Ken Buck on MTP: Being Gay is a Choice

Ken Buck and Sen. Michael Bennet were on Meet the Press today. Ken Buck said homosexuality is a choice.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe that being gay is a choice?


DAVID GREGORY: Based on what?

KEN BUCK: Based on what?

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah. Why do you believe that?
KEN BUCK: I guess-- you can choose who your partner is.

DAVID GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?

KEN BUCK: I-- I think that-- birth has an influence over like alcoholism and some other things-- but I think that-- basically, you-- you have a choice.

Sen. Bennet called Buck an opportunist:[More....]

DAVID GREGORY: Is he [Buck] a political opportunist?

SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET: I think absolutely. I mean it-- I think it's very clear that he ran a primary election saying that he would privatize Social Security. That he demolish the Department of Education. That the American people need to wean theirselves off of student loans. That he supported the personhood amendment-- pro-life in all cases except for-- including cases of rape and incest. He's not changed his position on that.

And in the general election, even as recently as yesterday, he said, "Well, I-- I don't oppo-- I-- I don't support abolishing the Department of Education but I wouldn't oppose it if it came up for a vote." That's not the kind of straight talk that people in Colorado want…. The flip flops in this race are unbelievable.

< Elites | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And I believe ... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    that whether to vote, and how to vote, is definitely a choice.  An important choice.

    What if homosexuality was a choice? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Faust on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    Why does it matter?

    We have a concept of "freedom of religion" and religion is a choice. EVEN IF homosexuality was a choice what difference would it make to the question of it being a behavior that could be legitimately be descriminated against?

    Anyone want to help me out here?

    it matters (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    in a perfect world it should not. we do not live in that world

    It certainly does matter ... *if* you also think (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:40:15 PM EST
    that (a) the "choice" is to engage in immoral behavior that society is entitled to condemn, to discourage by stigmatizing and discriminating against those who engage in, or even to criminalize; and (b) that the Constitution does not protect the choice to engage in the behavior (i.e., not only that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, but also that it need not be obeyed).  Otherwise, it would not matter whether homosexuality was a "choice."

    The last Senate candidate I remember (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    giving an non-mainstream response on a MTP "debate" was Pete Coors, when he said that the drinking age should be 18 (incidentally, I agreed with him about that).

    No predictive value there, of course.

    Natural follow-up ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:56:28 PM EST
    I don't understand why interviews never ask the natural follow-up question to statements like this:

    So if people choose to be gay, they obviously also choose to be straight.  So how did you make that choice?  How did you choose to be straight rather than gay?

    I don't think anyone can get out of that question without (a) looking like an idiot, and (b) showing that they don't really believe it's a choice.

    In fact, people like Buck don't really believe sexual preference is a choice. They rather believe gay people have a choice on acting on their feelings. Which, of course, means that there is such a thing as a "gay person".  And so being gay isn't a choice.

    Oh, they do (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:54:24 PM EST
    I have heard interviewers ask that question.  As you can certainly imagine, it produces no coherent response, usually just stuttering and arm-flailing.  What I've rarely heard is an interviewer then following up once again and saying, "No, really."

    I actually think most of them do believe it, at least the non-politicians I know who say that believe it.  They think everybody is inherently heterosexual, and at some point in their lives, some people make a conscious decision to veer away from that.  So to them, if you're so upright and moral that you've never been tempted, there's no "choice" involved in being straight.  Or something.


    Geez, listen to me (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    I can explain these guys better than they can themselves...

    maybe a better question (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    would be why the hell anyone would choose to be a second class citizen? why they would choose a "lifestyle" that would make them an outsider with thousands of rights denied them, be disowned by their families risk death in many contries?

    is that you think being gay is just so freaking cool that people would do this?


    Ken Buck... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:44:43 PM EST
    ...thinking that being gay is a choice is not surprising.  I really wouldn't expect anything less from him and his ilk.

    What is surprising and quite frankly sickening to me is that as a DA, he put his backward values before the rights of an "alleged" rape victim.  Because she had a prior relationship with the suspect she was just experiencing "buyers remorse" and he declined to prosecute the case--nevermind that the suspect confessed and that under Colorado law she was not in a position to give any kind of consent.  

    IMHO, Ken Buck has no business being anywhere near a position of power--much less the US Senate.

