I hope if I end up having to vote for Obama, Richardson

[cboy4]

is not the other person on the ticket.

I've been wondering if we were driving down this road of inevitability.

First of all, we know about (let's face it), Obama's association with crazy ass religious people -- primarily Donnie McClurkin who stated homosexuality was a curse and talked about "The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity." :eyes:

Okay, fine.

But now, we have Bill Richardson who proclaimed that he wasn't sure whether gay people chose a life of discrimination or whether gay people are born gay. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200814.html

As much as I admire Richardson for his unquestionable talent when it comes to diplomacy, listening to him during the debates was like nails on a chalkboard. Every answer was so long, it was like listening to him recite "War and Peace."

I don't trust Obama with gay issues for a simple reason. Since he's already sold out the gay community for ridiculous political purposes, why wouldn't he do it again as president as a compromise with congress?

The dumb thing is he didn't even need to embrace McClurkin. He'd be doing just as well had he told the guy, "You know what, thanks, but no thanks. But I wish you well."

And now we have Richardson, who's on record as saying he wasn't sure whether being gay is a choice, inching closer to Obama?

I'm not at all happy, even though I understand many Obama supporters are not interested in addressing any of this, and in fact, will be hostile that I'm raising this issue.

Barack makes it very difficult for me to support him, should he be the nominee, as it stands.

It's no secret I voted for and support Edwards.

But adding Richardson to the ticket will, well, sort of a nightmare in my view.

[blogslut]

1. Doesn't it bother you that Obama and Clinton's stance on GLBT issues are

virtually identical?

[John Q. Citizen]

2. That doesn't bother the OP. Neither does it bother the OP that Richardson was part of the Clinton

administration.

That was fine. It's only when Richardson endorses Obama that there is a problem, apparently.

[Colobo]

4. Good point.

[cboy4]

21. Katzenkavalier, do you want to articulate what exactly

is a good point in relation to all I've written?

Aren't you an educator?

Yet, so much of what I've seen you written is one to three word cheerleading comments.

It makes you come across as closed-minded, which I can't imagine you are.

"Good Point." How much thought goes into writing something like that?

[cboy4]

8. Please don't speak for the OP John. Open your mind and

read what I'm writing.

You're insinuating that I'm some big Hillary Clinton supporter which I am not, and have never claimed to be. Ever.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Who was it who said that saying the word revolution put off the revolution by 5 minutes?

I have been attempting to understand the Denny McClurkin phenomena. As I see it, McClurkin is a popular gospel/christian singer with some rather wacky views on the question of "Why are there gay people."

What I don't understand is how launching an embargo against McClurkin or attempting to demonize him personally is going to achieve a political victory, ie full civil rights for people who love someone of the same sex.

It's great for fund-raising to have an enemy. But having a complete and total enemy also requires a certain suspension of rationality. Part of the dynamic in this is the two dimensional demonization and iconization of McClurkin. To me, he's just a nut with a voice that some people like. I see him as a tool. But why limit your tools?

I also see him as kind of a tragic figure. Here's a guy who is as big a victim of homophobia as you are likely to find. He's so self loathing that he's constructed a whole fantasy world to try to explain away who he is. I feel sorry for him rather than hate for him, and I feel sorry for me to live in such a society that drives people crazy because of what they are.

It seems to me there is a thirst for peace and justice across the land. This thirst isn't limited to race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or lack of, in fact it's much more class based than divided by other divisions.

On the other hand, if we can just keep the GLBT community and the black evangelical community at each others throats, instead of focusing on peace and justice for all, then we are sure to defeat ourselves. The same goes for all other contrivances of division.

But, if you want to talk demographics, think about this one. The young voters, who turn out so far overwhelmingly for Obama, are the least homophobic of all the other demographics across all the demographics They are also more actively anti-racist, and they are strongly environmentalist.

So I'm not sure if transferring the hate of McClurkin to Obama is politically productive in terms of securing rights. If I were in GLBT politics, I would be working in the Obama campaign to make contacts and secure commitments to push Obama on the issue, and to try to link up all issues and possible allies.

