Posted on 12/16/2011 5:51:42 PM PST by Kazan
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich suggested Thursday that being gay is a choice. At least for some people.
Asked if people can choose to be gay, Gingrich told the Des Moines Register editorial board that he does not "believe in genetic determinism, and I don't think there is any great evidence of genetic determinism."
He said that certain people may choose to be gay if they have certain genetic traits and are raised in a certain environment.
"I think people have a significant range of choice within a genetic pattern," he said. "I believe it's a combination of genetics and environment. I think that both are involved. I think people have many ranges of choices."
Gingrich's appears to be saying people can choose to be gay if they have certain "propensities" and genetic and environmental characteristics. Asked if people can choose to be straight, he responded, "Look, people choose to be celibate."
"People choose many things in life," he said. "You know, there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It's part of how the species recreates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy either out of religious vocation or for other reasons."
Earlier in the interview, Gingrich was asked if he saw a correlation between the civil rights and gay rights movements. He called the parallel "ludicrous" and "offensive," saying no one is trying to segregate gay Americans. The former House speaker added that his position reflects "a 3,000 year tradition that is very deep in our culture for very profound reasons."
"I think there's an enormous difference between an inescapable fact of race...and a question about culture," he said. "A question about 'what are your values?' I think marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a value proposition."
"There's a big difference between saying that you are going to have an acceptance of people's lifestyle and saying you now are going to normalize that as the standard for the whole country," he continued, before reiterating his support for reinstating the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Gingrich, whose half-sister Candace Gingrich-Jones is gay, earlier this week said he supported sending a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage to the states.
Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.
Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!
Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.
79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson
He’s right. People can be talked into anything.
Yes. Behavior is malleable. One’s genetic code is not.
In other words, one can adapt behavior. One can decide not to do something anymore. One can’t stop being black, or green-eyed, or being the physical height they are.
And personally we are not just talking about behavior that is on the same level as having a cup of coffee in the morning or not. It is extremely high risk behavior. It is dangerous behavior. It is medically dangeros behavior. It is still behavior regarded my the large majority of people to be personally offensive and repulsive behavior.
It is not just the same as what car to drive, or what school to go to, or what shoes to wear. It is not neutral behavior. It is very negative behavior.
There is a spectrum of inclination. On one end is the 100% straight who has absolutely no interest in same sex relationships. On the other end is the 100% homosexual who has no interest in the opposite sex. In the middle are various degrees of bisexuality, where the person can go either way, and can choose to go one way exclusively.
DADT was a Clinton invention, and you’re asking us to return. Like frogs in boiling water, we don’t realize how long and how far the erosion of values has taken place in our midst. Do you know what the policy was *before* DADT?
That said, the whole thing is a distraction from what the miltary is about.
Certainly *some* may be predisposed to influence to such behavior, though many would not be. Analogously I can’t imagine being convinced through any amount of marketing or coercion that I like, for example, blutwurst when I actually do not, nor can I imagine being convinced or coerced into not liking, say, fish tacos, while I actually do.
Oh, and the cube car market is a sure sign of gay as a choice.
Being gay is a choice.
(At least when the word meant “happy!”)
I love seeing Old English poetry that uses the word.
Or in more modern times,
“Why do birds sing so gay?”
from “Why do Fools Fall in Love.”
Alas, which candidate to fall in love with?
Like some of my best friends say, “Gaily forward!”
My grandmother used to use the word “Peculiar” when describing a gay person.
My guess is that most gays began as victims and they get messed up in many ways. It simply doesn’t compute.
“Obviously, I meant to say Newt is the only one that CAN be counted on to reinstated DADT and oppose the homosexual agenda.”
Then review before posting please. This is IMPORTANT stuff to most of us...and you had my head spinning. I certainly support Newt over the remainder of the field, and this makes it that much stronger.
...so thanks for posting this article.
That’s all you got? the left continues to attempt to paint newt as a thug. HA Newt continues to expose the Left in nano seconds.
Propaganda Vs Brain....
Brain always wins
why do they spend so much time on 4% of the population?
I once saw this list of famous gays.
Some that come to mind were
Alexander the Great
Alexander Hamilton
Peter Tschaikovsky
(and many more)
I seem to recall this was making the rounds when either San Francisco (San Fransicko to Michael Savage fans) or the great state of California passed a law to include orientation in history classes. It was something along the lines of making students aware that some of society’s greatest contributions came from gays.
OK, folks. Here is the way it is:
Newt is correct. There is no evidence that homosexuality is mostly genetic, nor has anyone really worked out the environmental determinants. It is also true that many (probably most) gays do not chose their predilection, as if selecting from a menu of available “orientations.”
Any alert observer soon begins to agree with Freud that male homosexuality is a condition of arrested development. This explains the interest in the same sex, the childish behavior, and even the “effeminate“ manners of speech and gestures. Why some people exhibit this arrested development of the personality, we still cannot say.
There also is evidence that female homosexuality may have different origins: hormonal imbalance (an organic cause), and childhood sexual abuse (an environmental cause). It may be a quite different thing from the male counterpart. If that is true, it is a fallacy to lump the conditions together.
So we really do not know the details of what causes homosexuality. People make a big thing over the issue, because they suppose that if one had no choice, then one can’t be blamed. In the absence of any clear knowledge of the origins of homosexuality, what are we to think of it?
Well, it should not make any difference. We should never be intentionally, gratuitously cruel to anyone. But we can, as clear-sighted individuals, at least recognize the distinction, and see that we are dealing here with a disorder. It is not normal, and is certainly not the norm; and has only been accepted in obscure or decaying cultures. And we should be free to say that plain fact without being locked up or fired for “homophobia.”
Some homosexuals wish to have their condition treated as normal, or even privileged. That is wishful thinking, another evidence of a childish attitude associated with the “gay” mind. It is nonsense, and homosexuals should know that most people regard their condition as abnormal. Then they should go lead their lives as best they can. They still have choices. They can keep their abnormal lives private, or they can be “flamers.”
I have a friend who suffers from a very serious disease. Compared to what he has, the average homosexual should have no complaints. Homosexuals should stop whining, and everyone would be much better off.
“Did you not read the article? ... he continued, before reiterating his support for reinstating the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.”
Kazan joined this board in August and hasn’t learned to read yet or is in the wrong forum.
Newt was try to gently straddle the fence...Ouch! you know where you land when you straddle a fence????!!!!
“I think people have a significant range of choice within a genetic pattern,” he said. “I believe it’s a combination of genetics and environment. I think that both are involved. I think people have many ranges of choices.”
I do NOT like Newt saying that there is choice within a GENETIC framework. That is the Left’s contention that gays are “born this way”, and is at odds with the malleable sexuality of humans. There are ATTRACTIONS of all kinds. But not all urges must be succumbed to,
Thanks for using the term homosexual instead of GAY
Chicken shit is great fertilizer, too. But I don't want it in my yard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.