Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bill Richardson Calls Homosexuality "A Choice" at Gay Rights Forum

Posted by Pam Spaulding at 4:52 AM on August 10, 2007.


Pam Spaulding: I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.
t1home.richardson.ap
Richardson

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

[UPDATE (10:30 PM, PT): I spoke with Governor Richardson just a few moments ago to discuss his remarks at this evening's forum. See below.]

Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question.
The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's the same thing, Joe. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.
Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here. I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together.
As I type this, the Richardson campaign is in scramble mode and plans to issue a "clarification." His deputy communications director, Katie Roberts is working the press room now. Here's the press release from the governor:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement tonight clarifying an answer to a question during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles. The question came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality is a choice.
"I misunderstood the question. 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. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."
UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.

He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."

He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."

I pressed him more than once about his refusal to answer the hypothetical question as to whether Richardson would sign a bill passed by the NM state legislature that would grant marriage equality. He repeatedly gave the same answer that he's worked hard to pass domestic partner legislation in his state, and feels that separate but equal DPs are achievable, and don't pose the threat of a legal morass, as we see occurring in NJ with civil unions.

The governor then handed the phone over to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for the NM equality movement, who worked with the governor to craft the DP bill. She said "it has been drafted to include every possible state benefit," -- acknowledging it cannot do anything about the federal benefits denied gay couples. "It will, however, immediately give our citizens hundreds of protections the currently don't have."

Richardson then came back on the line. I thanked him for his time and, clearly in frustration, he chastised the media for focusing on his "maricon" moment, said "For Christ's sake, why don't you write about my record."

Well, we have focused on the positive aspects of your record at the Blend, Governor -- diarist Miss Wild Thing wrote a passionate positive post, as a former resident of New Mexico, about your efforts on behalf of the LGBT community. It makes what happened this evening all the more perplexing.

Another release from Richardson's office, just so folks are aware of his record.
Governor Bill Richardson has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans. Since taking office, Governor Richardson has:
1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature]
2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature]
3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010]
4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature]
5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature]
6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.
***

Joe Solmonese came over to comment on the Richardson debacle and he plans to personally meet with him to discuss the issues. "We really have to have a conversation with Mr. Richardson, that's the first step -- we have to clear the air."

Obama and Edwards avoided land mines, and did fairly well. Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president.

I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.
If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well.
An even bigger faux pas, if you can call it that, was Clinton's reassertion that it should be up to the state to decide who can marry. This is simply not acceptable, given the history of bigotry legislated at the state level.

Elizabeth Birch said this about Hillary Clinton's stance on state's rights (via the press pool/Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate):
"I am very disappointed in her analysis around the states rights issue and I intend to have a long talk with her about it because it is simply wrong. Each time in the country when we've had to expunge great bias or prejudice, like slavery, a woman's right to vote, regulating child welfare and a myriad of other issues, what has held addressing those issues back is leaving it to the states. The Federal government has a very particular and bold role to play when there is discrimination operating at the state level and it is their job to step in, be strong, and use the Constitution to eradicate that discrimination."
Well said.

Some post forum quotes (thanks to Karen Ocamb): Brian Graydon, head of LOGO: "This event was incredibly validating. Gays and Lesbians are a voting bloc-- 4 % or more and that can swing an election, and the candidates know that." He believes their support is a real evolution. the very fact that they all believed (the import of our vote) we were worthy was almost as moving at what they had to say."

Joe Solmonese also indicated that HRC is not likely to endorse anyone in the primaries. "They are all pretty clear on our issues and there's no clear distinction on the issues." ..."I was looking for some revelatory moments about the forum itself. My primary focus was how the candidates focus on religion and faith on the issues." He also wished that Hillary Clinton could have come for a more personal place in explaining her position on marriage equality, but she relied on policy-speak too often. "It's fine to talk about tactics and strategy but it was important to speak from the heart."

"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community. From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."

