home

Palin on Couric: Homosexuality is a Choice

CBS News aired another segment of the Katie Couric - Sarah Palin interview tonight.

Twice, Palin described homosexuality as a choice.

But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice I would have made. But I am not going to judge people.

Other answers: She couldn't or wouldn't name a single publication or magazine she read before becoming the VP candidate. Couric tried three times, and each time she evaded the question.

She is against abortion even for teens who are victims of rape and incest.

More...

She believes evolution should be taught as an acceptable theory in science class.

And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.

She cannot support the morning after pill.

The cause of global warming, whether it's human activity or not, doesn't matter.

You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.

< Newsweek: McCain's Coal Ad is False | Senate To Vote on Bail Out Plan Weds. Evening >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    You folks really think this is damaging?

    Hmmm. Whatever you say.

    While for you and I of course the idea that being gay is a choice is abhorrent.  I submit the idea is not so abhorrent to close to half of Americans at least.

    As for not naming particular publications, is it the position of this post and the Left blogs that Sarah Palin is unfamiliar with say, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The National Review, etc.?

    Here is my fear - Palin will do well on Thursday and then what?


    agreed. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    I think What Jer is doing is attempting to shore up the Female Dem base in opposition to Palin.

    Parent
    How does this do that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    What about getting word out to gay people? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    They vote.

    Parent
    I would suspect (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:53:38 PM EST
    that most gay people are pretty clear on where they stand with the Republican Party.

    Some of them vote Republican anyway, of course, because of other issues.  But it's hard for me to imagine anyone in the latter group being dissuaded simply because Palin thinks homosexuality is a choice.  If I'm gay, I'm less concerned about Palin than I am about McCain, whom Barney Frank famously called "a thousand percent anti-gay."

    I'm not an opponent of your Palinblogging in general but everything here strikes me as pretty standard and unremarkable stuff for a Republican.

    Parent

    Well, I don't think even George Bush (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    has gone this far. But as a practical matter, gays are about as overwhelmingly Democratic as Jews, if not more so after W.

    This will change nothing.

    Parent

    So this is what she believes. (none / 0) (#66)
    by robert72 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    I am an athiest. So... if I were a VP candidate, I could not be thought to ever treat people of religion fairly. I must hate and try to screw them them because I believe different things.
    How very un-Christian of all of you - even if you are not Christian.
    I am not a Palin fan, but I object to the sexist discrimatory arguements. Would a man who was a born-again Christian be subjected to this crap? Would you think he was out to screw the gay community? Did you read about the vote in Alaska?
    Whatever happened to love your neighbour? If Palin is truly religious, you have nothing to fear. As I said, I disagree with Palin on almost everything, but I can't see anything that she has DONE politically that indicates that she would impose her views on others.

    Parent
    Um, what? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM EST
    For starters, no, I am not a Christian.

    But for this election Palin doesn't really enter into the calculation for me or most other gay voters I know. I don't trust Republican Presidents or their judicial nominees to protect my rights. Case closed.

    Nothing sexist about it.

    And yes, if there were a male Democrat who said things like this--Bill Richardson did, for example--I would be quite uncomfortable.

    Parent

    missing the point (none / 0) (#77)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    A man who is a born-again Christian would indeed be "subjected to this crap" if he were a) virtually unknown on the national stage, and b) nominated to be VP. So would a woman.

    Whether the candidate would "screw" the gay community is not the issue. The issue is whether the candidate understands issues that gay people face. If you think sexual orientation is a choice, you don't understand. And that lack of understanding affects policy decisions. Whether the candidate "screws" the community is quite different from whether the candidate supports the community. I am gay and quite ambivalent about Obama's stance toward gay rights - but I have more faith in his understanding and principles of tolerance than I do in McCain's and Palin's.

    The LCR's have endorsed McCain-Palin this round (unlike W in 2004, whom they refused to support). I hope this make them happy in their increasing political irrelevance.

    Parent

    first of all (none / 0) (#84)
    by onemanrules on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    how is this a sexist argument? Second of all I agree that this will have very little if any effect on the voting, there are so many things more important than this to hit McCain and Palin on.

    Why is everybody saying being gay is not a choice. I remember clearly the day I decided I was going to be straight. (just kidding)

    Parent

    yes, we do. (none / 0) (#94)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:50:26 PM EST
    and Palin was a deal-killer for me because I was going to vote McCain.  Not no way no how.  She's TOO far right.

    But one Senator Obama has some definite questionable anti-gay, homophobic associations of his own:  Donnie McClurkin to name one.

    just sayin'...

    Parent

    Gay people do vote (none / 0) (#110)
    by mexboy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:11:00 AM EST
    That's why Obama having Douglas Kmiec on his faith tour is much more damaging than Palin's ignorant opinion that gay people chose to be gay. Palin is way off and wrong about this issue and many more, but Obama's choice of Kmiec as a surrogate is more damaging.

     Kmiec claims marraige should only be allowed betrween a man and a woman, and for the purpose of procreation.

