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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
A few years ago, I wrote my main research paper for grad school on homosexuality and whether it was changeable or not. Let’s see if I can recap some of it.
The evidence is that there is a tendancy towards homosexuality. The evidence also shows that people can and have changed their orientation from gay to hetero. Not all, but a pretty good chunk.
My personal conclusion is this: homosexuality is like alcoholism. Sure, you may be predisposed somewhat to it, but you don’t have to give in.
The horrible part of the gay rights claims is this: they are in essence saying they are nothing more than animals. Being human means having freedom to choose our actions. Gay Rights activists reject this. Let’s say I’m addicted to, I don’t know–porn. It’s destructive, could ruin my marriage, all sorts of horribe things could and probably would happen to me. Yet, I’m compelled to look at it.
Under the Gay rights argument, I’m to embrace my deviancy, because I cannot stop myself. I’m a porn addict, and that’s what I am…. or so the argument goes.
It ain’t true, though. While addictions of any kind, such as tobacco, alcohol, or drugs, or sexual addictions, are incredibly powerful, they can be overcome. Humans have freedom to choose. It may be dang hard, but so what? It’s what we are to do. I view Homosexuality as any other addiction. Even when overcome, it will still show up occassionally, just as a recovered alcoholic still gets tempted to take a drink once in a while.
The thing is–what do you do about it? Give in, or man up and resist? Gay rights people say you MUST give in. I say, no, you can overcome your physical desires. Which, of course, means I’ll never be welcome at a Demo convention….
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 4:05 PM
That, my friend, was called sarcasm, sorry you missed that.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I believe you meant to say “small minority” (since you believe most homosexuals are born homosexual).
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Good point………….you win!
Harpoon on August 10, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Oh, I noticed the sarcasm. My assessment still stands. It added nothing to what WAS an intelligent debate about this issue. Your sarcasm and calling people morons and idiots are the tactics of those who cannot defend their position without insulting their opposition.
I can respect an opposing point of view. I lose respect for those (and their positions) who revert to insulting and demeaning those with thom they disagree.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM
hm? Don’t recall saying that. I would certaintly argue that homosexuals could tell you why they’re gay better then most straight people. You would disagree with that? I know i’ve developed my opinion by actually, you know…talking to gay people about it. My next door neighbors have been together for over 30 years yet they don’t have the same visitation rights etc as straight couples. How sick is that?
There was a thread similar to this awhile ago and predictably people like rightwinged etc were screaching about how its not a choice, and then a gay conservative (i think his name was Jetboy or something) posted and said that its definitely NOT a choice. It was hilarious reading peoples reactions. I mean what do you say to that?
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM
The militant gay agenda is partially about insurance benefits. If they can get the word “married” applied to their unions, then they must receive insurance benefits equal to that of hetro couples even though their life expectancies are lower and health problems are worse. They will be guaranteed the same rates as you and I, but their health expenses will be distributed among the hetro community.
THAT is why they are sooooo adamant about co-opting the word “married” and refuse to accept civil union etc.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I don’t disagree with this. However, are you saying that a heterosexual conservative who studies homosexuals (say a heterosexual conservative sociologist) and comes to a conclusion about what the typical reasons why homosexuals are homosexual, and concludes something in opposition to the homosexual agenda message, is not to be listened to on the subject?
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Well you obviously missed the post I was refering to in which it was posted that my mother did not know anything she was talking about and that just because she said it, doesn’t make it true, therefore calling her an idiot first.
But, I really don’t feel obligated to explain myself to you.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Melissa Etheridge : “Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice or are people born that way”?
Bill Richardson: “I believe it is a choice…”
Melissa Etheridge : “Wrong answer, tubby. Let’s try this again…”
SoulGlo on August 10, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Thank you for your infinate wisdom in correcting my mistake.
And yes, I do believe that.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:16 PM
One cannot explain one’s nature, if it is indeed so. ‘Because I like it’ or ‘it feels good’ is inadequate to someone who has no frame of reference. Therefore, your statement reinforces the ‘nuture‘ argument.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Oh, the other strong conclusion from my paper? Which, btw, wasn’t just me, it was co-authored with a pretty respectable name in the field? Homosexuality is rather deadly. In brief, being gay is roughly equivalent in life expectancy to being a heroin addict–and that’s not counting AIDS. If I remember right, the average life expectancy of a gay man who becomes gay in his teens is somewhere around 43 or so. AIDS drops that down to 41.