Melissa Etheridge: I'm for all those people, they are all heading in the right direction. Obama mesmerizes me, I was under his spell. Edwards surprised me with his honesty. I'm a huge Hillary fan, but she wanted a better explanation for having been thrown under the bus. For my community I needed to ask that. She talked about sitting next to David Mixner and discussing DADT. Our hopes were so high, and I felt needed to challenge him. She hasn't endorsed anyone.

John A. Perez, a labor leader representing the Food and Commercial Workers Union, he was undecided before the forum, and now he's firmly in the Edwards camp. He had been on the stage with Richardson when he announced his candidacy, so this endorsement of Edwards is significant.

***

I do have to give a thumbs-up to HRC and LOGO for putting on a smoothly run event. The format worked out very well -- 15 minutes of concentrated time with the candidates was definitely a plus.

The questions were tough, and covered a lot of ground -- and the candidates had ample opportunity to expand on their otherwise thumbnail sketches on their views on LGBT rights. While Melissa Etheridge burned some of the precious time up on frivolous chatter that could have been used for additional questions, her earnest questions were often spot-on. In particular, she held Clinton's feet to the fire regarding her own positions as well as the policies of Bill Clinton, that have affected our community.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, gay rights, election08, edwards, homosexuality, homophobia, richardson

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.


House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
House Will Take Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
The House leadership bows to anti-choice congressmen, allowing them a vote on an anti-choice amendment to the health-care bill.
Post by RH Reality Check. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Back to determinism vs. free will...
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Aug 10, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proof positive of the pointlessness of trying to have an actual discussion when there are people waiting to twist words (i.e. the media). How about this statement: Heterosexuality is a choice. Oooh! Scary! Isn't sexuality better for us individually as a choice than it is as a supposed biological fact? If they (the scientists or whoever) find the gene or genes that "make" a person gay, straight, bi, not interested, then you can get into the whole genetic engineering horseshit where people "choose" not to have gay children, or some fascist government gets in the way and starts eradicating people for having the wrong genes...isn't it safer and more empowering if they can't weed folks out that way? Think about it, when you decide to have sex, it's a choice. When you decide who to have sex with, it's a choice. Do you decide whom you are attracted to? That's certainly up for debate, but if you choose to act on your attraction and ask someone out, buy them flowers, nail them in the copy room, etc. then you've once again made a decision. And the names for what people who choose to do what you choose to do are just that, names. Labels. And that's what Gov. Richardson doesn't desire to get into. Obviously he's talking about equal rights for everybody. Come up with a label for someone, and he'll still say equal rights. Purple polka-dot Pamplonians? Equal. Clippers fans? Equal. I like how it was inferred that there was a right anwser to the question he was given by Ms. Etheridge, and he clearly gave the wrong answer. Of course you aren't supposed to say that being gay is a choice to the most high-profile lesbian in the country, especially if you wish to explain yourself and/or not have the statement taken out of context.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This question...
Posted by: Wacre on Aug 10, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has always fascinated me because I am not entirely sure that the answer matters all that much. You love who you love, so why is the issue made more complex? It seems to me that among many gay people there is an issue of self-loathing involved, in that – for whatever reason – they need this to be entirely an issue of genetics.

Personally, I think it is a combination of factors, but the thing about genetics is it cannot be argued, which I suspect is what they're looking for. I get the feeling, from my own experience, that the issue of sexual preference doesn't happen in a vacuum and has more than a little to do with the environment that an individual exists in.

Which is not to say that genetics don't play a factor, but it is not as nearly as complete as many would like us to believe.

There are politics involved here (of power, of recognition, of acceptance) and while there is nothing wrong with that this constant attempt to portray sexuality as something entirely beyond the control of the individual benefits no one.

For example, imagine if that guy in Florida who was caught soliciting a male undercover policeman had spend his life, instead of attacking the right of adults to be with whom they wished to be with, spent his time making promoting laws that benefitted people in the broader sense (and I am sure that I could apply the same logic to his entire life, but I suspect that I don't have the space for that); who understood that ones sexual preference is their own and who respected the rights of adults to choose their own course (because, at heart, such zealots don't respect the rights most people, and on some level even fear the expression of them).

