Sarah Palin on the Choice Issue (the choice of being gay, that is)

Here's good news: Some of Sarah Palin's very best friends are gay! Or one of them is at least. You can watch the entire video at the link down below, but the gay part--and how she defines it as a choice--is here (it's at about 8:10 of the video).

stupid

I betcha Palin is president of the Fan Club!

Ignorance in lipstick.

i was hoping that Katie Couric would go for the obvious follow-up, but she didn't.

SUPRMAN said:

What the hell kind of self respecting gay person would hang around and be friends with someone who thinks that being gay is a choice? She's probably lying about having a lesbian friend just like she's lied about so many other things.

Or.....maybe a lesbian actually is hanging around her and Palin thinks she is her friend. For all she knows, that lesbian may be hanging around in hopes of getting some pussy out of the stupid bitch. Stupid people are easily seduced. I know I've gotten many a dick out of some stupid motherfuckers and Palin is definately stupid.

Classy broad. She pulls the "some of my best friends..." argument and calls being gay a choice within the same sentence. Idiot.

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

Let me guess, "some of her best friends are black", too.

SUPRMAN said:

Stymie said:

SUPRMAN said:

Let me guess, "some of her best friends are black", too.

That's what I was gonna say.

How stupid is her friend?

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

I hope this isn't too off topic -- I detest Sarah Palin, so let's get that out of the way.

However, I see homosexuality as a choice as well. That is not meant to be disrespectful. It is a philosophical view for me:

As humans, we have choice and free will and we exercise it. I have more respect for someone who says I exert my choice to be who I want to be and screw you if you don't like it ...over someone who says I'm a victim of biology... I was born this way ...why would I choose it. (I hear this all the time which sounds sooo weak)

The first is a strong, commanding in-charge stance. The victim's stance, not so much.

So, why do people have a problem saying it's a choice. That should be honorable.

No one has to be victim of biology. Mankind is intelligent and it finds ways to override biology all the time for progress or simple pleasure.

Think about it. Choice is not disrespectful.

I'd like to hear some rational views on this if anyone would care to enlighten me.

SynthiaRose said:

SynthiaRose said:

SynthiaRose said:

I look at it in this way:

'Biology' and 'choice' aren't the only options though. Even the classic debate about what makes a person who and what they are was always nature versus nurture, rather than nature versus 'free will'. And, tbh, setting that up like a boxing match with Nature in the red corner and Nurture in the blue corner is pretty crude: we all have certain genetic predispositions that are given (i.e. nature), but whether or not each of those comes to the fore, and what form that takes is down to all kinds of factors to do with the way we're each conditioned socially, culturally, within our families, etc (i.e. nurture), and then how we exercise our own choices (i.e. 'free' will) within that context.

I agree that people are right to challenge the Right's 'choice' line on sexuality (which always seems to be a cover for the 'pray the gay away' argument), but I think it's a mistake to assume that the best way to oppose that is to tie it all down to 'nature', as that runs into its own problems.

benni said:

deebee said:

'Biology' and 'choice' aren't the only options though. Even the classic debate about what makes a person who and what they are was always nature versus nurture, rather than nature versus 'free will'. And, tbh, setting that up like a boxing match with Nature in the red corner and Nurture in the blue corner is pretty crude: we all have certain genetic predispositions that are given (i.e. nature), but whether or not each of those comes to the fore, and what form that takes is down to all kinds of factors to do with the way we're each conditioned socially, culturally, within our families, etc (i.e. nurture), and then how we exercise our own choices (i.e. 'free' will) within that context.

I agree that people are right to challenge the Right's 'choice' line on sexuality (which always seems to be a cover for the 'pray the gay away' argument), but I think it's a mistake to assume that the best way to oppose that is to tie it all down to 'nature', as that runs into its own problems.

midnightmover said:

deebee said:

'Biology' and 'choice' aren't the only options though. Even the classic debate about what makes a person who and what they are was always nature versus nurture, rather than nature versus 'free will'. And, tbh, setting that up like a boxing match with Nature in the red corner and Nurture in the blue corner is pretty crude: we all have certain genetic predispositions that are given (i.e. nature), but whether or not each of those comes to the fore, and what form that takes is down to all kinds of factors to do with the way we're each conditioned socially, culturally, within our families, etc (i.e. nurture), and then how we exercise our own choices (i.e. 'free' will) within that context.

I agree that people are right to challenge the Right's 'choice' line on sexuality (which always seems to be a cover for the 'pray the gay away' argument), but I think it's a mistake to assume that the best way to oppose that is to tie it all down to 'nature', as that runs into its own problems.

