Bill Richardson & the Politics of Gaffes
Back during the budget standoff of 1995, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich faulted then-President Clinton for not meeting with him while both traveled together on Air Force One to (and from) the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, commenting, “This is petty. . . . You’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off the plane by the back ramp.”
His criticism notwithstanding, the Speaker’s own words made him look petty. Instead of fuming about the exit he was required to use, he should simply have said, “If the president were serious about ending the budget impasse, he would have talked to Senator Dole and myself while we were together on the plane for such a long time.” Gingrich’s ill-considered remark not only helped Clinton strengthen his hand in the budget negotiations, but also allowed that Democrat to better position himself for his reelection campaign the following year.
Because of Gingrich’s remarks, no one (outside conservative political and media circles) paid much attention to Clinton’s intransigence, his failure to negotiate with Republican leaders in good faith — or even to meet with them while on the plane. One unfortunate remark would come to define the Republican position in the contentious budget negotiations that year.
So, I fear will New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s comment that homosexuality is a “choice” come to define his attitude on gay issues. Despite the Democrat’s efforts at “damage control,” as the Wall Street Journal‘s John Fund wrote in OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription),”the damage is done.” The Washington Post reports that gay rights’ activists were “frustrated” by the comment. Blogger Pam Spaulding believes Richardson “self-immolated . . . on live TV.”
It’s too bad because Richardson otherwise seemed to be the “most impressive” of the six candidates. Instead of offering empty platitudes as did most of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, he talked about his record as Governor–what he has done–and promised to do what is “achievable” to promote inclusion of gay people.
Even the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force‘s (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman singles out Richardson for praise, noting, according to Newsday, that he has “won passage of non-discrimination and hate-crime laws in his state.” And Steve Rails of the Service Members Legal Defense Network writes that on the vote that was “considered the key sign of support for or against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [,] Richardson voted the right way.”
Despite this solid record on gay issues, Richardson won’t be remembered as much for what he has done in office over a period of years–but for what he did say in a minute’s time during one presidential forum. It’s a sad sign of the way politics works in today’s media that one unfortunate remark counts for more than a politician’s entire record. In preparing for last week’s debate, the New Mexico Governor should perhaps have considered the history of his former Georgia colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
56 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Bill Richardson & the Politics of Gaffes — August 15, 2007 @ 10:41 pm - August 15, 2007
Thanks, Dan, for continuing “the conversation” (so to speak).
I’m really not trying to be inflammatory here, but – having been out of the gay political and cutlural loop for a while – is it considered “homophobic” or “anti-gay” to be of the opinion that homosexuality is, at least in part, a choice? My initiation and participation in the gay community and in gay politics was based in part on that understanding. I’d be grateful to discuss this subject, whether online or offline.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — August 15, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - August 15, 2007
He made the mistake of saying what he believed. No damage control can fix that. He’s tired of the issue now, as am I. He voted for DOMA as well. There are other better Democrats to the be on the Democrat’s ticket.
Comment by fnln — August 16, 2007 @ 3:44 am - August 16, 2007
Is anyone actually holding it against him? I heard him, and I dont particularly think he said what he meant to. He sounded as though he were caught off guard by the question and fumbled it. But I hate to say it, Bill Richardson never had a chance anyway, he’s too close to rational.
Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 16, 2007 @ 5:48 am - August 16, 2007
I have never understood how the belief that “we were born that way, we can’t help it” has become a bedrock principle of gays, regardless of political orientation. Although I suspect there is probably some genetic hard wiring involved in sexual orientation in fact it really has never been proven. But more importantly, why should we care? There is ultimately something very pathetic about this claim that we deserve rights and respect because we had no choice in being gay. Implicit in this is the belief that if you did indeed choose to be gay there is something inherently wrong with that choice. I think the only acceptable answer to the question whether being gay is a choice or not is to say that it may be an interesting academic question but as far as politics and policy it is irrelevant.
Comment by Brendan — August 16, 2007 @ 9:17 am - August 16, 2007
Brendan, I agree. I don’t see why it matters at all whether homosexuality is a choice or not from a policy perspective.