And unfortunately, science – like a reflecting pool – pretty much shows what the viewer wants to see. It all depends upon the agenda of the researcher. For example, there used to be a time that peoples of color (particularly African-Americans, though not exclusively) were somehow believed to be inferior to Americans of European descent.

And lo and behold, the 'science' of the time reflected exactly that. It was total shite, but nonetheless that's what it said. I imagine the situation is the same as it refers to women's rights as well. I'd bet money the scientists had myriad reasons – based purely upon science! – as to why women should not be allowed the right to vote.

All of those reasons nonsense, at heart designed to further the agenda of the group in power.

Or one that seeks it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumb question.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 10, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter whether a person views what and whom their fellows choose to do with their naughty bits as a choice, biological predestiny, or the will of one or more various spirits.

As long as you treat people equally, your personal opinion on why your neighbors do what and whom they do has no relevance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dumb question. Posted by: Wacre
I t may no tmatter to you...
Posted by: RevRick on Aug 10, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it’s important that people accept that while this question may not be personally important to their views, it is still an important question.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner"

This is the justification for the persecution of homosexuals in this country. As long as sexual orientation can be written off as a choice then you are hating the choice not the individual. However if a person is born gay then it must be "God's" will and you are no longer hating a choice you hate a person.

The average American uses this as their justification for supporting politicians who are hostile to LGBT issues.

Of course I think a better follow up question should be when did you choose to be heterosexual?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

His answer was better than the question deserved.
Posted by: drmflorida on Aug 10, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Richardson is a good person, and is on the right (left) side of things. People are jumping on him for missing a litmus test, one that (strangely) he did not understand.

However bungled it may have seemed, I liked his answer more than Melissa Etheridge's question. Is she a geneticist? Or should we defer to her on this because she's a lesbian?

We (democrats) have the opportunity to be the party of science and rationality. While it may be rhetorically persuasive to ridicule the idea of a ten year old girl choosing to be a lesbian (although, I'm not sure who its persuading of what) that does not make it scientific fact. And Mr Richardson was correct in saying "who cares? People should be treated equally regardless."

The idea that gays shouldn't be persecuted because "God created them that way" is problematic on so many levels. It legitimizes backwards and irrational thought patterns. Gays shouldn't be persecuted because it is nobody's business, and because it is contrary to the principles that we like to think America stands for. Homosexuality is neither a sin nor a defect, but simply a trait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Homosexuality is neither a sin nor a defect, but simply a trait."
Posted by: nha16 on Aug 10, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly. With this sentence, you just explained why the Etheridge question is probably the most important question asked. Until "homosexuality" is accepted as merely a "trait" (which, by the way is determined by genetics,) it will always be regarded by bigots as a "disgusting" life choice. By now everyone should know that a majority of people will choose to behave in a way that is societally acceptable unless something stronger than choice draws them to another behavior. Any president or aspiring president should understand this. Richardson showed me with his answer that he really hasn't given much thought to the question of homosexuality in our culture, or he would understand the importance of the Etheridge question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Richardson: A well-meaning but dim bumbler.
Posted by: lydia cypher on Aug 10, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry folks, but every time I've heard this guy speak about anything he reminds me of the comic Norm Crosby whose delicious malapropisms I still use today, a la "Hey, I resemble that remark!" Richardson is going nowhere fast and personally I find it suprising that he ever achieved governorship. My theory is that some people find his regular-guy persona appealing and must totally blot out the confusion in his poor old noggin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does it make any difference?
Posted by: Peasantwitch on Aug 10, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few (lot of) years ago, a group of lesbian activists objected to scientists trying to find biological proof that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. They objected because they believed it was a feminist issue, not a scientific one. At that time it occured to me that, while some people would be convinced by scientific evidence, for the most part people don't care. If they believe it's a choice, the largest mountain of scientific data won't sway them. If they believe it's a predetermined trait, no amount of prayer over them will change their mind.

So, while I'm disappointed that Governor Richardson (whom I otherwise admire and wish I could vote for in November '08) fumbled the question, obviously somewhat confused by something that ought never to have confused him, I don't find his answer to be a deal-breaker with regard to my support for him.