If we're talking strictly about sexual orientation then I think the nature argument is the only logical one. Signs of gayness are usually there in childhood, long before the individual has even thought about it.

OK. Thanks very much. It's so good to hear that not all people who are gay see the idea of choice as an anathema.

Efan & Stymie -- I totally understand your point of views about having the same sex attraction be present always for you personally.

Midnight Lover, let's talk a little bit about what you said:

deebee said:

SynthiaRose said:

the Human Rights Campaign interviewed members of the LGBT community in Alaska about Sarah Palin:


[Edited 10/2/08 10:38am]

midnightmover said:

midnightmover said:

SynthiaRose said:

OK. Thanks very much. It's so good to hear that not all people who are gay see the idea of choice as an anathema.

Efan & Stymie -- I totally understand your point of views about having the same sex attraction be present always for you personally.

Midnight Lover, let's talk a little bit about what you said:


Midnight -- I only deal in logic, I don't even understand the concept of "what sounds good." But rather that say that, let's look more logically at your argument.

First, let's correct some of the faulty interpretation. My belief is not that man can control everything. As a thinking, free individual man has, as I stated, free will and choice, this means he controls himself and his own actions and reactions.

Midnight, it's interesting that you see desire as a function of Nature rather than Man's subconscious choice and yearning. I would argue that all emotions and desires stem from deeply held values that are chosen. Think about the things that repel us -- we can readily identify what sensibility or principle it offends. So it is with desire. Most people don't ponder the root of their desires however. But emotions and desires are not detached from our thoughts, mind, actions -- they are the subconscious motor for them.

Midnight -- I fail to see how Nature is the only logical argument for sexual orientation when it comes to higher order animals like human beings.

Are you seriously saying that you don't think sexual desire is a function of nature? Think about that for a second. It's a physical fact that man generates sperm cells constantly. It's a physical fact that those sperm cells can only be released if he gets sexually aroused first, so the very fact that we generate them means that we are being genetically primed to have sex. We can choose to ignore that desire, but we cannot choose whether or not to have the desire. It's programmed into us. Now if you can find me an example of a man having no sperm cells in his body because he chose to be non sexual then that would prove your case, but I don't think you'll find that any such case exists. If you know of one, I suggest you call up a university or two. They'd pay good money to study that little miracle.

SynthiaRose said:

I agree it's tough, Deebee. Being counter-culture is hard because we want the people we love, such as family and friends and community members, to accept and love us and not disapprove of our actions. Still, we must be true to our personal values even if that means denouncing parts of our nurturing and standing at odds with our upbringing and the people who influenced us. It's tough.

Thank god there was Prince and other forms of art giving us the encouragement to be ourselves.Bohemia rocks ...maybe not so much in small town Alaska...but anyway!

SynthiaRose said:

midnightmover said:

Are you seriously saying that you don't think sexual desire is a function of nature? Think about that for a second. It's a physical fact that man generates sperm cells constantly. It's a physical fact that those sperm cells can only be released if he gets sexually aroused first, so the very fact that we generate them means that we are being genetically primed to have sex. We can choose to ignore that desire, but we cannot choose whether or not to have the desire. It's programmed into us. Now if you can find me an example of a man having no sperm cells in his body because he chose to be non sexual then that would prove your case, but I don't think you'll find that any such case exists. If you know of one, I suggest you call up a university or two. They'd pay good money to study that little miracle.

Midnight, Yes I'm seriously saying sexual desire is a matter of choice. Midnight, let me point out the flaw in your argument. And this argument is often used AGAINST homosexuality so I"m surprised you're spinning this web yourself... the human body if biologically set up to procreate, to produce offspring...which is the purpose of the sperm you're mentioning. So why would one choose a like gender partner if their "natural" desire is to procreate. Well, because partner selection is just that... a selection, a choice, based on value-driven desire, sometimes quite conscious, other times buried in our subconsious. That is the reality of attraction.

Oh Midnight, I haven't lost track of the point. You can trace my logic above. All sexual **desire** is choice.

An impulse isn't a desire by the way. You seem to equate humans with lower level animals.

Humans aren't driven by simple *heat*. We can breed or not breed.

What else have you got?

The basic drive for sex may be natural for some wild animals and unevolved humans...but humans don't go from that basic impulse to just breeding. We create desire, we nurture attraction, we select partners. All of this involves choice..

If you are such a fan of biology being the sole designer of sexuality and not the mind (which regulates choice) then stop being gay because your sperm is supposed to join with an egg and produce babies, as biology arranged. See how silly that is? We all know sexuality for humans involves much more than basic instinct and impulse.

Please.