Personally, as I have stated many times on this blog and my own blog, I couldn't care less whether sexuality is "biological" or "chosen." Even if sexuality was chosen, I would still fight adamantly for the rights of LGBTQ people.

That being said, if I was pressed to state my opinion on the matter, I would say that for most people, sexuality is not a choice. And I know that my views on how important the biological vs. social debate over sexuality is are not the popular American view. Any presidential candidate who is portraying himself a as a friend of the LGBTQ community is going to fail big time with that kind of answer. And I can add this to my long list of reasons why I don't like Bill Richardson.

Also, how uncomfortable did he look to even be there? I almost felt bad for him. Then I remembered that he wants to be president of the US and that if he can't take some questions on sexual orientation, he really isn't the person for the job.

So you know, if it is a choice, then you know, you can just change, and so you don't really need equal rights.

Isn't religion a choice too? Somebody point this out to (his friends, I'm sure) the conscience-clause pharmacists, and tell them that if emergency contraception is against their religious beliefs, they should just switch religions, and see how well that goes over.

Isn't religion a choice too?

Exactly what I was going to say. So what if something is a choice. How exactly does that make it ok to discriminate?

I just felt extremely uncomfortable watching this an I think Richardson was uncomfortable as well.

I love how Melissa asked him if he thought it was a choice and he said yes... THEN she said "No, I don't think you understand the question..." because it's just so insane that people would still consider it a choice.

Being a Fundamentalist is a choice, too. Does that give me the right to discriminate against you?

"Isn't religion a choice too? Somebody point this out to (his friends, I'm sure) the conscience-clause pharmacists, and tell them that if emergency contraception is against their religious beliefs, they should just switch religions, and see how well that goes over."

LOL! Oh, that is fantastic

Oh, it's a choice! Of course, it all makes sense now. :eye roll:

Just to be fair... his campaign did release a statement the very next day saying that he misspoke.

I mean, obviously he's not well-versed on these issues and (in my humble opinion) not qualified to be President, but I'm pretty sure he just didn't understand the question. Still bad, yes, but I don't think he actually believes what he accidentally said.

Crooks and Liars has an interesting take on this. Richardson backtracked, but, as C&L says, how do you even SHOW UP to this event without knowing how to handle this question?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/11/richardson-flubs-at-hrclogo-debate/

Yes, let me clarify, I don't think it matters if it is a choice or not, that shouldn't affect whether you have equal protection under the law.

On the other hand, in mainstream political dialog and especially for the mainstream LGBTQ movement, having the legal system understand being gay as biological is a win in some sense, because the hope is that it will compare to the discrimination against people of color as unjust and biologically discriminatory. With that hope we can begin to win some rights back.

Whether that is the best agenda or not is another question, but the way I see it, anyway to secure rights for queer folks is a step in the right direction.

What I simply cannot understand is why these people think that homosexuals make a "lifestyle choice" which often results in the loss of civil rights, being ostracized from family members, friends, and those members of society who simply cannot accept it, and, sadly, hate crimes.

I am not gay, so I cannot presume to speak for those that are, but if I was, if it was a simple choice that I was making, why wouldn't I choose to love someone that people won't judge me for holding hands with on the street, and that I could marry legally in all 50 states, and that I wouldn't have to jump through hoops to have children with if I so chose? Not that I think that being gay is the choice no one would ever make if they had the chance. But if it was always a black-and-white choice between ostracism and acceptance, wouldn't everyone want to choose acceptance?

Devan, I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I'm really curious as to how he could have NOT understood the question. I mean, it was pretty straight forward. If you don't understand the question, you clearly do not know THE FIRST DAMN THING about LGBTQ issues. Or LGBTQ people. In fact, you probably haven't thought about or talked about these issues AT ALL. In which case, he really shouldn't have even bothered to show up.

I agree with the idea that it doesn't matter if being gay is biologically determined or not.

While I am interested in seeing all the different ways that biology interacts with sexuality and orientation... that's the scientist in me; politically it shouldn't matter.