There’s plenty of gay people who live longer, but there’s plenty who don’t. I was rather stunned by that result. It’s one reason I’m anti-gay marriage. Gay marriage means tolerance and promotion of the lifestyle, which we shouldn’t be doing at all, just based on the health hazards.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 4:16 PM
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:12 PM
csdeven – I have also been told that they want things such as being able to be at the hospital bedside of a sick/injured “partner”. But apparently, if they are not family relation, then they are not allowed.
Seems to me that this would simply be a reason to change the rules of hospitals to grant access to someone based on a patient’s request. Say fill out an insurance card or something or another which states, “the following people are allowed to be by my side in cases of emergency”. That would then allow serious boyfriends/girlfriends/fiances at the sides of their loved ones and would not totally destroy our society’s defintion of marriage in the process.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM
So Heather…let me guess. You are barely out of your teens and single or you are almost thirty and divorced. If you go back and read what I wrote, it says nothing like what you just described. Have a day
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM
That made me laugh!
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Nice assumption, but completly out of the ball park.
Have a nice day!
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:19 PM
“Our actions are voluntary, but our will is not voluntary; we will our actions, but we don’t will our will.” Apart from the imprecision of concept named by “the will,” I think Thomas Hobbes has it just about right.
Kralizec on August 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM
You are welcome for that infinIte wisdom from this bigoted moron.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM
This is exactly a large part of the agenda, but couched in the ‘equality’ argument.
If acceptance of ‘civil unions’ among unmarried people resulted in the same benefits, most people would go for it.
Example: Your aging parents come to live with you. You form a ‘civil union’ with them to put them on your insurance at work to lessen the expense. (I didn’t say it was right, just that most would understand and be sympathetic.)
Most gays would reject this notion because it doesn’t meet their ‘equality’ and ‘hetero marginalization’ agenda.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Yet, here you just did.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Um, can we raise the tone of this conversation? Please?
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Sorry, I agree. Just had a lot of pent up frustration from a long week of work and felt like being a pain in the neck.
Of course, that didn’t help get back to the intelligent debate that was happening prior to that. So I apologize.
I guess I was just annoyed that my other relevant comments were not addressed by the thread.
Ironic. My intelligent comments were ignored, but my combative comments were not. I guess this is how threads go from tens to hundreds when we go down that combative spiral instead of sticking to the intelligent debate.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:26 PM
hmmm conservative sociologist is kind of an oxymoron but if they did do a credible study using real actual gay people i certaintly wouldn’t ignore it.
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Actually, I thought Richardson gave a pretty good answer.
Everyone is different and I do believe that, for some, it is a choice rather than genetics.
Take my ex-girlfriend for example…
When we first met, she told me that she was a “late bloomer” (i.e. came out at 28y.o.) and was now “completely and 100% into women”.
However, two years later, she turns into Anne Heche and decides that she wants to start dating men exclusively again saying…”I want to settle down, get married and start a family before it’s too late”……as if I’m completely alien to the concept and would be just as content with having 5 cats and hanging out in dyke bars the rest of my life.
So yeah, I agree with Richardson in that some people choose to live as gay or lesbian.
As for myself…I have always been attracted to women ever since my first cognizant thought. So for me, it’s definitely genetics.
The Ugly American on August 10, 2007 at 4:28 PM
How high would you like it? Just kiddin! My whole point of my first posting to this thread was that I, yes, believe that the majority of gays are born that way and my mother has first hand knowlede of that. I had NO idea that I would start getting attacked as I was, and that brought out the immediate response to defend myself and mine.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Anyway, I’d like to raise my previous thought again regarding the comparison of the genetics of sexual attraction.
I believe this is pretty important. Some have already addressed it above. Regarding sexual attraction to the same sex, to children and to animals all being genetic and something people were “born with”.
The argument is that we should not discriminate based on “sexual orientation/attraction”. Well, that means we cannot discriminate against pedophiles and “animaphiles” (that a word?) if they do not act on their genetic sexual orientation, right?
However, would people be in favor of trying to “counsel” or “rehabilitate” someone who was attracted to children or animals? Or would we treat them the same way we are supposed to treat homosexuals, namely, that they are “normal” and “born that way” and thus cannot be “cured”?
The interesting part of this thread is to see people intertwine different arguments: genetics vs action.
Some people defend homosexuality based on genetics. Others defend homosexuality based on “two consenting adults”.
