MSDNC — a network that is trusted by an amazing 5% of Americans (which is about the same as the percentage of Americans with serious mental illness [6%] which I am sure is just a coincidence)— is shouting that “Rick Perry thinks being a homersexual is exactly the same as being an alcoholic.”
No. He didn’t say that. What Rick Perry [who’s the Republican Governor of the state that’s created by itself more than a third of all the new jobs in the United States over the last decade) actually said is much less… incendiary.
“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”
People in control of their own sexuality; what a radical and bigoted concept. /sarc
The ironic part is, he is echoing exactly what the gay left has been shrieking for years, “Gayness is genetic.” But suddenly it’s bigoted to say that; or, more like, politically useful to call that observation (Homosexuality is genetic, just as many other things are genetic, bigotry.)
But the left will continue with these smears because they work well on their low-information voter target audience. They managed to make millions of idiot leftists think Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house,” and believe Mitt Romney was going to outlaw tampons, so it’s pretty much that all the idiot lefty blogs will be running with “Rick Perry said homosexuality is like alcoholism,” and all the left-wing mouth-breathers will be saying, “Yup, rightwingnutjobs claimin’ homersexuals is all alcoholics, or somethin’ I hates me some rightwingnutjobs.”
What the gay left has been trying to cram down our throats is that homosexuality is inborn, and because it is inborn, it should be accepted, indulged in, nay, even celebrated.
The problem comes in when one considers other sexual behaviors. what if pedophilia is inborn? Should that be accepted, indulged in, and celebrated?
But, of course, as soon as you make that argument, the gay left claims you are saying all gays are pedophiles.
As soon as you poke a hole in their logic, they cry hatred.
The Left abandoned logic and reason years ago.
George Lucas (“Use the Force! Don’t think!”) has much to answer for.
Here is the entire clip of this kerfuffle. Frankly, I would consider it a dodge of the direct question of whether or not he thought being homosexual was a disorder. Forget about the him bringing up the issue of genetics. And, of course homosexuals, should exercise self-control in the same manner as heterosexuals.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/12/rick-perry-compares-homosexuality-to-alcoholism/
To conclude, he never did answer the question of whether or not being homosexual was a disorder. I guess someone else will have to ask him again and again to try to get an answer.
Which is hilarious, considering that gay leftists and the Obama Party regularly compare gay and lesbian conservatives to alcoholics and drug addicts — and then try to lie about it.
Perry is essentially saying that he sees homosexuality as a genetic inclination and I agree with him that biology likely plays a very significant role. He’s also saying that one has an ability to decide “…not to do that”, ‘that’ being engaging in sex with someone of the same gender. I also agree that I decide when and with whom I have sex.
However, Perry, using the analogy of alcoholism, is implying that the homosexual’s sexual behavior is of the kind that his chosen moral code (Perry admirably refers only to himself in his statement) provides his conscience with a ‘desire’ or reason not to imbibe and the homosexual’s conscience with a reason not to engage in any sexual behavior. (A recovering alcoholic cannot imbibe by definition.) And so yes, Perry is likening homosexuality to alcoholism in this sense.
I like and admire Perry and am not bothered with this statement in the least except that it gives ammunition to my philosophical, social, economic, and political opponents. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with homosexual behavior; a homosexual shouldn’t feel compelled to aspire to a life of celibacy merely because a straight person doesn’t share the inclination.
I adore Perry, but he fumbles quite a bit. He didn’t equate gays to drunks but he did compare them unnecessarily. His intentions were good; however. He was picking his words, trying to be careful & fair but the -comparison- shouldn’t have been brought up, because comparisons are used as examples.
He should be ignoring this valid faux paux & conservatives, should ignore.
The very fact this is getting traction qualifies it as a fumble.
Frankly, the question itself is unfair.
It’s like asking a construction worker if they thought that tennis elbow was a real disease. What does a construction worker know about medical conditions?
The difference is that homosexuality is not a disease.
Sigh at having to explain this on a purportedly gay website. Then again, Blatt seems to have all but given up on this blog.
Evan, you mad, bro?
[Alcoholism – also not a disease, FWIW]
Alcoholism might never occur if you don’t make contact with alcohol. The genetic problem native Americans often have is the inability to metabolize alcohol, so that while I could have one drink an hour for 10 hours and be sober, someone more native American than Elizabeth Warren could be drunk. Some might want that.
While talking about psychology there is a good argument that mental illness is a myth. Don’t read if you disbelieve personal responsibility.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/ciaran-ryan/the-myth-of-mental-illness/
“medicalised human problems traditionally perceived in religious terms, transforming sins and crimes—such as self-murder, self-abuse, and self-medication—into sicknesses,” wrote Szasz”
Then explain Ed Schultz’s audience.
Or, explain some of the leftist trolls that invade this blog.
I never said it was. The question was, “Do you think homosexuality is a disorder?” which is a psychological question. Why are you asking a politician a psychological question?
I draw an analogy of asking a construction working about a medical condition, and someone jumps on me claiming I thought homosexuality was a medical condition.
Just like they claim that Rick Perry was equating it with alcoholism.
People, please, THINK!!!
Odd that I, a gay man, immediately understood what he was saying, and so many gay men have misunderstood it.
Alcohol and sex (in this case, homosexuality) are a lot alike, if you think about it. Some people disapprove of these things, others enjoy them. Critics of these things point to the terrible consequences of letting these things consume your life and dictate your behavior. But upon further inspection, we would see that both could be used in small amounts without adverse consequences.
Just as alcohol must be consumed with restraint, homosexuality must be contained within a system of self-discipline and temperance befitting one’s personal tolerance level and station in life. Nobody needs to engage in homosexual behavior. However, if these behaviors are conducted in such a way that all involved go home without lasting physical or emotional harm, in the privacy of one’s own dwelling, should these acts be made illegal at the behest of a small few? I say no.
To be sure, I think some people with homosexuality tendencies would benefit from a program that helps them to get a lid on them, or are generally sexually unscrupulous and should get a hold of themselves. The gay culture is nothing if not seductive.
Perry wasn’t discussing the occasional alcoholic beverage in the context of occasional gay sex; he used the term alcoholism. Identified, recovering alcoholics cannot drink if they wish to address their addiction. Using Perry’s comparison, homosexuals cannot engage in sex (with those to whom they’re attracted) if they’re to address their genetically pre-disposed ‘addiction’, that the homosexual must have “…[a] desire not to do that…”
Reading more carefully, Perry wasn’t literally comparing “…the homosexual issue…” (his words) with having a drink. He was comparing the biological natures of sexuality and potential addiction. The comparison isn’t valid beyond a general discussion of any pre-disposition, certainly not for the purposes of setting public policy. To be generous, this may be Perry’s way of essentially saying ‘There but for the grace of God go I’, that he understands homosexuality as having a biological component and that his own life (including alcoholism) reminds him that we are all worthy of love and respect, essentially bringing himself and the homosexual to a similar place. I read the statement as genuine and genuinely clumsy but from a good place. It’s all rather hot, to be honest.
What a horrendous thing to say — that homosexuals are in control of their sexual impulses and can choose to have or not have sex. Doesn’t he know that gay people are all rabid sex freaks who will have uncontrollably sex any time, any place, with any available person of the same sex?
Oh, wait — Rick Perry is saying what gay people and heir supporters have always said, namely that gay people have control over their sex drives and are capable of making rational moral choices regarding their sexual activity. The only difference is that he views homosexual activity as morally negative and spiritually harmful. So it is really that difference of opinion on the moral/spiritual question that is at issue the undisputedly spiritually/morally wrong practice of lying in order to score political points.