    He links gays marrying to "a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children"

    This  is one scary guy, so why is he a surrogate for Obama?

    The Advocate seems to think this is a bigger deal.

    here

    Parent

    Why do you think that is J's motive? (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:08:29 PM EST
    ya (none / 0) (#33)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    I watched the 2006 governor's debate on youtube.  She was fine, nothing stellar or exciting but fine.

    I expect she'll do ok as long as she avoids detail.

    Parent

    What kind of questions (none / 0) (#46)
    by byteb on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM EST
    did they ask her? I'm wondering because I think she's fine in discussing a narrow field of topics..abortion, oil and energy issues as it concerns Alaska and local state issues but I think when she has to go out of that comfort zone, she flounders simply because she's really not that informed or curious about broader issues.

    Parent
    I would say (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    this is small beer but that it does add to the narrative, albeit in a small dose.

    The Supreme Court gaffe was much bigger, IMO.

    Parent

    Bang on (none / 0) (#55)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    What a shock a christian republican thinks gays choose their lifestyle and is against abortion....

    Half the country agrees with her and half don't.

    Parent

    I'm a Christian and a pastor... (none / 0) (#76)
    by prose on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:18:33 PM EST
    from the conservative midwest and I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.  I know very few people (above the age of 18) who do.

    Parent
    Question for you though (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    Do you think she reads any newspapers?

    Honest question.  

    Parent

    Of course she does (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    Ok (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    Personally I think she read her local newspapers and not much else.

    Parent
    How many times have Talk Left commenters (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:15:47 PM EST
    acknowledged they no longer read any newspaper, and proudly get all their news from TV and on line?  

    Parent
    many (none / 0) (#90)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:32:50 PM EST
    but she couldn't even manage that.

    Look, as I wrote below, I don't think this is the news story of the year, but I just don't buy the notion that there are some newspapers, even the NYT, that she "couldn't say."

    If, for example, she were to name the Times and Katie were to say, "(Gasp) You read the most liberal newspaper in the country/galaxy/universe?!?!" it would be a very simple matter to just say, "Yes, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer," or "Yes, I find it interesting to know how the other side thinks."

    This is a softball of a question, but she didn't even know it.

    Parent

    This thread and and its title are well-meaning (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST
    but rather problematic.

    In many, self-described, progressive quarters it has now become de rigueur to maintain that sexual orientation (gay or straight) is inborn, immutable, and DEVOID of choice. However, this reductive conclusion is not reflective of more expansive views in the LGBT community and much contemporary scholarship on the subject.

    I speak to the issue from my own lived experience and as an educator who has taught a certain amount of Queer Theory. I advanced some of these alternate viewpoints in a couple of comments downstream and find myself taken aback by the level of intolerance and personal animus in some of the responses.

    Sexual orientation is no less complex than gender identity and racial identity, and many aspects of these three are intimately interconnected. I don't mean to get all professorial, but if we're going to make this an issue in the GE, it wouldn't hurt any of us (heterosexuals and LGBT alike) to do a little light homework in preparation for debate. I'm just saying...so please don't go ape-s*it on me.


    Parent

    How about Left wing doctrinaires? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    I am not trying to be pedantic here. I am pleased to debate ideology, but I have a problem with saying someone's ideology makes them unfit for office. That is for the voters to decide.

    This voter says it does (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    but I already decided that about her. THink there's anyone else who would be convinced by this? Me either.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    Each voter should make that decision.

    That is why Republicans are disqualified from office for me.

    I say McCain is unfit for office because is a lying, unprincipled blithering idiot and I think all voters should agree with that.

    But not because he is a conservative ideologue. Conservative ideologues should find that a reason to vote for him.

    Parent

    Reckless, feckless, mendacious, craven (none / 0) (#31)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    blithering idiot

    Parent
    Robrecht, watch out. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM EST
    You know how Doris Kearns Goodwin is viewed here.

    Parent
    Dinosaurs (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    I just asked my 4-year-old in the bath if dinosaurs and people lived on the earth at the same time.  He said no, dinosaurs lived much longer ago, before people were around.

    But I must admit that neither my 4- nor even my 6-year-old was able to name a Supreme Court decision.

    When I told them that John McCain's running mate seems to believe that dinosaurs and people lived on the earth at the same time, they just laughed.

    This proves definitively that Palinpalooza works with 4- and 6-year-olds.

    If the kid can work a toy cash register (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    I'm ready for a 4-year-old Secretary of the Treasury.  Or definitely qualified to be a failed bank CEO.:-)

    Parent
    Does your 4 year old play with boats in the bath? (none / 0) (#35)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:48:52 PM EST
    That makes him/her qualified to be Secretary of the Navy.

    Parent
    Boats and Rocket Ships! (none / 0) (#40)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:53:29 PM EST
    My 6-year-old has always wanted to be a paleontologist except for a few days when he thought it would be cool to be an astronaut.  He resolved the conflict finally by deciding he would dig up dinosaurs on the moon.