I believe the genetics and “born that way” argument is being quietly pushed aside in favor of the “two consenting adults” argument, because the homosexual activists understand that if they keep pushing genetics/”born that way”, then they have to defend pedophiles and animaphiles as just as normal and genetic as homosexuals.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM
LOL! (yes, Im bringing that out)
Truce? :)
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:34 PM
And then there are bisexual people…selfish folks. lol
EnochCain on August 10, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Sorry everybody…
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM
That is a BS lie propagated by militant gays. I have called every hospital in my town and gay partners are allowed. The problem is that the militants wont accept that hetros have a right to a society that reflects the dominant hetro culture. All these “rights” to life insurance benefits etc can all be dealt with by contracts drawn up by attorneys. I am sure there are plenty of gay attorneys out there that would provide this service pro bono or on an internet site for those folks who cannot afford an attorney. The gay lifestyle, either by choice or by genetics, would be better served by respecting the rights of the hetro community and cease this militant agenda to make society become that which reflects their extremely small minority.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I like to call ‘em “home-wreckers”…. ; )
The Ugly American on August 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Interesting ain’t it? These militant types have an axe to grind and really couldn’t care less about seeing the other side.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:39 PM
That pic on your blog of the “classroom” gives me the heebie jeebies… :)
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:40 PM
The following is not an “attack” and nowhere does ConstantSorrow infer that s/he felt your mother was “dumb”:
It was after this comment, where ConstantSorrow simply doubted that your mother just knew that your uncle was homosexual at age 7, that you started to call people morons. Questioning someone’s “gaydar” is not calling someone “dumb”. Because you took that from the comment does not make it so.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:41 PM
ahh the slippery slope argument. In any 100 level logic course you’ll learn its a fallacy. But even besides that (to borrow from John Stuart Mill) use the harm principle. How does what two consenting adults do in private harm society or infringe on anyones rights? Now ask the same question of pedophilia. Does it harm anyone or infringe on anyone’s rights? Thats the difference. It always amazes me how in a debate on gay marriage I’ll somehow be expected to debate about pedophilia, necrophilia etc. Its a diversion.
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Is a hypothetical alternate explanation now considered an attack? Maybe you should be granted the right to avoid such an indignity.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM
There have become too many comments to address individually, however, I found several interesting. Those of you who feel that homosexuality is a choice should google homosexual brain and transgender brain. You can find studies indicating that there are physiological differences in the brains hetrosexuals and homosexuals. Some of you will just say, as one commentor here already has, that these researchers are just trying to prove the homosexual agenda. I would suggest that you might have more in common with the KosKids than you think. Otherwise, you may want to consider the possibility that they have no more choice than you do. Please understand that there is a difference in being homosexual and Pederastery(which is a choice)
I apologize to TinMan13. I was just reacting to your suggestion that I was being disingenuous. I’m quite serious about what I’ve said. I appreciate that you realize that you have no choice about which gender you are attracted to and can see how someone else could also be “hardwired” differently.
For those who think because I advocate for the GLBT community that I must be “gay”…you’re wrong. But, I don’t take my word for it. You know me so much better than I do.
Oh, Gregor…there are studies that indicate differences in the brain chemistry of people who are monogamous and those who are polyamorous.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM
So I guess that is a NO for the truce, huh?
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Agreed. We can agree to disagree here and agree to stop being pains in each others necks. heh (though I will not blame you if you wish to respond to my 4:41PM, but that will be the last of my snark and sarcasm for the thread)
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM
The way you flush out a militant gay is to point out that one day, the gene that causes homosexuality will be discovered and people will be aborting gay fetuses left and right. You will then see the whiny “I wouldn’t choose to be gay!!!” crowd turn into the most pro-life group ever.
They wouldn’t choose homosexuality, but they would resist a couples choice to abort a fetus that would be gay? Me thinks they doest protesteth too much.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:45 PM
LMAO! I get into these types of “conversations” with my husband all the time, not particularly about gays, but alot of things and well we definitly agree to disagree!
This is what makes America such a great country that you can have disagreements with others and well, still live to see the next day.
:)
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Well, my mother knows everything about everything (she has waited a long time to hear me say that, and I hope someday my kids will say the same) and is always right, so what she said about knowing he was gay from a very young age has to be true.
/sarc off
:)
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Completely agreed, csdeven.
They would also do well to not disregard valid arguments such as the critique of the “genetic/born that way” argument, when the same is applied to pedophiles/”animaphiles”.
The militant crowd always takes offense to that comparison, but they are the ones who opened themselves up to it by creating the “sexual orientation”. They should be open to debating it and agreeing that our society can regulate actions based on sexual orientation.
For example, all they have to respond with is saying that, yes, pedophiles and “animaphiles” are just as equal as anyone else, but they cannot act on their sexual attraction, because it is harmful.
But I guess that opens them up to the next question of whether or not we should try to help pedophiles and “animaphiles” “cure” themselves of their genetic sexual desires. Which would lead people to ask the same about “curing” homosexuals.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM
NAMBLA believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 12 years old. They say this because, like people who are born gay and know it at age 7, the objects of their affections are attracted to older males and know it by age 12.
