Huzzah! I'm vindicated, kinda sorta...naw.

This is one of the dumbest premises of the religious right/antigay crowd I've ever come across. To even think about it hurts mah brain! It's not even an argument; just a false proposition. The prescientific ancient belief that it corresponds is to identify sexual orientation with sex acts-- entailing that a lesbian who was raped by man is heterosexual. It is too stupid to take seriously save for its widespread acceptance among bigots and use in opinion pieces by fourth rate newspapers and other so-called news orgs who want to be "fair and balanced" by giving hate groups and bigots equal time in the civil rights discussion. It's flat earther, evolution denialism stupid...but these are the issues of the of the mob/day.

Labeling antigay people, however virulent, closeted homosexual serves what purpose, exactly? As a working hypothesis, it is hit or miss. So, many bigots just hate because they enjoy it or, in the case of the antigay industry, are making money from it.

Does it silence them from being virulently and violently antigay bigots? Doesn't seem to, because they're benefiting from it, and many if not most of them probably aren't gay.

Also is the possibility of such terms being used by the discriminated and allies in its negative connotation, promoting their own marginalization as a response to being discriminated against...which is very sad.

Accusing the antigay haters of being gay is a very old tactic that only works when they are, in fact, gay. It alone doesn't put a wrench in the antigay hate industry, though.

I don't like choice this argument for two reasons.
1. I don't believe being a murderous psychopath is a choice but I wouldn't defend it.
2. Even if it were a choice, which it is not, it wouldn't matter so this argument is pointless. It does not negatively affect anyone if someone else chooses to date men instead of women or women instead of men. Nobody argues whether liking onions is a choice because you liking onions or not is not going to bring down society as we know it and neither is gayness.

While I believe that a lot of 'phobes are closeted as SISF mentions, they can't all be. I think there are two other explanations.

One being ridigity in their beliefs, I admit to this too. I think guys are cute to look at but the idea of having sex with one makes me wretch and I often look at gay guys and straight women and wonder why the hell they want to have sex with men. The difference is, I don't use my inability to understand them as a reason to deny them rights.

The other possible explanation for the 'phobes: sexism. Why is that I, an adult woman, am told that I can do anything a man can do, own a home, become an engineer, etc., but yet, I can't do the one thing that 90-95% of men do, which is have sex with women? If adult males are trusted to sex with adult females with no negative consequence, why can't I?
It's plain sexism and I'm sure it just boggles their mind that we ladies can get along without having a man to "obey."

It's also sexism on the gay male side. These men think the most disgusting thing on Earth is sex with a man and yet they marry women who engage in what they think is this vile disgusting act. Imagine if I was absolutely horrified by what my girlfriend did even though who she is, that's the thing that makes her attracted to me and yet I find it disgusting. That would mean I have no respect for her, just as these men have no respect for their wives if they think getting poked by a guy is the most demeaning thing ever.

Not all homophobic bigots are closeted gays. It's just choicers that are. If you actually think sexuality is a choice, then you have to believe that yours is a choice, and you can't believe that without either being bi or having chosen to act against your own orientation. It simply wouldn't make any sense. People who don't have flexibility in their orientation don't feel any choice about their orientation and wouldn't assume other people have any choice either. But it does make sense for most choicers to be at least a bit bi, because sexuality isn't as absolute as people think of it as being. Maybe they're 95% attracted to the opposite sex and 5% attracted to the same sex. Maybe they're what some people would call heteroflexible. Maybe they're what a more tolerant person might self-identify themselves as rounding to straight. But they aren't 100% straight, and most people aren't. Some people are, of course. Just as some people are 100% gay, although even more people who are gay aren't 100% gay, although many will round to it.

I've even heard this view outright from a Christian, that she didn't like homosexuality because she was good and chose to be with a partner of the opposite sex despite having urges sometimes for people of the same sex. I'm fairly sure she was some flavor of bi, and it wasn't that hard for her to simply pick a male partner, but she viewed it as virtuous of her to pick a male partner rather than a female partner when she was able to be attracted to some people of either sex.

Um, no mike. It isn't for them. That's the real point to refute their default heterosexual mentality.

And it isn't a choice for bisexuals, either, mike. Sexual attraction doesn't work that way. Biphobe!

@18

"It simply wouldn't make any sense."

Now you're gettin' it. And moreso, it doesn't have to for them. They can easily justify that it isn't a choice for heterosexuals, but is for non-heterosexuals, by treating het as the default orientation that is innate and "natural", and any other as a choice. Oh wait, they do. The limit here isn't facts or peer reviewed empirical research, basically a current and scientifically viable understanding of human sexuality, but imagination.

@25 Then why don't they react the same way to choices that don't tempt them? You don't tend to see them arguing that other religions should be banned from the country, even though that would be far, far more of a sin from the viewpoint of most religions. Since engaging in a homosexual activity at worst makes you a X religion member who did something you shouldn't have, whereas not being of X religion usually makes you doomed. If you're Christian, a homosexual Christian would, logically, be viewed as far closer to God's grace (and potentially having it, since all humans sin and are flawed) than a member of any other religion regardless of their orientation. Yet, this issue is treated as special. Sure, you can claim it's simply that they are completely illogical and irrational, which is a fair argument. Ethical and religious consistency is rare. Most people are hypocrites, at least somewhat. And you pretty much have to be a hypocrite to be overly anti-gay and call yourself a Christian, so I suppose that is the most likely explanation. But it just does seem likely that the fixation is there, at least in part, because so many of them have some desire. But I suppose it's possible they may just be afraid that they might have the potential to have the desire and not want to find out. It could just be born out of insecurity that if we make society tolerant of homosexuality, then they would be tested, and they would then be found wanting, since they were only capable of following their views as long as it was easy.

@27 Almost true. Guilt is useful; shame is not. Guilt will often motivate people to try to fix what they did wrong. Shame tends to motivate people to withdraw and avoid the problem. Shame has not been shown to have any positive effects when it happens, last I checked. The only positive effects associated with shame is that the fear of shame may have an effect in preventing people from doing things that may cause it. However, once shame is actually experienced, it is harmful. This is much like the assured mutual destruction of emotions - while the threat of assured mutual destruction might be useful in some cases, actual mutual destruction is horrible.

We should be trying to decrease shame when we can. However, people don't always distinguish between shame and guilt. Guilt is useful. We should be trying to make people feel guilty for bad actions. One of the key differences between shame and guilt is that people who are ashamed tend to feel that they as a person are worthless because of what they have done. People who feel guilty tend to be more focused on the action being wrong and feeling bad about having done it.