Video: Richardson tells gay forum that being gay is a choice
posted at 12:39 pm on August 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Not like he stood a prayer of winning anyway, but seeing him screw up like that is funny.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Adios Billy. (As the Gov rides off in the sunset, scene fades to black)
oakpack on August 10, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I’m really not curious as to the question of born-that-way or choice. The thing that antagonizes me is militancy, and the attitude that conservatives are just soooooo backwards and prudish.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Has anyone other than me noticed that the Dumbs are talking to special interest groups but not America? How do you think they’ll do in the states that voted to prohibit gay marriage and civil unions? Do they have the stones to tell those people they were wrong?
madmonkphotog on August 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Robert Novak this week,
Second-Most?
there it is on August 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Actually, Novak makes some sense. Grievance issues are a big deal in liberal politics.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
The responses were awfully kind, all things considered. Can you imagine the gay uproar if a Conservative had said the same thing?
PBoilermaker on August 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
As these social forums for Dem Candidates in a series? When is the Transgendered Forum for Democrats?
IntheNet on August 10, 2007 at 12:58 PM
That’s all they have. That and NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/NYTimes/LAtimes/etc.
And they have the nutroots on a good day as long as they don’t tug too hard on their leash.
Asher on August 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Definition of a Gaffe – When a politician accidently tells the truth.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Will the Dems be holding forums talking to teachers and nurses? Because that would nice.
terryannonline on August 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM
That’s not to say there is no grievance. I’ve been all over the map on the gay marriage issue, but I think I’ve finally decided that I don’t care, and its stupid for both gays and religious/traditional people who hold strong opinions on this issue to cede that much power to the government. Yes I know its about tax/benefits, a good tax/benefit system would solve that problem.
That statement oughta start a good flamewar…
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Outwardly effeminate men vs sneaky, grab your butt, normal enough looking guys. One’s possibly wiring, the other has “issues”. Being a lesbian in a mans’ body works for me.;^)
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 1:08 PM
That a goal of yours?
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Marcie from Peanuts didn’t know if Richardson made a mistake or didn’t think it through. Typical self obsessed liberal, she doesn’t hear the answer she likes so the other person must be wrong.
So those of you who think the republicans should do the youtube gong show, what’s the difference between these nuts and the youtube nuts?
peacenprosperity on August 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Maybe the gay Democrats are little smarter than the social conservatives who reject Fred over working for a pro-choice group.
thuja on August 10, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Richardson really should have brought up the possibility of nurture as causation. A binary question where one answer is ludicrous by liberal dogma and the other answer demands acceptance of the questioner’s positions is not at all fair, or even representative of the theories pertaining to the origins of homosexuality. Since a nurture answer would undermine their agenda, I can see why it was omitted.
rw on August 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM
That’s part of the problem with these sorts of identity politics, and making the politics personal.
Suddenly, you can’t just be willing to support their political view, you have to share their same beliefs.
How true is that, on the right I wonder? Abortion is a big one, I suppose, where that’s often the case.
I don’t know, I just wish politicians were more forthright and honest. It would be so refreshing
apollyonbob on August 10, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Which rights are homosexuals being denied exactly?
Last time I checked … they’re allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else. Are there any other “civil rights” they’re claiming to be denied?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 1:18 PM
You could almost sense Richardson wanting to ask that same question. Answer anyone?
MT on August 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Are there any other “civil rights” they’re claiming to be denied?
Thank you! Dennis Prager is eloquent about this very point.
I am trying to keep an open mind to the argument that homosexuals should be allowed to marry a person of the same sex. If anyone on this thread holds that pov, please let me hear that side.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM
No, but some people get real pissy about the issue.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I am as tired and bored with the Gay Movement as I have become with the Black Movement and the Feminist Movement. What they all have in common is the vapid statement that they just want to be accepted as part of the general population. So of course the way to do this is to constantly call attention to the differences!!!! I’m not anti any of the above mentioned groups, I’m just sick to death of hearing about them.
jeanie on August 10, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Here’s one former gay man who made a choice: Dennis Jernigan.
Having said that, I would like to see the Democrats have a gay debate every week until the election. That should deliver every state in flyover country to the Republicans!
Yep.