Once the gays can establish a rational on homosexuality at a very early age, NAMBLA will use the same exact rational.
Funny thing is that in order to get their agenda passed, the militant gays have to distance themselves from NAMBLA who use the same argument they do in order to legitimize they lifestyle.
Yeah, slippery slope.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 4:53 PM
But “curing” homosexuals would be considered offensive and we cannot offend any minority group, evah!
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Heather and Michael, thanks. I am proud to be part of HA today.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 4:55 PM
So true. Oh, and who supports NAMBLA? Why, of course, the ACLU! Sick bastards.
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Hey, it’s Friday! Friday’s are always good days to make new friends! :)
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Heh. I have a few friends at work with whom I am in complete and utter disagreement politically (I’m conservative and support the war effort, they are Commie libs/9/11 Truth types, wholeheartedly opposed to the war effort), but once we figured that out, we just decided to not talk politics and stay friends. :)
I am not sure if I could manage that with a wife though. One of the most important qualities for me which I look for in a woman is intelligence and ability to hold a conversation and debate issues and have her own opinions and not be afraid to challenge me and defend her stances. However there are two things on which I could not just have a healthy disagreement with her: abortion and the war effort/supporting the military. Because that would affect how we raise our children.
Of course, having this requirement for my dating possibilities keeps me single with no prospects at 31. :/
Oh well… sorry for the digression from regularly scheduled *On Topic* commenting.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Apology accepted, no reason at all to be uncivil.
I have a question about your studies, though. How many brains were examined? Was there enough in the group to be an actual representation of humanity as a whole? What questions were posed in the study? All of these things can be manipulated for the same reason polls are unreliable.
Corrolary: Just as fingerprints are no longer the conclusive proof they once were ( the more people in the system, the less differences between them) will the studies performed show, over time, that anything conclusive about these questions is, in fact, conclusive at all? Everything being individual, as has been stated, and many instances of individuals having differing ‘orientations,’ is it not conceivable that some are born, some are made, some are both, and some can’t decide?
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM
So, if you’re not saying he “looked gay” at 7 years old, then what are you saying? Was he running around spanking guys on the a$$? Please! So how does a 7 year old “act” that would indicate to his mother that he’s going to be (or is) gay, lol? Maybe she caught him dressing Ken dolls in the basement? This is precious.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I’ll have to keep in mind that Friday is the day for truces. Not all my back-and-forths have ended so well!
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Catseye, I know very well about the “physiological differences” in the brains. What you are not admitting, perhaps, is that our brains change to whatever activity we do. There’s a difference between the brains of a football player and a web programmer, simply because of what they do. It changes our brains.
I would like you, Catseye, to address MY argument that the gay rights movement is essentially stating we are nothing more than animals, who cannot break out of our instincts.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 5:00 PM
And you know the teasing had nothing to do with his “choice” to have sexual relations with the same sex how exactly?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Good post.
right2bright on August 10, 2007 at 5:03 PM
I’ll have to remember that too (and try to pretend that all days are Fridays!), as all my back-and-forths have not ended so well either (whether in online comment sections or in person). I can be a stubborn bast*rd when I am in that mood. Heh.
Michael in MI on August 10, 2007 at 5:07 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
So we are all transparent Bigots?
ScottyDog on August 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Thanks, right2bright! I sometimes think that many people don’t realize all the implications of both sides of the argument.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Really? Why is that? Have you ever ASKED a homosexual WHY they’re gay? Other than “I was born that way” … what other answers would they possibly have?
“Because it feels good?”
“Because it’s easy sex?”
“Because the opposite sex are all stupid?”
The only answer which wouldn’t lead to it being a “choice” would be that they were “born that way.” But, how could they possibly “know this?” When they were seven years old, did they suddenly start having urges for the same sex, as Heather would have you believe? Or, was it sooner than that? Did God speak to them? Was there a mark on their skin which indicates this? Please tell me how a gay person knows they were “born that way” other than other gay people TELLING THEM that this is the only acceptable conclusion based on absolutely nothing ever proven.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I’m not transparent but I am very fair-skinned.
ConstantSorrow on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Crr6, did you simply not comprehend the comment, or did you just pretend not to? What part of the difference between “desire” and “action” do you not understand?
One can have a sexual desire for young children, but never once act on that desire. That’s a simple concept, correct? We’re talking about “the desire” which according to some in here … it’s genetic and completely out of one’s control.