    Parent
    as a lesbian, I'm kind of relieved to hear (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kempis on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:43:08 PM EST
    that Palin has a close friend of 30 years who's a lesbian. I know the "choice" thing is repugnant and worrisome, but at least Palin doesn't equate lesbians with a threat like Russians sneaking into Alaska at night. Seriously, I like religious conservatives who aren't afraid to have gay friends. We need more of them. Eventually, their theology will shift to accommodate their hearts--and mine.

    But I'll be much more relieved if McCain/Palin and the GOP are not in the White House.  

    Uh Huh... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    I bet Pat Buchanan has himself a nice Black friend too.  

    Parent
    one of the funniest things (none / 0) (#106)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:24:13 AM EST
    I've ever read on a blog...

    Parent
    Let's bottom line this: (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    If she does well in the debate (not just beat expectations, but actually meets some VP threshold), she soothes the nervous base, maybe gets McCain +1 or +2 points back.

    If on the other hand, it turns into a Couric interview, I really don't think the McCain campaign can ever recover.

    My advise to Biden:  RES IPSA LOQUITUR.

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:31:33 PM EST
    I think Biden has to let her hang herself but that will really depend on how persistent the moderator is in pursuing questions.

    She's awfully slippery.

    If the debate were a straight academic affair Biden would win in a blow out of historic magnitude. He's one sharp guy.

    Unfortunately these debates are anything but academic.

    Low expectations are a b!tch.

    Parent

    I like this line... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by prose on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate."

    Glad to know that she doesn't think murder is the result of rainy days.  

    Someone failed the cause and effect lesson on sentence structure.  Maybe she's just upsetting the old boys club of grammar nazis (which in this case would be any third grade teacher).

    And for me... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    For me, the telling phrase was her refusal to judge anyone who was gay. So even if her knowledge of sexual orientation (i.e. believing it is a "choice)is far from enlightened, the bottom line is she's saying flatly she wouldn't discriminate against "what people choose to do in their private lives." It's actually a very socially liberal/libertarian stance. In fact, it is far more enlightened than the views of Obama's surrogates Donnie "Pray Away the Gay" McClurkin or Doug "We Hate Abortionists and Gays" Kmiec.


    Interesting story, presumably true, (3.00 / 2) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:45:56 AM EST
    about homosexuality.

    We went to see Melissa Etheridge in concert a few weeks ago (man she can rock!) and she told us how she was sexually abused by her sister for years as a child.

    Interesting, but not related to the subject of choice. We are all influenced by both nature and nurture. The idea that choice has no influence on who we allow ourselves to be is beyond silly.

    Personally, I choose not to be a philanderer, an attorney, a politician nor a garbage man.

    Not to say I wouldn't be dam good at each one, if I allowed myself to be.

    Hm (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:54:57 AM EST
    But do you choose who you are attracted to?  If you find blondes more pleasing than brunettes, could you really wake up one day and say "you know what, I'm going to stop being attracted to blondes."  Doesn't really strike me as similar to the choice of what occupation to pursue.

    You can choose whether to marry someone, but can you really choose whether to fall in love with them?  It seems to me that our feelings are instinctual, and it's whether we act on them that's the choice.  If you're a man who's attracted only to other men, doesn't mean you have to pursue relationships with men if you'd rather not, but you're probably going to be pretty unhappy if you try to force yourself to be attracted to women when that's not your inclination.

    Parent

    Nature and nurture. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:09:39 AM EST
    Both are influential in most people. Not absolutely every single person, of course, but in the main, yes. Choice should not be so blithely discounted in each of our personal definitions of ourselves, of who we are and who we aspire to be.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:18:31 AM EST
    I'm not talking about the overall issue of who we are, but the specific issue of who we happen to be attracted to.  Maybe that's a product of some gene you're born with, or maybe it's a function of childhood experiences for some people, but in either case I'd still have a hard time calling it a "choice" the way we usually think of choices.

    Parent
    For some, I agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:34:46 AM EST
    But not nearly for all.

    We make choices as to what paths we take our whole lives. We are attracted to and make choices about people, lifestyles, occupations, affinities, our fundamental selves, etc, from very early on.

    Some we make sudden life-altering decisions about, some we just go along with because, well, it's less effort than the alternative and some we just make dozens and dozens of little choices about over the course of years and then come to find they added up to a big one.

    Sexuality is not so cut and dried as some would make it out to be, imo.

    Parent

    Do you have some experience (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    with choosing your sexuality, or are you just guessing?

    Parent
    I have lived a life. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:47:38 AM EST
    I try to look outside myself. I've seen a thing or two. You?

    Parent
    That's a non-answer (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:50:00 AM EST
    So I'll assume you're just guessing.

    Parent
    You are the expert. (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:51:19 AM EST
    for those who think you chose your orientation (none / 0) (#112)
    by mexboy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:38:49 AM EST
    When did you chose your sexual orientation?

    When was the exact time you decided you would no longer be attracted to X sex?

    because in order for it to be a choice you had to have had  more than one gender that made your hormones rage.

    That is the nature of choice. To pick from equally appealing things.

    So, when did you chose your sexual orientation?