Ordinary1 on August 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM
I watched the Dumocrats last night at the gay forum… I once saw a statistic on the number of inmates that had homosexual encounters. I assume that was while in prison. I don’t remember the exact numbers but it was like 80% for women inmates 60% for men inmates. So if homosexuals are born that way I guess that it can also be assumed many homosexuals are also criminals. Of coarse I’m kidding but obviously not all homosexuals are born that way. But if you were to ask me if I were born heterosexual I would have to say yes since I can’t remember ever being any other way. But being born heterosexual doesn’t give me an excuse to ignore how God expects me to conduct myself sexually… Before or after marriage… Several of the candidates spoke about love (Biblical) as a motivating force behind their positions of support for gay issues and love we what being gay was about. They or anyone there didn’t seem to understand that there are three Greek words translated for love. The love they seemed to be alluding to was Agape love which is not sexual. But of coarse most of us seem to have problems separating them also…
vulcannomad on August 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Nobody got my joke. Not funny I guess. Marriage no, civil unions………….? Possibly, but not for a few decades.
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I’m married to the opposite sex. So, I guess I’ll never know.
But for that matter, this whole argument is way below my radar screen to matter in vetting presidential candidates.
What rights to Ghey Humping Robots get?
Kini on August 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I had to read it 3 times to get it :)
Anyway, readers of HA often dissect an issue from multiple points of view. Do you agree with me that it would be useful to have someone who supports gay marriage state their case here, and for us to discuss it in a thoughtful manner?
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 1:36 PM
She asked the question trying to get him to answer how she wanted him to answer. The problem with the gay movement is that they don’t accept that they are wrong.
We have laws against rape. What is the difference between rape and sex? Rape is sex without one person’s choice. We have clergy who CHOOSE not to have sex. Men and women CHOOSE what partners they want to have sex with all the time, or not to have sex with all the time.
The idea that sexual orientation is NOT a choice is absurd. Being gay is a choice of a lifestyle. They aren’t denied rights. They don’t want equal rights. Gay people want SPECIAL rights. They want ‘hate crime’ legislation. They want ‘marriage rights’. They want spousal medical benefits that aren’t offered to heterosexual couples who live together.
Then comes the question about AIDS. The gay community is very similar to the tobacco industry arguing that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, heart disease, or emphysema. The gay community wants to point to heterosexual people with AIDS, they want to point to the rise in AIDS in the African American community. They want to point to everything except the FACT that 50% of people with AIDS in this country are GAY MEN.
They want socialized medicine to ensure that their expensive AIDS drugs are paid for by the taxpayer based on their lifestyle choices. In order for them to get special rights, they must convince everyone else that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. The gay community understands the important distinction involved in their gaining special rights.
The gay community is getting too militant for their own good.
ThackerAgency on August 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Homosexuals have a right to be the target in a game of butt darts or pelt sampling. I don’t care.
I take issue with when they close down the loop around the city and bind up traffic so they can wrap themselves in tight plastic bands and gimp masks and parade naked down the street on rainbow floats to talk about how much they enjoy being homosexual. And they want to shove their lifestyle into my face.
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
I honestly don’t care, so I guess that can be argued as pro. I don’t think it should be decided by judicial activism, but if a referendum or legislation votes for gay marriage, I really don’t care. I think letting government have that much authority is dumb, not that I expect it to change, but from a philosophical standpoint.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 1:41 PM
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 1:36 PM
It all comes back to the same old question of “Nature?” or Nurture? Whether it would be helpful to dissect this from the point of view of someone who supports gay marriage, I will say that, debate that is honest, is never harmful.
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 PM
You’ve at least gotta say you believe it. Melissy made sure to let Billy know he’d screwed up, got her lecture in ‘I’m not sure you understand the question.’ Talk about stepping off the plantation.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Hmmm… most of you really don’t have a clue do you.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You would immediately be arrested and charged with a hate crime.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I disagree, but it’s very dangerous ground. I’m straight, that’s not a ‘choice’ for me, I couldn’t ‘choose’ to be gay cuz I ain’t attracted to men, but this is a potential firestorm.
If they are ‘hardwired’ to this behavior, the extrapolation, after they are given their special rights (Thacker is 100% right – they want to be a protected super-class), is that ANY sort of deviancy from the ‘norm’ could be considered ‘okay cuz they’re just made that way.’ Pedophiles, necros, beasti-os, even rapists – the argument could be made that they are all wired ‘different.’