Comment by V the K — August 16, 2007 @ 9:29 am - August 16, 2007
Gay bashers want it to be “choice” so we can flip a switch and change back. Change back so they don’t feel uncomfortable around us.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 16, 2007 @ 10:50 am - August 16, 2007
Regarding Gov Richardson, can you see Democrats voting for a western governor who is so inarticulate? hehe
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 16, 2007 @ 10:51 am - August 16, 2007
I agree with VtheK-whether it is inborn, choice or whatever it shouldn’t matter as far as politics is concerned.
I think sexual development and why some people are straight, some people gay, and some people somewhere in between is one of those things that isn’t easily defined or solved.
Far more important to focus on political opinion and positions themselves.
Comment by just me — August 16, 2007 @ 11:15 am - August 16, 2007
#9 – Well put, JM. I completely concur.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 16, 2007 @ 11:40 am - August 16, 2007
Technically, y’all are agreeing with Brendan.
I think there’s a lot of reasons people turn out gay, bi, straight or whatever. I can’t buy the one-size-fits-all explanation. Humans are just too complex. And the idea that everything we are is just a consequence of genetics is, I think, very dehumanizing, since free will is an important component of what it means to be human.
Comment by V the K — August 16, 2007 @ 11:55 am - August 16, 2007
To me seems there are at least two types of “choice” involved: the existential choice for those who are – nodoubtaboutit – queer as a three dollar bill, for whom to deny (or to be denied) to be gay is tantamount to suicide (or homicide). Then there’s also the ideological choice – that gay radicalism – along the lines of identity politics, feminism, “gender studies,” latter-day Marxism: gay as rebellion, as revolution.
The first choice all good people should fight and if necessary die for. The second choice all good people should fight and if necessary die to destroy.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — August 16, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - August 16, 2007
OT: Padilla Found Guilty, Democrat Mainstream Goes Nutzoid.
(Well, Kos did proclaim that his website represents the Democrat mainstream, did he not?)
Note, these are the same folks who insist that the detainees at Club GITMO be given fair trials. Yet, when a terrorist is convicted in a court of law, they call him a “martyr,” and rage against the BushCo Police State Persecution Machine. Methinks the mask has slipped, once again.
Comment by V the K — August 16, 2007 @ 3:31 pm - August 16, 2007
I’m always a bit bemused by the idea that Richardson is so sane… but I’m from New Mexico, which may explain it.
As for homosexuality being genes or choice… it can be both easily enough. And then there’s the option of “not genes but not choice either.” I recall a news magazine issue many years ago with a “are they born that way” homosexual cover story and the examples in it that supposedly showed that people were born that way seemed to me not to show that at all.
One fellow had serial sexual relationships with women (lots and lots and lots) and Suprise! found out that he couldn’t have a meaningful relationship with a woman… but he could with a man. I felt the conclusion that he’d always been homosexual was a bit of a stretch, as if his behavior wouldn’t have made it impossible to see women as anything other than masturbation items no matter what his sexual orientation.
Another example was a woman who’d had serial abusive relationships with men and was so thrilled to finally realize that she was lesbian because she wouldn’t have to be abused any longer. She, too, had supposedly always been lesbian but hadn’t realized it. The suggestion that the abuse was even relevant to her sexual orientation made her very angry.
(The other examples, a boy who’d always been rejected by his father for being weird or a girl who they’d tried to pre-emptively “cure” of her lack of femininity (as if being a tom-boy has spit to do with what gender a girl is attracted to) seemed more about how we can mess up people’s heads than anything else.)
True, I wasn’t impressed with the argument in that article, but my opinion is that homosexuality is something that a lot of people are born with but also that a lot of people aren’t born with. (I get the idea that men are more often “hardwired” and that bi is the female default barring other factors… though I won’t insist on it. I do think that bi is a choice the same way that more than one partner is always a choice.)
Politically, I agree wholeheartedly that it doesn’t and can’t matter *why* someone is a homosexual, if they were born that way, pushed that way by life, or just decided it seemed like fun.