    Parent

    WTF?????? (none / 0) (#118)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Every comment makes me more (none / 0) (#2)
    by Korzhanenko on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:05:11 PM EST
    Afraid of her. I wish she would just try - there's nothing good about this for Democrats. That someone who seems this... uneducated about foreign affairs and who lacks common sense... has been nominated for the second highest office in our land does not bode well for our country as a whole.

    I'm going to go with The Corner... (none / 0) (#3)
    by jccleaver on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    ... on this one. There's no reason at all to believe that the media is going to be anywhere close to "fair" or impartial to McCain, or specifically Palin. Given that, it's understandable for her to be extremely wary of anything that's going to get sound bited or distorted.

    This is not a normal campaign. In a normal election, the media wouldn't be pulling out all the stops like this.

    The Media Darling theory (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    Hey, who came up with that one?

    Parent
    I have to hand it (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    to you BTD.  Obama has remained the media choice.  I was quite sure that after the primaries they'd return to McCain, their true love.

    After the debate, when CBS showed that clip of Kissinger stating, in effect, that he would talk without pre-conditions, I almost fell out of my chair.

    Although I hope they keep burning McCain, I'm still troubled that we allow the media to choose our candidates and elect our Presidents.

    Parent

    Does this help or hurt her? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    As long as conservatives know she's a wedge issue type they will vote for her in droves.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    Want to make her Dan Quayle, that works to a point.

    But what if she is not Dan Quayle in the debate? Then what?

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#92)
    by onemanrules on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:41:42 PM EST
    Dan Quayle, Dan Quayle is a friend of mine. Gov. Palin your no Dan Quayle.

    Dan Quayle, for as bad as he was, had it head and shoulders over Palin.

    I do think the debate format will favor her though. I think it will allow her to stick to her talking points.

    Parent

    Palin has a habit of not saying anything (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:09:28 PM EST

    You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.

    It's a political talent if handled right. The rule goes something like this:

    Say the oposite in every proceeding sentence.

    Maybe she reads Michael (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    Crichton novels?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST
    I love her confused position on this. It's born of having to sell McCain's policies.

    How do you fix something if you don't know the cause?  Just mount your faithful steed and charge...where exactly? Up?

    Parent

    The Scariest Moment... (none / 0) (#8)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    ... was her inability to name ONE newspaper or magazine which she reads to gather information on the world.

    That was scary. Katie gave her three chances, and she couldn't/wouldn't answer the question.

    I'm curious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:13:24 PM EST
    Why is it scary that she refused to name a publication. Is it because you think she does not know the names of any publications? do you really believe that?

    This is where Palinpalooza goes absolutely insane in my view.

    Parent

    If you don't want to focus on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    then write about other things. I'm writing about Palin and intend to keep on doing it. The discussion here is about Palin, not whether we should be writing about her.

    Parent
    No. I don't believe she doesn't know the titles... (none / 0) (#18)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    ... but that she wasn't quick enough on her feet to come up with Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Forbes, New York Times, Anchorage Daily News, Seattle P.I, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, or any other newspaper or magazine is what frightens me.

    If I asked you to name five countries in Africa, you could probably do it pretty quickly, without too much thought. That comes from just a general understanding of the world.

    Palin's problem isn't that she's stupid. She's not. No. Her problem is the same problem  Bush had/has; she's not curious. She's only learned whatever she's had to to this point. She shows no curiosity about the world. She cannot converse about what should be typical and normal facts for any politician - not to mention a VP Candidate.

    That's what is scary, in my opinion.

    I think the more she's exposed, the better for the country.

    Parent

    Er (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    let's think for a moment about the "gotcha" that would ensue if she named a liberal media institution like the NY Times.  I suspect the problem was not that she couldn't come up with an answer, but that she couldn't come up with a politically "acceptable" answer, so she filibustered.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    Quick on her feet? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    Time? Newsweek? Come on.

    I should watch the tape, but here is my theory - the McCain campaign is at war with the Media - Palin was not sure which Media was McCain campaign approved. She knew she could not say the NYTimes. And she was not sure who was ok to say that day.

    But the idea being peddled here is that Palin was unfamiliar with the names of the publications.

    It's not only unfair, I think it is particularly ineffective imo.

    I tell you we are setting ourselves up for a fall on Thursday with ths crap.  

    Parent

    the extent (none / 0) (#79)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM EST
    to which people are willing to go to excuse a VP candidate for what really is either amazing ignorance or profound lack of political skill astonishes me. If this were any other candidate, I suspect the derision of his/her ignorance would be unanimous.

    Is it earth shattering news that she couldn't name a paper/magazine she reads? Of course not. But it is completely consistent with the emerging evidence about her lack of readiness to deal with the media, address issues even slightly outside her comfort zone, and think on her feet. Even if it is simply a matter, as you suggest, of her "not being sure which Media was McCain campaign approved" -- how pathetic is that?