So, if that’s true, then we should not get upset when we catch Uncle Billy pleasuring himself while looking at photos of a two year old boy, or a goat for that matter.
If this is true, then these people could all start up a club called “Pedophiles and Proud” right next to an elementary school and we should do nothing about it unless we actually catch them doing something WITH a child.
And … having negative thoughts about these people who have never really ACTED on their impulses would make us BIGOTS, correct? Because we’re not allowed to think anyone’s sexual “desire” to be deviant, since it’s out of their control.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Please point us to ONE study done by a research team without some sort of connection (be it through funding or the staff itself to the far left, or the gay agenda. Any study you point to can be tracked to a far left or gay agenda.
I didn’t assume that. I simply assume that you have a family member who’s gay, or … you have gay friends. Because everyone knows that if you have gay friends … it must be okay.
There are studies that indicate differences in EVERY brain in the world. Can you point us to a study which shows that “cheating on your spouse” is not a choice? Have you ever been cheated on? If so, did you hug them and cry for them while telling them that you’re sorry that they were forced into doing such a horrible thing because of a difference in their brain? Did you tell them not to worry, because you accept them just the way they are? And if you haven’t been cheated on … I’m assuming this would be your reaction, based on your comment.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Correct. And societies control deviant behavior all the time, as is their right – the majority gets to decide. Without that, we have anarchy and pandering to the absolute minority, the individual and their desires become the protected.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Even though we may not get along too well, I LOVE this answer!
heatherrc77 on August 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
How do I really know I’m straight? Did god tell me? Was there a mark on my skin that indicated this? No. But I know for sure that I didn’t choose to be straight. Because wouldn’t you know if you chose? Then wouldn’t you also know if you didn’t choose? You don’t have to specifically remember being born gay, thats impossible. You just have to know you didn’t choose it.
lol
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 5:42 PM
TinMan13 and Vanceone.
The articles I’m currently referencing deal with independent post-mortem brain studies by D.F. Swaab, Laura S. Allen and Simon LeVay. Only the LeVay article indicated the number of brains (19) in the study. All looked at the hypothalmus and indicated differences. Additionally, there are neuroendocrine rat studies that indicate a possible physiologic difference created during the gender formation phase of the fetus that is determined by the levels of androgen the mother is for lack of a better word, “exposed” to. Please note that I’ve never indicated that any of these studies are absolutely conclusive, but rather I’ve simply argued that “choice” as an absolute cause is wrong.
As far as an “animal” argument being used by the GLBT community, in the 10 year’s I’ve worked in the community, I’ve not heard it ever put that way. However, I would like to suggest that IF we are talking about nature, in whatever form, that we have no right in the hetrosexual community to require the GLBT community to “rehabilitate” or not allow them to establish the same type of family relationship we enjoy. Most of the militancy I’ve encountered is born out of frustration of constantly being criticized and at not being able to establish familial relationships on the same level as their hetrosexual co-citizens. For those who don’t believe it, rights vary state by state and what may hold true in one state may not in another. One such case would be medical power of attorney. Though a civil union may be valid in the state where the couple is residing, it doesn’t mean that if one partner falls ill in another state that the well partner will have the right to make medical decisions. A blood relative may be allowed to come in and take over, even deciding against the wishes of the sick partner. In some states, without force of a marriage license, the only way a surviving partner may claim their loved one’s body is as sole claimant.
My sole concern in this thread has been trying to explain why there is so much frustration in the GLBT community. I’ve not tried to win points or out argue anyone. I simply want everyone afforded the same rights and I don’t think I’ll see it as long as people think there is no possiblity of this being anything other than an issue of choice.
Gotta go. Can’t say it’s totally be fun. I’ll try to check and see if this thread is still going when I get home.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
do you live in America? Cause you’re not describing our government at all. The Constitution was designed so that the majority couldn’t rule with tyranny over the minority. Thats a reason we have the judicial branch. No one (except you apparently) wants a mobocracy. If we did live in the state you described we’d probably still have the seperate but equal doctrine in the South. I mean hey, the majority liked it that way!
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM
They have the same rights now. You advocate making them a protected class because they want to wear what they do in their bedroom on their sleeve and prevent anyone from having a differing point of view. I don’t care if someone is GLBT. I just don’t want them to shove it down my throat metaphorically. I don’t tell people what I like because it is none of their business. Period.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
How exactly do you KNOW you didn’t choose to be straight? Maybe because you weren’t mocked, teased, and humiliated as a child and felt comfortable around women? Maybe you didn’t strike out the first 27 times you asked a girl out, which might have caused you to say yes when you were at a sleepover and your same sex buddy decided he would take care of you.