(Saw Richardson on a debate talking about election reform and the great things done in New Mexico to make a paper trail… It’s really weird to hear an utter fiasco described as a wonderful accomplishment!)
Comment by Synova — August 16, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - August 16, 2007
My take on it is quite basic. The question about what homosexuality is or is not is a stupid question. When the media lightweights stop asking such questions then we will have advanced as a society. All such a question does is polarize people on an issue that is personal and which has nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s ability to be President.
Comment by benj — August 16, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - August 16, 2007
#15:
It is not “a stupid question” at all. The origin of our sexual orientation is a fascinating scientific question with significant bearing on our understanding of how humans have developed. There is scientific consensus that at least for males, sexual orientation is almost certainly fixed by age two and likely prior to birth. There is clearly a genetic component. Some people seem indignant that we do not have complete control over who we are. Why is that?
I have stated before that in an ideal free society, it shouldn’t matter whether or not sexual orientation is a choice but ours is not such a society so it does matter mostly to those who believe we’re depraved and can be made to change our ways.
IMHO, what’s really “stupid” is to cling to “feelings” and unsubstantiated “beliefs” that not only are contrary to scientific fact but also encourage the homohaters in their attempts to deny us our full rights as citizens.
Comment by Ian S — August 16, 2007 @ 7:37 pm - August 16, 2007
In the context of a presidential race I still feel the issue is stupid and does not belong. I am far more interested in issues that have nothing to do with human sexuality. My decision as to who I will vote for will not be based one iota on their opinion of why a person is gay, straight or bisexual. Others, of course, will vote strictly on that issue alone.
Comment by benj — August 16, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - August 16, 2007
I agree with you benj to this extent. I for one don’t sit around wasting time about who is gonna let me get married or who is going to “allow” me to be happy. It is all up to me. If government stays out of my way, I will be happy, prosperous and freeto excell. But that is a huge assumption now adays where Americans expect the govenment to take care of us from cradle to grave and eliminate risks totally. The MSM is all about keeping us fighting about almost anything. Now bottled water sucks and kills. Running lawn mowers. Who’s driving big cars. Are you drinking too much soda. Here in Florida now, it is hurricanes and how many we are going to have. 16, no 14, now 9, tick tick tick. Get ready to run and hide. It is all designed to keep us in turmoil and oddly watching their tv shows to see what the next crisis is. I choose not to participate most times.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 16, 2007 @ 9:50 pm - August 16, 2007
Bill Richardson does have an outstanding record on gay rights issues (his vote for DOMA in 1996 notwithstanding). Therefore, he can think we’re gay because we pressed the wrong button on a vending machine, for all I care. I’d be happy with him on the Democratic ticket next year.
Comment by Chase — August 17, 2007 @ 1:54 am - August 17, 2007
There is scientific consensus that at least for males, sexual orientation is almost certainly fixed by age two and likely prior to birth.
What’s “scientific consensus”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 17, 2007 @ 5:37 am - August 17, 2007
Having read the OT post in this thread, what the post argues (rightly or wrongly) is that the legitimacy of the conviction is reduced by the belief that the man was tortured by the Bushg government. The post is likely to believe in legal law enforcement and subsequent prosecution while some opponents believe that people should just be tortured and thrown in jail because they’re Muslims. There’s a vast difference between the two. I believe the ideal that some propose (or believe in) is that Americans are supposed to be better than their enemies, not just like them, and that’s how some view the Bush government.
Back on topic, I am suprised that there are so many posters here who believe that sexuality might be a choice. I understand that you’re conservatives, but aren’t you adding legitimacy to the arguments of the pray away the gay crowd? These very people are the ones that think you can turn off your homosexuality and turn on your heterosexuality as long as you walk with Christ. Were you able to pray away the gay?
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 6:18 am - August 17, 2007
The previous post should read:
Having read the OT post’s link in this thread, what the poster argues (rightly or wrongly) is that the legitimacy of the conviction is reduced by the belief that the man was tortured by the Bush government. The poster is likely to believe in legal law enforcement and subsequent prosecution while some opponents believe that people should just be tortured and thrown in jail because they’re Muslims and possibly terrorists (without due process). There’s a vast difference between the two. I believe the ideal that some propose (or believe in) is that Americans are supposed to be better than their enemies, not just like them, and that’s how some view the Bush government and I believe the post was along those lines.
Back on topic, I am suprised that there are so many posters here who believe that sexuality might be a choice. I understand that you’re conservatives, but aren’t you adding legitimacy to the arguments of the pray away the gay crowd? These very people are the ones that think you can turn off your homosexuality and turn on your heterosexuality as long as you walk with Christ. Were you able to pray away the gay?
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 7:52 am - August 17, 2007
OT: Jenna Bush Announces Engagement, Miserable Left Wingers Attack.
BDS does not make you a better human being.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 8:55 am - August 17, 2007
Ian I agree with you that the question isn’t stupid in the context of research. I think with regards to research it is a question well worth exploring.
But for a question with regards to political debates, it is a stupid question. And a person’s position on whether it is a choice or not is out of bounds.
I am not sure why it matters what a person believes with regards to genes, choice, some other variable, or combination, their actual political positions matter, but what they believe about the origins of sexuality is moot.
Comment by just me — August 17, 2007 @ 8:59 am - August 17, 2007
Speaking of BDS, Andrianna Sullington compares Christians to Hitler Supporters, Laments Padilla Conviction.
Again, I thought the left claimed they wanted enemy combatants put on trial. Now that one was tried and convicted, they lament that he wasn’t set free. I guess we know now what they really wanted.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 9:16 am - August 17, 2007
I guess I fail to read the lamentation in the web site.
I for one believe in rigorous prosecution under lawful due process. I am sure one will disagree, but it is outrageous to me that people are thrown into jail (and possibly tortured) without any access to defense
for years…and that is the case with Padilla.
An inconsistency I see on this web site is that one argues on the one hand that against hate-crimes legislation because existing regulation is sufficient and then on the other hand argue that terror is a crime punishable with a different set of rules than other violent crime and existing law cannot deal with the circumstances.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 9:35 am - August 17, 2007
Terror isn’t a crime, it’s a weapon. Terror attacks are not criminal activities, they are acts of war. That is why the two ought to be treated differently.
Destroying the WTC was not just an act of murder and vandalism, as the left would have us treat it.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 9:54 am - August 17, 2007
That gives weight to my previous argument.
In addition to being concerned with terrorist attacks (while not letting the fear of them completely take over everything), the left, in my view, is concerned with, and rightfully so, is the Bush government’s creeping circumvention of what many people understand as constitutional law that requires due process to be executed in a certain way.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 10:15 am - August 17, 2007
Can you name a single civil right I had prior to September 11, 2001 that has been taken away or diminished by the Bush Administration?
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 10:20 am - August 17, 2007
#24:
I don’t understand why. I suppose you could argue that it was a softball question for Richardson who has a decent record on gay rights. One would have expected him to be, if not on top of the science, at least to have considered that question commonly posed: “if it’s a choice, when did you choose to be straight?” I think everyone was taken aback by his answer. But it’s an answer that sheds some light on his apparent tendency to rely on feelings and beliefs instead of logic and analysis.
Comment by Ian S — August 17, 2007 @ 10:21 am - August 17, 2007
#29:
The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution for starters. Probably the eighth too.
Comment by Ian S — August 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am - August 17, 2007
My logic and my analysis lead me to conclude that human sexuality is too complex to be answered by a single, one-size-fits-all explanation, regardless of how comforting that explanation may be for people who don’t want to take any responsibility for their life choices.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am - August 17, 2007
No, my rights under those amendments are precisely the same as they were before, despite the delusions of heavily medicated paranoid leftists typing screeds into the DUMB from their parents’ basement. Try again.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am - August 17, 2007
Yeah, Ian. Cut the phony slams, that only make you look dumb. You should know better by now, than to make accusations like that around here without having something back it up. Something real.
And by “something real”, I mean – partly, or among other things – citations that you have actually read before you cited them, so they don’t just instantly undercut you if anyone else reads them. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve disproved your claims with basic info from your own citations. You’ve always made it too easy.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 10:45 am - August 17, 2007
#32: So when did you choose to be homosexual?
Comment by Ian S — August 17, 2007 @ 11:17 am - August 17, 2007
#34: LOL! Your comment is so vague, it’s impossible to tell what it is you’re talking about.
Comment by Ian S — August 17, 2007 @ 11:20 am - August 17, 2007
#33:
I suspect you’ll be singing an entirely different tune if and when President Hillary Clinton starts using the same warrantless searches in the same way as Bush has been doing. Plus locking up American citizens with no charges being brought for years. Not to mention torturing those same “innocent until proven guilty” citizens. Yeah, you’ll be singing a much different tune.
Comment by Ian S — August 17, 2007 @ 11:25 am - August 17, 2007
Alrighty, then.
Ian, I was talking about your comment #31. There, you claimed that:
…have been “taken away” from us (V’s formulation – to which you acceded).
Which is, of course, a total bullsh*t claim, so I said:
Clear enough for you now? Trust me: It is crystal clear to most other longtime GP readers reading this exchange.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 11:27 am - August 17, 2007
#37 – Because Ian, after all, knows so much about the future.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 11:28 am - August 17, 2007
I understand why the choice thing is so threatening to Ian. It challenges to dogma he clings to out of his need for emotional validation.
My phone has not been “tapped” because I haven’t made any calls to foreign terrorist contacts. And despite the paranoid delusions of the left, Dick Cheney is not listening in when I order pizza, which I do on-line anyway.
Nor has Bush thrown any of the leftist nutjobs who accuse him of being responsible for 9-11, who call for his impeachment or his assassination, into prison. The Clintons, remember, had people jailed for shouting “You suck,” at a campaign appearance.
And if the Clintons return to power, of course they will ignore the law, just as they ignored the laws against perjury and against accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals the first time around. They may even sell a few more pardons and pardon a few more terrorists, just like last time around.
Because that’s the caliber of people Ian and his party elect to office.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 11:53 am - August 17, 2007
If Ian’s faux-dissident claims were even half true, he’d be typing his words from jail – or not at all – as tragically happens to real dissidents in places like Egypt, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - August 17, 2007
Meanwhile, Chavez, the guy Ian insisted is not a dictator prepares to sweep aside the few remaining constitutional formalities and declare himself dictator-for-life.
Yet again, we conservatives were right all along about Chavez. Any chance Ian and the other apologists will admit it?
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - August 17, 2007
And honestly, I don’t find the question of the origin of sexuality much interesting. To me, it’s much less important how you got whatever gifts you get in life than what you do with them.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 12:54 pm - August 17, 2007
Well V, the “Ian reading comprehension issues” were on display there, too. He asked you:
But you had *JUST* specifically said:
Which answers the question in advance, does it not? making it the proverbial “stupid question”?
A day without Ian on GP, is a day with one less chuckle than it ought to have.
GPW, my apologies for the digression.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - August 17, 2007
Nice catch, ILC. I had just brushed it off as one of those vacuous questions people repeat when they’re incapable of formulating an intelligent response.
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - August 17, 2007
One could certainly could argue that Padilla’s constitutional rights were abridged.
V the K may have CHOSEN to be a homosexual (I don’t know that V the K is in fact homosexual), but I feel comfortable saying that the majority of homosexuals are homosexuals for a possible combination of reasons that have nothing to do with their choosing to be so AND are likely homosexual as a result of genetics.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - August 17, 2007
I should have added that Richardson said it was a choice and I think he believes that because that’s what came out first. I also think he’s absolutely and completely wrong.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - August 17, 2007
In addition to being concerned with terrorist attacks (while not letting the fear of them completely take over everything)
The left has an interesting definition of “concerned”.
Everyone else would call that “facilitates”.
Furthermore, as to the Hillary Clinton question, given when she and Bill started wiretapping and pulling FBI records on anyone who had ever looked at them funny, I figure I was under constant surveillance from 1992 to 2000 — and never noticed, and never cared. Indeed, I wonder if they had focused the same amount of energy on spying on US citizens as the Bush administration has on non-US ones, where we’d be today.
But then again, I fully understand why Democrats, leftists, and ACLU members are so terrified of being watched.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - August 17, 2007
I doubt Lynne Stewart is representative.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - August 17, 2007
Government surveillance creep would certainly be a good reason.
Comment by fnln — August 17, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - August 17, 2007
Insisting that Richardson (or any other pol) voted ‘the right way’ re. DADT neatly assumes spokesmanship while denying debate. I find this interesting, particularly in the context of a discussion as to the degree to which sexuality is rational. After all, if, as Richardson claimed, sexuality is a choice, why are soldiers not required to simply choose an orientation more palatable to the military services when required? If he believes the choice occurs at a very young age, is there any discernible (meaning responsibly valid) difference between that and a completely biological determination? Likewise, if nurture trumps nature, how can one be held responsible, whether choice is involved or not? Does Richardson assume that one who chooses to be homosexual cannot also choose to serve his/her country quietly (and in my opinion more honorably)?
Richardson’s confusion is likely a mixture of honest misunderstanding of homosexuality and posturing. (The idea that a ‘gay debate’ is even relevant is a non-sequitur. Gays have some cash, but are of no real electoral importance. This is merely a means for liberal candidates to prove their stripes, a litmus test or pap smear of sorts.) But I resent the idea that anyone who disagrees with ‘the official gay position’ is wrong and/or votes ‘the wrong way’. Thanks, but such awfully self-important attitudes are best left for those who don’t believe in responsible sexual choices and need spokesmen and voting guides.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 17, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - August 17, 2007
Destroying the WTC was not just an act of murder and vandalism, as the left would have us treat it.
Actually, I haven’t seen much evidence that the liberals give a crap about the murder.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 17, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - August 17, 2007
Actually, I haven’t seen much evidence that the liberals give a crap about the murder..
Do you think if only the Pentagon had been attacked on 9-11 that the liberal left would have allowed us to go to war at all? Or, do you think they would have fallen in lockstep behind the ABC News exec who said the Pentagon was a legitimate target?
Comment by V the K — August 17, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - August 17, 2007
As for the whole “choice” thing – I am sorry if I sound impatient, but after years of reflection the answer I now find the answer so blindingly obvious, it’s not an interesting discussion for me.
- Inborn or innate desire is not chosen. (It’s inborn or innate desire – whether science eventually ascribes it to genetics or something else.)
- Personal behavior is chosen. Always, absolutely chosen, no matter how much some may care to pretend otherwise.
I act on my gay desires – responsibly – because I cannot find any logically valid reason why doing so would be wrong. (I don’t find the religious objections logically valid; the alleged Biblical injunctions, in fact, are greatly overrated even taking the texts as a believer – but that’s a long discussion for another time.)
There is, of course, a lot that is wrong with *ir*responsible gay behavior – but the same can be said of irresponsible straight behavior. I.e., the moral issue involved is one of responsible vs. irresponsible, not one of gay vs. straight.
Finally, as others have said: whatever the answer is, it shouldn’t matter for public policy. Show me someone who says “But I never chose to be gay” **as an argument** in the debate for gay equality (rather than as mere personal description), and I’ll show you someone with lingering gay self-hatred.
To answer Ian’s proverbial “stupid question” to V at #35: On the level of orientation, I never chose to be gay. On the level of behavior, I make a new choice to be gay – each and every day. How about you?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - August 17, 2007
Lotta truth in that, ILC. Perhaps more truth than many can handle.
Comment by V the K — August 18, 2007 @ 9:47 am - August 18, 2007
I find two things tiresome about this.First,the OFFICIAL PARTY LINE that must be followed .This is akin to the creationists attacking evolution as a tool of evil.(Although,I have commented I know several friends who are afraid to acknowledge a belief in the IQ differential lest they be outed on that)
Secondly,I’m more impressed by a sincere,even if wrong,unpopular opinion,because I don’t feel it’s a calculated opinion.
Comment by corwin — August 18, 2007 @ 10:52 am - August 18, 2007