    That said, I share your concern about Thursday. I will be shocked if her performance in the debate is as awful as her Couric interview performances, and then it remains a mystery as to what will happen, apart from the obvious -- no matter what the outcome, the GOP will paint Palin as a victim, either of mean Gwen Ifill and Joe Biden or the scurrilous nastiness of the left-media who dared to suggest she was not the next Golda Meir.

    Parent

    Nobody scares me after (none / 0) (#122)
    by MonaL on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

    The attempt by some on the left to characterize/demonize Palin as some kind of dumb scary monster is no different than what has been and continues to be done to Hillary Clinton.  I hate it and I won't be played like that again (I hope).

    She's a 44-year-old governor from a remote underpopulated state.  There are a lot of people who can completely relate to her, there are probably many more who can't.  Either way, she's not a monster, no matter how many times she's called that.  And neither is John McCain.

    I won't vote for her, but that doesn't mean I have to hate her.

    Parent

    she could have punted with (none / 0) (#25)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    The Anchorage Daily News, even is she didnt know the safe conservative answers like the Washington Times or something.

    Parent
    SDhe is at war with the Anchorage Daily News (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:31:57 PM EST
    and has been for a long time.

    As for the Moonie Times, that was not what she would want to say either.

    I think the safe answer would have been Time and the Washington Post but the McCain campaign has her scared stiff. Schmidt and Co have really mishandled her.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    I think the Post is a little to liberal latte drinking to be an acceptable answer.

    Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Time, US News and World Report.  Safe media that is either viewed as right-center.  

    An answer she would know rote if she didn't just enter the big leagues a month ago.

    Parent

    The worst political move.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    ....she could have made was to make anything that would look like an endorsement. Answering the question would have been a big mistake.

    Parent
    I'm less surprised (none / 0) (#10)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    that she thinks homosexuality is a choice--because everything else about her says that that would be her position--than I am surprised that she went to the "my best friend is gay" defense.  That never gets anyone to believe you are somehow not predjudiced.  

    When someone has to say "some of my best friends are [insert your favorite demographic here]"--you know they are trying to excuse some ridiculous thing they believe, said or did.

    She said her best friend is gay? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    Really? Anyone to check that out?

    Parent
    I really hope (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    that if such a friend in fact exists that she wouldn't mention her/him if she wasn't already out.

    That would be really thoughtless and far worse, IMO, than if she is merely lying.

    Parent

    Since Palin used that "defense," (none / 0) (#19)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    I'm certain some enterprising person will rush to Alaska to ID the friend.  If I had to guess, I'd say it's one of the ladies who appeared on Good Morning America to discuss their friendship with Sarah, but then wouldn't commit to voting for her ticket in the election.

    Parent
    yes, her best friend of 30 years (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    and she said her friend's choice wouldn't be her choice. Her ignorance on this is astounding.

    Parent
    wow, that's not the choice they were discussing (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    they were discussing "the choice" to be gay, not the choice to out oneself.

    Parent
    I'm thinking of the Dem. primary (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    season and Sen. Obama's choice to ask Donnie McClurkin (who believes being gay is a choice and who has a program to de-program those who have made that "choice."

    Parent
    buch of (none / 0) (#21)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    Softballs.

    Ask her about her previous support for teaching creationism in school and then ask her "what changed?".

    I guess (none / 0) (#30)
    by borisbor on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    she didn't want to admit she reads the New American?

    I feel pretty strongly about choice (none / 0) (#38)
    by rilkefan on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    in this context but the above quote isn't that bad.  If she's not going to judge then she can think whatever loopy thing she likes.  I've got good liberal friends who are against gay marriage as "marriage" - it's still kind of the dark ages in that regard (see e.g. the UU church I went to as a kid that got shot up because of this) and it's not like Obama or HRC espouse views I would find acceptable except for political expediency.

    what's the difference between (none / 0) (#81)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    thinking loopy thoughts about gays and "judging" them? I don't follow.

    Parent
    Palin is quite obviously saying (none / 0) (#91)
    by rilkefan on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:33:45 PM EST
    X does y because of z but doing y because of z has no moral content; but holds that x still shouldn't have right m.  The person I'm going to vote for says X does y which has no moral content and x shouldn't have right m.  Same result, sans loopy thought.  The candidate I'm going to vote for says every day he believes in an entity infinitely less plausible than Santa Claus, and so do all the other candidates I could conceivably back, so I'm just not in the judging-loopy-thought business as long as the policies are ok.

    Parent
    i don't think (none / 0) (#93)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:50:15 PM EST
    that Palin can actually be credited with that kind of reasoning. At first I thought you were even being snarky.

    But just so I understand, the idea is that as long as Palin does not hold loopy thoughts about the immorality of homosexuality, it is okay for gay people to support her, even though she would oppose any efforts to provide equal rights to the gay community? (I realize that she does not state this in the interview, but that is her platform.)

    That is the most important form of judgment, in my view -- how do her personal views affect her policy making? Would someone who thinks that, on any given day, a gay person could just choose (or pray, or whatever) to be different actually promote equality and protection of rights for the gay community? To me, viewing sexual orientation as a choice is a judgment. YMMV, of course.

