Comments on: Richardson Stumbles

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:39:24 +0000

I cannot see any reason to be pleased with that answer. Whether it is inborn, determined in early childhood, or determined in early puberty is irrelevant – the point is that it is not a conscious choice that one makes.

He fumbled. Badly.

By: quo

quo — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:46:15 +0000

Personally, I’m almost pleased to see someone declaring that homosexuality is a choice – it’s better to buck the trend by giving an outrageous, unexpected answer than to automatically, mindlessly provide the answer someone wants.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:30:55 +0000

It does raise the question:

Would I rather have a President who thinks I chose my orientation – or even is willing to mock me – but fights for me to be treated equally anyway; or would I rather have a President who claims to see me as equal and is always respectful but is willing to compromise on issues involving my equality and does not expend political capital to see I have the same priveleges as they do?

In an ideal world I would not have to choose between the two.

By: ck

ck — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:04:42 +0000

Does it really matter how biologically constrained being gay is? I don’t think the political solution to getting legitimate equality hinges upon the “nature v nurture” question.

After all, isn’t religion, to some extent, chosen? And we offer protections there.

Yes, he fumbled in not taking the answer he “should” give, but the answer I read (at FoucaultBlog) showed that he got the point was about political protection, not about science.