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Hmmm…guess not. Enlighten us.
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 1:55 PM
???
Assuming that you have the missing clue, which viewpoints do you find clueless?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM
“Gays and lesbians”? Aren’t lesbians gay, too?
And what are they all so happy about, anyway?
This all kind of reminds me of the global warming hoax, in that the assumption it’s based on – in this case, that gays don’t have equal rights – is totally false.
Gays can’t marry simply because marriage is, by definition, between man and woman. Man/man, woman/woman isn’t marriage. How simpler could this be? To claim that this is somehow a denial of “rights” is like saying the blind are being denied their right to be sharp-shooters. It’s not even apples and oranges.
And of course, when I see Megan Fox I choose to be attracted – NOT!!!
Halley on August 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM
How is he supposed to know whether every homosexual made the choice or not? Or the nurture side? Or something has deterred them from the opposite sex? Or whether all emotions don’t stem from “choice”……etc, etc..
Shouldn’t homosexuals agree that everyone is an individual and there is not ONE reason (the reason they promote) for being homosexual?
I assume they disagree with rehabilitation also? Since basically rehab is changing the way a person feels/acts because society doesn’t agree with it.
nottakingsides on August 10, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Actually, one of the local radio stations used to throw a fishing derby right in front of the PETA headquarters every year. I don’t know if they stopped, since I stopped listening to them, but I thought that was the greatest radio promotion evah.
balishak on August 10, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Interesting sidebar from Amanda Carpenter:
MT on August 10, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I’m not going to get into the whole choice argument, but “Pedophiles, necros, beasti-os, even rapists” doesn’t fit into this. All of those are people having sex with a non-consenting party; whether it’s a child, animal, or adult woman (and sometimes man). Homesexuality is two consenting adults of the same sex wishing to engage is sexual activity. There is no comparison.
CookeyD on August 10, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Since when is it a choice to be a teenager scorned by classmates to the point of suicide? The number one problem in the teen gay community. Since when would an individual raised their whole life as a muslim risk being executed over a “choice”? Since when would anyone want to be called “faggot”, knowing the history of the word essentially means that people wish you death? How about not being able to apply for certain jobs because of background checks? Or be in the US military? Or losing a job because you stayed in a corporate apartment and now your boss thinks you’ve contaminated it?
How would YOU like to live in a community where you were looked down upon because your spouse WASN’T of the same sex? Or that you were not elegible for family benefits? Or were afraid to go out at night and “party” because some fool might attack you and spouse/partner/friend because you aren’t the same gender or simply because you look “straight”?
Shall I go on?
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 PM
From the last time I witnessed Pimp My Victimhood: Homosexual Edition, gays feel that because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not mention civil unions, the Federal government does not give civil unions the same standing as marriage and therefore they are unequal.
BohicaTwentyTwo on August 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Choice is the argument as presented by the topic of this thread. At least half of people think being gay is a choice, the rest think it’s nature. This is a slippery slope which leads to the problems in the USA today – the minority, in this case gays (insert your minority of choice: illegals, special ed, handicapped, etc.) attempt to extort a rank of class and the attendant privileges that go with it. Once this is acquiesced to, there will be ANOTHER class that will claim that they ‘can’t help it.’ Then another. Then another. Claiming this is about ’sex’ clouds the issue because, frankly, the great majority of people couldn’t care less what you do in your bedroom.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM
While you’re correct that “rapists” do not fit into this, you’re misrepresenting the suggestion. Nobody is suggesting that homosexuality is a crime against the other partner. The suggestion is that if you’re going to make the charge that “being homosexual” is not a choice, but instead a desire given to you at birth, then you would be forced to accept that the sexual desire of “Pedophiles, necros, and beasti-os” would also NOT be a choice. We’re talking about the deviant desire, and not the actual criminal act.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Prager… Homosexuality: An attempt at clarity
More from Dennis:
MT on August 10, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Dennis Prager is great on this subject: Homosexuality: An attempt at clarity
MT on August 10, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Ugh… sorry for the dupe!
MT on August 10, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I’d be all for gay marriage if it weren’t for the fact that everyone who is for gay marriage is against everything else that married people are for (lower taxes, school choice, strong national defense, tough on crime, less smut on t.v. etc.)
