Thank you for stating this. I made the mistake a few years ago of using the term "sexual preference" rather than "sexual orientation" and got verbally reamed out by a gay friend. He did not understand that I don't care whether it's choice or genetic. It makes no difference. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality regardless of its cause. Why should I care about the cause? I don't see anything wrong with the result either way. People should find happiness as best they can as long as no one gets hurt. If people love each other or just find each other attractive and want to have sex, why should I care? The only reason I'd ever care about anyone else's sexuality is if I wanted to have sex with them, else it makes no difference.

I think Bill Richardson is taking unneccesary heat for his answer to the question of whether or not gay people have a choice pertaining to their sexual preference. Apparantly he believes that there at least may be a choice (which I personally believe to be false), but that should not be the real issue. He stated in his answer that he "see[s] gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency." To me that means that he does not care whether or not people have a choice regarding sexual preference and that they should enjoy the same basic civil rights that everyone else does simply because they are humans, just like everyone else is.

I think Richardson would not be having such a hard time right now if he had acted as though he actually wanted to be at the forum and had not looked and sounded so uncomfortable and defensive from the moment he came out. Frankly, as turned off as I was by Richardson (nothing new for me), I was probably more appalled by Obama's insistence that one type of civil rights be separated from another. And I was disappointed that no one asked Obama (not just at the forum, but for months now) why he has used his "faith" as a reason to oppose gay marriage when his religion, as he finally acknowledged, supports it.

And while it is true that the "granting" of rights to the LGBT community should not depend on whether one's sexual orientation is a "choice," I still think it is important to constantly remind people that we have yet to discover an LGBT person who does not believe s/he was born that way.

I'll go along with that. Choice, genetic orientation, who cares? What business is it of anyone else's? If Mark Foley had been having sex with a consenting adult male, the way Charlie Crist (governor of Florida) is, I would still have called him a hypocrite, because he's a ranting homophobe who ran on the sex-militia platform to appeal to the very bigoted, but he was sexually harassing KIDS, and more than that, KIDS WHO WORKED FOR HIM, and the repukelicans still shielded him until a kid was brave enough to come forward, so that tells you all you need to know about the "morality" of the homophobes. They don't know from "morality." They're just bigots, and they need something to be bigoted about, and it's unacceptable to say "nigger" any more, so they say "gay."

A sane person is not concerned with factors that, as I think it was Mark Twain said, "neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets." Skin color, sexual preference/orientation, choice of computer screen, who cares? Abuse of power, abuse of other living beings, abuse of resources, greed, theft, bigotry, stupidity, THOSE are issues about which to fight back. Anyone trying to make an issue of someone else's sex life obviously has none of his own, and while that's pitiable, it's also a good reason for him to be Baker-acted.

I'm glad this stance on the issue is gaining ground. I never understood why it is so important. If you're gay, you're gay. So what? Think that makes you special or something? Come on, if you're secure in your sexuality, whatever that may be, you ultimately won't care about the cause, but enjoy your life as it is instead.

Etheridge's concern - and that of the gay community - has to do with the exploding pressure being put on them from the religious right, who are using the "choice" theme to attack both gay rights and gays personally. Fundamentalist churches have set up squads of "trainers" who act like cult deprogrammers, offering to help the parents of gays who aren't thrilled with their child's "choice" by "re-training" them to "prefer" heterosexuality. The programs they sponsor are not only pretty coercive in nature, they don't work, primarily because sexual preference is clearly a function of genetics rather than "personal preference" in most instances.

More importantly, anti-gay fundamentalist activists are making the "choice" argument the centerpiece of their anti-gay legislation drives. Roughly, their logic runs like this:

It's appropriate to protect, say, black people with anti-discrimination laws because they can't help what skin color they were born with. But gays don't deserve protection because they're deliberately making an anti-social "choice" intended to destroy the "institution" of marriage. One fundamentalist preacher in Kansas, for example, says that passing anti-discrimination laws to protect gays is the same as passing anti-discrimination laws to protect murderers who say they "can't help it".

Yes, it's an absurd argument, but that isn't keeping it from gaining traction among the religious right. What the gay community Etheridge is part of sees coming down the pike is a movement to label homosexuals as criminals, and the "choice" meme is critical to the success of such a movement. Just as no one would ever again accept the overt criminalization of black people based solely on their skin color, no one will accept the criminalization of gays if homosexuality is primarily genetic rather than preferential.

