Home Blog Forum Downloads Newsletter

CommuniKate: Blog Archives

« You LOGO, Girl! | Main | Back By Popular Demand: A Private Internet Chat With Kate Clinton: Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 9:30pm EST »

August 23, 2007

Bill Richardson opened a big gay can of worms on the LOGO debate - we're back to GAY 101. Do you think being gay is a matter of biology or choice?

Kate wants to hear from you! Bill Richardson opened a big gay can of worms on the LOGO debate - we're back to GAY 101. Do you think being gay is a matter of biology or choice?

To get your voice heard, simply hit the Comment link below and tell us what you think. No registration is necessary, and you can post anonymously if you want.

Posted by admin at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)

Comments

I think being gay can be, and is, a choice for many gay people, especially lesbian feminist babyboomers. I and many of my friends made conscious choices to be gay, and I resent the implications of the argument (frequently made by conservative defensive gay people) that it could not be a choice because no one in their right mind would choose this lifestyle. I have adopted a culture that has been very nurturing of me. I have a partner who is loving, affectionate, sensitive, sensual, smart, funny, stimulating and supportive. I have a great job, a beautiful home, lots of interesting and loyal friends, and a family that accepts and supports my choices. I have given up nothing and gained much by virtue of my choice to be a lesbian. I do not know any straight people whose lives I envy or with whom I would trade places. I think Richardson blew it by not answering Melissa Etheridge's question by simply saying: "What difference does it make whether being gay is a choice or not. LGBT folks are constitutionally guaranteed the same rights as any other Americans regardless of how or why they got that way."

Posted by: Kris Anderson | August 23, 2007 03:34 PM

Actually, Kris, that's exactly what he did say in his follow up response. That's why people as esteemed in the LGBT community as Barney Frank have defended him. Rep. Frank said the next day:

"Governor Bill Richardson's apology for the mistake he made in saying
that sexual orientation is a choice did not surprise me, because he
has been a strong supporter of our right to be treated fairly
throughout his public career. It is especially relevant that he voted
consistently on our side from the start of his Congressional career in
the 1980s, when the issue of LGBT rights had far less support even
from Democrats that it has today. I regret Gov. Richardson's
misstatement - as I sometimes regret one or two of my own - but his
error in the pressure of a debate should not detract from his very
strong record in defense of equality for all Americans, including
those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."

Joe Solmonese, the President of the HRC, also commented the next day he believes that Richardson understands homosexuality is innate. Noting that he made a gaffe that didn't not truly reflect Richardson's views, Solmonese said:

“I wish his delivery would have been as good as his record.”

Perhaps the most poignant defense of Richardson has come from Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair, Eric Bauman, himself a member of the LGBT community:

Wag the Blog Redux: OK, so an exhausted presidential candidate slips and says he thinks being gay is a choice. Minutes later he steps back and says that the bottom line is all people are equal under the law and should be so treated.
I ponder the importance of the question, the answer and reality.

Here are some simple facts:

As Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson has enacted and fought for an
historic expansion of laws to recognize and protect LGBT citizens of New
Mexico.

Bill Richardson regularly talks about his LGBT record and plans in
presidential forums, big and small, gay and not.

Bill Richardson is not running to be arbiter-in-chief of how people become
lesbian or gay. He is running to be a President of the United States for
every American. Period. Regardless of sexual orientation or other
characteristic.

Having said all of that, it is high time we focus not on trivial
slips-of-the-tongue and minor policy differences, but rather on the fact
that seven years of GOP dominance in Washington has created an America so
divided, so frustrated, so angry that the winds of change are blowing at
category five.

I have not personally decided who I will support, but let me assure you,
I'll take Bill Richardson over any of the lightweights running on the other
side.

At a time of chaos at home and abroad, any one of the Democratic candidates
go a long way towards bridging the divides among us, restoring our standing
in the world, bringing our troops home, restoring our economy, providing
healthcare for every American, facing the challenge of climate change, and
yes, expanding the rights, responsibilities and protections for LGBT
Americans.