John Edwards has consistently impressed me this time around, but it's hard to believe he would turn his back on his faith so easily. Nevertheless, so far he is the only one besides Richardson whose honesty and committment to things that I believe in has made me consider him my candidate. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama has managed to convince me that either one is a worthy candidate. Of the remainder, only Kucinich has even made an impression and frankly he doesn't even try to be believable. So, despite his fumble, that leaves me with Richardson and I will stand by that decision until someone better comes along.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subtlety missed - no East Coast Spanish speakers here?
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Aug 10, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know how things fly in New Mexico, but on the East Coast, 'maricón' is a slur equivalent to calling someone a faggot. If Richardson really did call this his 'maricón moment' in apologizing/clarifying it shows a deaper level of being tone-deaf than is appreciated in the above comments. How would people react if he had said the press was making to big a deal out of his 'faggot moment'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slight Update Posted by: NthnBrazil
Either/or questions don't have enough answers
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 10, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given those two options -- is homosexuality biological or is it a choice -- this lesbian would pick "it's a choice" every time. No, I didn't wake up one morning at age 25 and say "I'm going to be a lesbian," but when I look back I can see myself feeling my way in that direction, making choices that I often didn't know were choices, keeping the lesbian possibilities open. Biological stuff tends to become clearer, sooner: Eat. Pee. Poop. Get warm. Drink water. "Feel attracted to women" just doesn't fall into that category. Even if it did, I'd still have a choice about whether and how I wanted to act on it.

The "we can't help it" brigade of the mostly male gay rights movement has its own agenda: assimilation into the mainstream. Its essential message is "Let us into the club! We're just like you except for whom we sleep with -- and we can't help that." Speak for yourself, hon. On the old Kinsey scale, the 1's and the 6's may have no choice in the matter but there are plenty of us in the middle, and not all of us want to be, or pass for, straight.

"What makes people gay?" is a loaded question. Who cares what makes people gay? Mostly people who wish gay people would disappear. I'm a writer. Why am I a writer? It's not biological, but I didn't wake up one morning and decide to be a writer either. Being a lesbian is like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm with Wacre
Posted by: goeswithness on Aug 10, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I find the headline kind of cheap and misleading. Can we just say what happened without having "attitude" about it?The man is obviously not as well-informed as he could be - you don't need to be a scientist to be curious about these things and check them out - but I think that it's pretty impressive that he has worked for LGBT rights simply because he knows it's the right thing. Good man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Can't It Be Both?
Posted by: bravegirl68 on Aug 10, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't we fight for both science and choice? I'm not up on all the research, but there does seem that there is some solid theories out there about when a baby is born, the mother passes excess hormones to the child, creating this trait.

I guess I liken it to global warming. We're dealing with a lot of ignorant a-holes out there that don't want to give up their big SUVs and 30-minute showers. They won't listen to me, the liberal tree-hugger, but maybe they'll listen to 600 leading scientists? The bubble has to burst on that one soon enough, right? So can't we kill the homophobes with science?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Up to the states
Posted by: sliver on Aug 10, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It should be up to the state to decide who can marry?"

Isn't that a catch-phrase that appeals to gun-toting, homophobic, racist bigots? Now I know that Hillary Clinton has gone over to the dark side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Up to the states Posted by: goeswithness
I'm sorry to bring up a knobby question, here, but
Posted by: Old Me on Aug 10, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suddenly wonder why, if homosexuality needs to be (or can be) either a choice or a non-choice, why we don't apply the same question and the same standards to pedophilia????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dennis Kucinich
Posted by: cmdawdy on Aug 10, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The person who steadfastly supports the LBGT community barely got a nod in the after-speech of this event. When we and our collective chemistries put our voice and our money and our support behind a person with progressive sound principles who has the tact and finesse to pull up the consciousness of the American voter...then, maybe we'll see some much needed changes that serve all of us better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dennis Kucinich Posted by: sliver
It's crazy to categorize folks by the way...
Posted by: jimidee on Aug 10, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they choose to have orgasms. It seems like there is a societal need to do so, however. This has always facinated me as I explored my own feelings about the issue.

