General Discussion

BlueStater

(7,596 posts) Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:32 PM Apr 2015

Marco Rubio Says Being Gay is Not a Choice

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio says he does not believe sexual orientation is a choice for the "enormous majority of people."

The Florida senator's comments came Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, where he said that it should be up to states rather than the Supreme Court to define marriage and that he considers marriage to be between a man and a woman.

"I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with," Rubio said.

He and other Republican presidential hopefuls have faced questions in recent days about their positions on same-sex marriage as the nation's top court prepares for what is expected to be a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the issue in June.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-19/marco-rubio-says-being-gay-is-not-a-choice

----------------------------------------------

This actually makes his stance on gay marriage even worse. He knows it's not a choice yet he still wants to deny people happiness simply because of the way they're born? Ultra-religious nutjobs like Ted Cruz have more justification for their bigotry than this clown does.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Marco Rubio Says Being Gay is Not a Choice (Original Post) BlueStater Apr 2015 OP

he is playing to the religious right in his party JI7 Apr 2015 #1

He's a jerk. He needs to be played off stage by the orchestra... MADem Apr 2015 #2

I wonder if he also thinks it should be up to states whether they have treestar Apr 2015 #3

he's all soundbites and bullshit. no substance to this candidate. next. spanone Apr 2015 #4

Marco Rubio’s gay rights hypocrisy: Sure, I’d attend a gay wedding! Jefferson23 Apr 2015 #5

I wonder why Republicans are so anti-gay considering what they do to each other at Bohemian Grove 951-Riverside Apr 2015 #6

Being black isn't a choice either edhopper Apr 2015 #7

So he believes sexual identity is something people are born with.... alphafemale Apr 2015 #8

I heard they said they don't take away Hunan rights yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #10

I suspect the right will crucify him for that small concession./NT DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #9

He says he believes it isn't a choice but repeatedly justiceischeap Apr 2015 #11

Agree with you that this makes his position even worse (if possible!) alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #12

JI7

(89,252 posts)

1. he is playing to the religious right in his party

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:35 PM

Apr 2015

MADem

(135,425 posts)

2. He's a jerk. He needs to be played off stage by the orchestra...

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:41 PM

Apr 2015

Someone get the hook, strike up a rousing rendition of "Macho Man" and get that little turd gone....

"Go man go" indeed!!!

treestar

(82,383 posts)

3. I wonder if he also thinks it should be up to states whether they have

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:47 PM

Apr 2015

anti-discrimination laws. Conservatives are always hoping they can drag progress by letting the red states violate people's rights.

spanone

(135,846 posts)

4. he's all soundbites and bullshit. no substance to this candidate. next.

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:49 PM

Apr 2015

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)

5. Marco Rubio’s gay rights hypocrisy: Sure, I’d attend a gay wedding!

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:00 PM

Apr 2015

The GOP candidate thinks it makes him sound like a swell guy, but he’s just showing a kinder, gentler bigotry
Joan Walsh

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/marco_rubio%E2%80%99s_gay_rights_hypocrisy_sure_i%E2%80%99d_attend_a_gay_wedding/

951-Riverside

(7,234 posts)

6. I wonder why Republicans are so anti-gay considering what they do to each other at Bohemian Grove

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:02 PM

Apr 2015

edhopper

(33,590 posts)

7. Being black isn't a choice either

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:18 PM

Apr 2015

but they treat them the same way.

They don't give a shit who they hurt.

alphafemale

(18,497 posts)

8. So he believes sexual identity is something people are born with....

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:45 PM

Apr 2015

But he still wants to deny them basic human rights.

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)

10. I heard they said they don't take away Hunan rights

Reply to alphafemale (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:09 PM

Apr 2015

They say you have ever right to marry a woman like everyone else. I truly heard an idiot say that.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)

9. I suspect the right will crucify him for that small concession./NT

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:51 PM

Apr 2015

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)

11. He says he believes it isn't a choice but repeatedly

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:11 PM

Apr 2015

Refers to sexual identity as a preference. It can't be a preference if it's not a choice.

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

12. Agree with you that this makes his position even worse (if possible!)

Reply to BlueStater (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:21 PM

Apr 2015

he is, of course, pandering, but it exposes the incoherence of the GOP position on this. He knows that the majority believe sexual orientation is far more complex than a "lifestyle choice," and understands that of that majority, most believe it is at the very least a strong genetic predisposition. So, he has to say it is not a choice. But he also knows he can't win a primary by supporting same-sex marriage. So he throws it to the states. Of course, the two positions are utterly irreconcilable. If sexual orientation is an in-born trait, then denying consenting adults of a given sexual orientation the same rights as some other given sexual orientation is a clear violation of the equal protection clause, which is precisely how the courts have been reading it. Throwing the "decision" to the states makes no sense, unless you want to throw out the 14th Amendment altogether. Good luck on that vote, Senator.

But that is the truly bizarre thing, as you correctly note: the Bible thumpers who insist sexual orientation is a personal choice, day-to-day, are actually more consistent and intellectually rigorous than Rubio, since they at least have a coherent theory of banning same sex marriage. Rubio's position supports the ban, but has no justifiable underlying theory to do so. (I should note for clarity that those conservative who argue for the "choice" theory are ignorant bigots, but that makes Rubio's position dumber than that of ignorant bigots!)

Reply to this discussion