Eric C. Bauman
Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Posted by: David Buchanan | August 24, 2007 10:26 AM

Yes. Irrelevant. Who am I to say. My job is to treat you like a human regardless of your orientation, religion, political affiliation, blah, blah, blah. I am gay. I suspect I was born this way. I tried several heterosexual relationships. Didn't work. Because I "chose" to be unhappy, or because I was "fighting biology". I know not. All I know is that I am happy, fulfilled, safe and complete- with my woman.

Posted by: Kayla Boyer | August 24, 2007 11:49 AM

Aghhh, I cant stand when ppl say noone would "choose to be gay". But I do believe in my heart. We are born this way, when u know you are different at age 6,8 or 10, and have no clue what gay is,HOW can it be choice? I do know alot of abused women have "turned" gay in older life. So it is actually both, we are born that way, and some do choose to be gay. Either way, WE are garanteed in the constitution to have the same rights as any other ppl that choose whatever life style they want. What about the amish? who dont believe in our modern medacine and let their children die beforee getting them treated? What of the athiests? the poligamists? ther are alot of diverse cultures out there,and we are the ONLY one targeted. Its sooo anti american. Thx Kate, Love your work. Met you in Roanoke Va. at our pridefest.in 06,Hope you come back soon. Mary

Posted by: Mary Rowe | August 24, 2007 11:53 AM

(a) Yes.
(b) Who cares.
(c) If it's not biology, how do you explain all those women's basketball coaches?
(d) If you can't choose who to sleep with, exactly what freedom is it we are fighting for again?
(e) All of the above.

Posted by: Debbie Hartley | August 24, 2007 12:03 PM

Does Bill Richardson choose to be straight? Does his choice determine whether he has civil rights or whether he can run for president of the US?

Posted by: Annonymous | August 24, 2007 12:51 PM

I've been traveling so have been out of "the loop" so forgive me here. I, however, find it laughable that this question is still a question. What difference does it make whether or not I chose to be a lesbian or was born one? The reality is that it only matters based on religion, which therefore the question is void. If I chose to be a lesbian, wonderful! Perhaps somewhere when I was a child I decided to be different, to alienate my religious family, to have extra hurdles to overcome as an adult, and to cry when I wasn't accepted. However, I find it more likely that those things happened as a result of being born gay. Born or chosen, I am who I am. I am not ashamed of my sexual preferences, emotional connections, or intimate feelings. Instead I honor myself for knowing that I am true to me, willing to face the small minded people that still think they can choose (or unchoose) for me, and proudly say, "I am gay, and if you believe it's a choice, that's perfect. Just remember our country gave me freedom to choose so move on to something that matters such as war, child neglect, or even start with the basics by treating all of us with equality." The only question or choice in this matter for me: Do you choose to be someone that treats everyone equally or do you choose to be the one looking like the idiot in the end? After all, I'm enjoying my life with my partner and our children and am seeking no one's permission or acceptance. My oldest daughter said it best to a friend, "If you think it's always just a choice then grab your remote control and begin lusting after it. Let me know how that works for you."

Posted by: Cristy Layton | August 24, 2007 01:21 PM

I think being gay is biologic. I remember at the age of 10 being drawn to the females. I didn't ever question my feelings growing up because they always felt so natural and so right. I did marry a man, I had a child, my child has been my biggest blessing ever, but the marriage didn't work, I always felt like I didn't fit in. I am who I was always meant to be from the very beginning, a very happy and loving lesbian.

Posted by: Wanda Rau-Miller | August 24, 2007 01:23 PM

i think gay is "born" its not like picking out a car for crying out loud. You are or you're not. Not rocket science here people. How can a two or three year old flip a coin yes or no? Admitting it,is what is the choice. and how long it takes to realize you're gay is another time line.But "Born" into the life is there from squirtsville.

Posted by: Hunter | August 24, 2007 01:36 PM

Lets see why am I attracted to women, and not a yeti. Hummm I suppose I could just lay there, and astro project myself somewhere else. Deney the smell was different, and pretend the hairy itchy feeling was soft. Gross, nope can't do it! Not even for money! Lets see, would I choose to be tormented as a child, raped because I'd rather go horseback riding instead of spin the bottle? Or choose to have rocks thrown at me? I think not. How many can "just lay there and act like they enjoy it"? Not me.
My Mom said she knew when I was a baby I was gay. I gave the barbies a proper burial, and played with my little dinky toy cars, trucks, and busses. I was a kid clothes model, and had to take ballet
lessons, go to catholic school, wasn't allowed to go to sleep overs, all because she "knew".
After my father passed she told me she was with a woman while he was overseas in the army. I know 2 of my cousins are gay. I would be lying or ignorant if I didn's say biological.......

Posted by: Erin Peck | August 24, 2007 01:48 PM

When I was younger, I thought it was purely a matter of biology. I have to admit that now that I am older, I think there is no black and white but lots of gray. For some people it is biology but for others I think it boils down to whom they fall in love... or like... with -- if they are open enough and sure enough of themselves to let it happen.

Posted by: Elizabeth Williams | August 24, 2007 06:41 PM

The science I've seen on sexual orientation is pretty thin, but so far seems to point to several potential influences that are not the same for women as for men. Interestingly, too, scientists haven't really investigated bisexuality either. Other research comparing especially women who felt different with straight women find that the feelings of difference often came from gender bending -- being a tomboy -- and that has been normative behavior for girls for at least two generations now.

Most complex behaviors are a combination of biology and environment, and those influences sometimes are two-way streets. Most folks' sexuality is probably not the result of a single choice -- even when we reached a moment when we said, yes, I choose to be gay. Nor is it likely to result from a single biological phenomenon (I hate the "mistake" talk in science! just like the folk on here who also resent the idea that no one would choose to be gay!) It's the simplistic dichotomy that bugs me.

Posted by: Deb | August 24, 2007 09:09 PM

I am soooo over this discussion! I don't care what Bill Richardson thinks about whether being gay/lesbian is or isn't a choice. (And I don't support Richardson per se; I'm actually a Kucinich supporter.) If Bill Richardson could truly support full equality, that would matter to me, whether he thinks I choose to be gay or whether I'm chosen, as someone has said. Paul D. Cain, Author, Leading the Parade

Posted by: Paul D. Cain | August 24, 2007 09:50 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but in my formative years, I was so indecisive I couldn't even decide what to wear to school without at least three changes and a call to my best friend. The "debate" suggests we were all at some point presented a "master menu". "I'd like the strawberry shortcake and the waitress, please." "Oh, and by the way, I'd like a whole lot of family turmoil, shame, guilt and despair on the side." I guess when little Bill Richardson, an oblivious believer in my menu theory, made his selections, he declined even a sample size of rational thought but had them supersize his ego.

Posted by: Sharon Bante | August 25, 2007 09:37 AM

I firmly believe that true gay is born. Some people, and I happen to have met a few, that chose to live the gay lifestyle. They choose to have sex with people of the same gender for the pleasure, but they don't truly love the person. In my generation, it's "cool" to be gay and wear rainbow accessories and be intimate in public for shock value. Tacky, but it's in style. But as I said previously, true gay is born. I, myself was born a lesbian. I was always a lesbian and always knew it. But I made a choice to be open about it. I made a choice to become romantically involved with other wimmin. You can't choose how you feel, but you do choose to live the lifestyle. That my dears, is the difference.

Posted by: A'Ja | August 25, 2007 03:50 PM

It's an individual based question. Some will say choice. Personally, I say it's biological for me. It runs only to the females along my maternal grandmother's bloodline. Her daughter was a lesbian, both her sons and her daughter had daughters who are lesbian, I being one of them. But that's my case. It has to do with attraction. I don't understand the issue, but I know it doesn't matter. We are who we are, and we are all deserving of the same treatment.

Posted by: Pat Gaskill | August 25, 2007 06:11 PM

Quoting from the Advocate.com 8/11/07-8/13/07: "Clinton, Obama, and Edwards cruised into the night, a one-by-one showcase of the Democratic presidential field on LGBT issues, in agreement on points like the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," preferring civil unions to same-sex marriage, and supporting legislation to end discrimination against gays and lesbians on the job. But none of them managed to distinguish themselves, recycling the same sound bites they always use when asked about gay rights.

They stood in sharp contrast to long-shot candidates Dennis Kucinich, a current House member, and former Alaska senator Mike Gravel, who were so visibly at ease in unequivocally supporting marriage equality, it sparked amazement from forum moderator Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News, a longtime fixture in Washington political journalism. ..."

I am frustrated because Hillary is NOT going to give the LGBT community any breaks. The LGBT and straight allies have to support candidates who are going to have our back. If means a white man has to do the job then so be it. Support comes the most unlikely places.
Peg McPhee Gordon

Posted by: Peg McPhee Gordon | August 26, 2007 07:57 PM

My question to Bill Richardson is being straight a biology or a choice?
I believe we do not choose who we are attracted to. We do choose who to be in a relationship for different reasons. I prefer to hope for my children it is about the respecting and loving themselves enough to be with someone who they feel that way about and vice versa.

Posted by: Peg McPhee Gordon | August 26, 2007 08:05 PM

Actually, David [Buchanan, above], that is not what Richardson (or his handlers) said in his follow-up response. He apologized for the "mistake" he made in saying that "sexual orientation is a choice." He once again got tangled up in the question of whether or not it is a choice to be gay (this time coming out on the other side), rather than labeling the question as irrelevant unless one believes that being gay is a sin or a crime. Under our constitution, a person's right to practice Judaism is guaranteed regardless of whether he or she was born that way or converted later in life. Sexual orientation should be no different.

Posted by: Kris Anderson | August 28, 2007 01:54 PM

Not a choice for me, but I know many younger women for whom it is a choice. Not sure if the motivation is political or sexual. Might be an interesting topic.

Posted by: Anne | August 30, 2007 10:23 AM

There is no question in my mind that being gay is absolutely, without question, biological. I remember being attracted to other girls my age when I was 7 or 8 years old -not realizing, of course, what that attraction was all about - and you could never convince me that that was a "choice" at that age!! Couple that with the fact that both my son and my daugher are gay and the answer is so clear. Bill Richardson definitely shot himself in the foot trying to answer that question during the forum. It's sadly comical to watch some of these politicians squirm while they're trying to answer these types of questions. A sad commentary.....

Posted by: Marge | August 30, 2007 02:16 PM

I believe it is biological....those who think its a choice are perhaps bi. I always like to ask "straight" people when they decided to be heterosexual...and did they ever consider being gay?

Posted by: Doug Lolik | September 1, 2007 07:42 PM

I also believe it is bilogical because I could tell at age 3 and 4 that my youngest son was gay. He is now 19 and finally told us at 17 that he was gay. We told him that we had a pretty good idea that he was.

Posted by: Mick | September 3, 2007 07:04 PM

In a way, it is both. First you are 'born to be gay' (it's in the 501's) but then you end up having to make the 'choice' to live or not to live as a gay person against all odds and your mother's best advice.

Be Proud!

Posted by: Patricia Tomaso | September 5, 2007 08:53 AM

The only reason anyone would care about why and how we got this way including choice vs not is if they need to judge it rather than accept as an ok simple variant in human sexual\affiliational behavior. Innate argument is used to justify it as ok (ala pls accept us for we can't help our affliction)or you chose to sin argument used by anti's ala put a stop to this sinful "chosen but wrongful" behavior choice.
And what if we CAN help it but choose it ANYWAY or simply choose to act on innate desires-either way the very question implies a stigma. It's a question with the underlying assumption that there is something wrong with the behavior so if we can figure out how they got that way...Who cares why I am lefthanded now that there is no stigma attached? No one & I am free to use my left hand w/out asking why I prefer it, how I got this way etc. Whether I am with women b/c it is my "affliction" or my choice (same sex partners know our bodies better so make better lovers, plus women are more other directed and generous as a rule) or my choice to act upon a pre-existing disposition (innate, genetic, biochemical pre birth or whatever the cause for the same sex desire), the fact is there is nothing wrong with the behavior and this question will no longer be posed when there is no stigma to same sex relations. Probably like Kinsey determined, it's a natural variant in human sexuality to have folks all along the Kinsey scale, with the majority reproducing.Perhaps like infertility rates are rising, % of homosxuals will increase as pop.\crowding increases, but most importantly when the prejudice is conquered,when there is no longer a stigma to same sx behavior, people will stop askin this question . For me twas compelling at a young age, despite the lack of models for it, but it's still the wrong question for it implies there is something wrong w. the behavior so it needs to be explained. The behavior (and identity and love partner choice as a result) hurts no one and feels right to those of us who "choose" it or "choose to act" upon what may be innate or what may be of the moment desire anywhere along that good ole Kinsey scale. Underneath it all I spose I am 5.5 on the Kinsey 1-6 scale, but the 2's, 3's and 4's arent likely to be reading this blog...

Posted by: Robin | September 10, 2007 04:59 PM

Politics aside.....I could no more choose to be straight than Bush could choose to be articulate. So I didn't choose to be gay--I was born this way.

Posted by: Barbara | September 11, 2007 10:38 PM

Even more importantly, why are Democrats and so many gay people, for that matter, allowing Republicans to make gay marriage an issue of word choice? My partner and I got married in April. We did not have a civil union; we got married. There was a legitimate minister, biblical passages, prayers, and everything else straights would have in their weddings...except our reception was much more entertaining (when your redneck cousin wearing the flannel shirt with tie tells you he's never been to "such an awesome party," you know you did good).
There is not a single person on the planet, no less our government, who can deny us a marriage. A marriage is about a spiritual ceremony. The only thing we are being denied is the legal protections, and I don't see that lasting much longer.
We live in Ohio, where a bunch of ignorant people (like my brother-in-law)--who apparently cannot read--made civil unions illegal. What these people don't understand (yep, including my brother-in-law) is that they invalidated their own "marriages" by passing that ridiculous law.
My vote will go to the candidate who figures this out...and yes I will still vote when not a single one of them does.
Oh...biology or choice? Please. As if I chose to crush on my elementary school P.E. teacher? Like I knew the crushes I felt as a child would become the raging lust I feel when I look at my partner today.
Finally....Kate, we're a Democratic state for the first time in 20 years. That's excellent cause for a visit, right????

Posted by: Kimberly Gassner | September 14, 2007 12:42 AM

I believe it is biology. I'm a lesbian who came out later in life. I've known since I was 8 or 9 that I was different. I repressed those feelings for many yrs, marrying, having a baby, etc, because that is what I was "supposed" to do. I would NEVER choose to go through the pain and suffering that I have been in the last few yrs with dealing with coming out, and the loss of my very best friend who is my ex-husband because he chooses now to be a total jerk. The GLTB community for the most part don't choose pain and suffering over being comfortable in the way society wants us to be.

Maybe the alternatively straight should look at thier lives and see if its biological or chosen?

Posted by: Caron McMan, RN | September 18, 2007 11:26 AM

Search

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]

Join CommuniKate

KateMart

All of Kate's DVDs, CDs, books, and other merch - it's a one-stop shop! Stay warm and cozy this winter with all-new Hilarity Clinton '08 apparel. We've also whipped up tons of new items, including a 2008 Kate Clinton "Resolutions" calendar and an "I'm for Hillary" coffee mug. Visit KateMart.

Booking & Publicity

If you're interested in booking Kate, or if you're looking for a press kit, or high-res photos and logos, come check out the Booking & Publicity section. You'll find everything you need, including complete contact details.