Video: Richardson tells gay forum that being gay is a choice

posted at 12:39 pm on August 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a man who pretty clearly doesn’t want to be there. Almost as amusing as Etheridge’s let’s-try-this-again rephrasing of a question to which she wants a very particular answer is Richardson’s own puzzling reaction. Does he think it’s a choice or did his knee just jerk that way because “choice” is usually the correct response to any question involving sexual policy in a left-wing forum?

If he genuinely believes it’s a choice, he had a startlingly convenient conversion immediately following the debate:

Richardson released a statement moments after the event, saying that he had misunderstood the question and that he does not believe people choose to be gay.

He got a question about this, too, but dodged it fairly expediently.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Interestingly enough, M.M. is hosting O’Reilly and indicated she though Etheridge should be a questioner on more panels.

Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Oh, Bradky…I’m coming out…I’m…a Southern Baptist Preacher’s kid! There, I said it.

Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Your “science” and “gayness” frighten me.

Unfrozen Caveman Bill Richardson

John from WuzzaDem on August 10, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Journailst(?) Melissa Etheridge, fools ex-presidential conteneder Bill Richardson, with trick question. Proving you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it.

PowWow on August 10, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM

LOL

Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 9:18 PM

So, being homosexual has no particular “meaning”, but is one more natural expression of the organism’s polymorphous possibilities.

What is there is have “pride” in then?

An accident of nature?

Should one have Innie as Opposed to Outie Navel Pride?

I applaud Richardson for being a goof.

That he isn’t a completely-programmed p.c.-bot is unusual.

I’ll be Melissa E.peed herself in anti-multi-culti shock …before she regrouped to feed him the “correct” answer.

profitsbeard on August 10, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Your skills at logical argument are sure to keep marriage a heterosexual only institution. Admittedly, if there is a sound secular argument against gay marriage, I haven’t seen it, so perhaps it’s not your skills, but your lack of material to work with.

thuja on August 10, 2007 at 7:05 PM

There could be a 62 page stack of sound secular arguments sitting in front of you and you wouldn’t bother to read them. That’s awfully clever of you. Attack someone with the claim that they lack material to work with, while offering absolutely no information, evidence, facts, or even an opinion.

Did you go to the CAIR school of debate? Do you actually have anything to support your views, or are you limited to high school trash talking?

Do you have a “sound secular argument” in FAVOR of homosexual marriage, other than … “it’s only fair?” Or, maybe you want to resort to the “equal rights” escape, even though that’s been thoroughly destroyed throughout this thread being that homosexuals already have equal rights to marry the opposite sex, just like anyone else. So, come on Silky. Whatcha got? Give us all a great reason why homosexuals deserve more rights than the rest of us.

Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 10:03 PM

Except for the mocking gay community part, I would say you were at an anti-war rally in front of N. Pelosi’s house.

Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I don’t believe that would classify as a “parade” equal to the SF gay pride cry for relevance parade orgy.

I’ll tell you what. I’ll answer your question for you. I’ll attempt to get a permit for just such a parade along the same route as the gay pride parade and let’s see if they approve it. Let’s find out who has more rights in this country.

Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 7:19 PM

While person’s own faith in God is a valid reason for views against homosexuality, it’s always a losing battle to pull the God card out in an argument against those without faith. If you’re arguing ANY subject with an atheist, and you suddenly say “God” … you’ve just lost the argument. It’s meaningless to them, as they do not believe in God.
One doesn’t need to believe in God to know that homosexuality is not natural. All one needs to do is to look down. When a lesbian couple has a child of their own (minus any robotic/bionic/futuristic alterations) … I might change my mind, but until then I feel safe knowing that our own bodies give us all the evidence we need. The puzzle pieces fit together quite nicely.

If those who believe that being gay is a result of a “brain defect” want to use that argument … they’re welcome to it.

Maybe we’ll find a cure some day.

Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM

That’s not accurate. You have the right to marry anyone you choose that complies with your nature.

Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 7:31 PM

HUH?! Now you want to make up your own definition of current law in order to suit your argument? Marriage is not defined as a bond between two people complying with the same nature. WTF are you talking about?

Webster’s:

Marriage is defined as:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Of course, you’ll notice that they’ve also thrown in an additional politically correct definition which reads …

(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Notice the last part of the first definition?

… as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

If you can find me an actual line in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Federal law which defines marriage as a union between husband and husband, or wife and wife, or even just two people … I’ll admit I’m wrong.