Besides, I know there are queer ppl out there that if asked if they would 'change it if they could', would say 'hell no'. That's the answer I'd give, not 'don't hate me, I can't help it' (which is what the bio argument sounds like to me sometimes).

For those of you interested, here is the link to his interview with The Advocate the day after the debate:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47982.asp

My 72 year old, straight father used to like Richardson...after this, he's now in my Edwards camp.

There's a whole gathering of people (myself included) who believe that you CAN make the choice to be queer.
I love the freedom to choose to be attracted to someone regardless of what label society attaches to them based on their gentials.
Http://www.queerbychoice.com

If you don't understand the question, you clearly do not know THE FIRST DAMN THING about LGBTQ issues. Or LGBTQ people.

I see this as a shibboleth, and as a bit of a generational thing. Margaret Carlson noted that folks who oppose gay rights describe sexual orientation as a choice, but that's a pretty recent thing --- until not long ago, opposition to gay rights was often grounded in the idea that homosexuality was a disorder.

Some people clearly feel they're born gay, others don't. Some find themselves near the middle of the spectrum, and make life choices that place them within the gay community. The reality is maybe a little more complex than Etheridge's either/or question suggests, and Richardson's flub indicates a lack of familiarity with contemporary gay-rights discourse more than anything else.

I'm with you all that it biology or choice should not matter in civil rights, but I'd go even further.
I sometimes worry that the emphasis on "we were born that way" serves to further marginalize the gay community. It comes off like an implicit apology--"we can't help ourselves"--and I think it only increases the likelihood that some people will treat homosexuality like a handicap that should be genetically isolated and removed.

The biology argument does not challenge people to accept something they aren't used to. It allows them to continue to see homosexuality as an abnormal and undesirable trait.

I would love to see the gay rights movement move away from its obsession with acceptance based on biology.

And Bill Richardson--he seriously disappointed me when he proved how little thought he's spent LGBTQ issues. He was one of my favorites, not anymore.

Richardson has actually been really good on GBLT issues. I ma willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant that it doesn't matter whether its a choice or not.

While choice is the wrong word as that implies agency, we still don't really know what shapes our sexuality. There may be a gay gene, but there may not be. Personally I think sexuality is shaped by a combination of biology, upbringing, and how one thinks about themselves. I would not go so far as to say that by force of will one can change their sexual orientation, but equally I would not remove 'will' or 'choice' entirely from the equation.

Regardless full rights for all people should be nothing but a given.

Personally, it has to do with hormone levels while in utero. That fits the fact that even fraternal twins have a higher correlation in sexual orientation than ordinary siblings.

Anyway, the main point is that Gov. Richardson picked up his shot gun, and promptly shot himself in the foot.

Pretty much the only people supporting the "gay is a lifestyle choice" argument are religious fundementalists who use that as an opportunity to gay bash (and thereby provide a motivation for "change.")

Without the nature/nuture argument, the question about whether or not it is acceptable to be gay or bi becomes largely moot. If SO is taken as fixed, discrimination is only mean spirited, not a motivator for "change."

Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance, with this thread's comments and the later thread about EvPsy and "feminine men".

In one case, the assertion of a biological basis for a particular behavior is called reckless, agenda-driven, bigoted, suspicious, pseudo-science, and laughable.

In the other case, the assertion of a non-biological basis for a particular behavior is called reckless, agenda-driven, bigoted, suspicious, pseudo-science, and laughable.

And every intelligent, aware, and informed person is supposed to know which behavior is which. Because, you know, it's obvious and it's just something that all we right-thinking people know.

Doesn't this bother anyone else but me? Isn't it possible to be socially progressive on the topics of feminism and gay rights while allowing that some gender differences in behavior might be innate and some differences in sexual orientation a matter of nurture or even choice?

