Posted on 10/18/2004 11:43:28 AM PDT by freestyle
"It was meant constructively in terms of their love and affection for a person who is who she is," Kerry said in an interview taped for broadcast Friday night on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now." "And it was entirely as an example of how people come together around these choices, entirely constructively and respectfully."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I mean, if you read it, he contradicts himself in the same sentence. The same as saying "I'll never give a veto to another country," and then, "We must pass a global test." Is there any position this idiot has NOT taken?
But, the fact remains: Kerry has now called homosexuality a "choice".
(I'm sure the gay activists will be outraged. /wishfull thinking)
Hey, freestyle.
Good catch by Rush. We certainly can't rely on Old Media to catch these little flip flops of Kerry's.
Do we have any scientific data to support either position choice/birth?
The lesbian has been with the same guy now going on three years and is talking marriage.
MY squeeze tho can't believe ANY self respecting man would EVER get involved with a sexually screwed up individual like that especially since the "boyfriend in all aspects is sloppy seconds in the "choice" column...LOL!!!
I don't know, but I bet you that there is evidence that can support both.
Bush gave the correct answer to the question: "I don't know."
kerry is also now saying he's prone to change his stance on gay marriage...quoted as saying it in a gay mag this weekend. if this doesn't smack of desperation, I don't know what does. pandering to/for the gay vote.
Good job! Credit noted.
When President Bush answered, "I don't know" to the gay question on choice, it was a politically correct answer. He does know. We were created in the image of God and God calls homosexuality an abomination! It is most definitely a choice!
Oh boy, here we go...
Woogit, is mental retardation a choice?
(I only make this comparison for it to make sense to you.)
Evidence is what I am curious in. There was that study years back concerning "possible genetics" that was discredited but repeated on the networks. Since then, everyone thinks its a fact or should be. Facts are proved. Where's the proof?
If it meant getting a vote he's prone to being in the prone position--if you know what I mean.
I don't think so.... but if people are born 'gay' then what's all this gender role bs the fems put out, since people are definitely born either male or female?
I think men are much more fixed in their sexuality than women. It's much more likely for a woman to be able to try a lesbian experience without really being homosexual. Most heterosexual men couldn't do that in a million years. So it's much more likely for a woman who has decided she is a "lesbian" to be attracted to men at some other point in her life.
Exatly T-Boy. I do not believe science can yet prove this either way.
The correct answer (even for a scientist) is "I don't know."
Now, if God were asked this specific question, he would either:
"Yes."
"No."
or
"Sometimes."
And then we'd know for sure.
Why don't you ask NJ Gov McGreavy if it was a choice. He of the married (twice) with a gay lover. I guess he is a flip flop too.
What would constitute scientific proof?
It seems like something that's inherently difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Nevertheless, we can know with certainty that homosexual behavior is intrinsically unnatural and evil, and that man has the ability and responsibility to control his behavior through the exercise of his intellect and will.
I agree. How often does one of these nature vs. nurture disputes get settled, anyway?
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.