Ken Buck calls homosexuality 'a choice'

Well...he's wrong and right. Being gay itself-the actual who you're attracted to-is not a choice. But he's right in that you can choose whether or not to have a same sex partner and be true to what you feel or not. I think a lot of these people who espouse this "it's a choice" nonsense aren't really even homophobic at the root of it all; they're just looking at it from an antiquated standpoint. Like back in the day before anyone even knew what orientation, hetero and homosexuality were, even if you were what we would call gay today there was still pressure on you to marry and procreate which I'm sure many did.

Thus, I think that's where the whole "Well, you can choose to be straight!" garbage comes from because I think for most of history human sexuality has been seen from the standpoint of just behavior and not attraction. And, as I'm sure many on here can vouch, behavior doesn't always reflect the underlying attraction. The point is, while yes this man is yet another misguided person I don't get the feeling of malicious intent behind these types of words, at least not from him.

 

^^^^^^
What Phoenix said.

The fact of the matter is that unless you are actually gay yourself, you don't really know.
People have what they believe, but the majority that are not gay don't say homosexuality is a choice out of ill-will at all, but out of not truly understanding it.

I know that I did not choose to be this way. trust me my life would be a whole lot easier if I were straight. But I'm not. I don't know exactly what in our DNA causes homosexuality, but I think there has to be some sort of genetic link somewhere...because I know I didn't wake up on some Tuesday morning and say: "Hey, I think I'm going to like boys today". It was something I knew was always there...granted when I was younger I didn't understand it.

The gay lifestyle it self is a choice. A gay person can either choose to live it, or choose to live the straight life. There are many that choose the latter.

 

I know that I myself don't live the gay lifestyle. I have straight friends, I hang out with a majority of straight people. Hell, I haven't gone to a gay bar or gay event in two years. I choose to live the straight lifestyle (though still have a relationship with my boyfriend) because the gay community in my city is a community full of sluts and whores, no lie. I'm not trying to discriminate but there's not a day goes by that my former roommate tells me he slept with another guy in this city -_- So yeah, aside from getting off topic a bit there, I'm just saying that the gay lifestyle is indeed a choice, and I personally am one of those who choose not to follow it.

But this dude is waaaaaay off about gay being a choice. No one chooses to be discriminated against after all.

 

Mostly, I agree with you. Being gay is not a choice, but sleeping with someone of the same sex is.

There is just one thing, though. I'm quite liable to run away if I ever get even close to sex with a guy, and that is totally uncontrolable. I literally cant have straight sex.

 

Let's see him try a day in our shoes and ask him how he feels afterward.

 

I still maintain homophobic is the real choice in life. You choose to be hateful towards something. You choose to embody hatefilled ideologies. Tons of christians are christians without homophobic, and actually embrace their gay friends and relatives... because they choose not to be assholes and manipulative fucktards.

Ken Buck chooses to be a idiot.

 

I've never heard of this guy, but the dialogue of the interview alone does not suggest anything along the lines of him hating homosexuals, or being a bigot. Usually people that think it's a choice are against things like same-sex marriage, and gay adoption. And then there are some people who think people can "choose" what they wanna do and be happy like everyone else.

Now, obviously Buck needs to do some more critical thinking on this issue. But from this article alone I would not call him a bigot, or even an idiot.

 

"im not a bioligist and i have not studied the issue" i mean seriously why the fuck do people who have no idea what they are talking about feel the need to do so.... "That is my feeling on the issue" substantiated by what? Nothing pisses me off more than people talking out their ass and acting like it is somehow valid in any way. The only way to show you do not have a valid opinion is to say "i don't know because i have never taken the time to be educated on the matter." If you don't know about something don't talk about it, you look like an idiot and in fact are an idiot for doing so. we;obvntjbnltk4ntb
/end rant

 

Despite what some have said, this was an absolutely brilliant move on his part.

For starters, a couple weeks ago, he was an unknown politician in a dead heat with his opponent. Now he's a nationwide-known name with a modest lead.

Secondly, let's run with this a minute. One of the main issues facing anti-homosexual politicians is that they appear hate-filled, or (at the very least) heartless. But these comments completely turns the tables. By casting gays as "addicted personalities who need help", he has cast the anti-homosexual candidates as the caring ones! They're the ones who want gays to lead happy, healthy, normal lives...by helping them turn away from the thing that's dragging them down. In addition, it casts the supposedly "gay-friendly" candidates as enablers. Similar to those guys who take their "trying-to-sober-up" friends out for a night on the town and get them hammered.

The fact that the basic premise is flawed doesn't matter in the slightest, as I think it will accomplish precisely what it's meant to.

Lex

 

LOL. nice one! I want to send this response to any homophobes I may run into.

---------- Post added 22nd Feb 2012 at 11:18 AM ----------

The concept you mentioned here, Lex, it caused in me a very visceral disgust.

One another note, this may be a very clever form of double-speak. If you carefully read his message from pro- and anti-gay view points (to the extent possible considering our general pro-gay stance on this site), you can see how it can be taken by either crowd as reinforcing of their position. That is to say, gay folks will give him some slack, and homophobes will give him some slack - double-speak from close to the middle of the road. He is not really demonstrating allegiance to either side of the debate. Maybe this is a good thing though. There needs to be a bridge to span the chasm between the two sides.

 

being religious is a choice. maybe we should end discrimination laws protecting religious folk, since they choose to be religion, so they should face the ramifications of that.

^the very moment we ammndement the constitution to reflect that is the moment the right wing will finally understand anti-discrimination nad equality policies.

 

It may be more of a choice for some then it is for others. The politician has certainly pleased certain constituents, just as we would have pleased OP had he stated that homosexuality is genetic. The choice argument is a moot point in this day and age anyways. Who really cares if someone chooses to be gay? If being gay is really as bad as the anti-gay movement argues, then it should be an easy choice for everybody to be hetero. If it is an ideal option on the other hand, then maybe it should be explored further on a personal or societal level. Homosexuality is no new phenomenon, it has been accepted and condemned throughout history. Most arguments against homosexuality have little to do with orientations and identities but everything to do with societies values, such as being passive or aggressive, as was the case in Greek society. One can say homosexuality is genetic but that does not mean it is an imprinted code on a DNA strand that makes one gay per se, it can still have socially constructed elements. For example, males and females may be born with certain feminine or masculine essences or beauties which may cause them to be treated by society in a way that fosters homosexuality. Whether or not it is an essential characteristic or a socially constructed phenomenon does not deny the reality and the need for equal application of constitutional rights.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that it does not matter if being gay is genetic or a choice. In my mind being gay is an ethical issue only so far as the people who are gay have to deal with the ethics of being true to themselves, and the implications of doing, or not doing that.

To me, it seems highly immoral for a gay person to be in a straight relationship, as they can not give fully of themselves to the other person, and truly be happy. People talk about undermining the traditional family, but fail to mention how much happier a family would be if no one was in the closet.

That being said, what legitimate argument do anti-gay groups and people give for their views? When I say legitimate please do not point to the bible, I believe it says not to eat pork and shell-fish in there somewhere too.