensities towards homosexuality and alcoholism are a complete and utter false equivalence, and an obvious one at that. Alcoholism, by its definition, is a problem. Alcoholism is a serious disease that impacts the quality of the life of its sufferers and those around them. Homosexuality is a neutral characteristic or idiosyncrasy, without necessarily having any negative implications. Cannot the detractors see that they are on the wrong side of progress? Society will accept gay marriage as it accepted interracial marriage, and in a time not long from now, people will wonder why it was ever debated at all.

"I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

This would be a more apt example if it was phrased thus:

"I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at sexual intercourse the same way."

Sex is sensual pleasure, intoxicants are sensual pleasure.

Who you have sex with, different genders, same gender, multiple people, yourself... it's all sensual pleasure.

What kind of alcohol you drink, beers, wines, liquors, mixes... it's all sensual pleasure.

So I say to the individual who can't give up sensual pleasure, not to criticize what you do yourself! If one speaks highly of themselves, while disparaging others, they are not to be trusted, should be forgotten, and recognized for the fool they are.

Apart from "orientation" changing to "genetic encoding," nothing in that particular line has changed (though, that change is a promising one).

I think Rick Perry's not far off the truth with 'People are inclined to be homosexual' - the idea that individuals can possess a natural inclination towards homosexuality seems persuasive with the entire "Gay Uncle" hypothesis that if you have an Uncle who's homosexual you are more likely to be homosexual yourself. There's also the hypothesis that if you have many brothers each brother is more likely to be homosexual than the last. So there's potentially some genetics in play and potentially something to do with development in birth.

One of the major differences between a disorder and an orientation is that a disorder causes medically significant distress, which homosexuality does not and alcoholism does and can. I think that can put away the entire "Homosexuality is a disorder" nonsense, but there's a more pressing issue to do with teaching homosexuality as genetic. I think the majority of the LGBT+ community is intimately aware that homosexuality is not entirely genetic. There are some individuals that always show an interest in those of the same assigned sex and always will, and some who show interest in both, and some who develop an interest in one or both over time. The LGBT+ community, as I see it, has been more comfortable with the idea pithily expressed by Mae Martin "Some are born gay, some become gay and some have gayness thrust upon them" - homosexuality also has roots in social development and this is not a negative thing.

But there's more to it than that. People have rejected homosexuality as a lifestyle choice from the mid 1800's onwards, and that's acceptable to do because you can't judge someone for who they are but you can judge them for who they choose to be or what choices they make. Surely of that, even if not their genetic makeup, they are responsible. And now there is evidence that homosexuality has genetic roots people have taken hold in this, in the "It is not their choice, so you cannot hold them responsible for being gay." So now the opponents have taken this aboard and are making stances that show we can hold people responsible for their genetic makeup, hence the entire alcoholism stance.

But they're playing the wrong game from the start, because homosexuality is not purely genetic. You can also see this happening with Transsexualism, which is why I'm so annoyed about this issue personally. To summarise, Trans people either come out pre or post puberty, and the DSM/ICD diagnose this differently, where pre-puberty is the best transgender and post is the worst transgender. Despite the best/worst, 6-23% of pre-puberty trans kids end up being Trans, most of the assigned males end up being gay instead. Society will slowly accept the best trans and in about 30-40 years accept the worst trans, because we can't 'blame' people any more for their genetics.

This shouldn't be about whether people can be held responsible or not for the 'awful' decision/inclination to be gay, the debate needs to be focused instead on the fact that there is nothing shameful about being homosexual and that this argument is going in the wrong direction. The best solution for this strategy alienates a considerable amount of gay individuals and sets up the trans* community for the same shit in about 5-10 years and the worst one fails to show it is genetic and has to backtrack considerably.

To return to the main point of your article, I think the majority of the community if not all of it is against forcible outing people. You've got two big issues here:

>There's a certain satisfaction in finding someone who voted anti-homosexual bills turned out to be homosexual >The media really loves finding gay people and outing them

I don't think this is a current LGBT+ issue, I think this is currently an issue with the media who still believe that someone being gay is reason to write a headline. LGBT members are not, as far as I know,searching out closeted members and outing them currently, Jim Kolbe is a story from 1996.