Show me a gay person who is for what normal married couples are for and I’ll agree it’s not a choice. Until then as far as I’m concerned it’s just a sexual fetish that’s been elevated to the status of a civil right.
thareb on August 10, 2007 at 2:25 PM
This argument is about as bogus as the argument that anti-depressants cause suicide due to the fact that a high number of those committing suicide happen to be on anti-depressants.
It can very easily be argued that many of those homosexuals that you are referring to are participating in their sexually deviant lifestyle BECAUSE of other mental problems which they might have, such as depression, loneliness, excessive shyness with the opposite sex, or maybe routinely being teased or made fun of by the opposite sex. It’s absurd to suggest that all of their other problems are CAUSED by the fact that they are gay, and not the other way around.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I said “butt darts”. LOL
Black Adam on August 10, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Your point about Muslims risking execution … I would want government poking its legislative/law enforcement nose into that – but in this case we are talking about the government of some other country.
Do you favor laws to prohibit insults?
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Folks, welcome to the NEW DIRECTION DEMOCRATIC Party! These folks don’t care about the Illegal Aliens either……………………unless they “choose” to be “heterophobic homosexuals”.
DfDeportation on August 10, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Lol!! HELL YES. I can’t help but wanting to have sex with several women at once. THEREFORE WE MUST DECLARE POLYGAMY LEGAL!!! IT’S A CIVIL RIGHT!!!
WOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!
thareb on August 10, 2007 at 2:36 PM
A fine point! Also going against this argument is the fact that not all teen gays off themselves, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion, so to equate the two is disingenuous at best, a blatant misdirection in any event.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:38 PM
If you were here in New Mexico, I could introduce you to GLBT people who believe in:
Lower taxes, good schools, were in the military (many with honors), RKBA and concealed carry and would shoot the eyes out of anyone that wanted to hurt their family or friends, for the death penalty, NO smut on TV when the kids might be watching. Without specifically asking them, I think that the only reason that many of them aren’t Republicans is because all they’ve heard from Republicans is the same things expressed in this thread. They feel that the Dems are their only slim chance at being treated as a regular citizen.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 2:39 PM
No, but I’ll add to your argument here:
I don’t know why people CHOOSE to do what they CHOOSE to do. . .here’s some more examples:
Why do people CHOOSE to smoke when they know it is a death sentence?
Why do people CHOOSE to put on makeup driving a car, or grossly exceed the speed limit, or drive drunk when they are a hazard to themselves and everyone else?
Why do kids CHOOSE to join gangs when they have seen their friends and relatives killed by engaging in the same activity?
Why do people CHOOSE to do drugs when they know that it can cause harm and even death?
Why do people CHOOSE to continue to eat themselves to the point of MORBID OBESITY when the solution is generally as simple as NOT doing something (eating)?
Homosexuality is defined as having sex with someone of the same sex. If you CHOOSE to have sex with someone of the same sex, you are CHOOSING to be homosexual. Even homosexuals would concur with the concept that they CHOOSE their own partner freely – they choose who, they just don’t choose what sex (according to them). So if you can make a choice of partners, you can make a choice of orientation.
Why do people CHOOSE destructive behavior? I don’t know, but just because I don’t know why doesn’t mean that people don’t make poor choices in their lives. In a free country it means we are free to make very bad choices, and lots of Americans do.
You can’t choose to be black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Caucasian. You CAN choose who you have sex with.
ThackerAgency on August 10, 2007 at 2:41 PM
One cannot make a convincing argument against it if the ‘two consenting adults’ crowd gets their way. As long as everyone involved wishes to engage, they MUST be allowed.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Your post completely contradicts your argument – they ARE regular citizens, they just choose to keep their sex life where it belongs – IN PRIVATE.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I’d be all for gay marriage if it weren’t for the fact that everyone who is for gay marriage is against everything else that married people are for (lower taxes, school choice, strong national defense, tough on crime, less smut on t.v. etc.)
thareb
Lots of absolutes in there. Care to modify it a smidgen?
Krydor on August 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Here’s another problem with your suggestion …
Do you believe that cheating on your spouse is a choice, or do you believe the inability to stay faithful is ingrained in adulterers at birth?
If you believe it’s a choice, then why would you believe adulterers would CHOOSE to have their families torn apart, lose half of their income for life, lose their children, houses, and pretty much turn their entire life upside down for what might be one night of pleasure?