    Parent

    She said she didn't judge gays (none / 0) (#100)
    by rilkefan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:35:15 AM EST
    She said she wasn't going to judge gays.  It's very simple.  Maybe you think she's lying, but the statement itself is pretty good coming from a conservative, esp. a conservative Republican.  Her party affiliation is sufficient reason for anyone who cares about gay rights to vote against her.

    Parent
    not a matter of lying (none / 0) (#105)
    by dws3665 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:18:31 AM EST
    And yes, it is simple. You just misunderstood me. For me, this a matter of interpreting what it means to "judge" gays. There is, in my view, an implied judgment in the belief that one chooses one's sexual orientation. Once you say that, to claim that you "don't judge" is irrelevant.

    Parent
    I understood you (none / 0) (#115)
    by rilkefan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    I just think you don't understand what "judge" clearly means in this context.

    Parent
    it would be great if all people (none / 0) (#107)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:33:46 AM EST
    could hold beliefs but not necessarily hold those beliefs against other persons...

    that would be a key point in democracy, one that we haven't made it to yet...

    maybe then someone could smoke a bit of medicine without someone else telling them they can't...if you don't believe it is right, fine, but don't judge that other large percentage of the world population that doesn't share your belief...

    this is a fine line of thinking, though...and we as humans, or as Americans in general haven't learned the balancing act just yet...

    Parent

    From what I've heard, many, many (none / 0) (#48)
    by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:40:04 PM EST
    gays have made a choice. They have chosen to marry the opposite sex and try to live a life they don't quite feel fully a part of.

    So, on some level, Palin could be right.

    I have no idea if there are people who have chosen to live a gay lifestyle if they aren't, in fact, gay.

    Has Palin said she is going to try to get policy written to make life more difficult for gays, or has she indicated she will allow people to make their own choices?

    There is NOTHING that would make me vote for her and McCain, but if they should win I really do want to know what she has said she will do to intrude on the lives of gay people, and what she plans to do about abortion.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    I have no idea if there are people who have chosen to live a gay lifestyle if they aren't, in fact, gay.
    The whole "lifestyle" thing. . .

    As a real, live, gay person, could I ask you not to use that. It's a dog whistle.

    Parent

    Sorry, didn't know (none / 0) (#58)
    by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:08:24 PM EST
    what word would be better to describe living gay if not gay?


    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:14:56 PM EST
    for men, "men who have sex with men." (I've never heard of the same applied to women, though I don't see why it couldn't be.)

    Parent
    That covers (none / 0) (#67)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:49:01 PM EST
    everything from the openly gay to down low.

    However if you ask, the answer may be "I Am Not Gay." - even if they are gay by the above definition.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    The whole thing is kind of nebulous once you depart from the world of white gay men.

    Parent
    Living a gay lifestyle (none / 0) (#71)
    by jar137 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    is a term usually employed by those who oppose gays and lesbians living openly and happily.  I would tend to use the term living openly, and the preferred term (for what it's worth) to describe one's sexuality is sexul orientation, not lifestyle or choice.

    Parent
    I get your point, except that I was (none / 0) (#74)
    by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:16:33 PM EST
    talking about people like Anne Heche when she chose to live with Ellen Degeneres, and Lou Diamond Phillips ex-wife, who left him for Melissa Etherige until she decided she wasn't really gay. Those are what I would term people who have chosen to be gay and live as such.

    My use of the word lifestyle was in no way intended to cause aggravation. I oppose no one's choices.


    Parent

    for those individuals... (none / 0) (#82)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:55:50 PM EST
    perhaps a better term might be "bisexual."

    Parent
    I can attest from my own (none / 0) (#52)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    experience and everyone I know, it is ludicrous to think it is a choice. As a line from the best gay movie of all time ("Parting Glances") says: "Your d*#k knows what your d*#k likes"
    On the other hand, at least palin does not seem viciously cruel as so many right-wing "christians" such as fred phelps and his crowd do.

    Respectfully, within the LGBT community (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    there is considerable debate as to the origin/construction of sexual orientation.

    There's a whole field of scholarship on the subject: Queer Theory; in fact, one can take it as a major in college. For the time being, there's the Wikipedia page, which is actually pretty good.

    The issue is far too complex to be contained by the reductive question as to whether "being gay" is a "choice"; or whether it is something that is hard-wired and biologically determined. Unfortunately, within the public domain, the spectrum of queer identity has been reduced to that simplistic question .

    A queer theorist would question the question itself. One might ask: why is it inherently "abhorrent" to imagine that somebody would choose to be gay? Is it similarly "abhorrent" to suppose that a person chooses to be heterosexual?

    And what do we make of bisexuals who consciously make a choice to be solely queer or straight? i.e. a given bisexual woman may choose to be a lesbian because she prefers the company of women; conversely another bisexual woman may choose to be straight because she prefers a more 'traditional' way of life.

    And what of people who are exclusively queer? Must we presume that they are queer because they have no choice in the matter?

    Suffice to say, there are plenty of queers who do feel that they exercise complete free will in the matter of sexual orientation. You can count me in.