Here’s another question:
If it’s chosen for you at birth and out of our hands, then why do homosexual groups fight so hard to convince our kids that it’s okay to experiment? Why are there actually books put out by these groups and put into schools in Canada instructing kids to give it a shot? Shouldn’t it just come naturally? Shouldn’t they just shut up and let the kid’s natural desire take place? Why do they feel it necessary to push kids into trying something that is most likely against their natural instinct?
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I was on Daily Kos and replied to a “diary” that claimed that people are born gay. I wrote that I thought being gay was a choice. Guess what happened? Poof! My post disappears.
SoulGlo on August 10, 2007 at 6:03 PM
do you live in America? Cause you’re not describing our government at all. The Constitution was designed so that the majority couldn’t rule with tyranny over the minority. Thats a reason we have the judicial branch. No one (except you apparently) wants a mobocracy. If we did live in the state you described we’d probably still have the seperate but equal doctrine in the South. I mean hey, the majority liked it that way!
crr6 on August 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I’m on the border with Mexico, so maybe I don’t quite live in America after all…
Our society makes laws, yes? The majority elects representatives based upon what those representatives stand for, yes? In order to have those representatives create and enforce laws they agree with, yes? Since the Constitution allows for this, I stand by my statement. Witness San Francisco – they have rules endorsed by the majority of citizens. There are conservatives there who don’t believe in gay marriage, yet the local government sanctions it.
Do you mean to suggest that the Judiciary makes the laws?
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
As has been asked several times on this thread …
What “rights” do you feel you don’t have exactly?
You have the same ability to marry the opposite sex as every other person in this country. What “rights” do gays not have?
Here’s a one-sided right for you:
What do you think would happen if a bunch of heterosexuals were to march naked through San Francisco, holding perverted signs, performing sexual acts in public, and mocking the gay community?
How long do you think it would take for it to be shut down and participants arrested for hate crimes, or accused of being bigots?
Why do gays have certain RIGHTS that non-gays do not have?
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Hey, man, it’s okay for them to be born gay, but it isn’t okay for you to be born disagreeing, okay? That’s deviant on your part.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM
The reason they brainwash kids in the public schools is to increase the number of converts.
IMHO
ScottyDog on August 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I think that how much they are “brainwashed” really depends on what kind of involvement their parents have in their lives and upbringing. But that’s just my take.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Exactly, and it’s actually a brilliant strategy. If they can convince children at age 12 to experiment, and that it’s perfectly normal … then there are very few children at 13, 14, and 15 that won’t TRY it, just out of curiosity. Of course, the physical pleasure is going to be there regardless of who is doing the pleasuring, so they know they’re putting the children into a situation they’re going to enjoy, especially at puberty when they’re urges are exploding as it is.
Once the child has tried it, they have a member of their defense team for life. Most people who have tried something will defend it in order to avoid the guilt and shame.
Try finding an ex pot-head to admit it’s wrong.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
If the left sometimes goes overboard in following its argument to absurd conclusions, I think we can also that the right doesn’t even follow its own arguments to logical conclusions.
If one is willing to admit that there is a large group of gay people who, for whatever reason, are gay and are going to continue to be gay, then we want to do something to keep them in stable relationships and not have an ideological grudge that makes them want to undermine heterosexual families with children. Please remember that the advocates of gay marriage are considered traitors by gay people who think homosexuality should mean promiscuity. The gay advocates of promiscuity and perversion don’t want promiscuity and perversion for just gays, but for everybody. They are the people who must be fought.
Thus, we need gay marriage to try to get as many gay people to buy into the current system of marriage, so that they won’t try to subvert marriage, with the bad effects that would cause.
Supporting gay marriage is defending marriage.
thuja on August 10, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Unfortunately, when public schools are taking it upon themselves to tell children that their parents are bigots and that it’s perfectly normal to try it, while handing the child a condom at the same time … parents are at a huge disadvantage. What if schools were teaching kids that they should try meth? What if they had assemblies where they told the kids that they should all go out and do drugs? What if they passed out clean needles at the schools to insure safety from HIV? Would parents have a chance?
What’s that? Oh, they already DO those things? My bad.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM
LOL! With that, I don’t think I can take anymore.
Hey! Supporting murder is to support the justice system!
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Vanceone, you might be much more–or much less–persuasive if you provided some citation or support for these numbers. What’s your co-author’s name? Given his prominence, it seems it ought to be easy to look up some of his published work on the Web, or at least the abstracts. You said your paper was your “main paper” in graduate school. Was it your master’s thesis or your doctoral dissertation? Were you able to get it published? Can you give interested readers a URL or some other way to look it up?