    You Know Whats A Real Choice? (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by john horse on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    Its not your sexuality.  Deciding who to vote for is a choice.  Sometimes its the choice between the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes its the choice between two lessers.    

    I've been disappointed with Obama, especially with his economic policies.  But how can anyone sit out this election when you look at the alternative?  How can anyone think that our country will be better off electing folks like Ken Buck in Colorado, Rick Scott in Florida, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and Sharon Angle in Nevada?  I've never seen a more worthless group of candidates than those running under the GOP banner.  

    Its frightening to me to think that our country will be led by these extremists.  To sit out this election and allow them to come to power is to make a choice.  Its a choice we can't afford to make.  

    I really like Gregory's follow-up (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    "Based on what?"

    I can think of a lot of things that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    would threaten my "traditional" family and "traditional marriage," but someone else's sexual orientation or wish to be allowed to marry, aren't among them.  Infidelity is a threat to the traditional family, poverty is a threat, having a disabled or chronically ill family member is a threat, joblessness is a threat, long and multiple deployments in the military can stress marriage and family to the breaking point.

    And when I consider that list of things I feel are threatening to the traditional family, I realize that these are also things that conservatives don't give two hoots about and, in the case of those items that have to do with jobs and money and the finances of health care, have no interest in the government assisting with at all.

    With respect to the infidelity issue...at the rate with which conservative married politicians keep getting caught with their pants down, you'd think they'd be too embarrassed to keep pretending what great representatives of family values they are, but I guess they are less interested in their own private lives - and lies  than they are in the lives of everyone else.

    Really? (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    If two gay men moved next door to you, you don't think their "ickiness" would float on the air into your house and all of a sudden give you and your husband the urge to mate with members of the same sex?  If you saw them smooching in the front yard, you wouldn't suddenly want to divorce your husband and take up with another woman?

    Heaven forbid we should expose our children to people who love and care for each other and respect each other, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Instead we should make sure they see more of the "traditional family" - especially those "traditional families" where there is drinking and carousing until all hours of the night, screaming and yelling - kinda like every episode of "Cops".  Those "traditional families" are great examples of good, society people.


    Being a homophobic, authoritarian, (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    a$$ who feels that the government has a right to dictate what grown people do in their bedrooms or what women can do with their bodies is a choice and one that he has doubled down on big time.

    Well heck. (1.00 / 6) (#7)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:58:15 PM EST
    Well heck. Mr. Buck would have won my vote right there. The man is entitled to his opinion, though judging by the responses i have read so far you would never think it.

    Yes ... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Erehwon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    he is entitled to his opinion, but he is required to follow the constitution/laws, and he demonstrated a wanton disregard to doing that. Moreover, he wants to impose his opinions on others by wanting to change laws and more.

    Of course he's entitled to his opinion (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    No one has suggested otherwise.

    Of course, we are also entitled to our opinion of Mr. Buck, as well as someone who says they would vote for him because they agree with his bigoted opinions.


    Isn't it amazing (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    the way righties always start yelling about the 1st amendment whenever anybody expresses disapproval of what they say?

    It's pretty funny (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:15:56 PM EST
    I think they actually believe that they should be permitted to express whatever opinions they wish without facing any any criticisms in return.  Beyond that, it just seems silly when they start whining about their right to "freedom of speech", when they face criticism from others using their own right to speak, rather than any government action.

    seriously (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    freedom of speech doesnt mean you cant be called an a$$ for saying it.  that would also, I believe, be freedom of speech.

    With great freedom (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    Comes great responsibility

    his opinion. (1.00 / 3) (#11)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    His opinion that seeks to protect one thing (the traditional family) is no less valid than the majority viewpoint on this board that seeks to force their anti family values on others who do not share their progressive values.
    A bigot is a bigot; whether the bigot is anti hetero or anti homo...just two faces of the same coin.
    Of course to me he is a "defender" to you he might be a bigot. Just sayin'...

    P.S, Where has the man (Buck) advocated not following the constitution?

    In what way does homophobia (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    "protect the traditional family"?

    What do you think will happen to your family when the gay folks next door are legally allowed to have their family, eh?

    We've had civil unions for years and marriage equality for over a year in this state now, and I assure you nobody's "traditional family" has been in the slightest impacted by it.