Frankly, even I have cognitive dissonance on these issues. Because I'm a nearly lifelong feminist and feel very strongly about it, I'm not at all happy about diverging from the party line about gender behavioral differences being cultural; and so while my intellectual integrity forces me to accept that there must be some innate differences, I'm always leaning toward nurture and not nature. Yet, when I consider the arguments for nature in sexual orientation, I see developmental pathways being discussed that are more important in sexual differentiation. If gay and straight brains are subtly different and this involves orientation, male and female brains are even more different. Basically, if you're willing to accept a biological basis for sexual orientation, it's completely contradictory to then refuse to allow a biological basis for differences in behavior between the sexes.

What frustrates me about both these dogmatic stances is that they are reactionary. That is, not in the conservative definition, but the most literal. Both stances are a reaction to our enemies. Because anti-gay bigots like to talk about gay sex as a deviant choice, then we respond with a hardened naturist position in an attempt to defuse their rhtetoric. And because misogynists and sexists appeal to biology to justify their bigotry, we respond with a hardened nurturist position in an attempt to defuse their rhetoric. We're reacting, we're on the defensive.

And that's a strategic mistake because in both cases, it really doesn't matter that much whether it's nature or nuture. Social justice is not predicated upon making that distinction—as is obivious considering that, right now, we socially progressive leftists are comfortable with one position on gender and the opposite on homosexuality. We can work toward a just society regardless of whether any given behavior is innate or learned. It's just not that important that we need to be dogmatic about it.

Is it so impossible that one's sexual preference/orientation could be some combination of choice and biology? I don't agree with homosexuality being 100% biological. But I also don't think that it's always a choice that can be reversed. I think there are many variables at work here, and choice is definitely one of them.

But regardless of whether it is chosen or something that one is born with, the fact is that there is no reason to deny someone rights based on sexuality.

I agree with those who hold that it matters not whether human sexuality is guided by biology or choice or whatever--it doesn't change the fact that it's a civil rights issue.

I teach high school students who are far more comfortable with the labels "queer" or "bisexual" or "pansexual" and who reject the entire conversation about choice vs biology. They have no patience for splitting hairs over this issue. I've learned much from them, and I do think it's a generational thing.

I just loved reading this thread, with it's thoughtful and honest responses.

Wow, this may sound stupid, but I never even thought of the fact that it wouldn't matter even if it were a choice. I agree though, it still shouldn't matter. In any case, as far as the "it's a choice people", how many of them chose to be straight? I mean, I can't choose who I love...if I could, I'd be in a totally different situation and I'm sure there are other people who feel the same way...

Keith Ellis, you hit a nerve with me that I didn't even know I had. I had never really thought about these two ideas (biological determinism for sexual orientation and social construct determinism for gender) as correlating at all. And you are right, we defend against enemies, because we know what they mean to do with this information.

My boyfriend, exasperated, once said to me, "You know, men and women are different," and nearly broke up with him that instant. When I hear people say that men and women are different, what I hear them saying is "Men are better than women." I think this is because women are described as being different in a pejorative way. Anything associated with femaleness is considered weaker and not as good as maleness. I suppose I do think men and women are different, but these differences are irrelevant for me. I think men and women differ in mostly physiological ways, and that these things don’t really impact in any significant way (across the entire population of people) their personalities and the way they function as human beings. The way I understand the differences between my boyfriend and myself come down to two things: his personality and his penis. Discounting for genitalia, he differs from me in the same way that everyone else on earth does, including other women. And a lot of that is socially constructed. I’m sure not all of it is, but I don’t believe men are hardwired to be manly or women to be sugar and spice and everything nice.

The possibility that my brain may be shaped differently, or neurons fire differently doesn’t seem to be the point of these studies. Or if the scientists that conduct them are truly impartial, the information gleaned from them is still used to reinforce stereotypes that divide men and women and pit them against each other. And so, yes, I react defensively when I know media and society will use a study to say, “See? Women are more nurturing and much better at cooking and cleaning. Their brain functions are organized in a way to make homemaking more efficient for them!� Because, fuck that. So, I’m all for studying the physiological differences between men and women, when the goal is to come up with heart medication that works for women instead of using men as a medical model, but not for finding out why my brain makes me feminine. Besides, how can we really tell that the differences in brain function and whatnot didn’t come after social conditioning? The way I learned as a child set up specific neural pathways, correct? So why not with social learning?