I understand that rights are a survival issue for everyone. So I understand the anger. But I don't understand the utility of demonizing in this case.

Since health care has long been one of my main areas of interest, while I'm working in the Obama campaign here in Montana, I will certainly raise the issue of single payer, and look to connect with others who might want to push that in an Obama administration. I see healthcare as a survival issue also. And Obama is currently too close to Hillary on the issue.

[hulklogan]

10. Bad point.

Who is the one being endorsed here? Certainly not Senator Clinton.

I can't speak for the OP but I had a problem with Richardson months ago, when he was running for the nomination himself. So don't give me any of this "What about Hillary?" crap.

[cboy4]

5. They are virtually identical, but do you not understand why

I might have some trust issues with Obama?

He allows McClurkin to perform. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dUp16hFzY8

Am I supposed to like this?

Obama didn't need McClurkin and he doesn't need McClurkin.

But we've been over this.

And here's something else blogslut.

Obama belongs to a church that backs same sex marriage. July 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He certainly can't claim it's against his religion.

[cali]

11. I perfectly understand why you have trust issues with Obama

I think you're wrong, but I understand why you feel the way you do. As for Richardson, as VP he'd hardly be germane to the issue that concerns you. Obama has said done some things that I'd think would be mitigating factors for you. He's spoken out in inhospitable settings about GLBT rights and he's repudiated what McClurkin says.

[blogslut]

16. I know all this

I also know that Obama did not appear in person at that rally. I also know that Obama knew McClurkin as a gospel singer and not some pray-away-the-gay activist. I also know that Obama was trying to reach out to a constituency that has been known to be anti-gay > African American church goers.

You tell me, how do you reach out to such a vitally important voter block?

Senator Obama has more than once spoken before such congregations and told them their condemnation of GLBT is wrong.

As for the quote, I can't find the whole quote. But as I recall, Obama said that he had blamed any opposition to gay marriage he once had on his religion. He also said he changed his mind. Perhaps Reverend Wright helped him make that change. Because, Wright too, changed his mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Obama has not 'changed his mind'

He still claims religious based oppostion to gay marriage. Wright does not. Trinity UCC has spent many years doing the right thing in relation to gay issues and issues shared by the gay community and the African American community, of which there are many.

Let us try to be honest about the facts, that is how we can move forward.

Let me say to you in that spirit, that as a person with a long history with very inclusive and welcomeing African American churches, that this line: "constituency that has been known to be anti-gay > African American church goers" is actually nothing but a generalization and as such is an insult to the many churches including Trinty that are not like that, and to the many Revs like Wright or Carl Bean who did in fact take up the voice of the least among us.

For me, the insult of McClurkin was multiple, it was toward gays and black chruches alike, and to black gay people in specific. The other layer of the issue is the constant refusal of honest dicussion about it. Obama called Donnie, Obama chose Donnie, if Obama did not know who he was, he should have. Donnie famously sang for GW at GOP 2004 Convention, has a book and a church all based on gay bashing, so...Donnie was the hand selected host.

Obama has not changed his mind on equality, no he has not.

Donnie is not 'just a singer' and Gospel is not always 'just like that'. To paint the Gospel world with that brush is as wrong as painting the gay community with the other.

Dozens of Obama supporters have told me McClurkin was a mistake, if Obama himself would say that it would mean something, out of the backers, it is just a window on the rationalziation they are using to explain this huge and perhaps indicitive moment.

I'm still listening to both candidates. Actively listening. And I am a Democrat. Period.

Now Richardson, I think he was trying to say the right thing, and that he does not know much. Choice sounds positive, we are pro-choice. I think Bill just has the wrong words and wanted to say the right thing. Really I don't think he's a homophobe at all. What he is is awful when under pressure for fast answers, look at his debates. I think he's right in the heart. That's what I've thought about that gaff all along. Based on nothing but my gut and his record.

[blogslut]

20. I'm sorry

But I simply cannot respond to your post because to me, it is unreadable. Please, next time, make paragraph breaks.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. There I fixed it for you

And gee, it sort of proves a point I often make. We must be considered and willing to spoon feed.

So respond now, if you'd like, and then procede as you wish, but do avoid the books of Gertrude Stien. She just runs on and on and on and on as if up was more down than up is up as if a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a Picasso.
So sue me.

[cboy4]

33. LOL. Yea, you needed some paragraphs, but I was

still able to read everything you wrote.

It wasn't like it was in Chinese or anything.

Well said.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. It could be far far worse

Paragraphs are poison! It is punctuation that is a threat to marriage, by God, and it must be held accountable!!!

[Straight Shooter]

29. That was a great summary. Thank you, Bluenorthwest.

:thumbsup:

[blogslut]

38. I'm sorry I generalized

I confess, I get my information on churches and gospel singers from television. I most certainly never meant to imply that all African American churches are anti-gay. However, you must concede that there are some African American churches who do, indeed condemn GLTB.

From my own personal experience, I have known black gays and lesbians and they are the ones who have told me they are not often accepted by their own families, much less by their churches or communities. Then again, that shunning is common for a good number of GLBT persons, regardless of race.

As for the Senator, you are wrong. Obama has changed his mind on equality. You need only to actually read his stances within the pages listed here: http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

I am one of his supporters who wishes to hell he had not booked Donnie McClurkin. I do wish he would make a more formal apology and I have told more than one Obama campaign worker this.

As for the "spoon feeding" comment, I don't consider asking for paragraph breaks to be spoon feeding. I'm an old woman and reading text on a website makes my eyes hurt enough as it is. :)

My question for you is this: If Donnie McClurkin had never been booked, would you feel differently about Barack Obama?

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Sorry for the snark

I've got a bad left paw and get senstive at times about my typing...

I am the odd voter out in all of this. You see, it was the fact of Trinity UCC that made me support Obama early on, McClurkin and Caldwell who pushed me away. I like much of what I hear from Obama. He does not support equality, but rather civil unions and also says that is because of his religion, although his chruch disagrees.

I would just like to clearly state that while Obama seems to want to do the right thing, he is very behind the times. The idea that 20 years into ongoing ministries in the African American community specifically addressing the issue of homophobia, and directly tying that bigotry to the increased HIV infection rates in that community, in short saying 'bigotry is killing our own', Obama can act like he is starting something, or that a man like Donnie can add to the discourse, is to me arrogant in that it slights the progress made and the hard work of so many when it was so difficult. The fact of the matter is that all races have bigoted chruchs. But another fact is that when the AIDS crisis hit, outside of the gay community proper there are only three groups of Americans that stepped up early and well. Medical people, especially Nurses. Showbusiness. African American churches.

Before the Unions or the Congress or the Catholics or the Democrats, there was significant work from not just the black chruches but in specific the world of Gospel music. That Obama allowed Donnie to paint good people as bigots was to me worse than anything Donnie could say about me or mine. When a straight minister, who knows some will walk out on him, stands up and calls for visits to the hospices and inclusion to all people, and does this for decades, to overlook that is an outrage to me. I'm used to being demonized. I'm not used to seen heroic individuals who take up the cause of the other when that means sacrifice being forgotten and replaced by some Republican like Donnnie.

I would not say I feel poorly about Obama at all. I am calling on him to do the right thing, that is my job as a citizen, my duty as a Democrat. I begged his campaign to build a strong wall of words in apology for McClurkin, not just for the sake of gay people, but to help protect the good name of Trinity UCC by sperating religion from his public life. I said renounce this one, who should never have been invited, so that you can stand with me and with Rev Wright, and not be faced with distancing yourself from the right thing to foolishly defend that which is wrong, which you are simply not mature enough to see for what it is. I said McC is not a Democrat. I said do this for Wright and for right. And this week shows us, I was in fact, right.

I intend to try to hear Obama speak live tonight, if I can get in. I'm not rejecting him, he's a Democrat. But I also am not a booster type. My support is for issues and Party, candidates are for perfecting by the fire of the will of the people, in my book.

But the short answer is yes, were it not for Donnie, and what that indicates, I might be fully in his corner and I am still hoping to hear his message move to clearity and inclusion, as it has to some degree. But it is not just McClurkin, it is what that choice says about the understanding of not just my community, but of the chruch as well, and the lack of acknowlegement for some great pioneers.

Few know that the man who taught Ghandi to King and organized the Washington march to a great degree and was Martins good friend was a gay man. I think his name was Bayard Rustin. Well, that was way back then. He could have gotten a mention at Ebenezer, a church he attended. I'm just saying, waling into chruch and saying 'gay' is not new nor radical, nor is walking into chruch and calling people on their faults. Teaching them that they are hating on the man who taught Martin passive resistance however, could be usuful.

Thus far I say this "Democratic Nominee for President! Applications now being heard."

[blogslut]

46. Well, I'm glad you're keeping your mind open

Thank you for educating me on your history and the history of AIDs and the black church, as well as the info in Reverend King's friend/adviser. I was not aware that African American churches stood up for this cause so early on.

My own personal history on AIDs comes from the years I lived and worked in Oak Lawn/Dallas, as well my long friendships with gay and lesbians who were health care workers. The church stuff is pretty foreign to me because I am agnostic. Sadly, I must admit I am not as connected as I was 20 years ago. I live in a small town now in the heart of the Panhandle of Texas.

Nevertheless, one of my life-long friends runs an AID support organization called P.A.S.O. > http://www.panhandleaso.org/

I think I'll give him a call today.

I appreciate that we can discuss this without hostility. Thank you. :)

[cboy4]

19. Well if it was the case Obama felt the need to

"reach out to such a vitally important voter block," then he rolled the political dice, right?

He decided the African Americans he was reaching out to were, at least at that moment, more important than any Gay Americans who would be offended.

I would argue he could have excluded McClurkin -- that there could have been a replacement -- a back-up plan, which would have allowed him to reach out to that "constituency" without offending gay people.

What was going to happen blogslut if he pulled McClurkin?

Were all of those African Americans going to go running to Hillary over the cancellation? He was going to lose that many votes?

So maybe in the end, he comes out even. He gains black votes, he loses gay votes...it's a wash.

But don't blame me or others for being upset and critical of Obama for making that choice.

He rolled the dice. And that rarely comes without consequences.

[blogslut]

22. He did make a concession

He invited a pro-gay gospel group to join the bill.

Look, I've had long conversations with people from all walks of life. It happens when you spend 14 years as a waitress and another 7 as a cosmetologist. I've learned a little something about people.

All people will have a viewpoint on which you completely disagree. Does that mean you're supposed to shun them? I vehemently disagree with the Catholic church's stance on abortion but having been involved in the peace movement, I found no greater allies than those in the Catholic church. I've known farmers who are as redneck as any but when it comes to environmental issues, they are heroes. I've know leaders in the peace movement who love peace but hate children and aren't that fond of females. Hell, I've known gays and lesbians who will have nothing to do with me because I am a heterosexual woman.

What I have learned is that the only cure for our prejudices is familiarity with each other. Separating ourselves from each other cures nothing.

I believe this is what Barack Obama is trying to accomplish. Inclusion. Opening the door to everyone so that we can finally face each other as human beings.

[hulklogan]

24. Which pro-gay gospel group did he invite to join the concert?

As far as I know, he invited a non-bigoted WHITE preacher to speak before the event officially started.

I would call Obama's response to the McClurkin complaints "throwing crumbs" to GLBT Americans, but it was really more like throwing dust.

[blogslut]

25. If I could get the damned link to load, I could better inform you

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. Obama has said, the super delegates should vote for the will of the voters.....

except when it comes to him

Well Clinton won both NM and Mass.

talking out both sides of your mouth much O man?

[cali]

12. Obama's talking about the end of the process

his point is that SDs should not overturn the pledged delegate count at the end of the day. But then you know that.

[stahbrett]

23. Obama has won twice the states

Guess who would have more superdelegates if all superdelegates went the way of their state?

[sellitman]

6. So you would stay home?

Which is the same thing as voting for McCain.

There are always choices. Some aren't ideal.

They are stark in this case.

[hulklogan]

13. I might stay home

When it comes down to it, is there really any difference between McCain/anybody and Obama/Richardson?

Neither ticket will place any priority on GLBT equality, or give more than a token effort towards passing any legislation that will benefit GLBT people.

Staying home isn't the same thing as voting for McCain. In fact, it is the same thing as NOT voting for McCain.

[debatepro]

32. Silo'd thinking is a big problem

First of all you completely mischaracterize Obama's position.

For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for president, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.






Second how can you expect others to have solidarity with your "cause" if you will so quickly abandon candidates that clearly support theirs.

[sellitman]

37. Only if you are a one issue voter.

And not even.

Think of the supreme court if you can't get past your one issue. That will effect you too.

[cboy4]

14. I have consistently said that I will be voting for the nominee

as far as I know.

But I'm tired of hearing people say, "well, yea we may suck for you guys, but we're better than the republicans."

Even though I plan on supporting the nominee (as far as I know), I really feel candidates and parties have to start earning my vote, rather than expect it.

Because let's be honest...Democrats haven't done shit to help gay people.

Nothing.

Lots of talk .. but a lot of that talk is fear that gay people and gay issues will cost Democrats elections.

[sellitman]

36. I agree.

We need to keep the pressure up.

[msallied]

39. That's ridiculous. You need to take up GLBT issues FIRST with your

local representatives. These issues are grassroots all the way. Second, I don't think you need to worry about Obama passing any sort of anti-gay legislation, which would be political suicide in this current climate. Bill Clinton only got away with DOMA because most of the nation was at the time still living with their heads up their asses on the issue.

[hulklogan]

7. If this is the ticket the Democratic Party chooses

It's going to take a helluva big clothespin on my nose to get me to vote for Obama/Richardson.

How much longer are we going to be asked to pretend that the Democratic Party truly supports equality for GLBT Americans?

[Johnny__Motown]

9. Obama/Richardson was my Dream ticket since Dec. of '06. But I don't think it will happen

The "western strategy" doesn't make as much sense against McCain.

[debatepro]

15. This vector of attack is dangerous.

I have a friend who is about as far to the left as you can be. A firm believer in equitable treatment and rights of GLBT persons in our society. He would argue for equity until the end of the earth... and you know what he didn't know how important it was to the GLBT community that they be recognized as being born GLBT. In fact he rational for answering the question was that if you were born gay then people on the right would try to develop some sort of "gene" theropy to "cure the disease". So the rational he used to answer the question was to pick the answer that he thought was best for the cause. Now of course he understands the importance of the belief that GLBT persons are born that way.

That doesn't make him a monster. That doesn't make him not a supporter of social justice for GLBT individuals. In fact, chastising people who don't know will only do more harm than good. Here you have an emphatic supporter of equal justice unaware of how important it is... My friend supports full blown marriage rights for GLBT individuals...

Instead of chastising people for not knowing lets help make it known to more people. Especially, allies on the left. I didn't know until my wife mentioned it to me some 5 years ago and yet I have been an ardent supporter for over a decade. Now that I know and was not chastised for not knowing... i can let other people know.


The only thing bill richardson is guilty of is not being aware of an important justification and belief used and held by GLBT advocates.

[cboy4]

17. Depatepro, how could anyone honestly believe that

a gay person gets up one day and says to himself or herself:

"You know, I think I'm going to be gay. I think it would be interesting, if not cool, to enter a life of discrimination and ridicule - to be shunned by family and friends..."

And beyond that, how does one rewire their brain to suddenly switch from being attracted from the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex?

Are you telling me that the people who don't know whether homosexuality is a choice seriously struggle with those questions?

Do they think we're acting out?

Maybe you can help me with this.

Because I believe those who think homosexuality is choice are unqualified for certain jobs that require critical thinking skills.

I have co-workers who are strongly opposed to equal marriage, but yet at least acknowledge that nobody chooses their sexuality.

Please help me with those questions I asked debatepro. Because I don't see how you can defend otherwise intelligent people who are confused about this issue.

[debatepro]

43. I was in a meeting.

Look you really miss the point I will be happy to address each of your points. What I am saying is that there are many Americans who support equity for GLBT persons and yet don't understand how the choice versus birth discussion negatively impacts. And the fact that your approach is to chastise me or my friend for not knowing is part of the problem. I mean while it should be our goal to convince people that GLBT persons are born this way we ought not condemn people who don't know or agree with the justification yet with EVERY FIBER of their being support equity for GLBT persons.

a gay person gets up one day and says to him or herself: "You know, I think I'm going to be gay. I think it would be interesting, if not cool, to enter a life of discrimination and ridicule - to be shunned by family and friends..."

If you prefer something you may choose it despite the "disadvantages". I do it all the time and it is a choice. That doesn't make being gay a choice but I choose to do stuff all the time that I enjoy that has negative consequences. And this may be what people are thinking if they are ever asked the question. But what do I know... my wife for example believes 100% percent that people are born with their sexual preference... yet bisexualism is a choice or confusion.

And beyond that, how does one rewire their brain to suddenly switch from being attracted from the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex?

Explain what chemicals, neurotransmitters, genetics, etc that are different in a GLBT brain than a "straight persons brain". If someone doesn't have this intricate understanding it doesn't make them unintelligent or lack critical thinking skills. I mean I could ask progressives what happens if we stop burning coal in the United States does the temperature rise or cool. Most intelligent people probably even some climatologist say we will begin to cool. They may even say that co2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years so the temperature will cool really slow... a few people will say the planet will actually get warmer because So2 (a coolant) begins to drop out of the atmosphere at a much quicker pace... so initially we will warm. If you don't know that it doesn't make you dumb or lack critical thinking skills... it just means you don't know all the intricacies of the climate debate... and yet there are people who would probably disagree with me based on the evidence (what chemicals, neurotransmitters, genetics, etc that are different in a GLBT brain than a "straight persons brain") but we can’t have that discussion if all you say is people are born with a sexual preference and everyone who doesn’t agree with me is the enemy, dumb, and lacks critical thinking skills.

Are you telling me that the people who don't know whether homosexuality is a choice seriously struggle with those questions?

I struggle with it now. I actually think some people are attracted to the same sex by choice. And until you create a test (based on whatever evidence you believe exist to prove your argument) and test every person who claims to be a homosexual you actually can’t prove that it isn’t a choice. Now don’t get all wound up about this … I am not saying we need to test everyone I am saying you can’t prove that it is not a choice for someone unless you test them. So I have concluded even if I think that some people may choose to be homosexual… I will side with those who believe preference is determined before or at birth because if it is then GLBT(s) have to be granted equal rights under the 14th amendment of the constitution.

Do they think we're acting out?

No. When did you stop beating your wife or husband?

Maybe you can help me with this. Because I believe those who think homosexuality is choice are unqualified for certain jobs that require critical thinking skills.

Come on really. This is were you want to go. This just proves my point that you are condeming people who support your end with their own justifications (desire for equity and social justice) yet don't use your justification. And seriously, who is missing the critical thinking skills.


I have co-workers who are strongly opposed to equal marriage, but yet at least acknowledge that nobody chooses their sexuality.

Um and for everyone one of those there are 10,000 who think it is a choice or atleast some people chose.

Please help me with those questions I asked debatepro. Because I don't see how you can defend otherwise intelligent people who are confused about this.

You have no defense of you attitude towards me. Zero... My position is clear we ought not to chastise supporters of gay rights because they know or believe that people are born gay. Instead we should attempt to educate them why people are born gay and if we can not convince them we can still be happy at the end of the day that they will march side by side with you if you don’t chastise them on the question of how one becomes homosexual. You see being homosexuality being labeled as a choice as a negative other’s who support gay rights don’t.

Growing Number See Homosexuality as Innate, Unchangeable Trait
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283
According to this study, 27% of people who identify themselves as liberal think that it is a choice. So there is a large group of liberals out there (some of which intelligent people with critical thinking skills contrary to your narrow criteria) who support gay rights yet think it is a choice.

Our challenge is to encourage them to become active in the movement to create equitable rights for homosexuals and you are not going to accomplish this by taking condemning them because they don't believe or know something you believe is 100% true. That is not how we achieve our goals.

[cboy4]

47. Oh Debatepro, how can such an elementary question

require so much writing on your part?

And really, what you've written is pretty snide .. because I know you're insulted I find it unthinkable that anyone with any common sense can be confused about this.

Instead of admitting that a majority of people don't just wake up and decide they're going to turn gay, you write about minutia and the disadvantages/negative consequences that I guarantee can not compare in a million years with the problems of being gay.

What exactly do you choose all the time that puts you in risk of getting your head cracked open with a baseball bat? What disadvantage do you accept that means you cannot fulfill your dream of being a fighter pilot, since gay people aren't allowed in the military?

Secondly, you don't have to be a scientist to know you can't just turn a switch in your body and all of a sudden start being attracted to the same sex. I've asked my brother this question, and he says there is no way he could ever be sexually attracted to guys.

Right. He's straight. He was born that way.

It's so simple debatepro.

There is no such thing as "how one becomes homosexual."

Well wait, actually there is. It's called being born that way.

And as crazy frustrated as what you said makes me, I do appreciate the response.

[cboy4]

27. Debatepro, I hope you're at work or school and are not

ignoring my question about how it is someone can honestly be confused about whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

I'm trying to learn, so hopefully you get back to me about this.

[stahbrett]

26. It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not

For the sake of argument, let's assume that being gay IS a choice for everybody. So what? Does that mean gay people should be discriminated against? It used to be that if you *chose* to marry someone outside of your race it was illegal in most states (see Loving v. Virginia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia ).

So if Bill Richardson was not fully "caught up" on various studies that have been done on homosexuality, and was not sure if it was a choice or not, it NOT a big deal AT ALL to me. What IS a big deal is what he has or would do in terms of having the government treat everyone equally.

[cboy4]

31. Stahbrett, why does anyone need to be "caught up"

on anything?

Isn't it just plain common sense that nobody in the right mind would choose a life of discrimination and hate?

Isn't it just plain common sense that nobody can just rewire their brain from being attracted to the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex?

I don't know what these various studies you mention have to do with anything.

All Bill Richardson has to do is ask himself: "Can I start being truly attracted to men, the same way I am to women?"

And he'd have his answer.

The reason this issue is important is folks -- particularly politicians -- who aren't convinced gay people are born that way, may not be apt to fight for same sex civil rights as fiercely as someone who is rightly convinced homosexuality is a choice.

Maybe Richardson can/will. But he makes me nervous.

[stahbrett]

34. It's common sense to me

But I've actually given it a lot of thought - but I'm also younger than Bill Richardson. I sort of give older generations a pass of sorts on some things. It's OK to me if they personally think homosexual sex is "icky", as long as they also agree with the idea that adults should have a legal right to be "icky". It's similar to race - it's perfectly OK with me for folks to think that a black man and white woman getting married is "icky", but if they support the right of them to get married, then that's good enough for me.

[msallied]

40. Amen!

[Lucinda]

28. Wouldn't happen

Richardson is really bad at debate.

[roseBudd]

35. Relax, POTUS is one of 3 coequal branches of gov't the Ds if they win POTUS

will have a majority of all 3.

Elderly homophobes are dieing and the new younger voters drawn to Obama have attitudeds regarding homosexuality that are more liberal than even the preceding generations (X or Y)

I live near a midwestern college. Our primary was March 4, many Obama signs in yards and Change You Can Believe In posters in windows.

I have only seen 1 sign for Hillary & that was on a public right of way.

[msallied]

41. I highly doubt Obama will select Richardson

As appealing as that would be to minority voters, it would alienate WAY too many whites, particularly the ones who can just as easily check the "R" box as the "D" one.

Richardson's endorsement is good enough.