From the mailbag, regarding Swoopes and the "ex-gay" movement:

So what about the fact that the swoopes story does basically suggest orientation is pliable? "It doesn't matter what gender the person is, when you love them, you love them," versus, "I can't help it, I'm only attracted to men/women"? What is the party line on this at the moment?

There is a standard, party-line anti-gay argument that goes something like this:

Premise: Orientation is not biologically (or otherwise) determined.

Conclusion: Therefore, (a) it is acceptable to discriminate against gay people in various ways, and (b) we should try to prevent children from becoming gay, and (c) we should try to help gay people convert.

Many proponents of gay equality seek to rebut this argument by denying the premise. I'm more inclined to say: even if the premise is true, the conclusion simply doesn't follow. Freed from fear of adverse political consequences, we might then be able to examine a whole variety of fascinating issues around orientation.

To what extent is orientation binary? To what extent is it fluid (and is it more so for women than men)? To what extent are the very concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality socially constructed? To what extent is orientation constituted and reconstituted by performative utterances and expressive actions?

I think it's ok to leave the party lines behind. If Swoopes's candor about her own experience opens the door to a new debate, that's just fine.