Richardson: Homosexuality is a choice

Run time: 03:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4vz7hqE2Q   Posted on YouTube: August 10, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 11, 2007 By DU Member: DeepModem Mom Views on DU: 2042

 

Or should I say LIEbertarian? I'm sick of all these "bluedog" "LIEbertarian" types. What a bunch of inconsistent and phony hypocrites.

...is his strong support of guns.

and I thought it disengenuous when they cut him off in the middle and spliced the bits together.
He said he wasn't a scientist and he felt gays should have equal rights. What is wrong with that?

...I think his clarification deserves merit.

not really. He was asked if the New Mexico legislature passed a marriage equality bill if he would sign it into law. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

He was clearly extremely uncomfortable even being there - and he answered the biology question badly - even after Melissa Etheridge gave him another chance. What does it matter? Well, I dunno - can Bill Richardson tell us about the day he made the choice to be heterosexual, after weighing all the pros and cons in his mind? Can any of you?

Lastly, for any of these candidates who are against marriage equality to claim they are in favor of equal rights for our gay bretheren is hypocritical at best. Separate but not equal is exactly that. Not equal.

The same rights apply; that's the message Richardson is giving. I thought it was actually a good answer. Frankly, I think its a little of both; why else would you have guys like Ted Haggerty who are married, yet have homosexual affairs? He's genetically gay but chooses a heterosexual lifestyle? Who cares? Whether you're gay or straight, choice or genetics, equal rights apply. Simple.

So you think it's a little bit of a choice? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you ask a gay person? Being married to a woman and having homosexual affairs doesn't sound like a heterosexual lifestyle to me... what's with the labels? I do appreciate your support for equal rights though... thanks.

I've actually met this guy, and he is a an honestly nice guy and is for gay rights. I do believe he was thrown by the choice/bio question, but lots of people argue over this. So you're a woman and you've decided you like women. Now, is that a decision you made, or is that a decision forced upon you? I don't think he was trying to parse it that closely, but basically was saying, you're human, you deserve basic rights, however you got to that position.

Believe me, there's lots of candidates I'd go after on this topic, but not Bill. You should cut him some slack on this one.

harassment, and being disowned from families for being gay is a little offensive. I think that's the problem here.

Please show.

he said it was a choice. This was followed by a moment of awkward silence and then he was questioned whether he really understood the question. Can't really miss it.

People can call him hopelessly behind, vocally clumsy, or whatever but this anti-gay accusation is unfounded.

If, as M. Etheridge was suggesting, it is not a choice, but something ingrained at birth, then you play right into the hands of those who treat homosexuality as an affliction, such as a birth defect.

Or was it "ingrained at birth"?

Why do people think it is appropriate to debate with gay people about this when they say it's not a choice? Okay, so somebody will say I was born with a birth defect... society has REPEATEDLY determined that we should not discriminate based on genetics which would include race and gender and also handicaps. Personally, I think there may be something different about our DNA and brains, but if that's the case, it would be much more difficult to deny the basic human rights our country currently denies.

I'm curious if he believes in evolution as he's of the mindset that homosexuality in nature is a learned trait. It should be obvious to all of us that we all get slightly different "blasts" of hormones/chemicals during conception. How does he explain hermaphrodites who have physical characteristics of both sexes? It sounds like he might be relying on faith which is the problem with almost all the candidates if you ask me. Religious belief is what is hurting America more than anything else. We need to come out of the stone age.

Your curios if he believes in evolution? Why don't you try and be a little more intellectually dishonest. God forbid a politician give a straight answer that include the words "I don't know". Maybe he was to busy spending his adult life as a qualified public servant to sit and even care about what really creates homosexuality. Maybe he sees the issue as a non starter, something along the line of Gays are americans and therefor are granted rights and equal protection.

Don't take his statements from the republican perspective of a limited Bill of Rights. Most if not all of our candidates are too busy trying to solve the problems of the future and not dredging up the past like the neocons.

Do I support gay rights of course I do, we all do here, it is an assumed progressive point of view. Nobody in the Democratic field is trying to reset the clock to 1953 unlike those on the other side. So the man is a little wishy-washy on how homosexuals are created. I really don't care, all I know is that he is intelligent, and knows how to run a government office unlike someone we know.

This whole debate was a waste of time. Nobody heard what they really wanted to hear and frankly why are we playing at the republican game. Why is this even an issue in a presidential contest. Are we really going to let their party set the agenda of debate again for the 2008' race, so they can trod out their talking bogus talking points to whip the fundies into a frenzy. Seriously folks this issue is decided, can't we just move on.

The reason the Dems are letting the Republicans get away with their crapola is because we have no backbone. We should be fighting for real equal rights instead of constantly playing politics. Richardson tries to walk the tightrope here and fails miserably. DU isn't just about politics. It's about democratic beliefs as well. I'm not playing into Republican hands. I hope I'm elevating the debate on our side so we can quit repeating these silly discussions about sexual orientation. Dems need to be for equal rights across the board.

A few months ago he negotiated an arms control agreement with North Korea.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he has the highest IQ of any candidate in the race. Yet when he is asked about gay rights he seems to be so ignorant. I think many politicians believe that it is to their political advantage to act ignorant on GLBT issues so that they can keep a good name with the bigots, it really shows the sad state of politics today when ignorance and bigotry are considered to be necessary for politicians to win this so-called "family values" crowd which represents the ugliest side of America today.

What I got from the interview was that Richardson does not know whether homosexuallity is inate in some people or not. He did make it pretty clear that he does not think that is the controlling issue. He made it very clear that he thinks gays are just normal people. All the two post-interview commentaros did was take one sentence out of context and use it to further our soundbite culture. Richardson answered honestly rather than going for the talking-point the interviewers were looking for.

As a side note, does M.E. really think there is a "creator?"

with no debate about it. With whom and how I choose to live my life, as straight people get to with all the advantages, so should we and without question. The only reason this has to be debated and argued about is because of that damn religious bullshit.

Its no ones damn business who someone wants to marry, these bible fundamentalist HAVE NOT RIGHT AT ALL to argue who can marry whom based on THEIR religious subservience. We might as well call this a fucking theocracy since these Reich-wing gestapo asshats can wave their religion around and tell OTHERS what they can and can not do! Apparently the Constitution does not mean a fucking thing and we all live under the thumb of the invisible surveillance camera in the sky!

Religion Sickens me!

Bingo!

But it didn't sound like he was saying it out of bigotry.

it was said out of ignorance and perhaps, sadly, a "I don't really care" attitude about the subject, because, he's had plenty of time to think about it, he's no spring chicken and he can't claim confusion on the question as the great Melissa rephrased it for him. He clearly believes people choose sexuality - he said it twice, once directly, and once indirectly by sticking to his initial comment. I'm not going to say the guy's horrible or whatever, it's just that he blew this question. Badly. He's as low on my gaydar for the nomination as any of our candidates. I hope 3 or 4 of them leave the race soon, I think it's down to a 3 person race anyhow, but, one of the ones off the map could pop back up EASILY in the next few months, like Kerry did, but I'd sure think some of them have a hard time running a campaign at this juncture.