Colorado Senate Hopeful Ken Buck: Being Gay Is Mostly a Choice, But Like Alcoholism Genetics Play a Part
Ken Buck, a district attorney in Colorado who wants to become the state’s next Republican senator, told Meet The Press this morning that being gay is a choice, because “you can choose who your partner is,” although genetics does play some role, just “like alcoholism and some other things.” Now please allow these street folk to make the same argument that being gay is a choice, and then realizing how foolish they are.
I think I’ve said it before, and no matter how naive or foolish I may seem, I’ll say it again: I don’t want to know whether being gay is a choice, or is genetically determined. The reason is simple: either way, we’re f*cked.
If it’s a choice, then homophobes the world over will say we can “reform”, and wherever they’re in power, they will try to make us do so.
If it’s genetic, then I bet you good money the very same homophobes will reverse their stance on abortion faster than you can say “genetic testing” – keep in mind China alone is 80 *million* women short, and India is close behind, just because sex determination is so easy to do, and having a girl is less desirable than having a boy. How desirable do you think it’d be to most people in most countries to have a little gay tyke?
I’m just a human being who, for whatever unimportant reason, is gay. I expect and want respect simply because I am human, not because my desires do or don’t fit anyone’s worldview.
· Flag
I don’t really worry about how its caused, because it really shouldn’t matter. If people support our rights, they can choose to think whether or not we choose. If they don’t, then to them were either perverts or broken. Doesn’t really change anything.
· Flag
You can choose to be promiscuous or non-promiscuous. So, yes, I partly agree with Ken Buck’s notion that the practice – as opposed to the orientation – of homosexuality is a choice.
However, the orientation is not a choice. The orientation is automatic. It’s there whether you like it or not. I don’t see why someone who is oriented in a vastly predominant way towards one gender should be required to make choices that don’t reflect that orientation.
· Flag
Whether or not you’re born gay is kind of irrelevant to whether or not it’s OK. I mean, people do all kinds of things for environmental reasons that we protect (we don’t allow discrimination against Catholics even though being Catholic is not genetic). And there are some conditions that might be inborn (such as psychopathy and pedophilia) that do lead to behaviors we condemn. It’s strikes me that being gay is fine because it doesn’t hurt anyone and because it’s expressed in the form of love (which is a good thing), not because people are born that way.
But I do still have a big problem with Ken Buck’s answer. First off, whether or not something is environmental has nothing to do with whether or not it is a choice. I might love curry and hate yellow onions for reasons that are not genetic, but that doesn’t mean that I could turn around and love onions and hate curry tomorrow. I’ve tried very hard to like onions because they are so common, but I still hate them.
Bigger problem: the scientific evidence points towards sexual orientation being largely determined either at birth, or at least at a very young age, especially for men. So when he’s asked “Based on what?”, his opinion is clearly not about reality, nor about what most gay people themselves say. His belief that it’s a choice has to come from propaganda from the religious right. That belief is part of a constellation of myths and stereotypes about gay people that are grossly demeaning, and it demonstrates that he’s willing to let his opinion be dictated by either bigotry, the party line, or whatever will get him the most conservative Christian votes.
· Flag
Oh, and it’s annoying that his analogy was “alcoholism”. I mean, acting artistic or nerdy are behaviors/identities with a genetic predisposition too. Even if he wasn’t totally wrong about sexual orientation being a choice, he could definitely say that without implying that being gay is some kind of disease.
· Flag
@L.: If there’s a biological reason for homosexuality, that doesn’t mean that one can perform tests that determine whether a fetus will be gay. It may be that the genetic factors are spread over too many different interacting genes for such a test to work. Or it might be that non-genetic biological factors are too important, like brief fluctuations in the chemistry of the womb, so that there’s no single factor that dominates, not even the genome as a whole. As far as I can tell, a “gay test” will probably be science fiction for a very long time.
What I’d be worried about is not so much the abortion of gay people, as the possibility of a biologically-based “prevention”. If there was a drug or genetic therapy that /prevented/ a fetus from developing with a “gay brain”, homosexuality might be phased out of the population in that way. I frankly hope that no such drug or therapy is possible, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was discovered.
· Flag
Being hungry is a choice, because you can choose what you have for lunch.
· Flag
I live in Colorado and I can tell you, Ken Buck is an idiot. He obviously wants his stupid bible to be the basis for all of our laws. He not only believes sexuality is a choice he also believes ALL abortion should be outlawed, even in cases of rape and incest. He doesn’t even care if a mother’s life is in danger. He doesn’t believe in Social Security or Medicade, nor does he believe we should have the power to elect our own officials. He thinks all legislative office positions should be appointed. He DOES believe in fighting dirty and telling lies about his opponents. How suprising!
I not only want this jackass to loose, I want someone to take him outside and beat the shit out of him! I’d shake that man’s hand.
· Flag
@greenluv1322: The correct saying is “You can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think”. Ms. Dorothy Parker.
· Flag
Since, according to Ken Buck, “you can choose who your partner is”, let’s see if he can set up a program to get straight high school students to “choose” the ugliest member of the opposite sex in school as a boyfriend/girlfriend, as a way of improving teenagers’ self esteem. Then let’s see how well that program works (as if the outcome would be a surprise to anyone but the most naive).
Electing Ken Buck would be bad for the country – we are in a real mess right now and the last thing we need are more senators who make decisions based on uninformed beliefs while blithely ignoring the facts.
· Flag
I was born gay, but I’m choosing not to vote for Ken Buck.