When I was very young I chose to have orgasms by my own hands. Sometimes I did it 4-5 times a day...a bit obsessive for some folks taste, but it felt good to me. Later on, the kids in my neighborhood would get together and have orgasms in a group setting...and we would sit in a circle and do it, passing someone's mom's hand lotion around like it was a piece pipe. What did that make me? What does it really matter?

Like most things, sexual preferrence seems to be on a continuum, where on one end you have folks who have known from early on that they were gay. In fact, some say that they feel like they are the opposite sex trapped in their current body. On the other end you have folks who say they are only attracted to the opposite sex, but who knows really for sure...are they suppressing their true feelings? If anybody feels like they were "born that way", they probably are these folks.

Then there are all of those in between who's preferrences are made up of varying degrees of the extreme poles...woven in a rich tapestry that makes them who they are. Somewhere in the middle of the continuum, are those folks who are bi-sexual...who seem to make up the personal preferrence group if there is such a thing. However, it is important to note that we are not machines where you can point to one mechanical thing and say definitively, "Yep, that is it right there...that is what makes them gay!" It is impossible to isolate what makes someone 'want' to do something, but it sure is important to some folks to try and do just that.

I still don't know what all of the big fuss is about...if anybody figures that one out, let me know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Homosexuality and past lives
Posted by: saywhat on Aug 10, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my many years of doing past life regression therapy I never came across a homosexual who was a homosexual by conscious choice. (Which doesn’t mean there isn't such thing.) They usually had many past lives as a homosexual. Sometimes, in the present current life, it seemed homosexuality for them was a first time occurence.
One person in particular, I remember, was living in the South and participated in the lunch counter sit-ins in the Martin Luther King Jr. civil rights era. She was a man in that life and passionate about the civil rights movement. The person died young and consumed with guilt that he didn’t do more for the cause. A few years later this person was again born. The person probably came back too soon because of the guilt, and came back as a lesbian - and saying the exact same things at 20 that were said in the past. I think homosexuality is not easily explained. But I feel to say it is a “choice”, period, shows ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not a fumble - science or choice DOESN'T MATTER
Posted by: kh on Aug 10, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I liked his first answer - "I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other." YES!

In the ultra-religious frame of reference you do have to worry about science or choice. That is different from the decent assumption of seeing "people as a matter of human decency".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

another thumbs-up for Edwards
Posted by: kh on Aug 10, 2007 5:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he means it - means that while in office his actions should reflect the law and constitution - then hurray: "Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president." Yes.

And for someone to have gotten to the point of understanding that - means they've gotten to the maturity that could bear responsibility for leading the country. Someone who understands that is a prize - is there Anyone Else on the table who does?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Queer lawyer
Posted by: in ohio on Aug 11, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that the hoopla over Richardson's response to M.E.'s Question is an overreaction. The question itself is flawed as it is an either/or question, dualistic in nature, as in straight/gay or male/female. There is a a great deal of space in between and as gays/lesbians/bi/transexual/transgendered individuals we need to widen that world "in between" rather than insist that everyone maintain such a narrow perspective. I am beginning to think that the LGBT community is its own worst enemy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Richardson
Posted by: frank69 on Aug 11, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill doesn't have a huge team of handlers. He has a few but nothing like the "richer" DLC candidates. But he is governor - an executive. And he does have wide experience in his background. I like him - heard him speak at the 2004 California Democratic Convention. Impressive.
He's my third choice after Kucinich and Gravel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sick and tired
Posted by: kelt65 on Aug 12, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... of heterosexuals discussing with any 'seriousness' anything having to do with gay anything.

Imagine a panel of gay radicals discussing the 'heterosexual problem' (and with the earths population topping six billion, yes, you're nothing more than a fucking problem) and how much ire it would generate among you.

Please, just shut the fuck up. I have enough problems with idiots like the HRC and Melissa Etheridge.

There's many books out there written by gay people you could read, instead of reinventing the wheel on your own. But, you would never be caught dead reading them, would you? You'd rather spit, diarrhea style, your opinions on 'progressive' message boards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]