Lastly, because I know I went way off topic here, I think that sexual orientation vs gender might be a little apple and orange-y. Again, I think that there is a combination of nature and nurture here, but sexual orientation seems to be more tied to physiological differences between people. Or at least it does in my completely non-expert opinion. I don’t remember choosing to be hetero anyway. But I do remember choosing to reject most things culturally associated with being female, because the limitations pissed me the fuck off, even when I was only seven.

I think Etheridge's question was unclear, and pushed Richardson into a false distinction (though I accept he then didn't handle it all that well). Are the only two possibilities either that people 'choose' to be gay or that they were born that way? Couldn't he be asked instead what he thinks about homosexuality / what key issues for LGB people are?

Yeah. I don't know why he showed up.

Why is the debate framed as "born that way" vs "choosing to be gay"? If it's a response to childhood influences, how could people have chosen the environment they were raised in?
It's more of a nature/nurture issue.

Unfortunately, the legal claims (different from the social status) of the LGBTQ community actually do have something to do with whether sexuality is a choice or not. Our legal and social concept of discrimination is exactly focused on traits that are inherent or about which we cannot do anything, like race, gender, age, etc. There is also some credible reason for this, other than just oppressing people. If it were illegal to discriminate against people for choices they make, you would have to accomodate people no matter how outrageously they behaved. "It is my chosen lifestyle travel everywhere on horseback, and thus I need to keep my horse at work." (Please don't think I am suggesting that this is analogous to homosexuality or any other sexual preference, I am just trying to show the legal argument about the difference between choice and inherent trait). It is a choice to ride a horse everywhere, and an employer, or municipal government, can't be expected to welcome every demand of every individual. Not all personal choices can be protected, but given the history of the civil rights movement, we have at least learned to protect people from being discriminated against for traits they cannot change. Thus, LGBTQ civil rights are on stronger ground if sexual preference is innate.

Religion, as was mentioned above, is the obvious exception to the legal framework. But I imagine that a lot of religious folks feel that their religion is no more of a choice than most gays or lesbians do. It's a shame most of them can't empathize with homosexuality on that level.

The truth is that sometimes the best explanation for a double standard is historical. Our country and legal system was created in the time of concern for free religious choice, not free sexual choice. Trying to rationalize the inconsistencies now is just silly. The fact is that freedom of religion got in the door because it was the mark of the times. But I'm optimistic about gay rights. They're the mark of current times, and they'll work their way in. I'm personally inclined to believe that sexual preference is biological, although maybe not for everyone. And I agree with those that don't want it to matter, although for the time being I think it actually still does make a legal difference. Maybe the quick and easy way to equality is to make homosexuality become a religion.

I think the description at the top of the post is really unfair to Richardson. Yes, he was awkward and confused. It didn't look great. But between what he said and his follow-up statements, it's clear that he does NOT subscribe to the train of thought Samhita described about thinking people can change and don't need rights. From the Blade followup article (http://www.nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=13750)

“Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice,� Richardson said in the statement. “But I’m not a scientist and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.�

Human Rights Campaign, which jointly presented the forum with Logo, did not address Richardson’s comment in a press release issued after the event’s conclusion.

HRC President Joe Solmonese, one of the forum’s panelists, told the Blade that he spoke to Richardson “for a long time� this morning. Solmonese said he now believes that Richardson understands homosexuality is innate.

“I wish his delivery would have been as good as his record,� Solmonese said.

A couple people have also pointed out that Richardson has a very good track record on LGBT rights. This is true. Here's an editorial in the NY Blade from January comparing his record to Hillary Clinton's that makes that clear, I think:

http://www.nyblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=4801

*Applause* for kissmypineapple.