You’re not debating honestly. You’re simply arguing something that you want, and you’re going to stomp your feet because you don’t like the answer you’re getting.

Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 10:38 PM

My co-author is a psychologist focusing on homosexuality, and he provided most of the research. It was for my law degree substantial writing, so it wasn’t quite the same as a thesis or a disseratation.

My Co-author is A. Dean Byrd, who is on the board of NARTH, last I checked. NARTH is the leading psychologist organization dealing with therapy for homosexuals, and has several thousand members, I believe. He also has advised the LDS church on this matter.

Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Google Scholar has a link to the full article in PDF.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.pdf

It seems quite reasonable that contemporary homosexuals as a group have a lower average lifespan, even apart from HIV and AIDS; the bad habits reported of a portion of them will pull down the average for all of them. The reported high incidence of suicide is also easy to believe. I’ll pass over the reasons that seem already likely to spring to candid minds without my listing them. It’s interesting to go beyond the usual reasons to speculate that homosexual men and women would also be more likely to have or develop psychological problems leading to suicide precisely if their brains and psychai are physical male-female composites.

Even with all those allowances, it seems reports of a gap of over 30 years in life expectancy for gay men, and reports that AIDS accounts for just a small part of the gap, should have raised red flags. Critics of Paul Cameron’s work have already made such points as that when one studies the obituaries, one necessarily excludes the living, that the families of the oldest homosexuals were the ones least likely to have put an obituary in a gay weekly, and that parents’ or friends’ declining to mention AIDS as the cause of a young man’s death wasn’t sufficient grounds for ruling it out. But it’s interesting to pass over the usual critique of sampling and interpretation, to consider the counter-evidence the gay rights campaign itself provides. Can it really have been true that the powerful political campaign of the last three decades was waged by a little group of people so sex-crazed, anxious, depressed, suicidal, high, drunk, and sick that half the men were dead by 43? If it’s true, then we should wish we all had their stamina.

Kralizec on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM

You are arguing opinion mixed with your biblical interpretation. Nothing wrong with that but it is still an opinion. Where we would agree is that schools shouldn’t be in the business of telling students which opinion is correct.

Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Kralizec:

Yes, that is my article. Of minor interest is the history and attempt to surpress it and a host of others from being published, but that’s another story.

I agree that there are certainly valid critiques of some of the research I cited. That said, I note that you admit lifespans for gay activity tends to be lower. I’m sure it would be hard to quantify, and I’m sure that such a study would be political suicide to propose (really, trying to study if homosexual activity is likely to kill you? The cries of homophobia and bias would be overwhelming).

As for evidence of powerful political pressure, I would urge you to read the article’s description of exactly that on the part of the APA.

Of note, however, I don’t see any advocate for gay marriage addressing my points earlier, which none have been based on “Biblical morality,” though that is certainly a valid discussion.

Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 11:15 PM

If it was in his butt, he’d know!

TheSitRep on August 10, 2007 at 11:20 PM

The dirty little secret for homosexuals is that there are tons of former gays/lesbians running around telling how they got out of it. We might be predisposed to certain behaviors but it the end it’s all a choice.

Mojave Mark on August 10, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Homosexuals have a real quandary regarding homosexuality.

If it is genetic and born that way, then it is a deviant gene and therefore needs to have a cure in the form of gene therapy.

If it is a choice, then homosexuals can change.

Either way, they lose on an intellectual level.

Tim Burton on August 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM

If they are correct that it’s caused by a gay gene at birth, there needs to be research done to find out if it might be the same gene as this man.

Let’s study the brain of this man and compare it with the brains of the cast of queer eye for the straight guy, to find out if there’s any common variables.

Gregor on August 11, 2007 at 12:41 AM

HUH?! Now you want to make up your own definition of current law in order to suit your argument? Marriage is not defined as a bond between two people complying with the same nature. WTF are you talking about?

My point is that you as a hetrosexual have the right to find a spouse of your choosing but you would deny an individual of a different sexual orientation the right to find one of their choosing.