    And as many people before me have pointed out, we "traditional family" straights have done a pretty appalling job of protecting our own "traditional families," so I don't know what the fuss is.


    Traditional families....on a roll. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    Well, that has not happened yet and  i do not dwell on hypothesis...but, I suppose i would continue to fight to have that law repealed. Much like the right is fighting to elect those who will repeal the Obama Health care bill.

    Civil unions and marriage are still not allowed here and thankfully every time, in every state that it has come up for a vote to the people the people of that state have shot it down. So, i dont see it coming here anytime soon. In at least 30 straight contests the people have shot down homosexual marriage. The courts may intervene and special interests my intervene but the "people" keep saying NO.

    Those traditional family value proponents have kept going to polls protecting traditional marriage and have been successful every-single-time.


    Just as I thought (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    You are unable to answer my question and defend your oh-so-pleasing talking point.

    Gay marriage has absolutely no impact whatsoever on "traditional" families, as the residents of every state that's had it for a while now will tell you.

    And btw, in my state, marriage equality was overwhelmingly voted by our very much citizen legislature, over the GOP governor's veto, and not a single GOP state rep or senator who voted for it was even close to having been voted out of office this year.

    So no, we didn't have a referendum on it because having referendums on other people's basic human rights is about as odious an idea as there is.  But instead, we got to express our opinion through the ballot box, and we did.


    so who asked for their family (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by the capstan on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 07:41:31 AM EST
    to be 'protected'?  I did not.  And I would not have, even if this 'traditional' family did not include a gay person.

    What does your "traditional family" (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    think about the fact that you pick fights on the internet?

    fights? (1.00 / 3) (#14)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    C'mon. I am not the one that in my first post was calling folks bigots. I was looking for a debate, not a fight. I am sorry you misinterpreted any of my words as justification for your inflammatory post.

    At Talk Left, (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:00:32 PM EST
    when you rate every post in a thread with a 1, you are starting a fight (and not to speak out of turn, but also violating house rules).

    I would suggest that you are the one being "inflammatory," but I think that's clearly evident to everyone here but you.


    Rating. (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    If i do not agree with a post.... i should rate it "higher"? Why would/should I do that?

    Since when is having a dissenting opinion "inflammatory". shrug

    Do y'all really prefer it when every one here has the same opinion?


    Read the site's comment policies (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    Ratings are not a popularity poll recording agreement or disagreement.  They express approval or disapproval of the originality, insight, clarity of expression, and demonstration of sound factual basis for a given comment.  If you want to express agreement or disagreement, and can justify your opinion and thus make a real contribution to the dialog that this site encourages, then compose and post a response.  Intelligent disagreement with the majority view is encouraged here.  Shallow, conclusory, and opinionated posturing, like name-calling, is strongly discouraged, even from those who agree with the majority.

    you may not rate a comment (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    a "1" because you disagree with the point of view. A "1" rating is for trolls and abusive comments. I am going to erase your ratings. You can start again.

    Also, as a new commenter, you are limited to 10 comments a day. Since you oppose the views of this site, you are limited to 4 comments a day -- please read the comment rules on "chatterers."

    You appear to be a chatterer. All in excess of four will be deleted.


    Coors (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by raughammer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    I mean you earlier brought up Pete Coors. He is a good man and one i heartily support.
    I am glad you agreed with him on the 18 year old drinking age. Perhaps there is more we would agree on but i doubt we would ever find out if you think my mundane posts are a invitation to "pick a fight".

    N.B., (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    you are not debating some abstract concept with people who have exactly your life experience.

     Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am gay myself. When a candidate for public office insults and demeans me on national television--in a most personal way, and you show up to defend him, you are in fact insulting me.


    Well said, Andy, and good for you (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    for saying so.  And how 'bout them Phillies?

    High expectations, no doubt (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:38:12 PM EST
    Not watching yet. . .

    "Anti-family values"? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    Seriously?  How is the conclusion that being homosexual is not a choice "anti-family"?  Conversely, how is claiming that homosexuality is a choice "defending" the traditional family?  I have a "traditional family" (wife, four children) and I don't need Mr. Buck's help in defending anything, let alone my family.

    BTW -  If our sexuality is a "choice", when did you decide to be straight?  Personally, I was born a heterosexual and was always attracted to females, but I can imagine that for someone who had to "choose", it must have been a critical, life-determining "decision".  What was it that clinched it for you?