Keith, it's not a reaction to the argument that men/women/gays/heteros were or were not born certain "ways."
It's a reaction to the fact that conservatives and anti-feminists often defend discrimination by claiming "well men and women are different!" - which is why they should have different rights, responsibilities, etc.

For instance, a lot of people will say they don't think men should be primary caregivers for their children because "women are naturally more nurturing than men." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's an attempt to mandate gender roles in all spheres of society based on the findings of evo psych. It's not that feminists think evo psych is inherently bad or worthless; it's that evo psych proponents tend to be the types who wish to perpetuate damaging stereotypes.

And "they're born that way" is not really the greatest come-back to anti-gay bigots. Because it suggests there's something wrong with being gay - something that has to be defended. It doesn't really matter why gay people are gay. Just like it doesn't matter if women are found to be "better caregivers;" men and women should be able to make choices about their own lives.
Nobody should be boxed in by the findings of some evo psych study.

SarahMC, perhaps you didn't actually read my comment?

I wrote: “And because misogynists and sexists appeal to biology to justify their bigotry, we respond with a hardened nurturist position in an attempt to defuse their rhetoric. We're reacting, we're on the defensive.�

I have the impression you've done this before. If you can't be bothered to pay attention to the comments to which you reply, perhaps it's best not to reply.

"It's a reaction to the fact that conservatives and anti-feminists often defend discrimination by claiming "well men and women are different!" - which is why they should have different rights, responsibilities, etc."

So because some people are total morons, this means we shouldn't accept scientific findings? We should simply deny the fact that some of the adaptive problems that men and women faced were different over the course of evolutionary history, and thus required the evolution of different adaptive solutions?

It's pretty easy diffuse the argument that "what is natural" is "morally right" or how things "ought" to be. Just point to a variety of behaviors in the primate world: Killing of rival's offspring to enhance one's own genetic fitness, systematic killing of all the members rival troops, forced copulations of females by males, etc. It readily becomes apparent that natural does not equal right.

What evolutionary psychologists do focus on is factors that create variation WITHIN sex - for example, what environmental factors evoke greater aggression/caregiving etc in men and women. Again, another way to diffuse the bigoted folks who try to base their prejudices in biology. With or without biology, they will find ways to justify their prejudices.

Or we can all just become conservatives and deny that global warming is happening, that evolution occurred, and that AIDS was sent by god to punish gays. Because it's more convenient to believe those things for our preferred pre-existing ideology

Are you always so rude, Keith?
In fact I did read what you wrote, which was an accusation that we are a bunch of hypocrites who can't make up our minds re: evo psych. I thought I'd explained myself but apparently not. Here's a cookie for acknowledging sexism, though.

And you, UCLAbodyimage. Did I say anything about ignoring/dismissing science? Give me a break. It's NOT easy to diffuse the argument that "what is natural" is "morally right" or how things "ought" to be. What is thought to be "natural" is not even really "natural" half the time. It's societal. Mistaken for "natural" by idiots who cling desperately to any science that seems to back up their bigotry (while shunning all other scientific inquiry). I suppose my beef is not with evo psych but the way in which it's findings are presented and interpreted.

(I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with evo psych anyway. Neither side is using evo psych to defend it's position on homosexuality. It's a question of whether certain traits are inborn.)

"And you, UCLAbodyimage."

who, me? :-).

"Give me a break."

Okay!

"Did I say anything about ignoring/dismissing science?"

No. What you did say is that because some people use ev-psych findings to justify their sexism. Some people on the board find that sufficient reason to dismiss ev psych regardless of how much they know about the actual evidence. Your comment was just a nice springboard to address people with that attitude.

"it's that evo psych proponents tend to be the types who wish to perpetuate damaging stereotypes."

I am? We are?

Bill Richardson bored the shit outta me. If it weren't for that mess of a statement about gay choice-ness, then I probably would have been watching another channel until Hilary came on.