Perhaps understanding the background to her question will put it in a clearer context.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to add that this background might also help Misanthropic Scott understand why his gay friend was so touchy about his use of the word "preference". It may not mean much to Scott - and good for him - but it's a critical distinction in a community that in many places is fighting for its safety and trying to protect the rights it has won up to now from being dismantled.

Pseudo-Christians that get all foamy-at-the-mouth about homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people should quit thumping their Bibles and start reading them - especially the parts that reads: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Let him without sin cast the first stone" and "As you treat the least of my brothers, you treat me". Also, if they're going to take Leveticus as Black Letter Biblical Law should lay off the pork, shrimp, crab, lobster and polyester. They should also lay off the young boys and Meth even though neither of those are strictly forbidden in the Bible.

The choice or no question is also problematic because it sets up what is probably a false dichotomy. So, there's evidence for a sizeable genetic influence on sexual orientation. Most gays and lesbians say they were born that way. However, there are environmental influences on orientation too. Some evidence also suggests that sexual orientation is more mutable with respect to females. Then we get into the semantics. Are we talking about desire which is difficult to control in general or behavior, for which a case can be more easily made for "choice?" One can always choose, of course, to deny their nature if that's what it is. I suspect that even if major psychological/biological advances occur in the domain of sexual orientation this still won't be a question with a simple answer.

Ok, so I agree with others that it's not a great question. On the other hand, it can be a very telling one as it was here and I think the gay-friendly amongst us would all rather here a politician emphasize the likely importance of genetics b/c that's a lot more consistent with the majority perspective of gays and lesbians themselves and usually is more favorable to them w/r/t legistlative implications.

From http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=222350

RK: What did you all think about the way Bill Richardson answered the question, posed by Melissa Etheridge, about whether you are born gay or choose to be gay?

AS: I thought Richardson's failure to grasp that question was one of the most poignant moments of the entire forum. It honestly didn't matter to him. It just wasn't computing. Why would it matter? Why would protection from discrimination be appropriate for people who were born Jewish but not for people who converted to Judaism? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, and I think that's why it wasn't computing with him, and I found that kind of endearing and also heartening.

LD: I think it was the inadvertent best moment in the whole forum because his answer was basically so good. He said it doesn't matter, that equality isn't a matter of choice or biology. It's when he said, "I don't want to characterize people according to some standards of science that I don't understand."

While I view his statement as wrong, and he later recanted it, Richardson emphasized all persons should be treated equally under the law regardless of sexual orientation.

And keep in mind it's easy for Obama and Clinton to talk about what they would do as President. They come from such liberal states they don't have to worry about any backlash from voters back at home. Yet have they actually done anything in the Senate? Did Edwards do anything when he was in the Senate? Richardson, coming from a red state where being seen as pro-gay rights can cost you an election, has achieved more for the LGBT community than many governors than in solidly Democratic states.

In Congress, Richardson voted against the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and will reverse it when President. As Governor he

* expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
* provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships,
* signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
* transformed health services in the state for AIDS patients.

If a few state senators hadn't blocked it, New Mexico would have a Domestic Partner Rights Act. Richardson fought hard for the legislation earlier this year. Have any of the other Presidential candidates called on their state legislatures and governors to enact Domestic Partners statutes?

Recently, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for San Francisco, profiled Richardson noting:

"B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn . . .said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record. "If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don't need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that," wrote Horn. "His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar."

Thanks Stephen -- I saw your post on the WP about Capehart's article. Your comments are thoughtful and rational.

We have to get past the PC 'purity' tests, the essentialist and nativist arguments of OLD -- the old ways that are dichotomizing and dualistic -- the either OR black and white thinking -- which the question itself embodied. It really was not a very good question if you ask me even if Richardson's answer was also flawed/problemetic.

Anyone who is thoughtful, honest, experienced and wise enough (has lived long enough) knows that sexuality is (or can be) very FLUID. Feelings may not be a choice but Actions and behaviors certainly can be. And all can be greatly dependent upon CONTEXT as well as innate preferences, tendencies, predispositions and orientation.

