Richardson Flubs at HRC/LOGO Debate
Download | play 
Download | play
Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you. Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question. [..]
UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.
He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."
He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."
This is disappointing to say the least...I'm a big fan of Gov. Richardson but this was just fundamentally stupid. You don't go to a GLBT debate and not have this answer prepped. There's no excuse in the 21st century for a Democrat to fumble this one.
What a idiot. Where did he think he was, a republican debate?
I'm not sure it really matters whether it's a choice or whether people are born gay. I agree he should have been prepped on the question, but we're not in the business of legislating an answer to that question, and equal rights don't depend on the answer to it.
I think this is kind of a devil's argument. It presupposes the rightie idea that if it's a choice, then equal rights aren't in the equation. It's a moral choice, so it's ok to discriminate--that's the argument, isn't it?
My feeling is, who cares? Equal rights don't depend on the answer to the question. From that standpoint what's wrong with what Richardson said? What's wrong with saying, "it doesn't matter... people who are gay deserve respect and equal rights no matter how they got that way."
What am I missing?
Well, except for being a democrat. Its what they do, fumble things.
Maybe he was prepping himself on more sophisticated questions. His answer sounded a lot like, "I don't know what science says, and I think its irrelevant because we should all be equal anyway." It's possible that he was also thinking that its not black and white (straight and gay) and that rigid categorization doesn't do us any good.
Either way, he fumbled.
Stick a fork in Richardson - he's done. He's not high in the polls, and he can't afford this kind of a screw up. Nice knowin's ya! don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Actually this is debated among the GLBT community itself. The more conservative answer is that it is biological and thus immutable as "God's creation". On the gay liberation side, a strictly biological cause is a potential double edged sword where it could then be genetically tested for, and weeded out, just like disabilities or deafness.
Calling out Latino and African American (and obviously of course every other ethnic and racial minority in the country who are less on board the issue) on their perceived homophobia is itself a political land mine.
The Canadian Conservative party eeked out a minority victory in 2006 partly because the Liberal party which is strong among minority communities went for full same-sex marriage rights. This is the dangerous political context, just as same-sex marriage bills were up for referendum vote in so many states that drew fundamentalist Bush supporters to the polls in 2004.
Well Richardson could have said "it's a learned behavior." Bet that would have struck some buttons.
Homosexuality is not an easy issue for many people. While they may intellectually believe that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders should not be discriminated against, they still feel an emotional aversion to homosexuality, and for many it conflicts with deeply held emotional beliefs.
On the opposite end, look what happens to staunch conservatives on this issue when they discover that a child or grandchild is gay or lesbian.
Look at racism. We chopped down the tree, but the roots run deep. It is no longer socially acceptable for our leaders to be publically rascist, but many still are.
Think progress, not perfection. Richardson could have said the "politically correct" thing without meaning it. He is getting criticized for a moment of unscripted honesty.
oops.
Nice write-up about the HRC/LOGO Visible Vote forum.
I don't see a problem here. So he didn't know the answer? Who cares? He said he was for equality, and that's good enough for me.
This seems rather nit-picky.
I don't understand why what Richardson said is so objectionable. You can make progressive arguements from either the coice or the biological premise. Moreover, he maily expresses doubt that he knows the answer. Is a President candidate who knows he does not know everything, rather than pander, such a bad thing?
His policies are, to me, the more important indicator of his fitness for Pres. Would that so many sites had spent the time examining those.
if it's choice - you bad. wrong answer.
if it's biological - let medicine fix it. wrong answer.
it's a trap question.
the only correct answer to that question really is "should it matter ?"
He said he's not a scientist and that he sees gays as people just like anybody else. Being seen as a human being is what matters most to me. I'm not going to vilify him.
I even have trouble define gay or lesbian behavior and anyone who says otherwise is free to have their option. The entire concept of embracing the Bis in to this throws the question into the eternal question. WHAT THE FUCK OVER???
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
I think this question is very stupid. I couldn't care less if being gay is a choice or biological. Either way, it's none of my business what consenting adults choose to do that makes them happy (as long as no one is harmed/abused).
If I make the willful choice to date only blondes as that makes me happy, then why should that matter to anyone if no one is harmed by that choice?
Gay Is The New Black...
If by "black" you believe that gay people in America today, with their current Second Class Citizenship Status being what it is, legally, like in States like Virginia, and over 20 other US States as well, are more or less in the same boat that Black Americans were in when our United States Constitution defined Black people as being 3/5ths of a human being, then yes....
'Gay Is The New Black."
It's a 'choice', right?
Well if it's a choice, then consider this...
I had a gay, black, Annapolis Lieutenant, that looked like Denzel Washington, (that took a liking to me, because I went to the College that's directly across the street from the Naval Academy in Annapolis), avidly pursue me on the Base I was stationed at as an enlisted marine in the late 1980s, that I had to forcefully rebuff his sexual advances towards me, more than once, that I didn't turn in because:
a) I would never do that
b) it would have been a waste of his very expensive taxpayer education and promising career
c) I thought the policy was/is retarded and
d) oh, right, I'm as straight as an arrow
Are you going to tell me that this man was going to simply risk throwing away a multi-million dollar education and military career because he wanted to get a little nookie from me?
I'm a reasonably attractive man, but c'mon, nobody's that good looking.
No reasonable person, or anybody in their right mind would choose this for themselves and if you can't see that from the above example, I can't help you.
~Nyc
he probably never really thought about it. its a dumb question anyway. maybe its a choice. maybe its biological. who cares? does it matter? should it matter?
i believe there have been studies done on identical twins that are raised by different parents. if one is homosexual then there is 50+% chance the other one will be homosexual too. so i guess the answer is "both" but i still think its a dumb question.
I have to say that it did not strike me as that bad UNLESS you play the soundbite game, and ignore everything else he says (thats just my personal opinion, I claim to represent no one, and do not mean to offend anyone)
Just imagine how the GOPers love watching the dems tear themselves apart.
I think the question is out of line.
From the point of view of equal rights it doesn't matter if one chooses to be homosexual or one just is
drawn to someone of the same sex. Do heterosexuals "choose" to be heterosexuals or do they just find that
they are drawn to people of the opposite sex?
If the state is going to grant privileges to two people who join together in some kind of contractual relationship
it has no business discriminating whether the couple is hetero or homosexual.
I disagree with the condemnation of Richardson on this.
I believe he said that people should be treated as equals under the law.
It seems that some people want homosexuality to considered as something we're born with. They say that as if to
say, "look - it's not our fault. We were born that way". The other group wants to say, "look, you choose to be
a freak - no equal rights for you".
I feel that homosexuality could be a choice for some. It could be an inclination for others. It can also be a
learned behavior depending on environment.
The point is - every citizen of this increasingly stupid country is entitled to the same rights under the law as
any other citizen. Period.
Yeah, he didn't handle that question skillfully and it's odd that he wouldn't have been prepared to answer the question. But I'm with the people who say it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter what the answer to the question. Whether sexual orientation is biological or choice or a combination, the only question that really matters is whether someone should be deprived of equal rights because of sexual orientation. And on that question, it seems Richardson is on the right page. All the rest is bullshit.
Lady at End of Clip said:
How does it make it easier? I don't exactly understand.
i prefer brunettes. is that a choice or is it biological?
Railden Says:
every citizen of this increasingly stupid country is entitled to the same rights under the law as
any other citizen. Period.
Beautiful.
None of this matters. If you lived in NM and had experienced Our Bill's anger, manipulation, politcal triangulation, ignorance of the corruption under his nose, and general pandering to the powerful, you would not be a fan. He combines the worst elements of LBJ and Bill Clinton. Or maybe a combination of Dick Daley and Huey Long.
The only reason some worry about whether or not homosexuality is a choice is because they see it as a sin or criminal; are you choosing to be damned or are you born damned. If homosexuality is not a sin or a crime, then whether it is a choice or not is not relevant.
Gads. Bungled.
spiritcatcher @ 12:
You nailed it!
Homosexuality is a choice. And so is heterosexuality. Love is an action. And as is the case for all actions, it requires a choice, otherwise there are no consequences of loving another person. And if you think that there should be no consequenses for beginning a love relationship, then you don't know what love is.
Let's be slightly less programatic about our general responses to speaking, answering people as opposed to just waiting until us choirboys and girls get preached to. I thought we wanted change?
He was talking to Ms. Ethridge. What the fuck do you think she was going to ask? The air must be pretty rare in that hot state. He looked as dumb as a hockey puck. "Wha, Where am I? What are we talking about? Who are you?
He sounded as astute as Mr. Obama's reference to the Canadian "President"
Well, it's clear to me that Richardson doesn't spend a lot of time obsessing over the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or choose to be gay. In his mind, apparently it doesn't matter; his concern is that they should be given equal rights. Having inartfully answered the question, he then went on to stumble over a marriage bill being presented to him. Why are they playing "gotcha" with somebody who isn't antagonistic toward gays? I don't get it.
Let's try to make the path smoother for Democrats and rockier for Repubs, please. Our candidates don't have the luxury of a string in their backs being pulled by the fundie/bushie base which provides all their answers to them ahead of time for every possible issue.
Self-immolated is a bit strong. Nature vs nurture is an important distinction but I think his heart is in the right place on this one. He just needs to think it through a bit more. A learning experience. Let's move on and stop the self-immolation talk.
ohdave @ 2:
You pretty much took the words out of my mouth. It's as if democrats have been fooled into saying that gays deserve rights only because it's not a choice, thereby buying into the religious right's nonsense about how it's "not the person, the behavior". So many churches consider it open-minded to say, "It's okay to have an attraction to the same sex (because you can't help it) just so long as you don't act on those urges."
(It's okay if you are a man who was born with an attraction to females, just so long as you don't act on it. Now how ridiculous does that sound?) Melissa Ethridge's question could easily be interpreted as, "Are you pro-choice when it comes to engaging in consentual homosexual behavior?" If that were the question, then Richardson's first answer was a good one. Maybe he was just seriously pondering a difficult biological/metaphysical question. I personally find it hard to believe that someone could will themselves into a biological desire they didn't naturally have, but I'm not discounting the possibility. Maybe there are some talented cosmic shapeshifters out there who can do this, and if so, kudos to them. The bottom line is, even if it is a choice, so what?! What difference does it make if we're talking about consenting adults who are not infringing on anyone's rights to life, liberty, or property?
Richardson believes being gay is a choice, SO? It has not been proven either way, choice or genetics.
Put some perspective on it: The Republicans, though invited, did not have one representative there ... but we all know what the Rethugs are for (they may have lied but we know) .... and the Republican party wants to wipe out everyone who is not a superzealot right wing Christian patriot .. the Rethugs back wife abuse, child abuse, keeping people in poverty, every type of discrimination against Latinos, blacks, women, non-Christians that don't march lockstep with them ...this is the Republican party ...whose leading candidate at the moment equates tours in Iraq with campaigning for Dad for President
I don't think Hillary would do one damn thing to help gays or lesbians or anybody...and Richardson has it alll over Hillary and the rest when it comes to experience in many areas.
He is a good decent man ..and he believes that two people should be free to love one another without discrimination ... what else do you want?
Most of the others, because they are Democrats, also believe in gays having equal rights and not being discriminated against ... (except Hillary ..she would sell the gays out in a blink of an eye)
Considering the war, the widespread poverty, the enviroment, the other problems...can't we be happy with a man who says he doesn't know, but that it is important that discrimination is done away with ...isn't that what is important ?
This is a question I can only answer from my personal experience. I never made a choice to be straight, but growing up I always found myself romantically and physically attracted to women. Turns out that makes me a straight, heterosexual male. It seems to me I'm just hardwired that way. As far as marriage goes, to me that is something that is mandated by religion and the government is not to advocate for any particular religion. So as far at I am concerned, the government should authorize whatever form of union (marriage if you want to call it that) equally for all couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
That's a reasoned answer. "Not understanding" the question shows a lack of examination of a basic question in our society...especially for a politician.
Smack_dab @ 15:
It's a stupid question. I guess the question becomes more complicated when there is more than just two consenting adults involved, i.e. an adopted child.
Scientifically, we know homosexuality is likely the result of hormonal imbalances during pregnancy. My mother actually did a study in 70s where she treated fetal sheep with different hormones, and produced a flock of gay sheep. She brought one home who I had named Starsky (Starsky & Hutch). He grew up into a completely gay ram. Kept him until he started attacking me on my walk home from school. He used to hide in the bushes waiting for me to walk by, and then would come after me butting me in the rump as I ran screaming all the way home. Good times.
Anyway, I don't think such findings discount the nurture element, and it seems nurture would enter into the discussion of rights when there are others involved. So to discount it outright as Etheridge does seems dubious.
What do you call it when hetero men get together to "bond"?
Bil-Bill-Bill........if you get "confused" on a simple question like that I guess your not presidential.
Wait a minute...bush got elected....
I watched this live and it was embarrassing to see. I like a lot of things about Bill, but he is NOT a quick thinker.
Ignominious-bush @ 38:
Maybe he needs to watch a Cheney interview. Anytime, Cheney is asked a question, he simply ignores it and rattles off his talking points (ie his pack of lies).
Lets all celebrate the fact that we can have an open forum on this with differing opinions that are treated equally!!!. Hey, the majority of comments are disagreeing with some of the thing the blog is asserting!!! how wonderful! How nice to see people who do not blindly agree with everything that they are presented. I respect Nicoles opinion, but I am even more happy to see people thinking for themselves for a change. Kudos.
Now, if we could get the same mojo out to the voting public at large so that we can stop killing eachother while the top dogs watch and laugh.
I'm so disappointed. I thought Richardson was a lot smarter than that. No excuse - he should be EDUCATED on the science of the issue.
I have a republican friend who told me she thought people just "acted gay to get attention." A lot of ignorance out there folks...
No excuse for somebody running for president to be this ignorant. Bad question or not. His answer was WRONG and did show his ignorance.
Yeah, there is an excuse for this....Richardson is simply a bad candidate. Both him and Biden should bow out any day now
Comon' give the guy a break.
People don't know it all and, hopefully, people are interested in learning it all if they could
Hence, I suggest that the gay community spends more of its time educating people.
I'm part First Nation (that's how Indians are refered to in Canada) and I often criticize First Nations for putting almost 100% of their efforts in claims, activism and rioting while spending almost no time and effort educating the rest of Canadians about their past, about how the government schemed in the past to assimilate them through destructive means and I believe that common people, when properly informed, can make a better assessment on an issue (how could someone make a good assessment without proper information)
I didn't feel Richardon was unsensitive while answering these questions he just seemed opened-minded yet ill-informed.
I'm glad he said that he doesn't know instead of just making some shit up. Good for him.
I think Richardson needs some slack on this--his heart and his brain were in the right place. He just wasn't as slick or as prepared as the other candidates but he said nothing that was intentionally offensive and i think it makes the GLTB look a little like "gotcha" and for what?? I would rather see an honest reaction to such a question, a question where it is assumed there is only one right answer (which Richardson didn't give), than see or hear pandering.
No doubt that Gov Richardson had a very tough time indeed, even discussing gay or lesb. orientation.
No matter how he personally came down on it as an issue. He wrestled with how to even discuss it.
Didn't he know what he was going to be asked about and prepare at the least?
Gays actively discriminate against straights too. Don't delude yourself.
Ali @ 41:
Richardson may not have had all his facts together ... but clearly, he expressing a liberal view of homosexual partners.
The fact that homosexuality is genetically disposed is not something that has been universally excepted or even talked of in the meida until very recently.
Give the guy a break.
Greg Palast wasn't too kind to Richardson in his last book, 'Armed Madhouse.'
Seems New Mexico was one of the worst places in the country for voter caging and Bill was in the thick of it.
After that, his views on gays are superfluous (at least for me).
L.A. Confidential @ 47:
straights hold 99.9 percent of the power structure. Give me a break.
I like he did fine. Bottom line is that he supports equal rights, which is a lot further along than the current administration. Howard Dean said signing the domestic partnership law in Vermont made him uncomfortable, but, thankfully, not as uncomfortable as not signing it. I think Richardson gets the important part right about not discriminating based on orientation. Good for him.
We all ate the "Forbidden Fruit". And we're stuck here with it. For how long is probably incalculable. Until we destroy humanity completely over it I suppose.
matt greer @ 51:
I doubt that figure is true, especially when you count all of the closeted ones. But I don't think "gays" as a group actively discriminate. Then again, every group has a few fuck ups.
matt greer @ 51:
They do discriminate! Why, I don't know a single lesbian that will have sex with me!
oswald @ 54:
I agree he should have prepared better and it is somehow astonishing that a Presidential candidate for the US is not aware of those things. That was also my assessment when Obama made his comment on Pakisthan where he was making very much sense in the general idea but mislead himself on the details of it.
On the positive side, it might mean that the people are more educated, aware and informed today, and less prone to see Presidential (and other candidates) as superhumans.
They're human beings and we all have shortcomings.
I'd better elect one that is candid about she/he's shortcomings than a poster guy like the Bushes, the Reagans that were/are surrounded by spin doctors and image makers; and even the Kennedys and the Roosevelts from another era that were protected by the 'political elite' vs 'majority undeducated people' cleavage and so could use it to hide for some, their inherent incompetence and, for others, their not-so-super-human-qualifications.
I'm afraid there's a lesbian conspiracy against me too.
myiq2xu @ 55:
Yes there is that too. And gays will go out of their way to do business with a gay business even though a gay friendly business owned by a straight person with better service and prices is right down the end of the block.
These people are idiots. Richardson is clearly on the correct side of the issue even if he isn't up with the sensitized pedantic attitude of the people interviewing him. You don't have to know everything about every group to simply support equal rights for all.
L.A. Confidential @ 59:
Oh Snap! My mom just read over my shoulder and said:
"Are you sure it's just because they're lesbian?"
Thanks Mom! Now go home.
Here's THE QUESTION THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AT THE ‘GAY FORUM’
What about the phenomenon of "football widows"?
This is a practice that is encouraged by the government and media of the USA. It is glorified as fuzzy and warm.
It expresses that heterosexual men like to get together with other men and watch
other men in tight fitting pants pass footballs between their legs to other men crouched behind their behinds.
The pleasure of this experience that is apparently diminished by the presence of any member of the female sex.
The sexuality of the individuals involved is not questioned however because the participants are not (usually)
fucking each other as they watch.
Yes there is that too. And gays will go out of their way to do business with a gay business even though a gay friendly business owned by a straight person with better service and prices is right down the end of the block.
How the hell do you know that? Any more blanket statements you want to throw my way? I think we as a species have evolved to the point that just because some folks may share certain characteristics does not mean they share them all. Let me be the stupid one here and ask WHAT was exactly your point? Blogs do not do sarcasm justice.
[I screwed up the link in 62 above] Here’s THE QUESTION THE QUESTION THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AT THE ‘GAY FORUM’
I don't care if it is nature or nurture. It's none of my damn business what people do in their private life. I like Richardson and see him as far and away the best choice. Sounds like he flubbed the 1st go-round on the question but more importantly has it right now.
tweakerbell @ 4:
Tweakerbell, that's an interesting name. You don't by chance know Ted Haggard do you?
Railden @ 63:
They've done a pretty good job brainwashing women into believing their is some redeeming value in football these past couple decades.
Football is just the way Corporate Fat Cats package their mentality to the General Public.
And really, I think the 'gay rights' issue should be a non-issue: As long as you respect people's freedom -understanding that one's freedom stops where it actually does someone else's- gay rights including mariage is a slam dunk. I think that many people in the conservative movement in they USA wants you to focus on 'moral non-issues' so as to divert attention from more fundamental ones such as health care, international issues, poverty, education etc.
In Canada, moral issues don't get much headlines as they're usually ...slam dunks (freedom to associate, separation of states and religion etc.)
matt greer @ 64:
I'm not saying all of them do that. But the pressure on a straight person to "convert" to be accepted completely and without condition into the gay community is very heavy. Thats my experience and I'm not ignorant or naive. I've been around the block more times then you can imagine.
Juba @ 1:
LOL!
His flub here has nothing to do with whether he had the "right" answer or not. The flub was that he was asked a rather simple question that anybody with the slightest bit of planning could have seen coming a mile away, and any reasonable, thinking human being in the US today probably has at least SOME opinion on. And he came out sounding like Bush when he gets asked something off script.
That is to say, his answer was sloppy, bumbling, and borderline incoherent. I don't care if the question was "What's your favorite color?" It demonstrates either a tremendous lack of preparedness, a massive inability to think on your feet, someone who hasn't put any significant thought into important issues, or all of the above.
Seriously, the point isn't that his answer was right or wrong, it's that he didn't have a decent one.
Yes, Bush has managed 8 years in office with about the same level of oratory skill, but is that REALLY the bar you want to aim for? Seriously, *I* could do better than that, and I've been largely unable to speak for a year and a half.
I think that Log Cabin Republicans are fake gays, don't you.
I've watched Bill Richardson since the beginning of this campaign. I'm sorry but he is not the brightest bulb. He often gets "confused" by questions he should be prepared to answer. too bad 'cause he seems like he's on the right side of most issues.
myiq2xu @ 55:
I hate to break it to you man, those aren't lesbians they're straight!
Isn't that what matters? I rather have a principled president than a polished one.
Look, I like Bill Richardson, and I don't appreciate people dumping on him for being honest. I feel it is wrong to descriminate against homosexuals because once we allow bigotry to one group it tends to spread to other groups - including other minorities. I really don't give a crap weather homosexuals are born that way or not, however let me also make this argument: If homosexuals are born that way then why do I get physically revolted to the point of wanting to throw up whenever I say gay men kissing or just acting like flamoyant females? If I accept that homosexuals are born this way, can they accept that I was born physically repulsed by gay mannerisms? Can I simply ask them to "not act gay" when they are around me? Thanks.
This is a complex issue that man has struggled since ancient of days. In my view it is a choice. There are several factors why people have chosen this path ie. insecurity, prior molestation, low self-esteem, intial bonding that leads to deviant behaviors.
Moral convictions is the key to realization. Until then, I would be lecturing to the walls.
L.A. Confidential @ 68:
It is worth noting that what you call the "Corporate Fat Cat mentality" is one that overtly encourages
emotional relationships between males.
Seems to me that there are a lot of gay heterosexuals out there.
The question assumes that people are either completely hetero or completely homo-sexual. I am of the belief that everyone is both, it is just a matter of degree. Some people have no physical attraction to members of the opposite sex, some have no attraction to members of the same sex, some have a physical attraction to both, and some have more of a physical attraction to one side than the other, but are attracted to both. Who knows why each person is the why they are.
Also, I think the proper answer is that even if it is a choice, why is that so bad? The only reason why that would be bad is if you assume that homosexual behavior is evil, or a sin. If you find it a perfectly acceptable behavior, then who cares if it is a choice. By making a big deal out of it being a choice you play right into the bigot's hand.
If the question was "Do you think all Latinos should be run outta town on a rail?" Richardson would have heard and understood the question perfectly. I think he understood the question and answered it from the heart, then tried to back peddle when he realized what he said and remembered in front of what audience he said it.
Railden @ 63:
Have you seen "Steely McBeam?"
The gayest thing since "Tinky Winky!"
Richardson sounds like one of those risk avoiding politicians that wants answers that will appease everyone and have no downside. I think the right answer here would be to stop defining gays through their sexuality and embrace the common thread of humanity that binds us all. Whether being gay is instinct or learned is ultimately irrelevant---as is sexual orientation--- we are all humans with something meaningful to contribute.
We know that through hormone treatment or chemistry changes in the body have often change sexual desire for that person, and that there are degrees of sexual orientation from person to person. But ultimately a person can choose to be true to themselves or try to fool others, and it comes down to a choice, or be the victim. I rather think of the people I know made a choice to be who they're regardless of sexual preference, and choose that preference of being free of societal limitation, so that whatever they choose was the best that each of them decide for themselves.
I don't think one can call themselves a true Christian if one were to put condition of being worthy of love base on what your sexual preference is. The old "I love you but don't approve of who you are" is BS. Love is to accept them just the way god created them. Placing condition of their sexual preference to the same rights of those to get married is to me an insult and denigrated the sanction of marriage if we were to base on it by certain condition. When you agree to marry someone as your life partner base on unconditional love and trust from God, then deny someone else those rights base on condition is a slap to the face of Christ. Why the hell do we marry if the principle of marriage is not binding or respected ? If 2 people give consent to become one with each other, than what is the problem?
If I choose to be one with Christ, aren't I label as a f****t being that Christ is a man? Yet, there are many passage of becoming one with Christ and to joining with him for the rest of my life. Christ has died on the cross, so I suppose that I would make me a f*****t necrophiliac. And some people are worried about homosexual getting married?
Ruthless People @ 75:
That's what my mom said!
It doesnt matter if its a choice or not. People have the right to love who they love, marry who they love, build a family with who they love.
People have put up a test they think gays will fail "its just a choice, not natural" and many gay people fall into the trap of responding by saying "it's not a choice, I was born this way."
While that may be true, the PROPER response should be "who the HELL are you to decide you get to create standards and tests that my relationship has to pass?"
Nobody makes straights pass that test. Nobody makes straight people who want to get married prove that their attraction has a biological basis rather than just being a choice they have made for whatever reason.
The biological basis of sexual orientation matters when you're discussing science. It matters if you want to understand yourself or empathize with friends or family members and know their life experience.
It does NOT matter as a political or civil rights issue. People have the right to love and marry and build a family with the person they choose to, or that their genes push them to, PERIOD.
Nobody has a right to demand that others meet some random criterion that those demanding, in hatred, have devised, before those they demand it of can exercise their rights.
myiq2xu @ 84:
LOL. This is the best thread of the day! Thank you.
the biggest problem here. vis-a-vis Richardson as a candidate (for VP too) is that it seems like he had never heard this question before, like he didn't understand what it meant. thats worse than getting the question wrong, he is completely disengaged form this issue and thats just dumb.
Bob @ 77:
There was a study done on 20/20 - random people were taken off the streets to try and guess out of a group of males who was "straight" and who was "gay." The majority of the people were dead wrong. Maybe you need to get out a little more.
Of course Richradson was wrong because he is ignorant, period. Who wants an ignorant president? We didn't seem to care in 2000 and look where it got us. The fact is that a gay gene has already been isolated in Drosophila, and one day the human gay gene/s will also be isolated, and even then they will still try to justify discriminating against gays for some other reason. Richardson SHOULD have known better because the "choice" answer gives fodder to all those religious bigots who want to justify continuation of persecution, because that really is what it is. Funny, this argument doesn't happen in Europe, Canada, even South Africa (which not only has legalised gay marriage, but gay marriage in prison). Heck, nearly 80% of this f* country doesn't even believe in evolution!! We are so far behind in health care, life longevity, infant mortality, it's hardly surprising that Richardson is so ignorant. Most Americans are ignorant.
I look forward to the day when straight and non-skewed can be treated as equal, and not be fear base among society for being whoever they choose to be. I don't see many gay people being afraid of being themselves. I see many straight people reacting more in fear of allowing gay to have the same freedom as straight people do. Probably more people afraid to admit they are a Liberal in a conservative leadership, than being gay.
Talking about ignorance, one may not agree with everything about Blair, Brown, Chiraq or Sarkozy, but look at how brilliant they are, how articulate and then look at our president. Enough said.
The issue of importance may not be whether he can reel off the accepted talking points of the day, but whether or not his character is such that he can be counted on to stand up for just policies or show courage in the face of opposition from bigots. What do gays who know him well say of him? Do they believe that he would stand up and be a champion of gay issues?
As far as I am concerned, Homosexuality IS a choice. My Dad is gay and in a longtime committed relationship with his partner. Although he is a firm bushbot and definitely locked in a closet, everyone around him has known for years, though the family doesn't like "to talk about it" least of all him.
He wasn't born with some gene that makes him like guys. It is just what he prefers. So does that make me an ignorant pig to believe that? Does it make Richardson? No. If he supports laws that discriminate then THAT makes him ignorant. But this isn't global warming. There are not 999 of 1000 scientists telling us that people are born gay. It's a life choice. You are born hetero, The desire to mate and have offspring IS HARDWIRED into your DNA. Like it or not, that's a fact. If your life experiences mold you to a different viewpoint as your life goes on, so be it. I won't discriminate. I will fight for Gay rights to marry. It doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. But please don't call me ignorant because YOU FEEL that somehow people should just magically KNOW gay genes are out there, because, you know, you feel it, inside.
Because that's bullshit.
lmao... Comment 90- mystic... I don't think Gay Marriage in prison is a Choice, tho
No, I'm sorry, I don't agree Richardson screwed up per se. I'm not gay, I'm not a republican, I support civil unions, so let's get something straight here: this gay debate thing has got to stop. There are larger issues that affect EVERYONE, including gays, such as education, public health, the economy, science, Iraq, etc.
I think it is a major waste of time having candidates being asked if they are against gays or for gays... this is a wedge issue that has been brought up by religious nuts and the repubs to deflect from the real problems going on. I'm not saying there is not discrimination against gays, but it's stupid to say Richardson is done because he didn't answer a question correctly in a LGBT forum. He's right in almost all issues, and he didn't say anything particularly offensive.
So let's stop being paranoid here about him screwing up here. Even if Richardson doesn't have a real shot of winning the presidency, he still deserves our support.
Richardson's a complete moron. My dad's friend is a Rabbi and he was at a social function recently and he met Robinson where the Presidential candidate asked, and I quote: "So what do I have to do to win you people?"
I'm looking for the candidate that answers questions like that with something like Railden posted @ 19: And then add that as president he (she) would uphold the Constitution which says,"......" demonstrating a readily high knowledge and grasp of the Constitution.
Maybe asking Richardson if heterosexuality is a choice would have helped clarify the question for him. Although quite frankly if this guy thinks he can be President he better figure out how to understand a question or at least ask some follow-up questions to clarify if he didn't understand.
I have to assume he understood the question and he thinks homosexuality is a choice.
I wouldn't vote for the guy. Who needs another right winger?
Perusing all these comments, I find it difficult to fathom the fact that in the 21st century ANYONE is still having conversations about such things as "are gay people born that way?" or "what do TRUE Christians believe about homosexuality?" or "who are the true Christians" and so on, and on, and on. Especially in connection with politics. When are we as a society going to grow the f**k up? Can you imagine if the Greeks, for example, could have looked forward in time and seen us debating and bickering over such retarded, primitive shite? Anyone who is still debating over whether or not people are born gay, has simply never known or befriended a gay person. And anyone who is still arguing about what a true Christian is, has never darkened the door of a university classroom (and no, Bob Jones University and Falwell's Liberty University do not count). We have become a nation of mental midgets. We are about to catch up with the Muslims in the frantic race toward a return to the Dark Ages.
I'm tired of people trying to pander to the religious right. They'll never vote for us no matter what so why bother throwing them a bone
Bro Russell @ 100:
The right wing Christians have work for 40 years to get us to the point where we are actively discussing Christianity as part of our regular day to day discussion. Isn't it great? Now that we've started, we just can't quit!
Truly Equal @ 96:
We are capable of discussing multiple issues. Why don't you focus on those that you care about and let others work on what they care about?
Anon @ 94:
When did you choose your sexuality?
Rob @ 60:
Hear, hear. As a bisexual, I can tell you that identifying as straight, as well as identifying as gay, *can* be a conscious choice. I think my friends in the LGBT community blunder hugely by even acknowleging that the debate between nature and nurture here is even vaguely relevant. People practicing homosexuality for the sheer joy of it, or for the sheer perversity of it (if thinking of it that way floats their boat), are just as deserving of equaly rights as those who feel this identity in a deep-rooted way.
Homosexuality CAN be experienced as a choice, just as it can be experienced as a fundamentaly imperative of one's very being. What earthly difference does that make as regards whether gays deserve equal rights?
And as a huge fan of this site, I am hugely disappointed by the must...spout...party...line myopia exhibited by the writer of this item.
I'm not a scientist either, but i do have an interest in neurology & developmental psychology & I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that those 2 areas are where everyone's sexual orientation comes from, making the correct answer to "is it choice or birth?" a resounding "neither".
This was a flub. It's not like his deliberate support for NAFTA and the WTO, or his "long time friend(ship)" with the DLC. And you're a fan of this guy?
i'm sorry but in watching all of the candidates, richardson has not impressed me as particularly bright. he does appear to be a politician, but then he certainly is not along in that. after the travesty that has inhabited the oval office, i want someone honest and bright representing me.
Richardson is the most obviously scripted and robotic of any of the Dem candidates, so it's funny that he would fuck up on a question that anyone, let alone a politician with a staff of handlers, should have seen coming. Richardson is pretty embarrassing, I don't know what people see in him (or saw).
kerplunk @ 102:
I agree with you Bro, that this discussion is so controversial means we have far to go---concerned people must still boldly speak out against prejudice and hate wherever we encounter it. As the saying goes---your silence is your consent.
You know what the real answer to that question is? Who cares? It doesn't matter one way or the other, not in the arena of a public debate. See asking whether homosexuality is a choice or biological is just a veiled way of asking "Do you think it's right or wrong?". And the truth is it's not important.
I teeter back and forth between thinking of it as a choice and accepting the possibility that it might be as much a biological imperative as heterosexuality. But see it's not about that. It's about whether you are a person so possessed with hubris and self righteousness that you think that in the only country in the world where "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" is guaranteed in writing you have the right to tell another consenting adult and American citizen How they can be happy and who with.
Whether it's a choice or biological, right or wrong is a judgment call every individual has to make. But, if this is really America, the one it was founded to be, that debate has no bearing on whether or not it's right or wrong to turn one group of people into 2nd class citizens cuz you come down on different sides of that debate. And frankly I don't think this is any kind of flub. Richardson not giving the PC answer to the question doesn't make it a flub, just not what you wanted to hear.
Richardson made it clear that no matter his personal feelings about the issue of homosexuality, homosexuals are humans beings and deserved to be treated as such. As a black man I know not everyone likes me and that some people flat hate me just because of being black. The thing is I don't give a sh*t if you like me. Respect me and we'll get along just fine.
Y'know what; I'm kinda inclined to cut the guy a bit of slack for that. (I'm less inclined to be so generous with the admission that he needed his staff to alert him to the fact he should "set the record straight," however.)
Be that as it may, I'd rather have someone who was uncomfortable with the question and fumbled it, then released the statement "I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships," over someone who DID have this answer 'prepped'. There's a honesty to mistakes that helps us, the voters, to determine the calibre of the person making them, rather than how virtuose a candidate can be in delivering a pre-planned, pre-vetted, pre-spun response.
[Deleted. Your true colours are showing, "Chomsky".]
.
O O P S
.
Carakav @ 10:
I completely agree. I don't say where he said anything that was in any way denigrating to anyone. So, he doesn't understand it? Big deal!
If this is the kind of issue that is going to destroy an electable Democrat, it is no wonder they win so rarely. If this is enormously insulting to politically active gays, then they need to get over themselves. Equal rights is the bottom line. Forcing everyone to accept and say they understand such vague scientific principles is tantamount to taking your eyes off the ball.
The Repugs are laughing and licking their chops when they see Democrats all up in arms over something so minor.
Richardson seems like a very good man. He possibly could've stood to gain by being a little more Edwardsian about it and just said something along the lines of, "Well, look -- this is what I was brought up to believe, so this is what I think. But as your next president of The United States, I can promise you that I will never discriminate against the gay community..."
This entire things is BS. Whether his opinion are that gays are born that way or it's a personal choice, he supports their decision to assume and live the lifestyle of their choice. Personally I have no opinion about it and I really don't care. And just because I don't care doesn't mean that I support discrimination against anyone. Damn it, I believe that homosexuals want to live their lives, have families, etc just like anyone else. What makes a person a homosexual doens't mean shit.
spiritcatcher @ 12:
That basically WAS his answer. But those looking for a reason to be offended somehow found one.
A Democrat that doesn't pander to gays could actually win every single electoral vote.
Give the guy a break. Or vote Republican.
Nyc W. Alberts @ 16:
If gay is the "new black", what was it before?
King of Kings @ 119:
Yep!
oooh wow. thats not a fumble. but americans are notorious for simplifying issues into two camps. in this case, "choice" or "genetic". and of course "choice" doesn't make sense at all, but "learned" could actually be a better opposite. Personally I think its both. Looking at other species, for some their sexuality is hard coded into their genetics and its reasonable that genetically it would get 'flipped' occasionally. But for people what sets us apart is that instead of relying on genes to select the best mate we have found that 'learning' what makes a best mate has proved evolutionary successful. we have adapted to be able to live in many many kinds of environments, therefore there is no set features to look for in other mate, at least not specifically. so a leather fetish cannot be 'genetic', its learned. so certainly you could learn to find people of the same sex attractive too. but what doesn't make sense is that sexual repulsion is somehow genetic. anti-gay is just as 'unnatural'.
He went to a gay debate, even a debate that whitewashed everything to try and conceal the fact that they were gay and he didn't have an answer to that question?
Why does it matter? I mean, even if you choose to do something, you don't lose your rights. The government needs to give everybody the same rights regardless what they choose, and any inequality needs to be fixed. Red herrings don't matter.
Stupid politicians man, you don't say yes, you chose to be gay but I'm not all smart and scientific. I wish we could elect scientists. Things would be far better.
It's nice imho to have a non-prepped dialogue from a politician that has brains. Mayhap I'm wrong, but I believe Richardson's heart and intent is in the right place.
Imagine a presidential candidate smart enough, WISE enough to say, " I don't know and I don't care. Frankly, it's none of my business. Do you pay your taxes? Have you hurt anyone? If so and if not, then you're a citizen of this country with just as many rights as I have."
Still waiting for this most obvious truth to be voiced by a friggin' Democrat....
First of all Bill Richardson was torn apart by Timmeh on MTP.
The man was embarrassed and in comparison this was nothing.
It was worse then the former admiral and now senator from Pennsylvania who had
Tom Delay laughing in his face.
To me, Richardson always looks like he has diarrhea. The guy never looks comfortable.
kerplunk @ 104:
Well...for me, it was 1984, in the back seat of my 1977 Pontiac Catalina with a girl named Mary Malloy.
I'm not exactly sure as to when I made the choice but on the way home, every fiber of my being was screaming...."you have chosen well."
Could be intelligent design? That would drive the divine-design crowd batshit crazy.
The Biology of Sexual Orientation:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/biology_of_sexual_orientation...
The question was a no-winner, even if it was the 'right' one. For Richardson to blasted for his opinion on it is no better than if it was done by a conservative. If Richardson said it was a choice, but still would fight for glbt rights, then the opinion is moot. And, Richardson was cut-off...meaning interrupted...so he didn't finish his thought. Who knows what he would have said after that. Maybe "...but those rights still need to be observed."
And he answered the question. That Ms. Etheridge would say "I don't think you understood the question," really means, 'You didn't answer it the way we wanted it answered." If you want the right answer, tell him what it is or cut his mic.
Homosexuality is a non-issue. Taking Americans rights because of their homosexuality or sexual proclivities is the issue. That shit is wrong.
As a person raised with a relatively conservative Christian background, I believe that though the propensity towards homosexual behavior MAY be biological in nature, it is still up to an individual to choose to follow through on the behavior.
That being said, I believe that Etheridge was shocked that Richardson felt it was a choice and was giving him one more chance to say what she thought he should say to the crowd. The tone of her language pre-supposes that Richardson just might be stupid enough to believe it's a choice. Richardson should have been better prepared to explain his position, but for him to change his answer makes him look like he's pandering to the audience.
Yes, I said it. I believe in telling an audience of GLBT individuals what you believe in a respectful tone. I believe it's a choice. I could be wrong. But i'm not changing my opinion just to satisfy a group of people, especially when the more important concern is whether we should grant adoption rights, civil union rights, equal marriage rights, etc.
I'm prepared to be flamed :).
euthyfro @ 106:
debmac85 @ 74:
Grochi Harzep @ 28:
ceti @ 5:
It's amazing how so many people can harp on the same general answer and still disagree with each other. So many people cannot see the similarilty of two logistically opposite managements of the same motif! I am Bisexual. Is that a choice? Yes, because choice is rational, I choose to act on my inclinations. I am Bisexual. Was I born that way? Generally, it seems so, because I cannot see myself choosing any other way. That is emotive. Either way, the answer to the question is at the same time BOTH and NEITHER. It depends on your PERSPECTIVE. Burn this word into your brain - PERSPECTIVE. It is the basis of higher math, it is the ideal that spawned the spark of understanding concerning the gap between special relativity and quantum physics, it is the space between minds and between hearts. Yours is unique, even when you agree with someone else. It is valid in your own life even if others disagree. It is when we start enforcing our own unique perspectives on others that these questions even arise - equal rights as any sort of issue, nature or nurture, african-american or caucasian. Grow up, everyone. this is only an issue because it has been fed to you via the media, and others who have been fed the line have taken to the idea of debating the two sides fed to you.
Shame on C&L for allowing themselves to be framed into a standpoint based on a locked perspective. You guys seem to have lost a little of your touch in presenting eager newsworthy items in favor of greater foot traffic to your site and an urge to keep the site flooded with articles. if there isn't anything worth getting that upset over for one day, I personally consider it a good day! Let there be less articles when the only thing you can dredge up is craptacular speculation on things known inherently false in PREMISE.
*************************************
If you think in terms of Darwinism, the fact that HOMOSEXUALITY HAS EXISTED BEFORE CIVILISATION ITSELF (A GAY GENE IN DROSOPHILA HAS ALREADY BEEN ISOLATED SCIENTIFICALLY) AND THIS CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF A GENE, SINCE HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT BY AND LARGE PROCREATE.
*************************************
There may be a (partial) explanation for this fascinating but real fact:
Italian researchers in 2004 believe that genetic factors may increase fertility in the mothers of gay males,
The New Scientist reported the findings this way: "The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same--as yet unidentified--genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the gay genetic factors in circulation."
www.http://narth.com/docs/factors.html
Just remember 3 things:
(1) Homosexuality has been scientifically observed in over 340 animal species;
(2) There are many physical differences in gay and straight people such as the anatomy of the hypothalamus in the brain, and other ill-defined as yet not explained features such as the length of the ring finger, the pattern of the hair whorl on the skull. the sense of smell.
(3) A gay gene HAS already been isolated in Drosophila, the fruitfly.
*
Here's the correct answer to that question:
"You know, I just don't know. It's probably a mixture of both, it all depends on the individual. Some are probably born feeling the way they do, some may choose it because of their experiences in their sexuality. But in the end, nothing about it should have any affect on their civil rights."
As a lifelong lesbian, and a radical lesbian-feminist who is NOT an essentialist, I absolutely believe that homosexuality is a choice. As is heterosexuality. It's simply a choice that is often made very early, based on the information we have available at the time. People come out, they go "back in" -- those are both choices, and deserve to be given the respect deserved.
I find the notion of "I can't help it, I was born this way" to be profoundly disempowering. I personally find it far more radical and meaningful to say "I chose this, and what of it?" I don't impose my belief on other folks, and I try not to laugh in the face of all those who claim a scientific proof for "gayness" being in our genes (I mean, where's the CONTROL GROUP in those studies, someone who was not born into presumptive heterosexual culture?). As human beings, we've proven countless times we exercise free will over any genetic predisposition, and it's a damned good thing we do. But to castigate a candidate who has got it right in so many other areas because he's not toeing the HRC line? -- give me a break.
I agree with some other commenters that saying he self-immolated or whatever, that he blew it, that his answer was so awful, well it's nit-picky to say the least. Yeah, has this guy ever shown serious (or ANY) antagonism towards gays?
He said "I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency."
That seems more than adequate, doesn't it?
That is pretty straightforward and pretty strong. It seems like he's in the gays' corner, doesn't it? Why complain?
I'd be willing to bet that the governor was just answering honestly. He honestly thinks being gay is a choice, so... Next candidate, please?!!
It's a tough call. Sure you made the choice, because maybe you were born with pre-set "turn ons" and "turn offs" pains. It's not a choice that I like steak. I love the taste, the texture, the smell... I was born that way. It's my choice to eat it or not, but the fact that I like it, I don't have a choice over that (I don't think anyway). I could choose to engage in a homosexual lifestyle, but I get turned on by women, not men. Did I choose to be turned on by women, or was I born that way? I look at a really really hot woman, I think "I want to have sex with her." I see a really really good lookin, toned up guy, I think, "Wow, he's good looking. I wanna look like him so I can have more sex with women." If the choice was made by me, it was a totally subconscious choice. Maybe I was programmed this way, I don't know. But now, it would be hard for me to choose to be gay. I could force myself to do it, and maybe I'd re-program myself to like it. Who knows. You can re-program yourself to like new things, or to dis-like old favorites. I used to love to drink, now I hate it. That was a choice I made, to stop drinking, and it stuck.
Ok, enough ranting just to re-state my stance that I just don't really know. =)
Why was my comment deleted? Because I said that I don't give a shit, as long as they have the same rights as heterosexuals?
Oopss. my mistake
So we can chose to be gay? I didn't realize this. I guess I have to ask at which point I will have the tendency or desire to have sex with the same gender. I am also curious when I might find that appealing to begin with.
Here is the proper response to this question.
Interviewer: "Is homosexuality a choice?"
Politician: "I have no freakin' idea, nor do I care. The answer is completely irrelevent in any case. Equal legal rights for all citizens is what I am all about. Civil Unions = Marriage if the same legal rights are confered by either title. Now let's move on to more pressing matters...like my hair for instance."
I am available for hire as a political consultant at reasonable rates.
I guess this flub will destroy Richardson's hope of avoiding polling last in the primary.
While Richardson did "flub" the answer to Melissa Ethridge's question, does this really detract from Richardson's position on gay rights?
Even if he did understand the question and still answered that homosexuality was a choice, what difference would it make?
He either supports gay rights or he doesn't. The question is not relevant.
ohdave @ 2:
Well, to answer your queston, everything depends on the answer to this question. From a legal standpoint, if it is a moral choice, then the argument that gays/lesbians are a "suspect class" under the equal protection clause falls apart. Under the EP clause, legislation that unfairly discriminates against a suspect classification (such as race) must meet the strictest standard of review by the courts (Strict Scrutiny), which essentially means that the government cannot discriminate. If, however, it is a moral choice, then they cannot be viewed as a suspect class, because people make choices all the time that the government can regulate without fear of infringing on constitutional rights. The legislation needs to only be supported by a "rational basis", which means that the government always wins.
So, to make a short story long, the G/L community must win the argument that they are the way they are by nature, rather than choice, in order to have a chance at ultimately being considered a "suspect class" under the constitution, and thus protected by the equal protection clause. Bill should have realized this. Their is so much scientific evidence out there supporting the argument that people are born G/L to say anything else.
Regards,
Adam Franklin
Deleted. Your true colours are showing, “Chomsky”.]
What the fuck is this?
If you don't agree with the moderator, your post gets deleted?
The fact is homosexuality, like race comes in so many shades cultural gray I'm not sure there is a definition that could be agreed upon scientifically. The questioner wonders if Bill thinks he just decided to be "gay" at 14. Do inmates in our nations prisons decide to be gay when they go behind bars. Homosexual activity has existed in most male military cultures throughout history and in most of these cultures the warriors came home and decided to be straight get married and have kids when the war was over. Among various nomadic people women tend to stay home and keep eachother warm at night while the men are off on te hunt or the raid. In the sexually segregated Arab world homosexuality among young men is considered preferable to despoiling a man's daughter. Homosexual and bisexual behavior among humans no only occurs in sexually segragated societies. Check out ancient Greece. Want to be a carpenter, warrior, philosopher? You may need to put out. Roman Senators often retired, left their wives and ran away with young boys. The reason America has the gay culture it does is because homosexuals were formed isolated ghetto communities and created a culture, the first one in history were homosexuality was an exclusive behavior that a cultural identity could be built upon.
The biological fact is we are all bisexual. Humans have a sex drive, not a mating season. Sex has more cultural uses for humans than procreative uses. What we do with that drive is culturally determined. Take a look at our cousins the pygmy chimps. Sex has all sorts of cultural uses.
Governor Richardson: "...I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."
Domestic partnerships is not at all synonymous with full and equal rights.
So long as heterosexual couples can legally marry, the only thing for gay and lesbian people that is full and equal to heterosexual marriage is same-sex marriage. Not domestic partnerships. Not civil unions.
Comments are closed on this entry