    We shouldn't ignore the possibility (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:11:48 PM EST
    that raughammer did "choose to be straight" at some point, and that s/he is put on edge when others point out the inefficacy of that "choice."

    family values!!!! (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:26:24 AM EST
    My favorite thing about this particular talking point is that the state with the lowest divorce rate is..... Massachusetts.  Followed pretty closely by the rest of the "anti-family" northeast.

    The traditional family is really suffering up there.

    I didn't see anyone here who was anti-hetero.  No one is telling heteros they do not deserve equal treatment under the law.  A bigot is a bigot, that's for sure.  But don't confuse your position on "homo" for anyone here's on "hetero".  I'm pretty sure everyone here would defend your right to consensual marriage with any straight person you choose.  No one is trying to "enforce" anything on you.  This is not about you.

    BTW - the constitutional offense you're looking for is this one:

    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

    emphasis mine


    Alabama's divorce rate is exploding (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    This state is completely broke but the legislature gave money to some sort of divorce busters program too.  Made me so mad.  Good marriages require more than some kind of legislated marriage program.  They had billboards up all over the place a few months ago with a number to call if you were talking divorce.  They are all gone now, and I don't know why.  I think the website is gone now too because I can't find it.  Made me furious though that the teachers teaching the kids are buying supplies out of their paychecks and this Fubar state and culture decides to spend money on trying to make people who hate each other continue to be in each others faces.

    if they really want to lower (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    the divorce rate - they might want to start with the teen-pregnancy/shotgun-wedding rate.

    In any event, states with lower divorce rates tend to have a higher average age of marriage.

    Either that or it's all the gay neighbors :)


    if it's not a "choice", then either... (none / 0) (#36)
    by diogenes on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:48:45 PM EST
    1.  There is really a gay gene or genes
    2.  It is mediated a person's psychological environment, implying that sexual orientation can be changed by other changes in a person's psychological environment such as psychotherapy.


    3.  A combination of the above.

    Take your pick.  

    Ask yourself if heterosexuality (none / 0) (#41)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 06:16:55 AM EST
    can be characterized in the same ways, and then the answer becomes apparent.

    1:  There really is a 'hetero' gene


    2: It's mediated by a persons' psychological environment, implying that a heterosexual can be changed into a homosexual by other changes in a heterosexuals' psychological environment such as psychotherapy.


    2:  You're just writing bullsh*t, like most psychologists and psychiatrists who are afraid to admit when they don't or can't understand something.


    why is this so (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    difficult to understand?  I suspect it isnt.

    Who knows and who really cares? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    Seriously?  Of those who are in my life and are out now that I grew up with, I would have to say looking back that from very early on they were headed in a slightly different direction than my hormones were.  Why?  I dunno and in the grand scheme of today it doesn't matter.  This is a human rights issue for me.  Having a "Traditional Family" is a choice.  I wasn't even sure I was going to have one as a very young woman.  I used to worry a lot about over population when I was younger and my original plan was not give birth to a family at all.  If chldren were going to be in my life I was only willing to adopt one of the many many unwanted and uncared for.

    I told Buck that he should (none / 0) (#39)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:57:25 AM EST
    not listen to Valerie Jarrett over her gay lifestyle belief.  Thats what you get when you listen to the administration.  
    I went back to see Talk Left's coverage of Jarrett's comments.  Couldn't find em.

    Perhaps that's because (none / 0) (#40)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 06:12:07 AM EST
    A:  Ms. Jarrett isn't running for any office at this point in time, unlike Mr. Buck

    B:  She apologized for what she said, unlike Mr. Buck.


    Uh (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    A.  She's a Senior Advisor to the President of the United State.  When she speaks, she speaks for the administration.

    B.  So what?  She apologized for getting caught.  They ALL apologize, or rather, clarify with "What I meant to say...,"  


    FWIW (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    I'm 99.99% certain Buck would not apologize.

    She obviously should not have said what she said.


    in truth (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    you could at least make a plausible argument that she did not mean it exactly the way it sounded.

    n/a with Buck.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    But A) I think she said exactly what she meant to say and B) that wasn't Harry's argument, which was that she should be excused because she isn't running for anything and she said she was sorry when she wa called on it.