It's a complex, often dynamic stew and we trivialize the complexity of human sexuality by 'pretending' there's only one right answer. But that's kind of what Gravel acknowledge isn't it when he correctly stated that this country is IMMATURE when it comes to issues of sexual preference, sexual orientation and plain old SEX. Yes USA, we are an immature, developmentally delayed nation especially regarding all things related to religion, sexuality, morality and so much more.

And I have to wholeheartedly agree with The Die Hard -- "Abuse of power, abuse of other living beings, abuse of resources, greed, theft, bigotry, stupidity, THOSE are issues about which to fight back. " We can engage in the process of dissolving homophobia but if we continue to become a thirdworld nation where basic survival is the issue, we can count on a severe backward slide into being convenient scapegoats who are also scrapping for basic survival (much like brown-skinned people are NOW in this whole immigration debate ... read the entry at my blog for more on this).

On that note: Here's another take on part of the LOGO/HRC forum if anyone is interested -- it's more about why we should not count out Edwards specifically for the reasons Die Hard mentions -- the entry is entitled "The LOGO Debate: Why Marriage Is NOT The Only Question" http://buzzzed.blogspot.com/2007/08/logo-debate-why-marriage-is-not-only.html

The Catholic Church in the Catechism 235758 states that the condition is a "grave depravity...contrary to natural law." If there was a gay gene, the Darwinists would also say that evolution would quickly eliminate homosexuality since it works against survival of the race(gays don't reproduce). It is just a poor lifestlye choice(e.g. AIDS and etc.)

Bro. Donohue,
You sir are drinking the Papal kool-aid again, aka Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

If there is a Homosexual gene in the human gene pool wouldn't it be responsible for constantly producing gays, no matter what any religion, even our 2000yr old religion. And that is exactly what is.has been happening. So try as you might you may be able to get your Republican party friends and voters to destroy our Constitution as well as ENDING the rule of law and democracy in America(Scalia, May 2000 and all his right wing Catholic brethren on the SCOTUS) but as long as there are people on Gods earth there will be gays. And I don't think even the Catholic Church is capable of destroying everyone in order to save them as you right wingers seem to think.

Also, how do you explain gay priest, pedophile priests and the Church's depraved attitude to protect, shield and reassign them to other parishes so they can continue their depravity.Me thinks so many 'men of the cloth' and quite obviously at high levels think that what you call 'depravity' are to be protected.

Whether these issues are 'nature(genetics) or nurture(parenting, especially religious parenting, especially harsh religious taboo-inducing parenting as is done by parents of fundamentalist religions such as Catholic fundamentalism and evangelical fundies' based is as yet not fully known.

My understanding, as a psychologist, is that some gays are the result of of their genetics and some are the result of their parents taboos, and many are probably a combination of both.

If you start with genetics and low testosterone levels (and don't tell me you and all the other members of the religious community watch football and boxing because that means nothing) and add religious parenting that is obsessive about sexual toboos(thus creating the very taboos they are trying to stamp out) it is quite easy to understand from whence gays come.

And finally you as a 'moral relativist' are egregiously guilty of the sin of self righteousness, judging of others (only God can do that, so you and the two activist Popes are egregiously caught up in the sin of PRIDE, do you remember that one, or is your 'moral relativism' getting in the way.

"And the worst of these is the first", referring to the cardinal sin of PRIDE, that of setting oneself equal to God and acting like one is equal to God. You and the Pope and the Vatican and all the right wing Catholics seem to be totally engulfed in that sin and largely bereft of the virtue of HUMILITY.

And what is the worst of all is that you and the aforementioned are so dedicated to the Republican Party, of Pope John Paul II and Reagan and Daddy Bush and Baby Bush(the sociopath, megalomaniac and messianic, of NO morals) and you all are killing our troops, and the Iraqi and the Afghani people.

And by what rationalization/fantasy do you defend all the PRO-DEATH for PROFITS and POLITICAL POWER agenda of the Rethug Party/Bush family Death-Machine and the never ending suppor given to them by one of their main enablers, the Popes(present sa and previous) and the entire Catholic Church.

I too went to Catholic School, but it seems I learned a different Catholicism than you did. I learned that Jesus Christ, that liberal Jewish guy, would not approve of your Republian theocratic-corporate wars of fascism and death.
The Catholicism I learned was that of Pope Leo XIII(Rerum Novarum)and Thomas Merton and was taught that love is of greatest importance as well as the Sermon On The Mount. And those words were spoken by a number of people, Confucius, Hilel, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammed.

Killing is always wrong even that done throughout the entire 2000 yr history of our Church. It was wrong during Galileo's time, it was wrong during the Crusades, it was wrong during the Spanish Inquisition, it was wrong when Popes Pius XI(Reichskonkordat of 1933) and XII endorsed and supported Hitler and the Nazi Party before, during and after WWII and it is equally wrong as the current and previous Popes endorse and support Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 and the Republican party, all of whom are the current iteration of Hitler and the Nazis and all their evil and all the evil that is being done now.

I PRAY for Peace everyday; and the END of death by Republican Theo-Corporate Facism.

And Bro. Donohue, exactly why is the Catholic Church always behind Nazi and Nazi-like regimes. Methinks it is for dominion and domination over the lives of all human beings.
And finally doesn't it seem odd that so many Irish Catholic clergy and laity are doing some of the most depraved things, especially pedophilia.

And finally Bro. Donohue, Google up Jazmina Bojorge and rationalize her death and the fact that the Church is PUSHING for those same laws in the USA and one of it's minions the Kof C is funding and leading that PUSH.

Is it Bill Richardson's personal choice to pander to the conservative voting bloc by saying that being gay is a personal decision? Is it his personal choice to stand up for Latino voting machismo and centrist suburban vote getting?

If sexual orientation is a choice and you're straight, what were you before your choice? Were you bi or gay? The argument is relative because if no choice was involved, society has (unfairly) demonized a class of people through no fault of their own.
Should we question people who are left-handed and ask them to validate their "choice" and their left-handed lifestyle? I think not.

"grave depravity...contrary to natural law" is celibacy. That is why up to 1/3 of Catholic Priests may be gay. Unfortunately, the Catholic's celibacy rule gives the impression to priests that "woemen" are the enemy. There is no Bible Thumper basis for the celibacy rule(only economics). Hence the thing(gayness) that they fear, falls upon them

You would think that the Bible thumpers had never been on a farm. A short time ago some researchers in Colorado "discovered" that some Big Horn sheep exhibit homosexual behavior. They were, it seems, astonished. The Denver Post published these observations so I went to the Post's site to ask if anyone there, including the researchers, had ever been on a farm or, for that matter, if they had ever before observed this behavior among animals. I got no answer. I guess they were not very observant. Sexual behavior runs along a continuum with homosexuality, and bisexuality being present in at least 10% of any population. Then there are people who are not only genotypically set to be attracted to the same sex but are phenotypically "double sexed". There are all sorts of examples of this in the animal world. Homosexuality is obviously not "a choice" any more than heterosexuality is.

Homosexuals were murdered by the corporatists (fascists) in concentration camps during WWII. They were among the "other six million" killed. They have been viewed as part of the population that has always been among the enemies of the church along with women, people of color, Jews, liberals, communists, people in the church who oppose the crazy activities of the church, and people who want nothing to do with papal bull but who would rather live in a rational world.

Yes, you can consciously influence your criteria for sexual attraction with logic. You can dismiss needy potential partners as incapable of serious relationships. You can also weed out otherwise attractive high or low achievers. Why anyone would consciously choose partners with a 95+ rate of rejection [same sex orientation is generally 2-5% of population] defies logic! Some people like challenges even though it always makes for bad sex and bad relationships. Some people crave rejection and only feel validated when they win over someone who is not interested.
These are also choices. Choices that necessarily involve fraud or coercion should not be accorded equal moral status and in many cases should involve state intervention. Child molestation and rape come to mind. Consensual gay sex between mutually attracted people with neither partner coerced by the other or people in a peer group does not fall into that category. Denial of sexual attraction as a rite of religious discipline as personally done by the Apostle Paul is also OK and seemed to work out well with his life. Making this personal choice a requirement for those wishing to serve God's ministry is unhealthy and yes, there is do scripture that justifies this stance.

"Asking for an opinion on science isn't so useful; scientifically we just don't know for sure yet..."

Yes, and no. Yes, an opinion on a matter of science is not particularly useful. No, "scientifically we just don't know for sure yet." is dangerous balderdash. Not because we do "know for sure" (we don't, of course), but because the idea of knowing "Scientifically ... for sure" is a very dangerous red herring. Science is not about knowing "for sure". That's the realm of ideology and religion. Science is about weighing the often-conflicting evidence, and testing hypotheses against that evidence to come up with probable explanations. It is about dealing with uncertainty face-to-face by measuring the uncertainty, and yet being able to make meaningful decisions and progress.

The manufacture of nonexistent scientific controversy is one of the most insidious aspects of our modern anti-intellectualism. It was pioneered by the tobacco industry, and it thrives in the creationism/ID brouhaha and the global warming "controversy".

The consensus is building, strongly, for non-choice explanations for homosexuality. Bro. Donohue's lamentable attempt at mathematical genetics is far short of the mark.

Churches, corporations with financial interest, and ideological political factions must be viewed with deep skepticism when they attempt to venture into matters of scientific fact and theory.

The government doesn't belong in our bedrooms. What consenting adults do is their business. Their genders and orientations don't matter, and neither do the origins of their motivations.

As for the choice question, science does have some information, but it's incomplete. If one identical twin is gay, the chance of the other one being gay is 52%. That's a very high heritability factor, but of course it's not absolute, not 100%. This is such a touchy subject that even openly gay scientists pursuing the question are often accused of undermining gay rights.

Responding to Bro. Donahue's contention that evolution would eliminate a gay gene, there's a "homophobe's paradox" mathematical model which shows that the greater the repression of homosexuality, the higher frequency of such a gene because gays are compelled to pretend to be straight and procreate (Discover Magazine, April 2007).

The issue here is pretty much cluelessness. Suppose you stood up at the first women's issue debate ever and said, "I'm against choice... agin it, yes... yes, I meant that" and then the next day you said "oh, uh, I meant that in many cases, say in teen pregnancy, a teen can hardly be said to be choosing if she chooses to have a baby."

You'd sound idiotic, and like you didn't know the first thing about the issues. If you want to take a radical polymorphous sexuality position at the first queer debate, fine, but phrase it like "my opponents think orientation is fixed... well, as president I mean to smash the gender system entirely, and cast off these notions of biological fixity." I kind of believe in sexual orientation, but if Richardson had said that, he'd probably get my vote.

As for the idea that if there was a gay gene, it would die out as it doesn't lead to procreation, its actually been suggested that gay people may be more family-oriented - looking after the family they were born into, and looking after their parents into old age.

Why is it important to look after family members in old age? Because, evolutionarily speaking, the older people are the memory of the tribe - they remember the best places to get food, water, shelter. Thus, the whole tribe benefits from the gay gene.

I'm gay. I did not choose it. I did choose to be a writer and a Democrat and I also choose the kind of clothes I wear or what I eat. If I did choose to be gay, I might as well also choose to be hit in the face with a shovel every day. It accords me no special status, it jeopardizes my job, my personal safety and apparently marks me for hell.

I have been attracted to the same sex for as long as I can remember. There may be some element of environment at work and some element of biology. BUT, EITHER WAY, NEITHER SOURCE MEANS IT WAS A CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN PATH. So, all the arguments that the question is between Science and Choice, are sort of misleading. The question has ALWAYS been, is it Nature VS Nurture? Do you MAKE a gay, or is a gay BORN that way? Either way, it is determined early in life, and long before a person is able to form the thought, "I choose to have sex with same sex people."

The reason the word "choice" is so infuriating, is because it implies that there IS a choice. I fought being gay until I was 27. I was terrified, and angry and I did everything I could to make it work. I DID NOT WANT TO BE GAY. If I had any choice in the matter, I would have married, had children, and enjoyed all the ease of societal acceptance and biblical approval.

I would have loved that life. But I couldn't do it. I could not CHOOSE to do that.

"Why would protection from discrimination be appropriate for people who were born Jewish but not for people who converted to Judaism? It makes no logical sense whatsoever..."

EXACTLY. This is such a FREAKING non-issue. Or, more precisely, framing the issue in this way PLAYS INTO THE HANDS of the fundies and the radical Cathuglics.

Is being Jewish a choice? Catholic? Methodist? Muslim? Buddhist?

OF COURSE.

Does that mean it's OK to discriminate on the basis of religion?

THAT'S the question Melissa Etheridge and all LGBT and LGBT-friendly folks should be asking of the Christian jihadists and other religious thuggists.

Sheesh.

Richardson may believe being gay is a choice. If he does, more power to him for benefiting gay people in his state. If he doesn't, then he was confused in the debate. If he doesn't know, he probably should have said so, and said it doesn't matter. That is what he should have said to the Advocate in any case. There was a nice remark above about it making little sense to protect Jews by birth but not by conversion. Religion can certainly be a choice, but that doesn't justify discrimination on a basic issue of conscience.

Great-I've been saying this for so long. I'm gay. Or am I? I got into a heated discussion with one of my friends on this. I think it's a mistake for the gay community to take this defensive stance. When we say that, yeah, there's some amount of choice involved for some of us, it's about ok what are you going to do now? It's MY choice and MY life and what? I happen to believe that humans have an infinite capacity to love. Sometimes that may be someone of the opposite sex, sometimes otherwise. It's just about being more human to me. I haven't been with a man since 1982. That doesn't mean I'm gay. It means men haven't been as interesting to me as certain women. It doesn't mean I couldn't have a meaningful relationship with a man or that I have to be labeled as gay or straight. This freaks my other "lesbian" friends out! It's a cultural construct. An elitist one that allows one segment of society to dictate to another. Gay or Straight, which am I? Neither. I'm Human.

When you said "right-to-choose guns," for a minute I thought you were talking about the right to choose whether to keep and bear arms. Maybe the left and the right can make a deal- the right stops persecuting gay people, and the left stops persecuting lawful gun owners. I wonder if either side would go for that.

Interesting comments. Many years ago, I heard that being Gay was a choice. One heard sayings like "Gay and Proud," etc. Then the argument changed and it became a question of hormones and genetics over which no one of us, Gay or Straight, had any choice. It was pure biology. What will the next scoop, if any, on what makes anyone of us sexually tick, has yet to be defined. Despite the reasons put forth for various forms of sexual expression the reality should be summed up in an age old addage: LIVE AND LET LIVE.

The question of whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice, or even somewhere in-between may appear to be insignificant. However, it does actually have deep and meaningful implications to the LGBTQ community, which has historically been deemed not only deviant and immoral, but also pathological or mentally ill. Not until fairly recently (1973) was homosexuality taken off the list of mental disorders by the APA. The debate over whether it's biological or a lifestyle choice is not clear-cut and will continue to be debated within the scientific community. However, for many in the LGBTQ community, referring to our sexual orientation as a choice is implying that it can be treated and potentially cured. Just as with many ethnic and racial minorities, many LGBTQ individuals have come to carry great pride in our identity as LGBTQ (but it has been a long road for many) and liken such a statement from Richardson to him saying that someone can choose the color of their skin or the heritage they were born into. Many LGBTQ individuals have chosen to live heterosexual lives and may continue to do so, but that doesn't necessarily take away their natural inclination for attraction to the same-sex. There are plenty of very important issues relevant to the LGBTQ community, but defining ourselves is important to us as well, as is understanding how we are perceived by the general population, and especially by a presidential candidate who potentially holds great influence over the equal opportunity and protection of LGBTQ Americans.

Anna,

"However, it does actually have deep and meaningful implications to the LGBTQ community, which has historically been deemed not only deviant and immoral, but also pathological or mentally ill."

(1) In other words, it's important because of the discrimination and bigotry LGBTQ's have faced. Sorry, but that's a defensive position at best (as has already been pointed out). "I can't help it!" is really a pretty weak position on which to base an identity -- or a movement.

(2) What if a gene therapy came along to "cure" the "gay gene"? What if parents could "cure" their kids' "gay-ness" in utero? Wouldn't that be lovely?

(3) Interracial marriage was and remains a "choice," and anti-miscegenation laws were on the books for decades. Somehow we managed to get rid of those without resort to genetic explanations. Instead, enough people became persuaded that anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.

"However, for many in the LGBTQ community, referring to our sexual orientation as a choice is implying that it can be treated and potentially cured."

See my question re gene therapy above. Moreover, It's only to be "treated" if it's considered a "disease." Choice is legitimate, no less so than choice in the race of your sexual/life partner, or choice in your religion. Resort to the "I can't help it" argument demeans all those other choices. Focus on the real problem, which is the definition of LGBTQitude as wrong/immoral/diseased when it really isn't.

And what about the B part? If I'm bi, I may not have a choice about my bi identity, but by definition I have a choice about the people I choose to partner with, right? So if I have a choice, by the logic of "it's only OK if it's not a choice," (which is the implication of the "It's not a choice, therefore it's OK" argument) I should always choose the "morally correct" or "healthy" one of choosing partners of the opposite sex. Right?

"Just as with many ethnic and racial minorities, many LGBTQ individuals have come to carry great pride in our identity as LGBTQ (but it has been a long road for many) and liken such a statement from Richardson to him saying that someone can choose the color of their skin or the heritage they were born into."

I'm a Jew by birth. My mother is a Jew by CHOICE. For that matter, *I'm* a Jew by choice, since I could choose tomorrow to become a Catholic or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Pagan or (as my relatives on my mother's side pray for daily) a fundamentalist Christianist. Does that mean my identity, or my mother's, is somehow less of an identity because it's chosen?

"There are plenty of very important issues relevant to the LGBTQ community, but defining ourselves is important to us as well, as is understanding how we are perceived by the general population, and especially by a presidential candidate who potentially holds great influence over the equal opportunity and protection of LGBTQ Americans."

Yes, self-definition is important. But as I hope I've made clear, the choice to define oneself as "not having a choice" in this instance is ultimately dangerous to LGBTQ's as well as to others who make LEGITIMATE CHOICES about their lives despite the bigotry of others.

ah.

when are Progressives going to embrace the idea that:
...there are as many reasons for 'living gay,' as there are leaves on trees?

we are all who we are for individual reasons.

isn't that enough?

Why must Americans demand binary discussions?
look past the forest & see the trees.
why does a tree grow the way it does?
why does a person?

we can only try to grow in our experiences
& be the Best Expression of Ourselves

its *how* you Love, not who.

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian

"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

I am a gay woman who didn't choose to be gay...If I led a straight lifetsyle, I'd have chosen that. You can't choose to be gay or straight...it is who you were born as. If you are reading this and you are straight, could you be in a relationship with a gay person? Are you choosing to be straight or is that just who you are? It is no different for gay people!

Wouldn't it be great if we had never let government get it's foot in the "marriage door" in the first place?

If we hadn't let them tell us we had to come crawling to them, hat-in-hand, money-in-the-other-hand for a "license" to enter into a one-on-one personal contract? Hadn't let them tell us that to "favor" the "legally" married with special, less punitive tax treatment was a wonderful thing they were doing .. FOR us..?

I'm dreaming, I know. It's a Libertarian thing, I guess.

"I am a gay woman who didn't choose to be gay...If I led a straight lifetsyle, I'd have chosen that. You can't choose to be gay or straight...it is who you were born as. If you are reading this and you are straight, could you be in a relationship with a gay person? Are you choosing to be straight or is that just who you are? It is no different for gay people!"

With respect to politics and the discrimination/oppression leveled at LGBTQ's, why does this matter?

Predicating an equal-rights-for LGBTQ's struggle on the "no choice" issue is stupid. Moreover, it's DANGEROUS. First, it removes LGBTQ's as allies from other groups who are fighting against discrimination based on legitimate CHOICES they make (such as a choice of religion, or a choice not to adhere to any religion). Second, it opens the door for an argument against LGBTQ equal rights based on a scientific (or pseudoscientific) discovery (or "discovery") that there really is an element of choice in the matter. Third, it opens the door for truly Orwellian "therapies" for "gayness" based on human genetic engineering to eliminate the "gay genes". Would you support any of that?

That's why I think the issue of "choice" in LGBTQ identity is a very dangerous distraction from the actual fight, which is full and equal citizenship and rights, in all aspects of life, for LGBTQ's, and a full celebration of a diversity of sexual expression in a healthy society, whether or not it's based on "choice".

Of course being "gay" isn't a choice--if it were 95% of homosexuals would choose not to endure the endless persecution & demeaning attitude of heterosexual society.

"Gay" is just another buzz word.
JEFarrow
Parallel Perspectives
www.gnostics.com