Kralizec on August 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Then why do you think that other heterosexuals shouldn’t make observations/conclusions about homosexuals, since you obviously think it is okay for your mom (Mrs. Gaydar) to make them?
nottakingsides on August 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Count one
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 6:37 PM
The last of our three just graduated from Public Schools and went into college. Not a bad one in the bunch — all responsible and independent. The franker the discussions at home the better equipped they are to resist. Not easy I agree but with a good stable two parent home it can be done.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I agree 100% that good parents are a must and are the single most important factor in a child’s life.
The fact that there are parents who manage to teach their children correctly doesn’t really change anything I said. The point is that IF you’re teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong, then you can’t feel comfortable knowing that the school administration is telling your child that you’re a bigot and that you’re wrong. You have no choice in the matter, because the school, and the gays don’t want you interfering with their lifestyle.
Gregor on August 10, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Gregor,
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
Kralizec, I have been debating whether I should release it–it contains my real name, of course. Yes, it was published, though I’m an attorney by trade. 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.
As for citing LeVay, as Catseye does… I would venture to point out that LeVay has specifically said there’s no such thing as a gay gene. With respect to the brain studies, I would cite one by Marc Breedlove in Nature (1997) that demonstrated that sexual activity causes brain differences, not that brain differences cause sexual activity.
It’s a complex area, to be sure.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 7:07 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
Oh, I just realized I didn’t cite my homosexuality as physically more dangerous. Here is a nice beginning:
Paul Cameron, et. al. The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic 29 OMEGA: J. DEATH & DYING 249, 259-60 (1994).
Also, see Satinover.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 7:13 PM
But it works both ways. Our biggest emphasis is that it is only God’s reserve to judge others. The kids aren’t afraid to know gay people and come to understand them. Living in the deep south with the southern baptists exposes a lot of judgmental and sometimes hypocritical behavior. The cheerleader telling my child they will certainly go to hell if they don’t repent but come Saturday night the pom poms are put away and her knees are getting … shall we say dirty. The running debate that ensued as they grew up was being able to separate holy from sinful behavior, without discounting religion at large.
The Bible was translated several times and my personal opinion is that the homosexuality references possibly were embellished in order to maintain discipline in the dark ages when all male monasteries were the few sources of educated people and clergy.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 7:19 PM
That’s not accurate. You have the right to marry anyone you choose that complies with your nature. Most likely, you don’t have to worry about walking down in the party areas of town on Saturday night with out someone assaulting you because you look “straight”. Doesn’t work that way all the time for GBLT. Hopefully you don’t have to worry about things like background checks that look into who you live with or have children who are ostrasized at school because of the family constellation. Can you go to any church you like? If your spouse died, would you be able to claim the body? Doesn’t happen in every state for GBLT or anyone else not married. I know a lesbian couple with 3 children (one woman is the natural mother) they’ve been together for around 10 years and the lady who is not the blood relative has been every much a mother to those kids as the natural one. Now the natural mother is gravely ill and her blood relatives are trying to take the kids even though they’ve not been part of their lives the whole 10 years. Is that right? If this was a married step father would the same thing happen? Because they can’t marry or even have a civil union in this state, she has no rights to the kids or even to make arrangements for her “spouse” of 10 years. I don’t what anyone to have more than the rest, I just want all citizens to have the same rights unless they have committed a criminal act that warrents taking or restricting those rights.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I agree with you about the equal treatment for illnesses and all that you described. Where I disagree is that the equality extends to forcing churches to support things (easy example is a church sued because they refuse to perform a marriage ceremony) their doctrine may not condone – in effect breaking the church and state separation rules.
IMHO civil unions absolutely, marriage just can’t quite that far.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 7:41 PM
You need to go to this NARTH.com link (http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html) for an unbiased view on the causes of homosexuality. It is extremely comprehensive and fair to all sides – and all studies, but it says specifically that there is no such thing as a ‘gay gene’.
sorry about the link but my computer is going haywire recently. The link is worth the cut and paste on this issue though.
My question to those in the ‘born that way’ camp is this. . . are there ANY gay people who CHOOSE that lifestyle? Are there ANY confused people out there who could possibly be mistaken?
AND TOO, catseye, why do you stop at GLBT? It used to be just gay and lesbian (GL), then it was GLB when they added the bisexual. Bisexual has to be considered a choice and not something you are ‘born with’ because you choose to be with 1. multiple partners, and 2. multiple sexes. But that’s not enough, now it’s transgender. So now (according to you) you have people who are BORN with the desire to be another sex?
The further it goes the more ridiculous it gets.