From the website usconstitution.net concerning marriage:

In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

While you are quick to cite Webster’s primary definition as authority, I note you are also willing to disqualify the secondary definition as having the same weight because it’s convenient for you to do so by simply saying that it is PC. Are you an expert in how Webster’s determines their definitions? If not, Sir, it is you who are not debating honestly. You can’t honestly expect anyone to give you any credibility when you qualify and disqualify a single source in the same sentence!
As for Federal case law…will the opinion of a supreme court justice do?
How about Supreme Court Justice Warren in Loving vs Virgina?
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” Notice the term personal rights. Not hetrosexual rights, but personal as in person. And unless you accept the definition of free men as including women…they we should consider the possibility of it meaning men only, no women allowed.

Catseye on August 11, 2007 at 12:43 AM

I seem to keep getting the blockquotes backwards.

Catseye on August 11, 2007 at 12:43 AM

While you are quick to cite Webster’s primary definition as authority, I note you are also willing to disqualify the secondary definition as having the same weight because it’s convenient for you to do so by simply saying that it is PC.

Catseye on August 11, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Another dishonest comment. There’s nothing in my comment that suggested that it was “disqualified” because it was PC. I noted that they included it because of PC, and that they ALSO made sure to label the fact that the first definition was the LEGAL definition. Webster’s wrote that. I didn’t.

Judging by past liberal and gay tactics, it’s probably safe to say that Websters was most likely bombarded and threatened by homosexual rights groups until they gave in and added the second definition. That’s the way they do things.

If I had wanted to be dishonest, I wouldn’t have included the second definition at all.

As for Federal case law…will the opinion of a supreme court justice do?

How about Supreme Court Justice Warren in Loving vs Virgina?

Are you serious? You mean, regarding RACE? How dishonest must you be to take a quote from a decision regarding race descrimination in marriage, and attempt to suggest that the ruling was meant to include homosexuals.

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” Notice the term personal rights. Not hetrosexual rights, but personal as in person.

Hmmm! You sort of burnt your own argument. You’re right. It says “personal rights” and does not say “heterosexual rights.” But, it doesn’t say “homosexual rights” either, does it? It makes no mention of sex. It simply says that all persons shall have the right to marry. And that’s exactly what homosexuals have. They have the right to get married according to the law, just like everyone else.

You might have missed the final ruling of the court, which based it’s decision on the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.strong> Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Again, we’re back to that old Constitution/Bill of Rights thing. Please point out where it’s written that homosexual marriage is a “right.”

Gregor on August 11, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Or, maybe you want to resort to the “equal rights” escape, even though that’s been thoroughly destroyed throughout this thread being that homosexuals already have equal rights to marry the opposite sex, just like anyone else.

this is the weirded argument i’ve heard vs. gay marriage and its used surprisingly often.

My point is that you as a hetrosexual have the right to find a spouse of your choosing but you would deny an individual of a different sexual orientation the right to find one of their choosing.

exactly. What good does the right to marry someone of the opposite sex do for a gay person?? Because they’re gay are they supposed to just hate themselves for it and then marry someone of the opposite sex? Would that protect the “sanctity of marriage” more? If gay people just took one for the team and married the opposite gender? lol. Notice Gregor ignored that in his response. 10$ says he’ll bring pedophilia or something up next. “Well then shouldn’t pedophiles have the right to marry a spouse of their choosing? What about polygamists? What about chimpanzees??? The sky is falling!”

crr6 on August 11, 2007 at 2:43 AM

We should have a “meat and poultry pride” parade were we jump aboard large floats (in San Francisco or Norfolk “PeTA” Virginia) and slaughter cows and chickens and barbecue them to shove our love of eating steaks, ribs, and wings in the faces of those who don’t.

Black Adam on August 10, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Say it loud, say it proud: I am a Carnivorous American!

Carnivore pride parade/festival!

Can’t wait! Where do I sign up?

Bob Mc on August 11, 2007 at 2:44 AM

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

saved on August 11, 2007 at 8:55 AM

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. saved on August 11, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Homosexuality is the only sin with its own parade.

Mojave Mark on August 11, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Homosexuals have a real quandary regarding homosexuality.

If it is genetic and born that way, then it is a deviant gene and therefore needs to have a cure in the form of gene therapy.

If it is a choice, then homosexuals can change.

Either way, they lose on an intellectual level.

Tim Burton on August 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Your claim is flatly ridiculous. There is nothing wrong at all with homosexuality–whether it is by choice or not by choice. And even if people could change their sexual orientation, there would be a large cost in doing so. Thus, even if there were something wrong with homosexuality–which there’s not–it wouldn’t be worth the effort to change it.

We no more need everyone heterosexual than everyone with perfect teeth.

thuja on August 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3