See where your suggestion takes us? The answer is simple. It’s all about lack of morals, willpower, and common sense. IMHO, homosexuals are nothing more than people who have chosen an extremely easy way to obtain physical pleasure at a moment’s notice, with almost no work or effort required. Simply walk into a room of 100 people and announce you’re gay, and you’re almost assured of having company for the night.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM
This is a problem too. Just because I think that they are choosing this destructive behavior doesn’t mean I don’t treat them as a ‘regular citizen’. I don’t think it should be like Iran or Nigeria where muslims are stoning people for being gay. I do business with gay people, I work with gay people, I don’t care what gay people do. I treat them like everyone else.
But I disagree with them that they are ‘born that way’. That just means I don’t believe they should get special privileges under the law as a special ‘class’ of people.
ThackerAgency on August 10, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Which is the wrong answer? What Richardson first said, or his clarification statement after the debate?
So, in this day and age where we have (supposedly) the freedom to make whatever choices we want on any particular issue impacting our life, the only thing we don’t have a choice about is homosexuality?
I thought that in context of the politically correct establishment, our personal sexuality is absolutely all about choice?
Oh, wait, I think I got it. Choice has to do with belief in things like a god or global warming. Not in my ability to change my hetero or homo sexual life style. Except that if I’m hetero it is okay to become homo. But if I’m homo it’s not okay to become hetero. Yep now I got it straight… err… gay, err… whatever.
Lawrence on August 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Man, I call myself a lesbian all the time and go home alone – what COULD I be doing wrong?
Sorry, just couldn’t resist. Interesting POV, one I hadn’t considered.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Being gay isn’t a choice. Living the gay lifestyle IS a choice.
msipes on August 10, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Most of the stuff you talked about aren’t rights and the few you did mention (being fired for being gay) are illegal.
Get the chip off your shoulder and deal with what you are and don’t blame the rest of us.
peacenprosperity on August 10, 2007 at 2:54 PM
There is absolutely a comparison. You are talking about the actions. That is missing the point. The point of the comparison is the genetics. The argument is that the attraction to the same sex is genetic. If this is the case, then the attraction to children is also genetic. The attraction to animals is also genetic. Etc etc…
The argument is that we cannot discriminate based on genetic attraction (”sexual orientation”). If that is the case, then we cannot discriminate against those who are attracted to children or those who are attracted to animals.
But, what you are now saying is that we can REGULATE based on sexual orientation. But regulation is discrimination. Just as regulating drinking habits of the public discriminates against those who are under 21, regulating sexual orientation to say that one can have sex with the same sex, but not with children/animals discriminates against pedophiles/those attracted to animals.
There are two different distinctions here: the genetic attraction (”sexual orientation”) and acting on that genetic attraction. Too many people mix up the two and discount the completely relevant comparison as you have done.
However, this brings up another issue. Are people in favor of “rehabilitation” and “counseling” for those who are born with an attraction to children and animals? Why? If it is genetic, and homosexuals say that their genetic attraction to the same sex cannot be “cured”, then we should not be curing pedophiles or those attracted to animals right?
Or, if we can cure pedophiles and those attracted to animals of their “sexual orientation”, then we must also be able to cure homosexuals of their “abnormal” attractions.
Right?
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I don’t live in that reality, and probably never will, but from what you say, and how you say it, it is time for someone to re-evaluate what they want in life and what it’s going to take to get there. Too many hazards, where they’re at now.
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Sorry, but I don’t understand how it can be anything but a choice. What is the other option? A biological compulsion? And how would that work?
Look, throughout history men have had sex with men and women with women. That’s nothing new. But this usually occured outside of a marriage that produced children. Think of the ancient Greeks. Plato was the exception but most Greeks married. Socrates, Aristotle, Sophocles were all married. What is new is the concept of the exclusive homosexual, someone who only has sex with people of the same gender. This did not start until relatively recent history. Even the infamous homosexual Oscar Wilde married (as have many prominent homosexuals including the Episcopal gay bishop).
Has basic human nature changed somewhere along the way? Has what was clearly a choice for Wilde and Gene Robinson (both of whom had children) become a biological imperative? I doubt it. Why then is exclusive homosexuality found primarily in highly urbanized, prosperous cultures? If exclusive homosexuality is truly a genetic urge that people are helpless against, would it exist throughout human societies?