     

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by mexboy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:31:27 AM EST
    People can theorize all they want. At the end of the day the only people who know what is like to be gay are gay people.

     I know no true  heterosexual who can imagine having a physical, loving and sexual relationship with another member of the same sex anymore than a gay person could with someone of the opposite sex.

    All this theory nonsense if for people with issues to resolve. Things are not that complicated. people are attracted to whomever they are attracted, sometimes they are attracted to both genders. Sometimes to the opposite gender, and sometimes to the same gender.

    The rest is baloney in my opinion.

    Parent

    The theorists I'm talking about are gay... (none / 0) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    although I prefer the term LGBT or queer.

    I don't follow what you mean by a "true heterosexual", since I don't subscribe to the notion that sexual orientation is carved in stone. I've seen some pretty passionate heterosexuals who crossed over to the home team.

    As for your observation that:

    All this theory nonsense if [sic] for people with issues to resolve.

    I agree with you absolutely. Theory is for people who are intellectually curious about stuff like evolution, philosophy, physics, mathematics, chemistry, art, literature, the social sciences; inclusive of anthropology, communication studies, political science, psychology, sociology, studies of race, class, gender, AND sexuality - I could go on.

    All fields of knowledge involve theory to varying degrees. As you know, Newton had a theory of gravity before he established it as a law of gravity.

    In the final analysis, we're all on the same side here, at least I hope so. Peace out.

    Parent

    according to Kinsley (none / 0) (#126)
    by mexboy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:36:16 AM EST
    There is a percentage of true heterosexuals and true homosexuals. The rest according to him are bisexual.

    I don't for a second believe this:

    I've seen some pretty passionate heterosexuals who crossed over to the home team.

    In this world that shames people for being homosexual some gay people naturally hide their orientation behind a facade of a "passionate heterosexuals," as you call them. So finding the courage to be themselves does not make them someone who switched for the home team-whatever means.

    I was not being kind when I said theory was for people with issues. Gay people can have big issues and therefore need "theory" to explain that which needs no explanation. It sounds kinds self loathing to me.

    I don't subscribe to your point of view that:

    All fields of knowledge involve theory to varying degrees. As you know, Newton had a theory of gravity before he established it as a law of gravity

    People are not a field of knowledge for theorists to prove how smart they are, nor are they things that someone must validate with a proven law.

    Human beings are not up for discussion.

    Please do correct any other typos, grammar or punctuation again. It will show how much smarter you are.

    Parent

    Alfred Kinsey? (none / 0) (#127)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    The Kinsey Institute website has a detailed summary of the venerable, but dated, research that he did more than 55 years ago, between 1948-53. It includes Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale.

    Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time.

    In other words, he was saying that although a given individual may have been exclusively heterosexual up to the time of testing, there was no way of determining whether this would continue to be the case for the remainder of that person's life.

    Parent

    Read the scale again! (none / 0) (#128)
    by mexboy on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 04:56:59 AM EST
    The 0 column is true heterosexual, the 6 column is true homosexual, according to his studies. Everyone else falls in the  flexible range. Those closest to the middle would be the ones who are bisexual.

    Of course Kinsey would put things as you say:

    he was saying that although a given individual may have been exclusively heterosexual up to the time of testing, there was no way of determining whether this would continue to be the case for the remainder of that person's life.

    He's was a scientist, not God. Scientists cover their behinds when publishing papers.

    I know this is purely anecdotal but my parents are still heterosexual, my grandparents died being heterosexual, my great grandparents the same thing, in fact, I know no one who one day said that's it, from now on I am a homosexual.  

    Some people just like to make things complicated. you are who you are, end of story.

    Parent

    Good for you, that you are so confident of (none / 0) (#129)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    knowing every single, solitary, intimate detail of the sexual history of your parents; and of your grandparents and great-grandparents - from the moment of their birth till the end of their lives.

    You possess a wealth of omniscient knowledge that's light-years beyond Kinsey's wildest dreams. In fact, you evidently know as much as god. That being the case, you must be correct in your diagnosis that you come from three generations of "true heterosexuals".

    I concede. You can keep obviously keep this up forever, but it's time for me to quit reading and writing on this particular thread. Peace out.

    Parent

    well someone got his knickers in a twitch (none / 0) (#130)
    by mexboy on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02:24 PM EST
    It makes sense to me that anyone can choose how to live their life, but are you really saying you feel you can choose who to be attracted to?  That's hard for me to process.

    Parent
    Yes. For me, and many proponents of (none / 0) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:46:56 PM EST
    Queer Theory, it's a matter of making a life commitment to diligently unlearn the lessons of heteronormativity and gender conformity. (The Queer Theory folks described this subject pretty well at Wikipedia - as of this hour, at least.)

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:52:45 PM EST
    I will definitely read up on it.