    As wrong as I think Buck is, I think he was more honest (until he, too, did a "What I meant to say...")


    I listed the differences (none / 0) (#66)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    between the two cases, please don't make that into excusing Ms. Jarrett because that's above my pay scale and not why I wrote what I did.

    As wrong as I think Buck is, I think he was more honest (until he, too, did a "What I meant to say...")

    Was more honest is an accurate characterization.


    nor was I (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    just pointing out that in her case it was to some extent open to question

    I raked her good for it at the time.


    An unelected bigot (none / 0) (#79)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 05:52:06 AM EST
    Accountable to no one.

    There's at least one (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    on every street.  Hide the children.

    You think her apology (none / 0) (#81)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 09:21:52 AM EST
    isn't sincere, or does 'bigot' have an alternative meaning in your world?

    Also, I guess an elected and accountable bigot is acceptable as well?


    I commented on them (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    Lemme break it down... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    for the Buck's of the world...the choice they are referring to is the choice to be celibate, whether straight, gay, or asexual you have the choice of whether to get your preferred freak on or to be celibate...that is a choice available to all.

    Your sexual orientation...aka what sex you are naturally attracted to upon reaching sexual maturity...that you are born with.  

    Write it down Mr. Buck.

    gay gene (none / 0) (#76)
    by diogenes on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    So there really is a "gay gene", a "straight gene", etc?  At least in men.  The majority of women in my practice who have women partners are pretty solidly bisexual, in truth.  So do women have lesbian and straight genes or is it environmental?  

    "Born with" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:55:43 PM EST
    could also encompass the effect of the uterine environment on a human fetus without backing into any sort of hereditary influence per se.

    Nice try, but no cigar.


    my first thought when someone (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    suggests it is a "choice" is that they have those feelings themselves and have chosen to ignore them for whatever reason.

    its hard to come up with another explanation for that assumption  

    It's about publicly commandeering (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    an (illusory) moral high ground. And proving, once again, that the Leviticus squadron is still an indispensable component of the Right's coalition.

    What cracks me up is the ongoing denial of this dependence on the most reactionary elements in our society that you can still find any day of the week in secular, "freedom and liberty" right-libertarian quarters.      


    perhaps (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    but I find it hard to believe they would be so sure it is a choice if they had not made it themselves.

    Mostly (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    I think that "choice" canard is about continuing to push the idea that the other side is willfully sinful and disobedient to the guy with the white beard and the big stick. An obvious base rallying and appealing-to maneuver.

    But, there also have been a fair number of indications in the last few years that big closet spaces are at a premium over on that side of the aisle -- for those who are forced to re-"choose" every day, anew.

    Also, this seeming rampant fear that a lot them have that gayness is one of the most contagious forms of behavior there is, would seem to indicate that many of them are particularly vulnerable to backsliding on their choices..    


    One of the sub themes of this thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    seems to be the discussion of whether being gay or straight is a result of nature, only, or whether nurture has some role.

    I gotta believe nurture has some role, it can't be that how your were "born" is the only parameter.

    For example, I've seen Melissa Etheridge in concert a few times (she tears the house down) and have heard her reference the sexual abuse by her older sister that she was the victim of.

    According to The Truth Is..., between the ages of roughly 7 and 10, Etheridge [...] was sexually abused by her older sister Jennifer, now a home-maker in Arkansas.

    Etheridge, unwilling to be more specific about the abuse, says she is sure it affected her sexual orientation and left her unable to form a stable relationship from adolescence on, when she first realized she was a lesbian.

    "I don't think it's what made me gay," she says, "but it definitely shaped it."

    For some people, sure, it was cut and dried before they even took their first breath, but for others, I've got to believe, nurture must play some role...

    No doubt... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    sexual abuse, especially in childhood, can warp ones sexuality....causing confusion and issues with sexuality.

    Juvie and prison come to mind too, and what goes on while locked up.

    Though I don't think such cases prove that homosexuality is a choice, it just proves that sexual trauma or abuse can really f*ck peoples sense of their sexuality up.


    free radio, he used to interview a lot of strippers, porn stars and other women who made their living in the sex industry.

    And when they sat down his very first question was often "Hi, glad you could be here. So how old were you when you were first sexually abused?" and the girls would be astounded at his insightfulness.

    No that there's anything wrong with being a sex worker...


    Never underestimate... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    nurtures ability to twist nature.

    Sexuality being a particularly complex facet of human nature too.  I don't buy a lot of Freud and I certainly don't buy Buck...like I said he's confusing the choice of whether to engage in certain sexual acts with "choosing" your sexual orientation.  It's ridiculous.  


    I would agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    I do not think it is either or.  my personal history is to some extent, rather text book.  I had a distant father and a strong - but not in any way overprotective - mother.  that would make me rather boring garden variety nurture influenced.  
    but I have been gay since my very first thoughts on the subject.  and I honestly dont think any of that had a thing to do with it.  

    there is another indicator that I am finding very interesting and that is the multiple sons variable.
    I am also a third son.

    A man's sexual orientation can be fixed before he is born, according to new research that provides the strongest evidence yet of a biological basis for male homosexuality.

    Scientists in Canada have discovered that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, when these brothers are born of the same mother.

    While the link between having older brothers and homosexuality has long been established, the new findings indicate that it is conditions within the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, which are responsible for the effect.

    This suggests that in at least a proportion of gay men, sexual orientation is heavily influenced by factors experienced in the womb, and not by the way they are brought up.

    I find this even more interesting because in my particular family sons are the default.  I have 19 nephews and two nieces.  what this means, among other things, is that there are three different sets of three sons in my family.  and gay tendencies are already starting to show in the third in line in two cases at least.  it is going to be an interesting thing to watch develop.


    Since we're sharing, fwiw, I am also a third son (of four). No offense, but there is nothing about another guy's junk or hairy back or meaty paws that do anything for me...

    I come from a pretty small, tight-knit family and my 20 y/o nephew is gay. He essentially came out years ago in HS. He's the first of two sons, the second is hetero.

    He (and his mom) have had really difficult relationships with his dad since, well, forever. I wonder, sometimes, if that had some affect on his sexuality.


    the last sentence is interesting (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    sounds like my background.  yes, I agree that no rule works for everyone.  for every one I can tell you an exception within my personal circle of friends.

    shorter version.  its very complicated.


    Yup (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    from the article (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    Dr Blanchard found that gay men were more likely to have lots of elder brothers than both straight men and lesbians. Each older brother increases the probability of being homosexual by a third, though as the starting probability is small - most men with lots of elder brothers are still heterosexual.

    This effect, which has since been confirmed by 14 other studies, does not apply to having older sisters.

    First son, only son (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    I don't believe there's anything but "nature" at work.

    It's really fascinating (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:01:09 AM EST
    And probably slightly off topic vis-à-vis the "gay discussion" here today, but I remember having talks with my father (he was a psychiatrist) about a new born baby's first thoughts.

    I remember him telling me how important it is, in this case a baby boy's interactions with, and decisions about, other males he's exposed to early on. For instance, let's say a baby boy's father is a dynamic, powerful, and successful tycoon of some sort. The baby takes in all the input, and right then makes a decision, or comes to the conclusion, as to which path he, himself will follow. If he determines that he could never successfully compete with his father's accomplishments, stature, whatever, he quite simply gives up trying. Imagine, an infant, a year old, has his life's path, and mental state from then on, determined so early. A dull, introverted, "failure" at one year old.

    Conversely, the infant may determine, "yeah, I can do that; I can do that even better!" And then, from that moment on he meets life head-on, confident, eager, adrenaline pumping.

    Naturally, I've done my amateur psychoanalysis regarding friends and aquaintenances during my years and, darn if it doesn't pan out. Of course it could be just "projection" but an actual "shrink" (Pop) told me about it.

    At least, if it's actually true, a good psychoanalyst can "bring an adult "failure" back in time" to the moment of his damning decision, change/fix it, and thus, transform the adult's feeling about himself, and his self confidence, self worth in literally a snap of the fingers.

    the funny thing about this (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    is that on one level, he is right.  

    I could have "chosen" to deny who I am, get married and have children - believe it or not we are able to do that - and either bury any troublesome urges I had deep or cheat on my wife.  clearly many republicans choose B.  and I know too many people who chose A and were ultimately unable to do it resulting in broken homes and families.
    I chose to be who I am.  and have never regretted it.

    so Ken is right.  its a choice.

    no doubt Ken would say living in denial and secrecy is the right choice.  to me it seems only cowardly and selfish.