I think the ‘choice’ argument has been displaced by the ‘orientation’ argument because the gay rights lobby thinks it’s a better move politically; that it’s easier to market gay rights to the masses of people believe that homosexuals in fact have no choice, that they are quite literally determined by forces larger than themselves to be gay and exclusively gay.
Thomas the Wraith on August 10, 2007 at 2:57 PM
This thread is teh ghey. You made a choice to make it teh ghey.
LOL
Black Adam on August 10, 2007 at 2:58 PM
The ironic thing about this statement is using the idea of ‘choice’ (consenting sex) to defend ‘no choice’ (being gay).
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM
The point isn’t about bad government or laws, it’s about risking death for something that many of you are considering a choice…as if it’s something as trivial as chocolate or vanilla ice cream tonight. It’s about people risking their lives to be who they naturally are. As for the insult comment. I have no desire for this country to start dealing in “thought crime”. Again, the point is again, if this could be lumped up into making a choice, who would deliberately draw death wished upon themselves? Because that’s what it means to be called a “faggot”. Homosexuals were burned at the stake in Old England. At the time, a faggot was a bundle of sticks used in a bondfire. Homosexuals were burned in bondfires like so many faggots “of wood”.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM
My domestic partner constantly persecutes me for my sexual orientation. I’m a three times a week kinda guy.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Descending into ad hominem attacks is a sure sign that you are losing. Careful, amigo.
Since most people also don’t commit murder, rape, arson, or any number of other major crimes, despite their propensity/willingness/desire to do so, would you care to admit that those who are rabidly anti-homosexual are also ‘otherly natured?’
Since you want to deal with points, I suggest you read my first post in this thread before you subsume a position of superior sanctimonious authority.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 3:18 PM
It is a choice; not only that it is a poor choice.
MarkB on August 10, 2007 at 3:19 PM
What does it matter whether I’ve experienced what they go through. The question wasn’t whether they are “going through” any sort of depression or HELL. The question is what’s CAUSING their problems. You seem to feel you’ve got it all figure out and that all of their problems in life are due to the fact that they are gay.
It couldn’t POSSIBLY be that their gay lifestyle choice is simply another symptom of their mental illness or total lack of self esteem?
And I wonder if you happen to have your hands on any studies which would show us if any of these gays committing suicide happened to have been “harassed” and teased BEFORE anyone even KNEW they were gay. I would lay money that almost ALL of these kids were teased for “being different” or “odd” long before anyone discovered their sexual preference. Most likely starting when they first entered school.
Of course, this would cause your entire theory to implode, wouldn’t it?
Obviously.
Only the homosexual brain scientists who get PAID lots of money by homosexual groups wanting a particular result would be qualified to give an opinion, right?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I haven’t read all the comments, but I imagine I’m still one of the few who has the balls to publicly say that homosexuality (a term I hate to use because it legitimizes it) is both a choice and wrong.
That clown Ethridge talks about it being “biological” in her opening… but that’s based on her agenda, not anything science has ever shown. I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks that the fact that male and female genitalia are necessary for reproduction, and are designed very specifically for each other is just a coincidence, then you’re an idiot. It’s that simple. Just as someone claims to be born attracted to the same sex, I can claim to be attracted to animals. Can you people not imagine a world where 50 years from now me and other animasexuals are marching for our rights, and Vermont veterinarians will issue me and a dog of my choosing a Fido Union? Who are you to tell me I’m not attracted to Spot! The way he takes a crap in the lawn, and I forget and step in it, ooooooooooh eeeeeeeee!
Which reminds me:
(language content/hilarity warning)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bUxOpSwvfMs
RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Outstanding. Thank you for putting it so perfectly.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 3:31 PM
He understood the question. He just doesn’t understand the implications of one answer over another. For goodness sakes, the questioner tried to explain it to him and coach him to give the “right” answer, but he still couldn’t understand the significance. Not much intellect there. I didn’t realize it before, but the guy is as dumb as a stick.
greggish on August 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I have a brother-in-law and an Uncle that are gay. My mother said that she could tell he was gay from when he was about 7 years old. Are you telling me that he made the “choice” to be gay at that age??? I think not.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Just because your Mom said that about your uncle doesn’t mean it was true. Could the cause be at all linked to your families’ perception of said individual and his uniqueness as a child? You are making the assumption that your Mom’s gaydar was perfectly tuned at the time of this man’s 7th birthday. I think not.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 3:38 PM
LOL! So, you’re saying that gay people … “look” gay? I’m sure the non-flaming crowd will just love you for that one. It’s much more likely that your mother could tell that he was “different” at age 7, which would then lead to constant teasing and harassment throughout elementary school, which would lead to him pulling away from normal society in a desperate search for acceptance.
