Needless to say, she has been excoriated by all left-leaning media outlets and also the LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) community. LGBT devotees argue that those lifestyles are biologically imposed and that human sexuality or at least sexual orientation have no element of volition/choice/will/decision involved.
Gay watchdogs were quick to call her remarks an “obnoxious phrase” and suggested that she had been influenced by right-leaning groups like the Family Research Council that work to resist elements of the gay agenda.
Though proponents of that ideology have long argued that homosexuality (and transgender identity, bisexuality, and lesbianism) is not based on choice and is innate, no noteworthy scientific evidence has been tendered to support that claim.
When someone acts out on sexual desires (or any desire, for that matte) “choice” is involved. Having a natural inclination to do something does not justify a given behavior. Behaviors are not legitimized by ‘unlearned’ behavior. For example, though a person might ‘naturally’ desire to have two or three spouses, participate in child-adult sexual relations, join NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), or other types of human relationships “in the name of love,” those things wouldn’t be justified “simply because” there was an innate desire.
As it stands, however, that hypothesis has never been proven or even had a shred of evidence that supports it. So it is perfectly legitimate to call that lifestyle a “lifestyle choice” since there’s no evidence it is otherwise. Ironically, many of those who support the LGBT lifestyle are not content with non-LGBT devotees giving them the freedom to live that lifestyle– they also want our tacit acknowledgment that it is not a choice as well. If the lifestyle was completely legitimate, ‘choice’ wouldn’t be a relevant issue. That’s telling.