And to say you are born with an ‘attraction to’ the opposite sex is also dumb. Who doesn’t look at themselves in the mirror every day to make themselves look as good as possible? Everyone does. So that indicates we all have knowledge of what is attractive in the same sex (ourselves). So the desire to make yourself attractive automatically makes you understand what is attractive in the same sex.
So everyone who combs their hair (silky included) to make themselves attractive must be considered to be ‘born gay’ because they know what is attractive and desire to project that in their same sex.
ThackerAgency on August 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM
That’s part of why I’ve not made any statements dealing in absolutes. Nothing so far is conclusive. Which is why I’m arguing so hard against absolute “choice” claims. If we err on the side of providing rights and looking at at people as humans with feelings rather than “the dyke” or “the queer” or “the pervert” (and by this I do not mean that I’m endorsing any activity that causes victimization) it’s possible that this could all settle down.
Most of the studies I’ve looked at deal with en utero development as a causal factor.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
These things are not topical as they deal with individual perception of gays. Making laws to control individual thoughts/feelings/perceptions cannot be done.
Now you’re talking about ‘civil unions,’ which is different than ‘marriage.’ I have no argument with ‘civil unions,’ read above.
Since you propose legislation that would affect how people think, you are directly contradicting the final part of your statement – not only would you deny law abiding citizens their right to think and act freely, you would effect laws that would make gays a protected class.
TinMan13 on August 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
If I had my druthers, the “state” would simply broker civil unions (all they really want are the fees and record keeping anyway) and let churches deal with marriages. As for the suit over a church not performing a marrage, that was stupid. Metropolitan Community Churches throughout the country would do it in a blink. I never said that some things some people in the community do aren’t counter productive.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Wasn’t implying you did. I think we are pretty much in agreement on this.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Some lesbians don’t…..(the non-lipstick variety)….hehe..
nottakingsides on August 10, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Well, I’m aware of the in utero studies as well, and I agree–this stuff is in flux, and there’s no real consensus (despite shrill gay propagandists claims).
So my objections turn on deeper grounds. One, gay sex is harmful physically. It’s not healthy, nor can it ever be. This extends to all anal sex, of course.
Two, it dominates people’s self images. I’m gay, and that is my defining characteristic.
Three, the whole “I can’t help it, I’m born that way” basically reduces humans to the level of animals who cannot control our actions. As a philosophical matter, I reject that notion that we do not have free will and cannot control our actions.
Gay sex is a priori unhealthy, and should not be encouraged. It removes people from raising their OWN family. Yes, yes, I know you can point to adoptions, infertile couples, etc, but by allowing gay marriage, you thereby state it is fully acceptable and indeed, something to look forward to. In other words, the argument would go, “tis better to be gay and married than straight and single” and I just cannot endorse any sort of “gay sex is okay” conclusion or implication.
4th, Marriage is about family, not about two adults in love. Gay marriage on its face precludes raising your own family. It redirects the concept of marriage to satisfy the pleasures of the adults, not towards providing a sanctuary for children to be raised in a loving, nurturing environment. Yes, I’m sure there are some gays who could do just that, but since by definition, a gay couple cannot have children of their own, the whole definition of marriage is rearranged. And redefining marriage in terms of selfish desires is not high on my list of priorities, either.
Vanceone on August 10, 2007 at 8:10 PM
To be honest, there were some lesbian couples I know that I think were established because of the way some man had treated one or both of them and if they found a good man would be just a happy, but they are happy as they are. And of course some people just seem to not know what they want. Like I’ve said all along, there are no absolutes.
As for the increasing number of groups falling under the GBLT umbrella, is it possible that the are simply coming out to be who they are because they are now better tolerated in our society? Remember,it’s not been too long ago that our society didn’t tolerate divorce.
And yes, there are some people who exhibit bisexual behavior because it’s chic. Interestingly enough, I know lesbians that think bi-women are just confused lesbians. I have no studies to back up either alternative. I do know one biwoman I was in a relationship with described bisexuality as the capacity to love an individual irregardless of their gender. Something I’ve notices about bifemales, not chic party girls, is that they seem to have a heavier jaw line than normal. Just a personal observation.
As for transgender, there are post mortem studies that indicate transgender individuals, at least male to female, have brain structures that are more like female than male. Again the studies look at the mother’s hormonal levels during the time that the fetus is “deciding” which gender their body will take. If the studies are accurate, in transgender individuals brain structures may go one way and the rest of the body seems to go another. I need to look up Vanceone’s Breedlove cite. It sounds interesting and could influence my opinion. We’ll see.
Catseye on August 10, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »