Gay Rights Gaffe Behind Him, Richardson Accepts Commerce Secretary Nom

As far as acknowledging human rights, then it should not matter if being straight is a choice or not. Religion is a choice. Does that make it acceptable to discriminate against Catholics? After all, they could always choose to become Baptists. But for the sake of having an honest discussion about sexual orientation -- come on. What straight person ever sat down to make a pro and con list before "deciding" to feel attracted to someone of the opposite sex? Nobody makes lists. Every last one of us, gay and straight, we are called by our natural instincts.

One of my best male gay friends, after many years of identifying as gay, got together with a woman and they have a child and, in their words, "live a heterosexual lifestyle." I don't really know about my friend's "true nature," and I don't care. I feel he has the right to choose his sex partners, male or female. I can say pretty much the same thing about one of my best lesbian friends. As for me, I had an awreness of being gay at a very early age, and I "feel" or "sense" that I was born that way. But I agree with Maynard that it is wrong for the gay political movement to INSIST on this "it's not a choice" line in order to win points with the homophobic public.

Kyle, I am also a sociologist, (My dissertation was: Beyond Essentialism and Constructionism--The Making of Gay Identity). I'm very familiar with the "literature" both and I don't know any serious sociologist or biologist who supports biological determinism. Biology is A factor, not THE factor, influencing human sexuality, sexual identity, sexual "orientation" (whatever that is) or sexual preference. The sociological literature is dominated by the "Social Constructionist" critique of the biologically arguments for "sexual orientation," so I don't know what "sociological literature" you are reading.

GADS...how many of us have to say the same thing "I always knew, but buried it because of social pressures, or just did not know what was going on inside of me"... I was always attracted to men, could not figure out what the big attraction to women was about, because DUH, I was gay from day one. Has nothing to do with carrying your books funny in High School, it is all about what is going on inside of your head and sorting till you get to your real feelings. At 62, I think I can safely say "it took me a while to find me, but it was always in there". Bob

Jim, Sociologist here...please review the literature before you speak again. Also, because sociologists are interested in group processes, they are not interested in biological mechanisms. So, no socioligical evidence could ever fully support a biological concept. There is overwhelming evidence in science that being gay is biological for most gay men and many lesbians. No person who had reviewed current literature in any field could possibly come to the conclusions you have. In fact, sociologists who disagree with the biological nature of sexual orientation are not able to get published in any respected sociological publication...

okay jim, you say you have "chosen" to be gay. i know in my heart i was probably born gay, can't ever think of a time in my life when i wasn't. i have "chosen" to live an honest life, no apologies. why are you angry with the gay community? don't we all have a right to our opinions? you know the reason most of us have a problem with the whole "homosexuality is something we choose" debate, it gives our enemies fodder to deny us our full civil rights. calm down, big boy.

Richardson did not make a "gaffe", he was right. Gay (LGBT) civil rights should have nothing to do with a questionable biological argument about sexual orientation. The sociological evidence contradicts the claim of a biologically determined "sexual orientation." There is no scientific proof of a "gay gene." We have a right to CHOOSE to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. Biology has NOTHING to do with our constitutional right to choose our sexual identities/preferences. I CHOOSE to be gay! The mainstream "gay movement" has no right to speak for the whole gay community when they claim that our rights are based on unsubstantiated claims about a biologically determined "sexual orientation." Richardson made NO "GAFFE" and I'm ashamed of the way the gay community treated him when he stated an honest opinion, which I happen to agree with!

Enough of this "gaffe" nonsense! Richardson made no Gaffe! He stated the TRUTH, no one know if people are "born" gay (or straight!) There is NO "gay gene" and at least some people (bisexuals) CAN choose their "sexual preference"... The mainstream "gay movement" needs to drop the stupid argument that "we are born gay" or that sexual orientation is TOTALLY biological. Not only is this an unsubstantiated claim, there is NO scientific proof of it, bu† it is a horrible POLITICAL argument. We should have a RIGHT to CHOOSE our sexual identity (gay, straight, bisexual, etc.) just like any other aspect of our social identity, not because we are "born that way" but because it is our constitutional right. Biology has NOTHING to do with it! Enough of this CONSERVATIVE political correctness about "choosing to be gay" being off limits. I choose to be gay! Richardson said nothing to earn the attacks he got from the gay community!

Enough of these politicians who want my money and my support, only to drop me like a hot potato once they get into office or they get a letter-writing campaign from their local spiritual pygmies. From now on, if they want my vote and support, they'd better get on their knees and open their mouths because if I'm not getting a major blow-job, the screen door can hit their fannies on the way out!

Maybe we'll get real lucky and Obama will appoint an actual gay person to a Cabinet post. Something important, like Secretary of Transportation.