    Parent
    so can I train myself to find obese women (none / 0) (#108)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:39:30 AM EST
    just as attractive as healthy, fit women...

    or is that different...

    or what about women who don't have perfect symmetry in their facial features...my brain immediately tells me that she isn't as attractive as a perfectly symmetrical woman even before I have a chance to really think about it..
    I think that's the premise behind a lot of advertising...

    can that be untrained?

    Parent

    I dunno whether your question is sincere... (none / 0) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    But I have a stray cat who was very poorly trained when he came into my possession. I have successfully retrained him, to our mutual benefit and satisfaction.

    I can't speak to his previous taste in felines, but he is quite fond of the chubby, asymmetrically patterned, diabetic female cat in our household.

    The cat story is true. It's my belief that humans are no less capable of transformation if they apply themselves accordingly.

    I say this because there seem to be millions of men who aren't repulsed by the physicality of the type of woman you find so unattractive.

    Parent

    so you're saying that we need (none / 0) (#125)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:21:23 AM EST
    to make an attempt to go against what feels natural, right? what our brain tells us to do before we're able to consciously think it out...

    that seems fair, and I agree at least to some extent...I only wish the religious right would do the same...it would totally debunk the idea of 'faith'...

    Parent

    respectfully, I am not a moron (none / 0) (#114)
    by kenosharick on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    and of course have a passing familiarity with Queer Theory, though not your expertise. I was trying to make a light comment and you took things a whole different way. BTW- anyone who uses Wikipedia for anything more important than a bar bet cannot be taken seriously.

    Parent
    Nobody said you are a moron... (none / 0) (#119)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    But you didn't exactly pay me a compliment when you said:

    Anyone who uses Wikipedia for anything more important than a bar bet cannot be taken seriously.

    Please give me the benefit of knowing enough about the subject to know that the Wikipedia pages on Queer Theory and Heteronormativity were fairly inclusive and accurate, as of the time when I cited them a few hours ago.

    It is a given that the lay editorship of Wikipedia is not to be taken as the gospel. Responsible research requires follow-up reading of some of the original sources.

    The Queer Theory page includes more than 50 references: authors, books, articles, journals, etc.; the Heteronormativity page has more than 30 references. (Don't hate me for having read many of them over the past 15 years ;-)


    Parent

    Maybe you know what (none / 0) (#123)
    by kenosharick on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    is crap and what is correct on wiki; the majority do not. I have seen too many lies, exaggerations, and rumors on the site to give it any actual credence. BTW- by the time you cite the "inclusive and accurate" wiki page it may have been changed already.

    Parent
    In the fight for gay rights (none / 0) (#69)
    by jar137 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    I have always felt that our primary goal should be to be left alone.  I don't care if people don't like me or think I'm going to hell because of my sexual orientation, so long as they do not impede my ability to live freely.  Thus, I am not bothered by Palin's statement.  If she is being sincere and stands by her friend, that's a good thing to me.  Of course, I would never vote for her, but I don't think this statement makes her homophobic.  Less informed than many would like, yes; but not homophobic.  I have had the experience many times in my life where people have said, I've never met a gay person before and you're okay.  That's the only way to change people's views- by respecting where they come from and demanding the same respect in return.  (Of course, this does not mean embracing people who would want to kill you if they could.)  Also, the choice she is referring to may be her friend's choice to live her life openly as a lesbian.    

    OhNoes! The magazines! (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:05:18 PM EST
    Shoot, if you had asked me that as a cold question, I sure as heck would have come up short. I haven't read a magazine in at least a year. They used to arrive at my home (after a few minutes I remembered Real Simple, Cooks Illustrated and a natural health one, name escapes me, gift from sister). They are still sitting on a pile of "need to read". I'll prob just pull out what I need, file and trash the rest without reading.

    This is what got me (none / 0) (#83)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    That while she was blathering to Couric about the morning after pill and that she believed that life began at conception, she also mentioned that she had "never" met anyone who disagreed with her views and seemed to take umbrage at Couric for even asking the question! Perhaps I heard this wrong.

    BTW, did anyone catch Bay Buchanan on CNN this evening? Talk about a pitbull! Her wild eyed defense of Palin bordered on the lunatic. Thankfull Carville was there to eviscerate Bay.

    How on earth do you get from that quote (none / 0) (#109)
    by outsider on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:56:24 AM EST
    ...that she thinks homosexuality is a choice?

    But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships.

    The quote is ambiguous.  It might mean she thinks it is a choice whether or not one is gay.  But she might equally be referring to the choice whether or not to have gay relationships, given that one is gay.  Many religious people believe that one does not choose to be gay, but that it would be morally wrong to act on gay desires.  They believe that a gay person can lead a righteous life as long as he/she is celibate.  Palin may be one such person.

    I often feel like, in reading Jeralyn's posts these days, that her hatred of Palin blinds her to what is really newsworthy, and what is really a gaffe.  Even being gay myself, I think this post is over the top.

    Read the quote again (none / 0) (#121)
    by rilkefan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    'And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice I would have made.'

    As I note above, she also says there's no moral content what she thinks is a matter of choice.

    Parent

    English teachers everywhere (none / 0) (#117)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    cringe whenever that woman opens her mouth.