Most serial killers and mass murderers are said to have had strange or weird tendencies when they were children too. So, should we now claim their actions are caused by birth defects and not punish them?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Heather, I don’t take what you said lightly. My point is that we all come from families where our parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, etc. make predictions about us based upon their personal prejudices and fears. Sometimes those things have a profound long-term effect.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Gays claim their orientation is genetic, yet demand full equality in adoption and other parental rights issues. That’s not rational.
T J Green on August 10, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Excuse me, but, I believe that her, growing up with him, being around him 24/7, is enough to say that YES, she did know and it she was obviously right.
She could tell that he was different, and she always knew, from when he was young that he was gay.
And I don’t take to kindly people calling my mother dumb, and that is exactly what you are doing. I was agreeing with you that people don’t CHOOSE to be gay, they are born that way and you just proved to me that you are a moron.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Thank you, Catseye.
I realize that your post was not about bad government or laws, but you did post your comment in a thread that deals with questions directed toward a politician who is seeking the office of President of the United States, so your comment will be interpreted in the context of the topic at hand. It is, most emphatically, a topic bearing on government and laws.
Re: your response about thought crimes. That was exactly what I was getting at, and I am glad you are an ally.
It seems that what triggered your lament is the notion that homosexuality is a choice, since historically, exposure as a homosexual could result in death. I don’t have a quarrel with the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice, in some cases. I also see the logic that circumstances influence people who are not born gay to choose one gay encounter all the way up to committing to a gay lifestyle. I agree with a comment upthread that pointed out that the reasons for any specific person to engage in this conduct are as unique as we all are as individuals.
I propose that these reasons, as well as the types of discrimination you described are part of human nature. We all have unique hard-wiring, yet as groups, we will always find some excuse for discriminating against each other. It’s a timeless flaw, and I hope it will give you some peace if you accept it.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 3:52 PM
shhhhh. You’re basing your opinion on what an actual gay person said. Thats crazy! Only heterosexual conservatives know why and how a person becomes gay!
we’re going to be looking back at these conversations in 30 years laugh at the transparent bigotry.
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Okay, show me exactly where in my post I said he LOOKED gay?
Here is EXACLY what I said to refresh your memory:
And to your quote here:
He was teased, but he was stronger than those idiots. He didn’t “pull away from normal society in a desparate search for acceptance”. My family has always accepted him for who he is and what he has become which is a very successful Entrepreneur.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM
If it’s not a choice why do they call it a preference?
As for the word orientation. . .what does facing East have to do with anything?
- The Cat
MirCat on August 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Er, meant to say, I don’t have a quarrel with the conclusion that homosexuality is NOT a choice, in some cases.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Heather,
I don’t think I said that your mom is or was dumb. She couldn’t be any more dumb than me and I know I’ve been very wrong about some things with terrible result. I’m sorry if I insulted you. It’s too bad you think I’m a moron. I wouldn’t have been able to tell that from this brief an exchange with anyone.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Does this mean that all the scientists and sociologists and politicians and others who have stated that homosexuality is genetic are all themselves… homosexual liberals (since by your sarcastic comment, heterosexual conservatives are all bigots?
Apparently, only homosexuals can speak to homosexuality?
We have the homosexual movement equivalent of the “chickenhawk” defense (only those who have been in combat in Iraq can speak to matters related to war… only homosexuals can speak to matters homosexual).
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM
LMAO
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Well, I guess my Mom WAS equipped with gaydar at a very young age as am I equipped with morondar.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Congrats Heather. Carry on with your prescient existence.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Yikes…this thread got toxic.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Yeah, this is adding a lot to what WAS an intelligent debate on the issue of homosexuality.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I don’t believe that every single gay person was born that way. I do believe that most are, and that a small majority have chosen that lifestlye, therefore making it a preference.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »