O'Reilly: "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff"
SUMMARY: When a viewer email questioned his previous remarks that Bill Richardson "looked bad by saying he believed homosexuality was a choice," Fox News' Bill O'Reilly responded, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff." But, as Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has repeatedly demonstrated his own inability to "relax on all this gay stuff" with a history of controversial, misleading, and false claims about gays and lesbians.
On the August 15 edition of his Fox News television show, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's email questioning his August 14 remarks about Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), who had, at a presidential forum the week before, said that he believes homosexuality is a "choice." According to the viewer, O'Reilly had said that Richardson "looked bad" by answering as he did. O'Reilly replied: "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff." On that August 14 show, O'Reilly had discussed Richardson's August 9 remarks at the Human Rights Campaign/ Logo presidential forum, during which Richardson was asked by singer Melissa Etheridge, a panelist at the forum, "Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is biological?" O'Reilly, hosting "body language expert" Tonya Reiman, had said that the video clip of Richardson's exchange with Etheridge "is one of my favorite clips recently." He later said of Richardson: "[H]e made a mistake. I think he's mad at himself for blowing the thing about 'Do you feel gays are born?' and he goes, 'No.' " (Richardson subsequently issued a statement saying: "Let me be clear -- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. ... But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.")
But O'Reilly has repeatedly demonstrated his own inability to "relax on all this gay stuff" with a history of controversial, misleading, and false claims about gays and lesbians. For instance:
- Referring to the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court striking down state restrictions on the right of same-sex couples to marry, he claimed that, in "10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now." He added: "Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!" (Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly; 03/29/05)
- While discussing the case of two male Massachusetts prison inmates who requested prison officials' permission to marry, O'Reilly asserted that "this crazy gay marriage insanity -- is gonna lead to all kinds of things like this" like "somebody[]" coming "in and say[ing], 'I wanna marry the goat.' " (Radio Factor; 04/13/05)
- He has claimed that the secular progressive movement "would like to have marriage abolished ... because it is not diverse enough." He explained: "That's what this gay marriage thing is all about." O'Reilly then warned of the possibility of "poly-amorphous" [sic] marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck." (Radio Factor; 09/14/05)
- O'Reilly has argued that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to nuptials between humans and other species, saying that "[o]ne of the arguments against gay marriage ... is that if it becomes law, all other alternative marital visions will be allowed." He then related the story of a British woman, Sharon Tendler, who "married" a dolphin in Israel. (O'Reilly Factor; 01/04/06)
- While discussing New York City Councilwoman Christine Quinn's decision to boycott Manhattan's St. Patrick's Day parade over the decision by the Ancient Order of Hibernians to ban the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization (ILGO) from marching, O'Reilly attacked Quinn, calling ILGO's potential participation in the parade "inappropriate." O'Reilly asked, "Why doesn't Ms. Quinn and others who support her wise up?" and stated: "You have your Gay Day parade. You have your Stonewall celebration. You have your Halloween deal, OK? You don't need this."
He also asserted: "I don't want these people intruding on a parade where little children are standing there, watching" for fear that children would ask, "Mommy, what does that mean?" O'Reilly falsely claimed that "[n]o Irish people are banned from marching in the parade" and likened ILGO's participation in the parade to wearing a shirt proclaiming "I'm queer" to a baptism. (O'Reilly Factor; 03/17/06)
- While discussing gay parents "who wore rainbow colors to signal their homosexuality" during the 2006 White House Easter Egg Roll, O'Reilly asserted: "I think that the Easter egg deal is going to do more harm than good to the cause of gay rights, because most Americans say, 'Enough. This is a kids' event. Don't make it a political event. Don't use a kids' event to try to forward a political agenda, no matter what it is.' "
Later, O'Reilly repeatedly asked former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown: "[H]ow would you answer a question from a 6-year-old who said: 'Mommy, why are they wearing those rainbow?' -- because it's going to catch their eye. 'Why are they doing that? And who are these people and where is their daddy?' ...'Why? Where's the mommy? Why do they have two daddies?' " O'Reilly concluded: "I think it was inappropriate at the Easter egg roll, just like the St. Patrick's Day thing was inappropriate." (O'Reilly Factor; 04/17/06)
- O'Reilly has dismissed scientific research on same-sex parenting to assert that "[n]ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum" form of child-rearing. O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?" O'Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples' right to raise children, "you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy." (O'Reilly Factor; 12/13/06)
- O'Reilly called the San Diego Padres' decision to host a gay pride night and a children's hat giveaway promotion during the same July 8 baseball game "insensitive," "dumb," "almost unbelievable," and a "mistake." He said it was "insane" to "cluster" gays and lesbians during a "hat giveaway for any kid under 12." O'Reilly reported that "thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families," adding, "[C]lear-thinking people understand it is completely out of context and inappropriate."
When San Diego Pride executive director Ron deHarte said that it "was no different than any other game," O'Reilly responded, "But you are focusing in and putting more homosexuals into an area. OK? See, that's the problem." He added: "You're putting it in a kid's face at a baseball game." He later also asserted: "This is social engineering by the Padres."
The next day, O'Reilly responded to a viewer's email stating that O'Reilly's "position seems to imply that putting gays and kids together in one place is a bad thing," adding, "[K]ids are around gays every day." O'Reilly replied: "But not thousands of them, sir. That can be confusing to children." O'Reilly did not clarify exactly what number of gay people he believed children could safely be around without becoming "confus[ed]." (O'Reilly Factor; 07/11/07 and 07/12/07)
- O'Reilly attacked a July 16 Los Angeles Times article that reported on the fact that while "heterosexuals can [sponsor] their husbands and wives" for green cards, gay or lesbian U.S. citizens cannot do the same for their partners. He said, "Well, what about the triads, OK, you know." Despite later acknowledging that heterosexual bi-national couples must go through a "process," O'Reilly argued that if the law changed: "[A]nybody could say, 'Hey, I'm gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here.' " He added: "[A]re they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness?"
O'Reilly later asserted that "[t]his is social engineering" and went on to compare the legalization of gay marriage to that of "triads," adding: "I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in." O'Reilly repeatedly asked how same-sex couples would "demonstrate their gayness" before immigration authorities, if a gay or lesbian U.S. citizen were allowed to sponsor a non-citizen partner for a green card. (Radio Factor; 07/17/07)
From the August 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: [Viewer], Ridge Crest, California: "Bill, you said Bill Richardson looked bad by saying he believed homosexuality was a choice. So you're saying politicians need to avoid speaking the truth if their opinions aren't PC?"
I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff. Richardson looked silly trying to explain himself. That was obvious, and that's what I pointed out, and Tonya Reiman concurred.
From the August 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Let's get to Bill Richardson. This is one of my favorite clips recently. Melissa Etheridge, the singer, is interviewing Richardson on the gay channel. Roll it.
[begin video clip]
ETHERIDGE: Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is biological?
RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- 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.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: I hate to laugh, but --
REIMAN: He was so uncomfortable. He was so uncomfortable. It was painful to watch.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
REIMAN: OK, so you see the constant head-shaking back. He's looking down the entire time. He doesn't want to answer this question, and he doesn't want to be asked this question. At one point during the interview, you know -- he's looking emotional, now -- but you see the sneer come through. And that sneer, that little sneer, tells me that he was kind of aggravated about this.
O'REILLY: Well, he knew he made a mistake. I think he's mad at himself for blowing the thing about "Do you feel gays are born?" and he goes, "No."
REIMAN: Yeah. Right.
O'REILLY: So, I think he's mad at himself for botching it right from the jump.
REIMAN: It was painful. He was definitely uncomfortable. And all the pauses, the "ahs," the "ums" --
O'REILLY: He didn't know what to say.
REIMAN: No. He was stumped for sure.
O'REILLY: All right. I've seen that on this program a couple of times. And -- well, there you go.
From the April 17, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Joining us now from San Francisco is the former mayor of that town and current radio talk show host Willie Brown.
I talked about this on The Radio Factor today. I think that the Easter egg deal is going to do more harm than good to the cause of gay rights, because most Americans say, "Enough. This is a kids' event. Don't make it a political event. Don't use a kids' event to try to forward a political agenda, no matter what it is." Am I wrong?
BROWN: I think you are wrong in this particular case because I don't think the movement was for the purpose -- of the showing up was frankly for the purpose of making any political statement.
I think that the people who showed up with their children wanted people to know that children are people of the same sex are absolutely no different from children of the people who are from persons who are heterosexuals.
And I think it's important for that ignorance to be exploded, and I think that's what persons were attempting to do when they showed up on the White House lawn, saying, "These are my kids, and they have two mothers." "These are my kids and they have two fathers."
O'REILLY: We talked to the leader of the group on the radio, and she basically said, "Look, we want people to know that same-sex parents have -- don't have the same rights, and we want gay marriage." And she kind of admitted that it was a political deal.
But how would you answer a question from a 6-year-old who said: "Mommy, why are they wearing those rainbow?" -- because it's going to catch their eye. "Why are they doing that? And who are these people and where is their daddy?" And I mean, it's an Easter egg roll, Mr. Mayor. I mean, why do we have to get into all of that at an Easter egg roll?
BROWN: Well, I think, first of all, I think that kid would also ask: "Why an Easter egg roll? What's that all about?" I think every time an --
O'REILLY: Well, that's about the Easter bunny and Easter time. Come on.
BROWN: Well, and the explanation the mother would offer would be similar, i.e., that kid doesn't know why the Easter egg hunt or the Easter roll, or whatever they call it, and the same would go for people who are wearing those colors.
"Mommy, why are they wearing those colors and why is it that they're two males or why is it there are two females?" She would proceed to tell him, and he would notice that that little kid that he's playing with trying to find the [unintelligible] egg is absolutely no different from himself.
O'REILLY: OK, but do you really --
BROWN: It will begin to remove --
O'REILLY: Do you really want a 6-year-old to get into a homosexual discussion at an Easter egg roll?
BROWN: It would not be a homosexual discussion. She would simply say: "He has two daddies or he has two mothers."
O'REILLY: But they'll say, "Why?" You know how kids are. "Why? Where's the mommy? Why do they have two daddies?" You know that.
BROWN: Simply because they don't have any other siblings or they don't have any other parents or they don't have any of this or any of that. There's no other explanation. And it's good to start those kids really early understanding that the so-called differences do not exist.
O'REILLY: I disagree with that. I just don't -- I don't mind the protest. I think it was inappropriate at the Easter egg roll, just like the St. Patrick's Day thing was inappropriate.
I am not sure what the point is? If O'Reilly agress that we have to relax he is targeted and if he said something different he would be targeted. I guess either way he is wrong?
The point mmfa is trying to make is that O'reily is one of the main people who refuse to relax on this issue. It will, however, be interesting to see if he takes his own advice.
I agree he has done nothing but promote homophobic discussion , especially in the past few weeks. But if he is all of a sudden had a change of heart, is he still wrong in the eyes of MMFA and his critics?
Point taken, but let's be honest he probably won't stop. It's one of his major issues. I guess we should give him a few months and see if he actually takes his advice.
I guess we should give him a few months and see if he actually takes his advice.
It will not take a few months. He is not talking about himself when he says to relax. He means his critics should relax. Not make such big deal out of his comments. Relax a bit. Everybody.
--ML
I had the same take on his comments as you did.
I think everyone should just drop the subject. As long as they're not getting it on in front of kids I could care less what people do in they're private lives. I think it's ridiculous that we actually have a debate on whether or not two consenting adults should have the right to do what they feel even though it's not hurting anyone else.
I tend to agree with the sentiment but I think we will continue to have the debate until everyone is given equal rights and protections. The lack of those rights and protections makes it neccessary to continue to speak about it.
You're right. I guess I just catch more crap 'cause most other cons don't agree with me. I'm just tired of the debate.
I feel your pain. I am surrounded by "you people" (Cons) (-; Honestly, I don't understand their position on the subject anymore then they get mine. I no longer respond to the right wing emails they send me because my family fears I will casue a rift in the family...although personally I think they should be encouraged to take me off their email list but I am the liberal so I guess it is my burden to bear to be the understanding one (-;
Except that gay people aren't allowed to "do what they feel" in this country. They're denied their rights under the consititution.
And I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "get it on" in front of children. Is there some wave of gay people having sex in front of kids that I'm unaware of? Because if what you mean is kissing your lover, then I say "get it on" as much as any hetero couple does. Or are there two sets of rules of what's "appropriate" for gay and het couples?
(I think I pounced unnecessarily. Someone else raised the issue of keeping the debate alive.)
Change of heart being the key. Bill is too much in love with money to drop an audience draw like this.
But if he is all of a sudden had a change of heart...
...he must of had a heart transplant?
Ok, j/k, but I can't blame people for doubting Bill is being genuine. I'm not saying even he can't change. However, with his history, he'd need to establish this change of heart over a period of time to be believable.
You know, in following Bill's comments on the issue, I wonder if he's made up his own mind on the issue.
correct, it is wrong for Bill o to still have a job as , as , what ever it is he does is called.
It is said that you shouldn't wrestle with pigs, because you get dirty and the pig enjoys it
I agree with O'reily and think he should take his own advice on this issue. Although I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers probably didn't envision a country with the level of overt homosexuality we have now they also believed in individual liberty. To this end I honestly think this life choice is something our founding fathers would have eventually come to terms with in principle. As a con I often have to defend this position from most of the other people that share my views. My personal feeling is that as long as the situation involves two consenting adults and does not effect those around them it should be allowed. The belief that gay marriage will somehow lead to Goat/Man relationships seems absurd to me. When cons scream that society must have rules and limits they don't seem to understand that this society does and to this end we've decided that any relationship or activity between consenting adults is their right.
Sebastion, you are Bill O'Reilly to Sueld's Bill Richardson. And you conservatives say you don't get "moral relativism"! Ha!
Please expound on your comment, do you not agree? I'm pretty much taking the liberal side of this argument, unlike most cons who dig in on the "gay marriage" issue.
I was saying that you "got it",and are a step ahead of Sueeld. Not seriously comparing you yo BilldO, who just thinks he gets it.
Thanks, I just don't understand why more cons can't get it. I've stopped trying to explain it at his point.
Just an observation, but there are degrees of authoritarianism and libertarianism in both conservatism and liberalism. It seems you are a more libertarian conservative - i.e. you believe more in social and economic freedom. As a libertarian-leaning liberal myself I think I can see that in you on this argument. Some other conservative posters on here like Tommy and Jeter would likely agree with your points as well as most liberals. My only quibble would be with the word "choice" in your earlier post, but I don't want to ruin the moment right now - so I won't argue with you about that.
Bingo! I''m closer to libertarian than republican and since the libertarian party is pretty much impotent I'm content with just being an independent conservative.
Have you seen this plot of the current presidential candidates on the Political Compass?
It's bad news for both libertarians and liberals.
That's an interesting graphic, Craig.
and BTW, thanks for linking in a new window- those links that open in the current window usually set the comments back to zero for me.
Yeah. Pretty bad for me. I am not even all that hot on Kucinich myself. I am pretty much a Bill Maher independent liberal. Not very many of us.
Please do not compare me to Bill Richardson, his display of homophobic talk at the Logo forum last week was deplorable. Homosexuality is not a choice Bill, and I hope it is the last we see of this homophobic man.
Sorry, Sueeld, I misunderstood your comment, and my joke didn't come out very clear.
I don't really see the homophobia. I do see that Richardson was wrong about homosexuality as a choice and I disagree with him.
He did say he sees gays and lesbians as people that's hardly homophobic, that's fairly compassionate for a person who probably doesn't support gay marriage or homosexuality in general.
Can't stick around for a back and forth, sorry. I have to go sell some paintings. Yahoo, baby!
Could you explain what precisely was the homophobic talk that Richardson engaged in? I don't recall him bashing gays...I don't recall him saying anything negative about gays...perhaps I had a blackout and missed it could you enlighten me to his homophobic comments?
Well he did admit to using a spanish term that was homophobic. And in my opinion any one that still thinks Gays are chossing to be gay is a homphobic attitude. Just my opinion. Obama was by far the best in that forum.
First off there is some disagreement about what that actuall phrase translates to...and the degree to which it is considered a homophobic smear...having said that, the man opologized for it numerous times because of the fact that some did find it offensive. I also don't see how thinking homsexuality is a choice and more specifically saying you could not speak to the science of the question is homophobic. He believes in gay rights...has pushed and passed gay rights as governor. What definitive scientific proof do you have that it is biological? On a side note interesting that you believ Obama did the best...based on your opinion on what constitutes homophobia don't you think that his comments that he feels all the rights gays deserve is civil union and that it is not discrimination to deny them the same rights as hetero's (namely marriage)
I like Richardson. He is one of those guys politics need. Give him a job and he gets it done, he is very effective and not ideologically straitjacketed. Having said that speaking and articulating his views have never been his strong suit. I thought Gore should have chosen him as his running mate and would have voted for that ticket. I dont think he will ever be President and REALLY suffers from a comparison to an Obama who can flat burn the house down with a speech but I think he is a good man and an effective statesman
I certainly wouldn't defend Bill Richardson's answer to the question, but I would say that it's a fairly phony question. That is to say that that the situation is far more complicated than choice vs. birth. If you don't believe all gay people were necessarily born gay, this doesn't necessarily believe they made a conscious decision to be gay. However, that is the only scenario allowed for by the options given. Furthermore, it's an either/or question, for which both answers are partially correct, but no answer is absolutely correct because nobody in their right mind would claim everyone is gay for the same reason.
Bill Richardson made another lazy appearance in his lazy campaign for the presidency. As much as I think he's qualified for the job, he just doesn't seem to care enough about proving himself to take any time to actually engage himself.
Why would you say you don't want to defend Richardson's answer when your opinion presented in your post does exactly that. His response was not limited to saying it was a choice. He further clarified and said he really had no idea and could't speak to the science of the question. Basically he agreed with your position that the question is based on a false premis--that there is only one answer and that answer applies to all and that answer is definitive. Anyone who says that his answer is definitively wrong and saying nature is the right answer and their is no room for discussion or more then one reason is basing that on faith and not fact.
I believe all this choice vs. birth argument is basically irrelevant and misplaced anyway, in my opinion.
There is no definitive answer and what does it matter anyway? It is all about a person's behavior and their actions, and their responsibility for both. To argue choice or birth is missing the point and what is important. If people act responsibly, within the law and treat others with dignity and respect, then their sexual orientation, whatever it is, is irrelevant.
The focus needs to be on behavior and personal responsibility, how one arrived there is not my business.
Tommy, thats my take too. I just don't care whether it is choice or nature or a combination of various things or none of the above. I have my own personal opinions based on looking at my own situation--the fact that my sexual orientation was not a choice I ever made. I think this idea that we all have to agree on every aspect to reach the same conclusion of equal rights is a losing proposition. If someone believes homosexuality is a choice but also supports gay rights and their right to choose and not be discriminated against I hardly think they qualify as a homophobe by any stretch of the imagination.
Well said.
This is why personal feelings and emotion really have no place in lawmaking or securing equal rights for everyone. A lawmaker's personal opinion about an issue is by and large unimportant to me, as long as they have no negative or positive influence in carrying out their duties and responsibilities of their elected position and nobody's civil liberties are affected, for we are all treated the same under the law.
This concerns their religious beliefs, their feelings or opinions on homosexuality, etc.....laws should not be based on emotion or feelings, but rather what is right and wrong according to our laws and the consitution.
I think the choice argument boxes you into a corner that has you going in circles (sorry geometry isn't my strong suit). If you drop the argument and say ok if it is a choice why do we provide people who chose to be heterosexuals certain rights and protections for their choice and deny those same rights and protections when you make the choice to be homosexual? I think fighting the unprovable fact of choice or nature takes the debate off on a tangent that prevents the true discussion of equality, liberty and freedom.
The problem is that if you say that it's a choice, you lose. Whether you should or shouldn't on principle is another matter, but realistically it's a bad move.
Society is not obligated to conform to a minority of people who choose to behave a certain way. It is simply not as convincing to talk about granting rights to people who "want" to do something sexual as people who are born that way. What's more, arguments against gay marriage carry more weight. Regarding the Biblical argument, natural behavior is hard to define as a sin, but chosen behavior is not. The percentage of people who are gay becomes an issue as well. If it's natural, the number of people it affects is irrelevant because human rights aren't affected by that, but if it's a choice then 95% of the people have much less reason to be concerned about the 5% who put themselves in a minority role entirely of their own free will.
What allowing it to be labeled a choice would do is to create this sense of hedonistic self-gratification where people don't care about traditional or religious morals, or public disapproval, or any consequences of being controversial, just as long as they are able to act on their personal preference. It's difficult enough to sway public opinion as it is without letting those impressions become the established basis for the discussion.
I understand where you are going with your comments but I think it is going wrong when we start to adjust our arguments so as not to offend religious morals (although not all religions are against equal rights) and tradition. If we give rights to people for making the choice to marry a person of the opposite sex then we as a people that make no law respecting one religion can not account for not giving those same rights to people making the choice to marry a person of the same sex. The fact that certain religions believe it is a sin to make the choice of same sex is irrelevant as per our constitution. I personally believe that attraction to the same sex is biological same as attraction to the opposite sex—I don’t think it makes sense that you can chose to make your body respond if biologically you are not “programmed” that way. However, there are those who seem able to respond to both same and opposite sex so do we say they are making a choice to chose one over the other? I think as long as it is two consenting adults and they are not harming anyone else they have the right to chose to marry regardless of whether it is a choice. People are allowed to make there own decisions about whether it is choice or nature based on their personal religious convictions or any other basis as long as they do not infringe on others rights. I think trying to change a person’s religious views is a losing battle. Who cares what there religion says—we don’t make laws based on religious beliefs. I think it is wrong-headed to claim we have factual proof that we are right that it is a choice when in fact we really don't. We can certainly make a strong circumstantial case that is is nature but I don't think it does as much good as you do to refuse to look at it from different perspectives. I think the rights don't change whether it is choice or not so I don't have a huge problem with those that believe it is a choice--just those that want to deny equal rights. I use to believe the only argument was the one you are making but after having this debate many times with people that I believe were not coming from a place of hate I have learned that there are many different ways to reach the same decision. Marriage (in the civil arena) is a partnership of two people granting certain rights and responsibilities based on that partnership how does that change if the two are of the same sex or of oppoisite sex. The governemnt should not dictate who you choose as a partner in the contract as long as both are legaly able and are consenting to enter into the partnership and abide by the rights. and responsibilities--thats my take anyway..
I agree. Even if it was a choice, then the argument can be made that it should still be acceptable, given full rights, etc. I'm the last person on earth who gives religious arguments any merit, and I've pointed out that our laws aren't based on religious principles at least six or seven times here.
But that's not what I'm talking about. "Whether you should or shouldn't on principle is another matter, but realistically it's a bad move." The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of religious pressure out there, as well as a lot of homophobia. In this arena either of us could make our points. Translating that out into the public consciousness is an entirely different matter, and a virtually impossible task. Public opinion regarding issues is the key to progress, not just the validity of arguments behind those issues.
It's a difference between should and will. The argument that it's a choice can establish a "should be theoretically accepted" conclusion in a small forum, but the argument that people are born this way is a "will be eventually accepted" argument. And then, when the eventuality of people's recognition of their fellow citizens' rights comes into fruition, then the concept of "choice" in this matter will become either moot or an outdated concept entirely.
Very well put and I wish your view on this was wider spread. Unfortunately that is not the world that most gays live in. They live in a world where many perceive them to have made the evil choice to pursue the heinous path of homesexuality and thereby not deserving the same rights as heterosexuals.
Hopefully, times they are a changing...
The answer I was speaking to was the initial response of "It's a choice." The one that made Melissa Ethridge feel she had to repeat the question.
I dont think it is a matter of him caring. We are all good at some things and not so good at other things. Articulating a position while very important in politics has never been his strong suit.
While it's true that we can't be good at everything, Bill Richardson's performance at the various debates so far make me wonder how much preparation he's doing beforehand. And the way he botched this question--one that he surely should have seen coming (almost the exact question was asked of the president in one of his debates with John Kerry)--was so clumsy that it really makes me wonder if he really hasn't begun to ask himself why he's wasting the time to be in the campaign at all. Like he's frustrated, and his way of coping is to essentially shut down. It's like he wasn't listening to the question. A question any idiot would have known how to handle (either from a political or an honest perspective).
You make a good point. I've always like Richardson overall though he isnt as liberal as I like them, but if he couldnt see that question coming in that venue it doesnt say anything good about him.
I agree. O'Reilly really should make up his mind and take his own advice. I also get what Sue is saying, taking him to task on one of the few times he is being reasonable seems questionable.
That's why I suggest whe should have a trial period to see if he can ween himself fro the issue.
I think that is fair. No doubt O'Reilly has handed MMFA yet another cudgel (remember his "we don't do personal attacks here" remark) to refer to if he decides to continue his odd remarks and misinformation.
That is quite a sterling position to take. Thanks!
also, we don't really need to worry about what the founding fathers would have thought about this or not. It's a different world and we need to figure it out for ourselves. I think it was thomas jefferson who said something about how laws should have a time limit, otherwise it would be like the past was enslaving the present
How are we supposed to relax when they're clustering?
I'm imagining how embarrassing it must be for Richardson, having BilldO criticize you for not understanding gay issues.Maybe if they review the duck and goat stuff, BilldO can straighten BillR out.
Scoff if you must HBL, but here in the Garden State, we already have a problem with clusters of goatmen.
That's right, half goat, half man.
I blame it on our legislature passing the Gay Civil Unions Bill.
I guess Rick Santorum was right.
Can duckmen be the next abomination?
W...KING,
First, being a resident of Pa., Santorum was never right about anything...he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. Unless the PARTY gave him directions.
Mr. O'Reilly may be getting the memo from on high asking him and other Cons to ease-up on the gay thing. Just as the Cons continue to use Security as a weak point of the Libs, the Cons are being branded with being anti-gay( and for good reason??) .Therefore, Bill and the gang must ease up.
Duckmen?!? Them's good eatin'!
Anyway, just relax on the duckman issue. We shouldn't have to worry about duckmen for a few months yet, as clustering season has been pushed back a couple weeks by global warming, and - according to Duckmen Unlimited - global warming can also be thanked for the eradication of a lot of duckmen habitat. Duckmen will likely soon be only a thing of the past.
While I won't claim to weep at their loss, I have to admit that I used to look forward to duckmen season. My dad and I used to go duckman hunting together in the fall. Of course, those were in the days when duckmen were only from test tubes. I remember sitting on the edge of a peaceful duckmen pond in our duckman blind drinking hot coffee, the occasional sounds of "Hey Thailor" from our duckmen calls cutting through the otherwise silent early morning mist, as the duckmen decoys bobbed in the water. And ol' Dolly - my faithful laboratory retriever - alert at the slightest hint of a duckman hitting the water. Brings back fond memories.
Now that it's legal for duckmen to breed on their own, things have changed, and a lot of the magic is gone. And they just don't taste the same...
You eat duckmen? How do you get their little wings abart?
Usually dinner and a ride in my Porsche is enough to do the trick...
Neondesert, you're spinning off-topic pretty early, even for a Friday.
This is about that loon, Bill O'Reilly, and the albatross around his neck regarding past comments.I'm not saying this is his swan song, but unless you're on heron, you have to admit he's got some gull bashing others on the subject. Maybe I;m peeking into the brain of Billdo to see just what his malardy is, but teal he can goose his own views in to the present, he's just puffin a lot of hot air.
Okay, okay. I forgot the cardinal rule, and just to quail your fears, there'll be no feather raven about "duckmen" from THIS turkey. If we all stop our grousing, we can make this a pheasant Friday and all have a good ptarmigan, can't we?
Pelican try.
sorry,I was trying to limit it to waterfowl, and ran out of juice.
I egret not being here for the festivites.
You are the Cormorant in Chief HBL!
This statement in and of itself seems pretty harmless. I think it would make more sense for MMFA to wait for O Reilly to start gay bashing again and then highlight that, and reference back to this, as opposed to highlighting this, since I'm sure they've already documented the previous gay bashing episodes.
I hope Bill takes his own advice.
Personally I've grown weary of the subject, & at this point I don't care if someone falls in love with, has sex with or marries a tree stump. I'm home this morning, we're having a couple of trees cut down...which I hope explains my imagery ;-)
Now I do have to wonder WHY Richardson didn't deserve his very own thread here?
Seems to me IF a Republican Presidential candidate had made that alleged gaffe, MMFA would have given them their very own thread. And the so called *explanation* would have been mocked as lame & rather weak.
Just a note about Richardson. The guy probably has one of the most impressive backgrounds among all of the Democratic candidates...but he's a lousy campaigner.
Richardson is a lousy campaigner who became Governor of a state just to run for President. He is also someone who feels that gays and lesbians have made a choice and that is plain WRONG
He would have been better of saying, "Some have made the choice".
Good point Jeter, I was hoping for a strong showing by Richardson since I've always liked him. He hasn't gotten much ink since the "sombrero" thread around here.
Bruce, I was hoping for a stronger showing myself by Richardson. I do think he would make a good VP...just don't think he is currently showing that he can stand up to the riggers of the general election in the spot of president. He has alot of experience and he would be a good asset with respect to foreign policy and relations as VP.
J,
Great point about Richardson and the duplicity of many of the Democratic candidates on this issue, not to mention this website, which can't bring itself ever to criticize a Democrat.
Many of them, including the frontrunners, pander to these gay rights groups because they want their votes, and more importantly their money....so they pay lip service with a few pats on the head to what is obviously their most important issue, gay marriage, yet they don't support it?
It's always tightrope walking when you placate special interest groups yet have to win national elections at the same time......how these major parties do it is amazing, at times.
I have to take issue with the pandering comment in reference to Richarson. Out of all the candidates he actually has a legitimate record to run on regarding gay rights...he hasn't just talked the talk. I don't agree with his personal belief that it is a choice, personally I believe it is nature...but having said that what difinitive proof do I have that it is nature? Richard was honest at the debate he said he really can't make that scientific determination...doesn't sound like pandering to me...sounds more like a man honestly struggling with the question.
Lost,
Maybe I was making too broad a statement, if so I apologize. But it really isn't about personal choices or likes or dislikes for me. Everyone is entitled for their own reasons to feel however they feel, their religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is wrong, that is their business.
It's just when politicians tell certain constituency groups what they "want" to hear to get their support, then either fail to promote legislation or vote against legislation which is at odds with that rhetoric, is very uneasy for me. I'd rather have politicians be honest about what they will or will not support, no matter whose support is at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.
Tommy, don't you think that is exactly what Richardson did? In fact isn't that what Clinton and in a less precise way Obama did at the LOGO debates? I think it is too easy to automatically pull the pandering card. If you really listened to what they were syaing they were telling the listeners what could realistically be accomplished with public policy at this time.
Lost,
I only heard all of Obama and just bits and pieces of the other candidates.......so I defer to your knowledge here, since I didn't see enough.
But I am not specifically speaking about last week's forum, I am talking in general about gay rights groups and Democrats historically. Don't say you are for equal civil rights regarding marriage and then say you don't support gay marriage, instead say how you will lead and what steps you intend to do to get there, or offer up a solution that as I advocate removing marriage from the state altogether, for everyone, and replace it with civil unions.......where marriage is left to religious institutions to perform. Be bold and lead, don't wink and nod and say squishy feel good things to garner their support, while not pissing off another group whose support you're also after.
I think it is a great idea to "make a stand" and fight for the whole kit and kaboodle (ala Kucinich) but I also don't think it is realistic, feasable, and in some instances even a good idea. I have more respect for those who are going to acuratley tell you what can be accomplished rather then making false promises that they can't possibly keep. You know I sorta disagree with you about abolishing marriage as a civil partnership. I support gay marriage but I also don't think it can be done right now and may even result in legislation setting back gay rights. I think those who claim they will legalize gay marriage if they are elected are making a promise they cannot realistically keep in most cases. Honestly I was pleased to see the dem candidates come out and tell the truth about what they can accomplish. I think this is why so many campaign promises get broken and why we have such distrust of our elected officials--instead of telling us what can realistically be accomplished they sell the ideal to us. This is one of the few times when I think the real truth was told by those who spoke at the debate and said this is what we can accomplish now and this si what they would push for if elected.
Hi Jeter, LOL. So that's the trick--we just bore you into seeing things our way. (-: Seriously though I really respect your evolution on this topic and your willingness to examine your position (it is very rare these days). I never got the impression that your position was coming from a hateful place like homophobia-and your willingness to look at the sitution proves that. My husband has followed a similar path--although he never was against gay rights but he didn't really get the whole "gay" thing. He told me the other day that the day he came to his own conclusion about choice and nature waws when I asked him that age old question--"When did you decide you were going to like girls instead of boys?" He said it opened his eyes. He really doesn't get what the fuss is all about anyway. He doesn't see how someone elses choice or nature effects anyone else's life or how giving equal rights causes any harm.
So that's the trick--we just bore you into seeing things our way. (-:
Seems so...my wife has been using that method for years to get me to do what she wants LOL.
At some point I guess I stopped being *disgusted* by homosexuality, or carping about it being unnatural or abnormal behavior, & asked myself if it was destructive to me personally or to society in general. The answer is no. People should have the freedom to love anyone they'd like. After all love is a good thing.
God I hope I'm not coming off too corny here :-O
Let me add though that I do not appreciate having any group's agenda shoved in my face. Just be reasonable and sincere & I'll probably be very agreeable :-)
Corney...no...I'd say more Kucinich-esque (-: Sorry if anyone doesn't get the reference but at the LOGO debates LOVE was Kucinich's theme. I think to get the rights and protections that are being denied you have to get in people's faces. But I do agree that there are ways to get your message out that in my view are neither acceptable nor helpful. I think the few crazies that come out during gay pride parades and pro-lifers displaying bloodied fetuses in picket lines for example are not doing either cause very much good. (before anyone jumps on me I am not equating the bloodied fetuses and the crazies just using them to show what I think gives their cause bad press). BTW, while you know I think you are swell--I am really beginning to like your wife...my husband says I aggravate and wear him down into seeing things my way...I guess great minds think alike (-:
Maybe the Richarson comment wasn't highlighted here because this is Media Matters, and it didn't fit that criteria. His statement wasn't made during a media event or interview, and he himself is not a member of the media. This is why we don't read about every single Bush gaffe or White House blunder here. Most of the time it has nothing to do with the media. Politicians say a lot of stupid things that aren't highlighted here.
OK, maybe I should revise that, because the LOGO channel (which I wasn't even aware of) is technically a media outlet. But it obviously isn't considered a conservative news media outlet.
That being said, there are any number of opportunities now that the campaign is underway to take issue with the media operatives working for the various campaigns. Howard Wolfson (Clinton's mouth-piece) has quite regularly for the past several weeks been attacking both the Edwards and Obama campaigns and then complaining when they respond with anything remotely negative about Clinton because they had set the goals of running clean campaigns.
Now, I'm not accusing MMFA of backing Clinton over the other candidates, but I could easily see how one could suggest the statement that Obama wants to have sit downs with a holocaust denier is an example of conservative misinformation.
Bottom line: ANYONE who gets riles and worried about the so-called gay scourge...is a tool. A tool of O'Reilly, Hannity and every other so-called moralist liar out there. Wake up idiots, the gays are not the problem.
They are the solution for bad fashion.
I'll buy that... and, actually, I do think they may be to blame for the infamous body dysmorphia that many women suffer from... by way of creating absurd, physically impossible 'fashion'... But, beyond that?
Gov. Richardson...when pointedly asked...said he thinks homosexuality is a choice.
Then, after being skewered in the media he issues a "let me be clear" statement that proclaims he does not believe homosexuality is a choice.
Since he pulled the age old political stunt of revising his remarks after he found his position caused outrage...we are free to choose which is the real position.
Well...let me be clear...Richardson does think homosexuality is a choice...his first and unabridged answer. There was honest outrage from the queer nation...but the real outrage should be his cowardly actions...which point to the conclusion that he's like the rest of the political hacks...masquerading as presidential material.
Actually, you are trying to turn a paraphrase of what some people apparently think Richardson was saying into his actual words. The original quote should be used to clarify matters.
Richardson never said explicitly it was a "choice". He was asked if homosexuals were "born" - to which he answered "no". Now that doesn't mean that homosexuals have a conscious choice in the matter. Other environmental factors can contribute to homosexuality, we don't really know.
You are mischaracterizing the way it turned out in what seems an attempt to ridicule Richardson for something he didn't actually say.
You know what he meant...and so do I. That's why the incredulous Melissa Etheridge repeated her question.
However, I would agree that there is truth in your statement " Other environmental factors can contribute to homosexuality, we don't really know."
Whichever way Richardson believes is his choice...I am only taking exception to the fact that he had to re-issue an answer after judging the reaction...is cowardly politics.
His latest stated position is "Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice.".
Time will tell if he remains consistent.
He did tell Melissa Etheridge it was a choice.
Even besides that, it's hard to comprehend that the "no" answer implies anything besides him saying it's a choice. What environmental factors would lead someone like Mary Cheney to be gay? Or Ted Haggard? More obviously, if there was really some environmental pattern that could determine sexuality, surely the thousands of psychologists and researchers out there would have nailed it down by now. It may be possible that it's purely environmental, but it stretches the imagination to the limit.
So even if that's what he meant, it's a strange position to take. And if he believes that it's some combination of genetics and environment, then he could easily say so.
The "environmental" reason was taking into account at least partly the relationship between parents and children and how some psychologists have argued that is what makes some children homosexual.
I don't personally know how valid that argument is, but it would explain that while a child may not be born gay, they may not have had a "choice" about their sexual orientation either. It may simply be the consequence of the nature of the relationship to his/her parent(s). Who knows if a distant/cowering/overbearing parent makes a difference in such matters.
I don't think Richardson's remarks - however poorly worded necessarily meant there is a choice involved. I believe that is an interpretation possibly based on a false (incomplete) set of assumptions.
The issue is that there are qualifiers here. Some psychologists say...may be a factor...
If everyone becomes gay through environmental factors, then that's more than 15 million people from which to pull statistics. What could possibly be the common trend for all of those people? That's the key. Some people may not be born gay, but be affected by environment, but surely whatever events or circumstances you find apply to many straight people as well. Again, it's possible, but common sense dictates that there are other factors there.
In any event, Richardson is talking about the nature of homosexuality in general, not the possibility of some people becoming gay through environment. If he believes all gay people are that way because of that, it's a highly illogical position at best. Otherwise, either he's saying that some or many people choose to be gay, or he's saying some or many people are born gay, in which case his "no" answer is hard to explain.
During the 2004 debates, when Bush was asked whether he believed homosexuals were born gay, he said 'I don't know.' At first I sort of scoffed at that response, but today, I think it's actually a pretty good answer. Kerry, of course, in his response made that incredibly uncomfortable reference to Mary Cheney, and Bush's response to the question was largely unreported. The fact is that nobody really knows (least of all a heterosexual who's never truly questioned his or her own sexuality) whether it's genetic or environmental. I think the logical money rides on it being an issue of sometimes one and sometimes the other.
Assuming there is a 'gay gene', one that we could identify and say all carriers of the gene were gay, I imagine the overwhelming liklihood would be that not all gays would be carriers of that gene. I wonder whether such a revelation would divide the gay community: whether gays who didn't carry the gene would be considered somehow not truly gay in the eyes of genetic homosexuals.
While I think the unqualified answer of no, homosexuals are not born (they're made??) is sort of a silly one, it doesn't necessarily imply a conscious choice, either. I mean, if you'd always thought of yourself as gay, and a gay gene was discovered, by your logic, if you learned that you didn't carry the gene then you must have chosen to be gay at some point. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.
"I mean, if you'd always thought of yourself as gay, and a gay gene was discovered, by your logic, if you learned that you didn't carry the gene then you must have chosen to be gay at some point."
I'm not sure how often that situation would come about. I don't know how many people could convince themselves they were attracted to the same sex when they really aren't. If that did happen, then assuming the test was correct that would be someone choosing to be gay. It seems more likely that the other way would happen more often, someone who was raised in a very strict or religious household who found out they were actually gay when they had thought they were straight. It's hard to imagine a situation where there would be outside pressure for a child to grow up gay.
I think homosexuality is a matter of degree, but almost always determined by genetics. It may be mostly inherent and partly environment, or the other way around, but I think most of the time (if not all), someone who really has a commitment to their own gender is that way by birth.
I'm not sure how often it would come about either, but I do think it would happen. What I'm suggesting to you is that it may not, and probably would not be as simple an issue as someone convincing themselves they're attracted to somebody they aren't. Again, the concept of 'gay by choice' is such a flawed one. It's such an odd distortion of the philosophical question of nature v nurture because it equates nurture with personal choice when the two are very different concepts.
In the end, the question is yet another stupid political device meant to divide people rather than bring them together. If you believe gays choose to be gay, then you must fall into the line of homosexuality being a social depravity akin to beastiality and pedophilia. If you don't consider it a depravity, you are politically obliged to call homosexuality a genetic trait. I mean, people can't help the way they were born! But what if they weren't born gay? What if they didn't choose to be gay, either? What if there isn't any single reason for being gay? What would an understanding or acceptance of that concept change in the grand scheme of things?
I think the question is useful for determining what people think. If one thinks it's a choice, then it makes it harder to gain gay rights. More importantly, if someone is opposed to gay rights, it's an extremely important question. As you said, one can't help how they're born, so nailing that perspective down is key to analyzing the basis of their position. And I think the issue itself is devisive because of religion and homophobia. It's not as if there was ever vast public support for gay rights and the question has done damage to that.
As I mentioned above, I just don't think it's possible that it's not genetic and it's not choice. To some degree I feel it has to include one or the other (but I obviously agree that the idea of "choosing" to be gay is flawed). There can't be one common trait among 15 million people without it being noticed. Having it be a combination of environmental traits would surely be noticable too, because no straight person could possibly have experienced those same events or circumstances.
And it seems to me that human sexuality is such a big part of our lives that an event that causes it would have to be pretty extreme, if there's no genetic basis for it. Yet, 48% of gay identical twins have straight brothers. What the hell happened to that many people to make them turn gay, when the same thing didn't happen to their siblings? What important environmental factors or events could be such a tremendous influence without being easily detectable? No matter how you look at it, there has to be some genetics or some choice involved.
As for how such knowledge would change things, that's hard to say. If the cause was ever found to be purely environmental, I think there would be a lot of pressure from people for parents to avoid turning their children gay. If it's found to be a choice, then there's a much stronger case that people should just stick to the opposite gender instead of putting their families through the controversy and drama (which, if it were truly a choice, wouldn't be such a big deal for them to do). That would put gay rights back decades. The answer to the question certainly does make a difference, as far as practical results go.
And I think it's important to work towards that answer, no matter what it is, for the sake of science and psychological understanding.
If 48% of identical male twins with a homosexual in the pairing only had one homosexual in the pairing, then all that does is seem to confirm how plausible it is that a large minority--or even a majority--of homosexuals may very well not be genetically gay. Does that mean they made a conscious decision to be gay? Why would it?
Yes, there is a lot of 'homophobia' in the world. But this question seems designed more as an outer of the homophobes than as an attempt to create dialogue. To forge an understanding between sides. The reason the question is divisive is that it suggests only two options. It creates two camps. Homophobe or not. If you don't want to be a homophobe, you know how you're supposed to answer the question. 'I don't know' the most obvious and accurate answer, is out of the question because it implies that you at least think it must be between choice and birth. And if it could be choice, you could be a homophobe.
From the statistic given, there are only a few possible conclusions one could draw: A: Homosexuality is clearly not always genetic (maybe never) since so many genetic copies come down on separate sides of the equation; or B: All those straight twins are really closeted gay men.
No matter how you like it, choice doesn't have to play a role at all.
I think you have done a very good job of analyzing the situation.
Why even assume that choice is a viable option? If it were the case of conscious choice, and no such gene existed, wouldn't that mean that all the people who claim to have felt gay all of their lives would just be liars?
Furthermore, homosexuality being proven to be genetic isn't alone going to make people less homophobic. Once a gene is identified, there would be many who would want to alter the gene. There would be others who would raise their child to be an even more overt hetero. I don't understand how the question bridges any gaps. Lots of things are genetic. Mental illness, for one. While we don't blame people for being mentally ill, we don't exactly accept them all with open arms, either. Even common forms of mental illness, like depression, are not as commonly understood as they could be.
The purpose of the dialogue should be to alter perception. Not to 'find the answer'. I'm not saying we should hide from the answer. I'm saying we shouldn't expect the answer, even the most benign for the gay community to put an end to homophobia.
I mean, we understand that the genetic differences between ethnic backgrounds are so absurdly minute that it's considered improper to even suggest such differences exist. Yet, there's still a lot of racial prejudice in the world, right? It's not like we don't know WHY we're different. The important thing should be to remind us all HOW we're the same.
First, you do realize I don't think it's a choice, right? You are making arguments as to why that idea is not viable, and I have no idea why. All I'm saying is that it's not purely environmental, which leads to the conclusion that one of the other two options has to be partly involved. I think it's genetic, for the reasons I've said many times in the past and the ones you are saying here.
I think you're quite mistaken when you say the gay/straight twin study shows that there's some lack of genetic causation or that the straight twins are closeted. You're assuming that identical DNA produces identical brain chemisty, which is not for certain at all. How is it that one identical twin can be right-handed, but the other left-handed? Bear in mind our society discourages left-handedness (think about how you read a book, write something down on paper, or drive a car). And besides, that still doesn't explain why one would be in the closet, if they were raised in the same environment.
Again, the issue is divisive. I'm not sure what you suggest to bridge the gap for people who think that homosexuality is a sin, perverted, depraved, etc. Is the idea that if we just keep telling them that they should deal with it that they will? Further, I have to say that it's odd that you're concerned about divisiveness between people who are tolerant and those who aren't. Who is this troublesome for, the homophobes who are put in awkward positions trying to explain themselves? I can't say I feel a lot of sympathy there. Why shouldn't we identify the homophobes, or at least make them explain their stances, especially when we're talking about people who are shaping public policy? By your logic, "do you think black people are inferior?" is a divisive question too, and never should have been asked in debates over slavery. All it does is create two camps of people, after all, instead of trying to bridge the gap.
The main reason for establishing the cause as genetic is to counter the religious/moral stance against it. More research is vital to establishing the dialogue you're talking about and bridging that gap. Otherwise, you're going to get people stubbornly saying that it's a choice, and that it's wrong. What is there to say to that? "They're people too"? "It doesn't matter if it's a choice"? There's no motivation for those people to change their minds there. How do you "alter the perception" if you don't have any information that contradicts their viewpoint?
Of course people may want to change people's DNA, even if a "gay gene" is identified. What are the alternatives? If you leave it up in the air, those same people will always say that it's wrong anyway. Citing the behavior of that sort of person isn't a convincing reason to discourage such research or minimize its importance. It's still the best scenario, and the best ammunition to counter the anti-gay perceptions. It will take some time to change people's minds no matter what, so why not try to speed up the process and arm yourself with convincing arguments?
While a single gene may determine a simple trait like whether or not an individual has straight or curly hair, complex traits like sexuality involve many genes. It is likely that the genetic component of sexuality results in a tendency toward one orientation or the other.
But as you said, DNA isn't the only determinant of brain chemistry. Environmental factors are involved as well, and the determination of orientation likely occurs early in development.
But that still doesn't make it a choice, and I don't think we should dumb down our arguments to reach the lowest common denominator.
I'm sure there are several genes involved, that's partly why I put it in quotes. And I'm sure that environmental factors are involved as well.
I agree it's not a choice, and we shouldn't dumb down anything. I'm assuming you know I don't think otherwise.
No, I actually misread you. (I mistakenly thought you suggested that positing anything other that a genetic explanation for homosexuality is a mistake because it gives cover to those who say it is unnatural).
I went back over everything you've said on this topic, and I agree with all of it. Sorry for the confusion.
To be fair, 'gay gene' was my addition to the dialogue. Not because I think it would be an issue of a single gene but because it's an easily understandable concept.
Of course, it's been realized that not even eye color is determined a single gene. There's no reason we should believe that any profound behavior or personality trait should be the result of a single gene.
My only premise with introducing the phrase was to point out how foolish the quest for uncovering a single determining factor of causation can be.
First, you do realize I don't think it's a choice, right? You are making arguments as to why that idea is not viable, and I have no idea why.
On the contrary, my intention is to do no more than point out the obvious flaw to the question you earlier defended as helpful. My argument is that it's absolutely not helpful. And it's not intended to be helpful. By only allowing for one alternative to birth and heredity, the gay rights community (the only group concerned with asking this question) is simplifying an equation not even they understand. They put someone in the position of agreeing with them OR calling them liars. There's no middleground there. It's a far more divisive question than the issue itself because it forces people on their side to choose between loyalty to a group and loyalty to what they actually believe.
I think it's genetic, for the reasons I've said many times in the past and the ones you are saying here....How is it that one identical twin can be right-handed, but the other left-handed?
Hand preference is not genetic. That's why it's possible to have identical twins with opposing preferences. If it were GENEtic, then two individuals with the exact same GENEs (sorry for the condescending caps, really, I am) would necessarily have the same preference. Likewise, if sexual preference were genetic, then identical twins would necessarily have the same preference.
And besides, that still doesn't explain why one would be in the closet, if they were raised in the same environment.
Again, my greatest concern is not to determine why we're different. I mean, as fascinating and creepy as identical twins can be, we shouldn't forget that they only start out the same. From the moment the embryo splits, they are individuals with different experiences.
Is the idea that if we just keep telling them that they should deal with it that they will?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Further, I have to say that it's odd that you're concerned about divisiveness between people who are tolerant and those who aren't.
I think it's odd that you think the only people being divided by this are those who are and aren't tolerant. The question itself is an intolerant one because it seeks to out those who will not toe the line. I certainly wouldn't consider myself intolerant to homosexuals, but I feel a great separation between myself and that community by the very fact that they consider this to be a fair question to ask.
Why shouldn't we identify the homophobes, or at least make them explain their stances, especially when we're talking about people who are shaping public policy?
This isn't an either/or question because even in the second part, you're identifying the people explaining themselves as homophobes. So you're saying 'why shouldn't we identify the homophobes, and then once they're identified, have them explain themselves. Frankly, I've long had a problem with the label homophobe. I think it makes all sorts of inaccurate implications. But even if we're to accept this label, the reason that identifying the homophobes shouldn't be the primary goal is that it's a goal that gets you no where. All right, we've figured out who doesn't like the gays; we've really accomplished something haven't we. Um...now what?
By your logic, "do you think black people are inferior?" is a divisive question too, and never should have been asked in debates over slavery.
I'm sorry, I am a big defender of gay rights, but I cannot get behind the comparison of gay rights with slavery. The question wasn't whether or not black people were inferior. It was whether or not black people were people at all. Or just property of the white man. It's a hyperbolic comparison for more than that reason, but that reason should be enough.
The main reason for establishing the cause as genetic is to counter the religious/moral stance against it. More research is vital to establishing the dialogue you're talking about and bridging that gap.
Why do you think a counter to the religious/moral stance is even possible? Who among the religious/moral believers are going to accept gays on the word of science alone? Furthermore, the twins statistic does prove to be a huge flaw in the genetic argument. As for the dialogue, the question exists to stifle dialogue and to quash dissent. Otherwise, they'd offer more than two possible acts of causation.
It will take some time to change people's minds no matter what, so why not try to speed up the process and arm yourself with convincing arguments?
You see, to take up arms is to get ready for battle. You go to battle to win the war. This isn't a war. This shouldn't be a debate. It should be a discussion. No, people aren't always rational when they say what they say. It's frustrating. We all succumb to being argumentative every now and again (I certainly do), but if our goal is to change perception, it shouldn't be our goal to identify and belittle those who disagree. It shouldn't be our tactics to present false arguments to people to get them to either fall in line or prove themselves to be the enemy. It's just wrong.
"But even if we're to accept this label, the reason that identifying the homophobes shouldn't be the primary goal is that it's a goal that gets you no where. All right, we've figured out who doesn't like the gays; we've really accomplished something haven't we. Um...now what?"
You don't vote for them, and you highlight their lack of credibility on the matter. How is that not useful, again?
"The question wasn't whether or not black people were inferior. It was whether or not black people were people at all."
You yourself said that we needed to remind people how we're all the same. Doesn't the slavery question strike to the very heart of that effort? "Black people are not inferior, therefore they should not be treated this way" "Gay people are born that way, same as you're born straight. We're all the same, so any discrimination is wrong. Again, what dialogue do you expect to have without this sort of argument at hand?
"Why do you think a counter to the religious/moral stance is even possible? Who among the religious/moral believers are going to accept gays on the word of science alone?"
To cite the slavery argument again, people used biblical justification for it. When's the last time you heard someone do that? Public attitudes eventually change. This is different, I recognize that, but still you can reduce the number of opponents to hardcore religious zealots, winning over people who are just believing what their preacher or parents or whoever told them. If you can make the argument that people are born gay, then it's much, much harder for anyone to say it's "immoral". Some will still do it, but they discredit themselves in a major way. On the other hand, we could just tell the Bible-thumpers to "get over it". That should work, huh?
"...but if our goal is to change perception, it shouldn't be our goal to identify and belittle those who disagree. It shouldn't be our tactics to present false arguments to people to get them to either fall in line or prove themselves to be the enemy."
What "false arguments"? If you're really arguing people aren't born that way, and don't choose to be that way, then my points about purely environmental factors can't be ignored. If people believe it's a combination of any of the three possibilities, then they can say so. If it makes them uncomfortable, then they probably have reason for introspection on the matter. It doesn't force anyone to say anything unfairly.
We're not talking about our favorite baseball teams here, where I'm going to chastise you for not supporing the local team. We're talking about the basis for discrimination against people. If someone has a stance that allows for discrimination, yes you identify them, and yes you belittle them. I can't believe that your sensibilities are so delicate that some perceived injustice of that outweighs societal injustice against millions of people.
Okay, you ready? You can't make the argument that people are born gay. The only argument you can make is that gay people believe they were born gay (which isn't even always the case). If you cannot identify a genetic connection to homosexuality, you cannot find proof of people being born gay. You cannot determine sexual preference by studying an ultrasound, so the only hope for empirical proof is the concept of the 'gay gene(s)'. And if you never make that discovery, where does that leave the argument? By framing it as an option of choice or birth, the gay community is setting themselves up to lose. That is, assuming no genetic connection can ever be made. They intentionally trivialize the concept of gay by choice, but leave that as the only alternative to the perhaps unprovable concept of gay by birth. And by framing it in such a dishonest way, maybe they deserve to lose.
Comparing homosexuality with ethnic background or gender is also a losing argument because those classifications are undeniably genetic. It's even more foolish to compare gay rights too directly with atrocities perpetrated against peoples of a specific ethnic background or gender. I support gay rights, but it's simply not the same thing. And equating them only points out the differences. As I said before, we should be focusing on similarities.
I think I've already stated the nature of the false argument, but at the risk of appearing redundant, it's that there's only two options 'gay by birth' or 'gay by choice.' One is quite possibly unprovable while the other is an absolutely inadequate alternative specifically designed so that anybody foolish enough to choose it would be easily identified as being intolerant.
The problem is that even if you say you believe in 'gay by choice' that doesn't even imply intolerance! Someone could believe people choose to be gay and completely support gay rights at the same time. Still, the question is designed to out people as being intolerant. The point should be to convince people to be tolerant. Not to beat them down for not agreeing. Beating people down is how you lose. It's how you make people less tolerant. How do you not know this?
You don't necessarily need positive proof. The larger the number of studies that indicate it to be the case, the more substantial the point is. What's more, if you're talking about creating a dialogue with people, you can make common-sense arguments. Why is Mary Cheney gay? It's not proof, but it can lead someone to look beyond the idea of free will into genetic, developmental or environmental factors. That is a step in the right direction, obviously. So obviously, you can make that argument, even if you can't prove it beyond any doubt yet (or ever, for that matter). What's more, it can be a combination of birth and environment, not just this binary birth/choice scenario you keep presenting. If someone can't think of such a simple concept when answering the question, they deserve whatever scorn they get.
Your dismissal of the slavery comparison is sorely lacking. If people deserve rights, then they deserve them. I don't see how that principle is compromised by anything you're talking about here. Again, if you want to argue that people are the same, then arguing "gay by birth" is vital to that! To say "it doesn't matter if it's a choice", to allow the possibility of that to be accepted is to allow someone to point out that a willful disregard for societal standards on a sexual whim indicates a pretty obvious difference! See, it doesn't even have to be a religious argument once you abandon that stance, and that's what makes arguing against it so much more difficult.
Saying that it's a choice doesn't necessarily prove intolerance in itself, but still that is a position that bears explanation. How does such a person believe the mind of a gay person works? Are they hedonists? Just rebellious? Wouldn't you ask that person when they chose to be straight, to see how they responded? I sure would. If someone can't stand up to some scrutiny on their views, then their position is obviously weak. In any event that is something people should know about, in order to evaluate them. If they can explain themselves, terrific. If they can't, then they deserve to be beaten down, to inspire them or others to reconsider their own positions. Saying "deal with it" not only doesn't change a homophobe's mind, it's not going to convince anyone else to disagree with them either.
What's more, if you're talking about creating a dialogue with people, you can make common-sense arguments. Why is Mary Cheney gay?
Why should I care why Mary Cheney's gay. Her being gay is none of my business. Why she's gay far exceeds my powers of deduction.
It's not proof, but it can lead someone to look beyond the idea of free will into genetic, developmental or environmental factors.
No, it's not proof at all. It doesn't even resemble proof. It's not even an answer. It's a question you can't possibly know the answer to. How could that be proof of anything other than your ability to ask a question? Even still, though, that wasn't the question. And as much as you want to run from the question, it offered two possible options Birth or Choice. It wasn't why are people gay. That's at least an interesting question. And an unbiased one.
What's more, it can be a combination of birth and environment, not just this binary birth/choice scenario you keep presenting.
Um...I'm not presenting that scenario.
Your dismissal of the slavery comparison is sorely lacking. If people deserve rights, then they deserve them.
My point is that people need to rethink the basis on which they deserve rights. If gays only deserve rights because they were born gay then what of the people who were not born gay. What if only half of all homosexuals were born gay? What of the other half? What if the ratio of birth:not was closer to 20:80? What if none of them were born gay? Do they then not get to ask for rights as gay people? Apparently not. So for the good of equality, we must say they were born gay even though we have absolutely no proof of that absent anecdotal testimony? Give me a break. The right for two people to love one another is vital. If neither of those people are victimized in that relationship, then they should be allowed to marry. Again, don't lay everything on gay by birth. You might get burned.
Saying that it's a choice doesn't necessarily prove intolerance in itself, but still that is a position that bears explanation. How does such a person believe the mind of a gay person works? Are they hedonists? Just rebellious? Wouldn't you ask that person when they chose to be straight, to see how they responded?
I'm sorry, man, but your intolerance is showing. Have a little empathy. Even when you don't think the other person has any for you. People don't have to explain how they feel. Or why they feel that way. That's not the society in which we live. And the fact is, it's difficult to read your words without inferring obvious accusations based on your own prejudice.
If someone can't stand up to some scrutiny on their views, then their position is obviously weak.
Who knows? You're standing up to scrutiny even though your position is clearly weak.
That was glib, I know. But I mean every word of it.
"Why should I care why Mary Cheney's gay. Her being gay is none of my business. Why she's gay far exceeds my powers of deduction... No, it's not proof at all. It doesn't even resemble proof. It's not even an answer. It's a question you can't possibly know the answer to."
You can't know, but the lack of a plausible environmental or choice scenario does mean something. A basic understanding of one's own mental processes should lead most people to understand that you don't put yourself in a position where your own parents disapprove of your lifestyle for absolutely no reason.
"If gays only deserve rights because they were born gay then what of the people who were not born gay. What if only half of all homosexuals were born gay? What of the other half? What if the ratio of birth:not was closer to 20:80? What if none of them were born gay? Do they then not get to ask for rights as gay people? Apparently not."
It would be harder for them to ask, for the reason I stated earlier. They would be rebelling against societal norms on a sexual whim, and while it's all well and good to say "what's the harm?", that doesn't affect the reality of the situation. Society does not have to change itself to fit a small minority who are doing something by choice. Theoretically, you can say it should, but that in itself doesn't counter societal disapproval, no matter how fair or unfair the basis of that disapproval is.
"I'm sorry, man, but your intolerance is showing. Have a little empathy."
What intolerance? What prejudice? Against people who say things and they don't know why, or people who can't explain their own positions but think they should shape public policy?
"Who knows? You're standing up to scrutiny even though your position is clearly weak."
Why is that necessary? I'm not being disrespectful, why do you have to lower the discourse? If my position is weak, it's about time you demonstrated why, instead of accusing me of being intolerant.
You can't know, but the lack of a plausible environmental or choice scenario does mean something.
What kind of backwards logic are you getting at? A: I think you have a pretty limited understanding for what, in this case, would qualify as 'environmental.' and B: Simply because we cannot pinpoint an environmental act of causation doesn't lead us anywhere than the obvious answer of 'I really don't know.' I'm amazed at how you are so unwilling to allow that as the only accurate answer. Especially when all of your studies meant to support your belief of homosexuality prior to birth seem to be either irrellevant or contradictory to your argument. Don't you see how careless it is to place all of your faith on the concept of being born gay? Don't you see how foolish it is to say we deserve these rights because we were born this way? Don't you wonder at all what would happen to the issue of gay rights if it were unequivocally determined that homosexuality was not a genetic condition...ever? Do you rely entirely on the notion that one could no more prove that homosexuals were not born that way than they could that they were? In other words, is your scientific argument entirely faith-based? It seems to be where you draw all of your conclusions: pure faith.
A basic understanding of one's own mental processes should lead most people to understand that you don't put yourself in a position where your own parents disapprove of your lifestyle for absolutely no reason.
Again, choice gets injected into the dialogue as the strawman meant to prop up an argument for which your only substantive proof is your own will for it to be so. Wait, I said substantive.
It would be harder for them to ask, for the reason I stated earlier. They would be rebelling against societal norms on a sexual whim, and while it's all well and good to say "what's the harm?", that doesn't affect the reality of the situation.
I honestly cannot believe I'm having this discussion. It's breathtaking, your ability to rationalize making a dubious argument because if we were to be entirely honest, we just wouldn't be able to compell people in the way our wishfull thinking already doesn't. There's no science to back up the assertion of gay at birth. The simple argument should be to continue to pursue that theoretically while practically preparing for the eventuality that you're never able to prove that. And how do we prepare for that? Well, we certainly don't pretend like we already have scientific proof. It's a better idea to pretend like you'll never have scientific proof. At least then you're arguments are going to be solid.
What intolerance? What prejudice? Against people who say things and they don't know why, or people who can't explain their own positions but think they should shape public policy?
No. Against the people you believe are holding society back while you rationalize misleading to suit your own political ends. The people you talk about allowing to explain themselves while in the same breath you justify beating down.
Why is that necessary? I'm not being disrespectful, why do you have to lower the discourse? If my position is weak, it's about time you demonstrated why, instead of accusing me of being intolerant.
Because your argument is based on a lack of respect for your common man. Because at the heart of your argument is a basic hatred of people who disagree with you, and that hatred is used to justify dishonest tactics meant to identify those people so they can then be beaten down. You justify dumbing down the discourse because, in your mind, it's a necessary means to an end. The end being tricking people into agreeing with you. Why must you trick them? Simple: it's a lot easier than convincing them on the genuine merits of the issue (which are plentiful!). So yeah, I was glib. But I meant every word. You know, intellectual honesty is sort of a big thing for me.
If you make no effort to determine the answer, then you appear to be a coward. Why would you argue for gay rights but argue so vociferously that we shouldn't find such a thing out? It would come off to people as if you're scared of the answer, and you clearly are. What if it proves it's a choice? Well, what if it does? If that's the case, then the dialogue should reflect that. The thing is that it does change the debate. Your argument would become the only avenue available, and it's highly idealistic. You could just as well say "people should give up their guns so people don't get shot so much". Well, that's true, they should, but everyone knows they won't. As I wrote elsewhere, we can agree that love is all that matters, there's no harm, etc. Transferring that understanding into the public consciousness is a much different story.
"...choice gets injected into the dialogue as the strawman meant to prop up an argument for which your only substantive proof is your own will for it to be so."
What strawman? If someone believes it's a choice, then making them think about the basic psychology of it is an effective common-sense argument.
Why are you assuming not only that there is no scientific evidence now, but that there could never be such a thing? Isn't that conclusion based on faith?
"The people you talk about allowing to explain themselves while in the same breath you justify beating down."
If their explanations are consistent and sensible, then they're not getting beaten down. When did I say otherwise?
"You justify dumbing down the discourse because, in your mind, it's a necessary means to an end. The end being tricking people into agreeing with you."
Wait, I'm the one who's interested in scientific evidence to back up the birth theory, and you want to just simply tell people that it doesn't matter, that all you need is love, that they should just get over it. Who's dumbing it down, where your suggestion is the "merits" of the case? And what "trick"? There's nothing whatsoever dishonest about what I'm saying.
You're confusing genuine criticism of someone's views with hatred.
All right, I'm going to break my word, and come back even though I said I was done. After this, I honestly will say no more on the subject. The week is coming, and I should spend it far from the Internets. After this, you are welcome to the last word. Even if you use it to insult my mother (which of course you wouldn't.)
If you make no effort to determine the answer, then you appear to be a coward. Why would you argue for gay rights but argue so vociferously that we shouldn't find such a thing out?
I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not against finding an answer to the question. I am against allowing that answer to determine how I'm going to face the issue. My feeling is that the answer to the question is not the issue itself. My feeling is that people are allowing the question to become the issue when, in fact, the question--while an interesting mystery to solve--is totally beside the point. And by mistaking the question with the issue, they're determining what the acceptable answer to the question is without themselves knowing what the true answer is. It's my opinion that this is a tactic that indangers the issue because it puts all the eggs in one basket (so to speak), and if it were to ever be determined that the basket wasn't a basket at all, but a fox hole, people are going to find themselves with quite the shortage of eggs. If you think this caution makes me a coward, fine. Personally, I think I'm being quite pragmatic. Maybe I'm a pragmatic idealist, I don't know, but it seems like it's better to talk about we know to be true and to do our best to make a compelling argument out of that. You must know that there's a compelling argument in there, right?
What if it proves it's a choice? Well, what if it does? If that's the case, then the dialogue should reflect that. The thing is that it does change the debate.
A: There's never going to be proof that it's a choice. B: Why do you continue to allow the question to dictate the debate. The question isn't the answer. The question's just a question.
As I wrote elsewhere, we can agree that love is all that matters, there's no harm, etc. Transferring that understanding into the public consciousness is a much different story.
Maybe, but why isn't that the goal? Isn't that the issue? In the end, isn't that a far easier issue to sell?
What strawman? If someone believes it's a choice, then making them think about the basic psychology of it is an effective common-sense argument.
Yes, there are people who believe in the concept of gay by choice. But it's an argument that needn't have common sense applied to it. It's an argument injected into the context of our discussion to draw attention away from the complexities of the question. That's the reason it's the only alternative to birth given in the initial question.
Why are you assuming not only that there is no scientific evidence now, but that there could never be such a thing? Isn't that conclusion based on faith?
I'm not making that second assumption. I don't make that first one, though. I just happen to know that there's no scientific evidence now. I'm using that understand to presuppose the scenario in which no scientific evidence is never uncovered. That's not an assumption. It may happen tomorrow. I just don't think it's very likely. Plus, I'd be skeptical of the source until I read the study and saw who funded it.
If their explanations are consistent and sensible, then they're not getting beaten down. When did I say otherwise?
You get to determine what is sensible, but you're the one who's using an entirely rationalized argument based on what you want to be true because it's easier than dealing with what you know to be true. Using my five senses, I'd say that tact sort of stinks.
Wait, I'm the one who's interested in scientific evidence to back up the birth theory, and you want to just simply tell people that it doesn't matter, that all you need is love, that they should just get over it. Who's dumbing it down, where your suggestion is the "merits" of the case? And what "trick"? There's nothing whatsoever dishonest about what I'm saying.
Who's dumbing it down? The people who framed the question that only offers the options of birth vs choice. Who's justifying dumbing it down? That would be you. Where's the trick? The trick is in suggesting you're the one interested in scientific evidence while you have repeatedly stated that proof isn't necessary. The trick is in the offering of the existance of scientific evidence without actually presenting any. The trick is in asking a question that telegraphs itself as a device meant to find out an answer wholly different from what it's actually asking and therefore dictating a response. It's in asking a question that doesn't imply a third option, yet at the same time offers only two options most people could not subscribe to if they were thinking clearly and were unafraid of seeming improper. The dishonesty is in allowing such a thing to go on without raising any objection, and then defending it when an objection is raised.
All right, I've said my peace.
BreakerBaker 1-9
10-4
Over and Out.
"Yes, there are people who believe in the concept of gay by choice. But it's an argument that needn't have common sense applied to it."
If those people are out there, then that's a valid concern in your effort to win over the public in general. Your response is largely irrelevant, I'm just describing how one can make a common-sense argument without having to have definitive scientific proof.
"You get to determine what is sensible, but you're the one who's using an entirely rationalized argument based on what you want to be true because it's easier than dealing with what you know to be true."
No, other people can decide what's sensible or not. You're making quite a lot of baseless assertions about me here. I believe that people are gay by birth (to some degree, at the very least) because nothing else makes a lot of sense. If people can explain otherwise, then they're free to do that. Honestly, if there's some other rational explanation (and that's something that people in general can decide, not just me), then I have no problem with that explanation being expressed.
"Who's dumbing it down? The people who framed the question that only offers the options of birth vs choice. Who's justifying dumbing it down? That would be you."
I'm never for dumbing down anything. The idea that people aren't capable of figuring out a third, fourth, fifth option to that question is in itself trying to dumb down the discussion.
"Where's the trick? The trick is in suggesting you're the one interested in scientific evidence while you have repeatedly stated that proof isn't necessary."
That's not inconsistent. It's not absolutely necessary, because of common sense arguments, but I'm still interested in scientific evidence, whether it proves or disproves what i personally believe, or never comes to any grand conclusion at all.
"The trick is in the offering of the existance of scientific evidence without actually presenting any."
But you make that determination as to what qualifies as evidence, and you are rationalizing based on what you want to be true. However, you can click on my link below for a simple google search of scientific studies.
"It's in asking a question that doesn't imply a third option, yet at the same time offers only two options most people could not subscribe to if they were thinking clearly and were unafraid of seeming improper."
I still find it laughable that when presented with that question that someone who honestly doesn't have an opinion couldn't say "I don't know", or someone who had already thought about it couldn't say "some of both" or any other number of responses. If they're really scared their response might be improper, then obviously they need to think about what their stand is. If they say what they really feel and people criticize them for it, well maybe there's a valid reason for that criticism then.
"The dishonesty is in allowing such a thing to go on without raising any objection, and then defending it when an objection is raised."
You're perfectly free to demonstrate at any time how it's dishonest to express my opinions on the matter. Good luck with that.
I'm hoping you're able to refrain from making so many self-serving assumptions, mischaracterizations and personal attacks in the future.
"I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not against finding an answer to the question."
Didn't you say something earlier about how silly it was to try to figure out causation, or something like that? I apologize if I'm misremembering. You seemed to miss that I'm talking about public perception of your actions, in any event. If you come out and say "it doesn't matter", then people have to wonder why you're not interested in finding out. It comes off as "I don't think I have anything objective to persuade you with, so I'm going to appeal to your emotions". That's not confidence-inspiring.
"Maybe I'm a pragmatic idealist, I don't know, but it seems like it's better to talk about we know to be true and to do our best to make a compelling argument out of that. You must know that there's a compelling argument in there, right?"
What makes you think that what you know to be true is going to be accepted by many other people the same way? It's a compelling theoretical argument, much like Communism. In practice, it just doesn't work though.
"A: There's never going to be proof that it's a choice."
I know. I'm talking about your worst case scenario, where no birth factor is ever proven, the eggs and the foxhole and all that.
"B: Why do you continue to allow the question to dictate the debate. The question isn't the answer. The question's just a question."
I've stated why it's an important distinction. It's about how people view the issue, and the conflicting viewpoints of the nature of homosexuality is a valid concern there.
"Maybe, but why isn't that the goal? Isn't that the issue? In the end, isn't that a far easier issue to sell?"
Absolutely not, particularly for reasons I went into on my "other last word" post below. If you're talking to someone who accepts homosexuality already, then you can more easily make that case. But I don't think society is that accepting in general yet. Again, I'm harping on the choice aspect because it makes a huge difference in opinion. If people are born that way (or birth/environment), then yes people should surely have the right to love, to marry, and that's a valid reason for society in general to allow it. But if it's a choice, then society can reject that idea out of hand, fair or not. There's no moral, ethical or humanist rationale for why societal norms have to conform to people who are just acting on impulse.
"By only allowing for one alternative to birth and heredity, the gay rights community (the only group concerned with asking this question) is simplifying an equation not even they understand. They put someone in the position of agreeing with them OR calling them liars. There's no middleground there. It's a far more divisive question than the issue itself because it forces people on their side to choose between loyalty to a group and loyalty to what they actually believe."
When did "liars" come into the picture? If people really think there's no genetic basis to it, then they should explain what they do believe. Is it really your argument that a question seeking understanding of the nature of people is more divisive then an issue where many people have a religious hatred for an entire group?
"Hand preference is not genetic."
How about if it's something you're born with? It's a difference that can't be explained by anything that happens after birth, and that can apply to homosexuality as well. If it's something developmental that's outside of anyone's control, then the answer to "are people born gay" is "yes".
"That's exactly what I'm saying."
Um, ok. "I don't have any actual argument why you should accept gay people...but you just should". What kind of dialogue is this supposed to create, and how on earth do you imagine it's going to bridge any gaps?
"I think it's odd that you think the only people being divided by this are those who are and aren't tolerant."
What an absurd cop-out. As if it's somehow offensive or unfair to make people question their own stances or explain their beliefs.
When did "liars" come into the picture?
It's implicit in the initial question. You either believe that people are truly born gay, OR you believe that they've chosen to be gay and have therefore been lying when they claim to have been gay all of their lives. The point of choice is that it's conscious. And if you've made a conscious choice, then you know you weren't born gay.
If people really think there's no genetic basis to it, then they should explain what they do believe.
Why? Why shouldn't they just accept people for being gay regardless of whether or not they were born that way? Unlike pedophilia or polygamy, there's no inherent inequality or victimization in a gay relationship, so there's really no rational reason to deny the virtues of a relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender. Who cares why they love each other? Shouldn't the fact that they do be enough?
Is it really your argument that a question seeking understanding of the nature of people is more divisive then an issue where many people have a religious hatred for an entire group?
It's my argument that people frame the question to out people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and rather than try to make them more comfortable with homosexuality, they assume these people are bigoted and therefore ripe for being attacked. It's mean. It's wrong. And it's just bad politics.
How about if it's something you're born with?
A: As interesting as that study is, it's only a single study, and a single study isn't necessarily proof of anything. I have a one year old, and he seems to change his hand preference every other day.
B: Your example only calls into question how apt your analogy of hand preference to sexual preference actually is. How is an ultrasound going to give us insight into the sexual preference of an unborn child? If you're looking for proof of gay at birth, how are you going to find it without it being something observable?
It's a difference that can't be explained by anything that happens after birth, and that can apply to homosexuality as well.
I don't accept the unequivocal nature of your assertion that hand preference is necessarily determined prior to birth. It may be the case, but I feel like I've personally witnessed evidence to the contrary.
If it's something developmental that's outside of anyone's control, then the answer to "are people born gay" is "yes".
A: 'Are people born gay?' was not the question.
B: There seems to be no way of determining that it's something developmental outside of anyones control. So again, it's probably not the best argument to lay the whole of the equal rights campaign onto.
Um, ok. "I don't have any actual argument why you should accept gay people...but you just should".
I never said there shouldn't be an argument in favor of equality. I've said this is the wrong one.
What an absurd cop-out. As if it's somehow offensive or unfair to make people question their own stances or explain their beliefs.
No, what's offensive and unfair is the creation of a false argument designed to build support for a shaky and unverifiable assertion by giving as the only alternative an option that paints any takers as bigots.
And no, the question is either/or. It doesn't provide for a C: Both, or D: Neither. It's either A or B. It's therefore a stupid question. And, because it's designed to make people conform or be ridiculed, it's a malicious and intolerant one.
Wait a minute. You were just arguing that one can believe it's a choice and not be intolerant. But from what you're saying here, one would have to believe that all people who claim to be born gay are liars. That seems like an odd group to support, if you believe that's how they behave. It certainly makes such a case for equality much more difficult.
The reason to explain the position is because to say that there's no genetic (or developmental) factor leads one to say that either it's environmental, which is absurd for the reasons I've stated, or that it's a choice, which makes gay people liars by your own argument, or some combination of the two. The argument can be made that people should accept gay people no matter what, but it's a much tougher argument to make, and much less compelling. Common sense leads one to believe that there's something that goes on before birth, and so that's a much stronger option (as well as being an honest one).
If you try to argue that people are born gay, then you do make them more comfortable with it. You're adding empathy and identifying into the picture. As I said, it's vital to that cause. If someone has a position they can't explain, they should be ripe for attack, and I don't understand how anyone believes otherwise. Shouldn't we know exactly where people who want to shape public policy stand on things?
The study I'm citing is only supposed to support that point. Obviously there's not going to be any observable gay traits through ultrasound, so what? That doesn't mean that it comes about after birth, by any means. As I said in my other post, the more studies, the more valid the argument is. It doesn't have to be definitive proof, by any means.
If you can come up with some basis for environmental causation of handedness, I'm all ears. I can't think of anything that could possibly lead someone to do that, especially since it's such a small minority of people who are left-handed. Again, it's not necessarily about definitive proof, it's the body of evidence and common sense.
What was the question? "Do people choose to be gay?"? Then the answer would be "no". It's not the best course of action, but "deal with it" is? Some evidence is better than no evidence, and I don't see how you can say otherwise.
So what do you suggest, as I've asked several times now? How do you imagine that dialogue proceeding, exactly, where it makes anyone comfortable or compassionate with homosexuality? What is the alternative?
Your repeated assertion that it's either/or is becoming tiresome. It's obviously not the case, no matter how many times you insist. It can be genetic and developmental, it can be developmental and environmental, it can be developmental and choice, etc. It could be some of all of them, really. There are plenty of possible responses one can make, and as long as someone is presented with the opportunity to explain exactly what they think, then there is simply nothing unfair about it.
Wait a minute. You were just arguing that one can believe it's a choice and not be intolerant. But from what you're saying here, one would have to believe that all people who claim to be born gay are liars.
That's true. One can believe it's a choice and still be tolerant of it as a choice. Where the liars aspect comes in is in who is framing the question. The choice given by the gay community with this question is a false choice. It asks for someone to agree with them or it asks for someone to implicitly call those who claim to believe they were born gay liars. That doesn't contradict with the rational ability to believe in someones right to choose a 'gay lifestyle,' but the framing of the question along with the source of the question implies a contradiction. It implies you cannot believe it's a choice and be tolerant. So not only is the question fundamentally flawed, the structure upon which the answers are judged is flawed.
The reason to explain the position is because to say that there's no genetic (or developmental) factor leads one to say that either it's environmental, which is absurd for the reasons I've stated, or that it's a choice, which makes gay people liars by your own argument, or some combination of the two.
I'm not sure how you so easily separate developmental from environmental. Further, I'm not sure how you find developmental a more cogent link with genetic than with environmental. What causes this development if not genetics? Wouldn't it have to be environmental? The simple fact of the matter is that born gay, as nice as it would be to prove is not likely to be proved. If you say it's developmental, that doesn't equal 'they're born gay' no matter how much you wish it to be the case. And to imply environmental causes in the upbringing of a child do not have a profound effect on how that child develops into an adult is just silly. To what level the environment affects an individuals sexual orientation, I'm not at all certain. I'd imagine that it plays a greater level to some than to others.
The argument can be made that people should accept gay people no matter what, but it's a much tougher argument to make, and much less compelling.
It's interesting that you find nonexistant scientific evidence to be so compelling. I personally find anecdotal testimony compelling, but it has nothing to do with science. And it has very little to say other than how people relate their experiences as they remember them.
Common sense leads one to believe that there's something that goes on before birth, and so that's a much stronger option (as well as being an honest one).
Common sense? Based on what? And how does your twin statistic not throw a terrible wrench into things? Identical twins share the same womb. They oftentimes share the same placenta. Yet they don't share the same sexual orientation almost half the time when one of them is gay. How would that not point to something occuring after the womb at least some of the time?
If you try to argue that people are born gay, then you do make them more comfortable with it.
I don't feel any more comfortable with people being born with a predilection towards prepubescent children. Or towards murdering cruelty to animals. What makes me feel comfortable with homosexuals has very little to do with the argument that they're born that way. And further, what if they aren't born that way? Where does the gay rights argument go then? If you rest everything on genetics or heredity, what do you do if that's ever proven to not be the case?
Shouldn't we know exactly where people who want to shape public policy stand on things?
Sure, but shouldn't we also offer them real alternatives? Shouldn't we accept that nobody knows the answer to the question of whether homosexuals are born gay, and really that it's beside the point?
The study I'm citing is only supposed to support that point. Obviously there's not going to be any observable gay traits through ultrasound, so what? That doesn't mean that it comes about after birth, by any means.
No, it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't even imply that it homosexuality is something a child is born into.
As I said in my other post, the more studies, the more valid the argument is.
Do you know how many studies there are with conflicting reports on just about any topic? Even if it were true, scientific evidence alone is not going to change a religious conviction. Look at evolution!
It doesn't have to be definitive proof, by any means.
Sure it does. But not even that would do what actually humanizing the story would. This doesn't humanize. It sterilizes.
If you can come up with some basis for environmental causation of handedness, I'm all ears. I can't think of anything that could possibly lead someone to do that, especially since it's such a small minority of people who are left-handed.
My purpose isn't to prove anything. My point is that trying to find proof is beside the point. The Truth we should be looking to defend isn't one we don't know for sure. What kind of truth is that anyway. It's not that people were born gay, it's that they're gay now. The truth is that they are not depraved, and it's a truth that has nothing to do with how they were born. The truth is that they have the ability to love and that it's a love that should be recognised as virtuous. Again, how they were born has nothing to do with it. The truth is that recognising that love doesn't weaken marriage. And the truth is, it has nothing to do with how they were born!
Again, it's not necessarily about definitive proof, it's the body of evidence and common sense.
There's no body of evidence. And the common sense pool is tainted by questions like the one that began this discussion.
Some evidence is better than no evidence, and I don't see how you can say otherwise.
That's about the only thing some evidence is better than. It's like things. Some things are better than no things. Of course, even that depends on your perspective.
So what do you suggest, as I've asked several times now? How do you imagine that dialogue proceeding, exactly, where it makes anyone comfortable or compassionate with homosexuality? What is the alternative?
I think your problem is that you believe people lack compassion. People have compassion. People have empathy. I suggest we trust people with the truth. I suggest that we don't go on a witch hunt.
Your repeated assertion that it's either/or is becoming tiresome. It's obviously not the case, no matter how many times you insist.
The question is an either/or question. The question 'Do you believe people are born gay or they choose to be gay' is a prompt to pick one or the other. Your explanation of why it's not an either/or question is an explanation of why it shouldn't be an either/or question. Have you actually forgotten what we're talking about? It was the question and that question allowed for two possible responses.
"Shouldn't we accept that nobody knows the answer to the question of whether homosexuals are born gay, and really that it's beside the point?"
Someone who is asked the question is perfectly capable of saying exactly that, no matter how you phrase it.
"Do you know how many studies there are with conflicting reports on just about any topic? Even if it were true, scientific evidence alone is not going to change a religious conviction. Look at evolution!"
Attitudes about evolution have shifted to the more enlightened over time. More people can believe in their faith, but still accept evolution. That's exactly what I'm talking about with homosexuality. Make it acceptable to the more reasonable people, even if they don't personally agree with it, and then those that continue to protest it entirely become extremists.
"This doesn't humanize. It sterilizes."
How do you figure? To argue that someone can't help the way they are doesn't humanize them? I don't see where you get that.
All the truth you're citing is just your opinion. Why is that supposed to sway anyone?
"I think your problem is that you believe people lack compassion. People have compassion. People have empathy. I suggest we trust people with the truth."
Not at all, you are not even reading what I'm writing, obviously. The whole idea of making people identify with gay people is to trigger that compassion and empathy. I don't know how you could have missed that. "The truth" as you list it may be agreeable to me, but there's simply no motivation for many people to accept it at all.
Your repeated assertion that it's either/or is becoming tiresome. It's obviously not the case, no matter how many times you insist.
"It was the question and that question allowed for two possible responses."
But people are free to answer it in any of those ways I said. Like I said, if they're allowed to answer it as they see fit, it's perfectly fair. Besides, if that's the entire problem then you should find the question "what causes homosexuality?" acceptable, since it's not an either/or question, yet you seem to be arguing that there can't possibly be any use of that question either.
"It implies you cannot believe it's a choice and be tolerant. So not only is the question fundamentally flawed, the structure upon which the answers are judged is flawed."
No, the implication is valid, by your own words. If someone believes it's a choice, then there's nothing flawed about that result, it just means that the person should explain further.
"If you say it's developmental, that doesn't equal 'they're born gay' no matter how much you wish it to be the case. And to imply environmental causes in the upbringing of a child do not have a profound effect on how that child develops into an adult is just silly."
Developmental is meaning before birth, as if the context of the usage elsewhere didn't convey that meaning. Environment can be a profound influence, but then if you're going to argue that then the question again is why would one twin be straight and the other gay? What non-noticeable difference creates such a profound effect? Common sense.
It doesn't have to rely on any evidence, it's simply more compelling to make the argument that people are born gay then to say it doesn't matter. And surely you can look up studies on the internet that indicate people are gay at birth. Your out-of-hand dismissal of any evidence whatsoever is absurd.
Some of the time there may be some environmental factor, but all of the time? It seems odd. The handedness example is a matter of brain chemistry. Just because they share the same womb doesn't mean that brains develop exactly the same way.
So because you are comfortable with homosexuality no matter what the cause, then other people should be too? It's funny that you talk about environmental factors creating such differences in people, but you don't recognize that people are different from you.
Okay, I'm going to respond to this, and then I'm going to be done. Feel free to take the last word.
No, the implication is valid, by your own words. If someone believes it's a choice, then there's nothing flawed about that result, it just means that the person should explain further.
The implication that they're intolerant is valid? Essentially, in your mind the valid subtext of the question is are you tolerant of homosexuals? If that's the subtext, then why hide behind the false alternatives? If the question is accepting of valid alternatives to the one it gives, why doesn't it offer those alternatives in the form of a third X option? Oh yes, because that makes it far harder to point out the loons.
Developmental is meaning before birth, as if the context of the usage elsewhere didn't convey that meaning. Environment can be a profound influence, but then if you're going to argue that then the question again is why would one twin be straight and the other gay? What non-noticeable difference creates such a profound effect? Common sense.
That's your meaning of developmental. Of course, your meaning of developmental, the one that detaches it from environmental assumes the womb isn't also an environment--one that affects development. As to your twin scenario (which never comes close to being as compelling an argument in favor of you POV as you would wish), twins share the same in-utero environment, the same nutrition, and oftentimes they share the same placenta, where is your so-called 'plausible' conclusion that one of them became gay in the womb coming from? Why do you think they're treated more the same in the enviroment outside the womb than they were inside? Why do you think they would develop so profoundly differently while living in the womb under the EXACT SAME conditions as opposed to after they were born when they would be two people in the world living under the same roof?
It doesn't have to rely on any evidence, it's simply more compelling to make the argument that people are born gay then to say it doesn't matter.
I don't know, assertions without proof seem a little less compelling if you give somebody some time to actually look at it. Besides, the point isn't what's compelling, it's what's honest.
And surely you can look up studies on the internet that indicate people are gay at birth. Your out-of-hand dismissal of any evidence whatsoever is absurd.
I'm not dismissing any evidence. I'm dismissing the existance of some vague concept of 'studies' as evidence of anything other than somebody paid somebody else to perform a study. What's absurd is your assertion that studies exist, when the only studies you've cited are either irrellevant or contradictory to your point.
Some of the time there may be some environmental factor, but all of the time? It seems odd.
Who's making that argument? Not me. I've stayed away from asserting theories on causation.
The handedness example is a matter of brain chemistry. Just because they share the same womb doesn't mean that brains develop exactly the same way.
I never implied that it did. I stated that being sharing the same womb and being genetically identical creates conditions in which you're going to get two pretty similar babies. Far more similar at birth, probably, than on their deathbeds.
So because you are comfortable with homosexuality no matter what the cause, then other people should be too?
Are you arguing that people SHOULD NOT be comfortable with homosexuality irrespective of the cause?
It's funny that you talk about environmental factors creating such differences in people, but you don't recognize that people are different from you.
Dude, I'm not the one talking about beating people down who don't agree with me. I'm the one suggesting we should have faith in people to come around as long as we're respectful of them while we disagree with them. I recognize that people are different. I simply suggest that sometimes it's best to focus on our similarities before we ask expect one another to respect our differences. I'm sorry that you don't agree.
"The implication that they're intolerant is valid?"
No, the implication that they believe people who claim to be born gay are liars is valid. There's nothing flawed about that result, and it obviously bears clarification on that person's part.
"Why do you think they would develop so profoundly differently while living in the womb under the EXACT SAME conditions as opposed to after they were born when they would be two people in the world living under the same roof?"
I've explained this before. If it's purely environmental, then whatever difference there is in their upbringing should establish an obvious pattern. Otherwise, there has to be another factor. You could find 80 out of 100 gay people who, say, had divorced parents. Well, there's 20 gay people whose parents didn't divorce, so that can't be the only factor. Nothing can be, or it would be obvious by now. Obviously combinations of factors only makes it worse, if you can't find a single common one to begin with. And so if there's any environmental cause, then you have to wonder why it affects one person one way but not someone else. If it was purely environmental, if there was nothing regarding brain chemistry at all, then it would have to affect everyone the same way. As in the twins study, it's not very likely you would have anything that determined such a thing on its own without being easily detected. So it's clearly more likely that brain chemistry plays some role here.
"Besides, the point isn't what's compelling, it's what's honest."
There's nothing dishonest about anything I'm saying.
"What's absurd is your assertion that studies exist, when the only studies you've cited are either irrellevant or contradictory to your point."
I've explained in full how they aren't either of those things. It really shouldn't be that hard to use Google, but here's a head start for you.
"I stated that being sharing the same womb and being genetically identical creates conditions in which you're going to get two pretty similar babies."
If you aren't saying that brain chemistry is going to be identical, then you admit that it could be different. That's obviously a possible explanation for how one twin can be gay and another straight.
"Are you arguing that people SHOULD NOT be comfortable with homosexuality irrespective of the cause?"
No, I'm arguing that they aren't so. That's the reality of the situation, as opposed to the idealistic "I'll change their minds talking about love" concept.
"Dude, I'm not the one talking about beating people down who don't agree with me. I'm the one suggesting we should have faith in people to come around as long as we're respectful of them while we disagree with them. I recognize that people are different. I simply suggest that sometimes it's best to focus on our similarities before we ask expect one another to respect our differences. I'm sorry that you don't agree."
The point about "beating down" was never just that they didn't agree with me, it was that they had a viewpoint that allowed for prejudicial treatment of their fellow man. And more specifically, it was regarding someone who couldn't explain their basis for that view. Why that behavior doesn't deserve contempt is a mystery. What were you saying about strawmen a little while ago?
The reason that the birth argument is so important is that there are people who believe it's a choice. That's not a strawman, that's just reality. Now, if you ignore that, and go about it with an idealistic argument about how we're all the same, that person can just figure out that someone who chooses to disregard mainstream society for the sake of their own sexual gratification, when they don't even need to do so, and creates all sorts of drama and controversy and family strife in the process...well that person is just a little bit different from them. That approach does not humanize a gay person, by any stretch of the imagination.
You can make common-sense arguments for why people are born gay, and/or cite what studies are out there, and that's still respectful to a person, still puts your faith in them to come around to your view, and it does help to focus on a person's similarities in order to accept the differences.
So in fact, I do agree with you on that. It's just that your approach is insanely idealistic, and virtually guaranteed to fail miserably.
I am not sure that a genetic reason would be the only one viable to say it is or isnt a choice. Is left handedness genetic? Is it a choice? I agree the argument isnt a necessary one and can be a distraction but it is one we are forced to face from those who use the same arguments against equal rights for gays that used to be used to support miscegenation laws as we argue that they shouldnt be treated differently they argue that since being gay is a choice it SHOULDNT have equal protection. It certainly is counterintuitive that there IS a choice whether or not it is genetic. I never saw any choice in my orientation, I dont know anyone gay who thinks he made a decision. That isnt proof I get that but it is some evidence against the choice argument. I mean if it was never any choice for me why would I believe it was for gay people?
Richardson never said explicitly it was a "choice". He was asked if homosexuals were "born" - to which he answered "no".
That's just not accurate. His first words were clearly 'It's a choice.' This led Melissa Etheridge to actually ask him whether or not he understood the question.
I will have to take your word for it. I was relying on the first paragraph in the article above where MMFA did not describe the exchange the way you describe it. I did not check anything beyond that.
O'Reilly reminds me of a child who starts trouble and when the adults show up claims he had nothing to do with it.
Why are Republicans so obsessed with laws prohibiting them from marrying and/or have sex with animals? Not just O'Reilly, but the entire party. Every conversation of laws regarding sex between consenting adults ALWAYS leads rightwingers to immediately volunteer their (not far from the surface) fantasies about sex with goats, or dogs, or chickens, or any variety of barnyard animals. Someone should really look into this. Maybe Sanjay Gupta can do an expose. I have to admit I have never thought about having sex with goats (like O'Reilly) or dogs (like Santorum). Why is it ALWAYS on THEIR minds? I find it hard to believe it can always be on their minds if they are not harbroing those desires.
It's no secret that O'Reilly, like most Republican blowhards, is a Grade A Certified Freak. (cf: O'Reilly v. Mackris, et al.) Here's a tip, Bill: esp. considering the legal case that nobody on Fox is allowed to talk about, talking about bestiality over & over leads people to think that you've got sexual impulses under the surface that makes the loofah/falafel thing look like a schoolboy crush.
Like many gays & lesbians, I look forward to the day when homosexual couples are allowed to be as bored & boring as straight couples.
"I am not sure what the point is? If O'Reilly agress that we have to relax he is targeted and if he said something different he would be targeted. I guess either way he is wrong?"
Funny stuff! BillO takes one position, screams and hyperventilates about how insane the opposing point of view must be. Cuts their microphone, talks over them, tells then that they are liars. Then, when it suits him, asks those with HIS viewpoint to relax.
I understanding BillO's reaction since he is a Fox personality and his listeners will buy it for random reasons, but for others to want to defend him is just weird.
I don't know why Media Matters has such a problem with O'Reilly on this issue. O'Reilly supports civil unions for gays, gay adoption, and has stated that he doesn't believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But Media Matters conveniently fails to mention that. O'Reilly is as pro gay as they come.
As long as they don't cluster.
I don't understand O'Reilly's behavior. If he was truly as pro-gay as you claim he is, why does he so frequently misinform and/or bash gays? I don't see how his words match the positions you have described.
O'Reilly probably believes those things - I am not questioning that, but his battle at expressing his ideas in those regards is quite baffling to me.
I think he was probably just criticizing the Democrats for pandering. The President is supposed to be the president of all people, not just certain special interest groups. The Democrats were obviously pandering here, and they should be called on it. That doesn't take away from the fact that O'Reilly actually has the same views as most Democrats on gay issues.
One day, one whole thread and no Democrat bashing. I dare you!
Okay. But you'll have to refrain from Republican bashing. I dare you!
You've been bashing Republicans since you first came here.
Your allegiance is not to the Republican Party but to the conservative movement.
Your intent is and always has been, the purification of the Republican Party.
Our two political parties have always had liberal, center and right leaning segments.
O'Reilly's pro-gay rights stance is as phony as his anti-death penalty stance. It's a pose. He says he's pro-gay rights and then he bashes gays every chance he gets. He says he's anti-death penalty, but he's called for it on a number of occasions. The phoniness of his stated position on the death penalty is completely transparent because it's not a position that you can be selective about. It's like being pregnant. You either are you're not. And O'Reilly is most definitely not anti-death penalty.
Here's a link that catalogs some of O'Reilly's pro-death penalty positions:
[link to www.oreilly-sucks.com]