This past Friday, I hung out with one of my buddies to eat pizza, talk politics and laugh at Sarah Palin. We went through our routine of taking up interesting political topics and eventually wound up discussing homosexuality. My friend asked if I knew that Bill Richardson had once said that being gay is a choice. I couldn’t believe it. This was a man who ran for president — in a Democratic primary. How could he have been so naïve? After extensive Googling, I discovered the governor later claimed he made a mistake. The problem is that thousands of people in America make this mistake every day. Many religious groups have created camps dedicated to turning gay people straight. As I thought of these groups, something sparked in my mind: What if they were right? What if being gay is a choice?
Obviously, this is ludicrous. Being straight isn’t a choice. Why would being gay be any different? But what if it were? What if we didn’t believe the studies proffering biological explanations for homosexuality - or our gay friends with the same convictions? Would I change my opinion on any of the gay rights issues – from the right to marriage to the right to adoption – if I thought about this idea of choice differently? Would choice really excuse any repression of this group? The answer is a resounding “Hellz no.”
America is a country that takes pride in the choices its citizens have, be they lawyer or doctor, Jennifer or Angelina, Large or Super Size. We also believe that no one should be persecuted by the law because of his or her choices. People who like N’Sync more than Backstreet Boys shouldn’t be thrown in jail, even though such a belief is far worse than blasphemy. People should be allowed to do and believe in what they want.
Now, there are exceptions. I’m not suggesting we let someone like O.J. Simpson commit — okay, bad example. But there are exceptions for actions that harm others. That aside, there is no reason the government should regulate any individual action. We should be a nation of freedom and equal protection under the law.
My point is that the choice to have sex with a member of your own sex should be protected just as your choice of religion, breakfast cereal or even political party (though, if you read my past column, you might also see this as poor example). Choice does not excuse preventing a soldier from fighting for the country he or she loves. Choice does not excuse the firing of dedicated workers. And choice certainly does not excuse the torture and murder of individuals who are, above all else, human beings just like the rest of us.
So much controversy has developed from this question of biology versus choice that we forget that, in terms of the law and government action, it really doesn’t matter. Everyone should have the right to be him or herself. Despite Richardson’s blunder, politicians throughout our nation should listen to what he later said: “... No matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.”
Phil Cardarella is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
44 Comments
John
Nov 22 at 10:35 PM
I agree with the author of this article. I don’t really care if being gay is innate or a choice.
ALL people should be able to live their lives reasonably free from discrimination and love whoever they want. Regardless of what anyone thinks about homosexuality, it is not our place to judge the lives of others.
I look forward to the day when homosexuals are accorded equal civil rights to heterosexuals and have the opportunity to marry who they love.
Alex Knepper
Nov 23 at 12:47 AM
“The answer is a resounding ‘Hellz no.’” Did you really write that? Is that going to be in the paper?
Anyway, I think it would have an impact on how marriage policy is viewed, so long as the state is involved.
I can’t even fathom how it would be a choice, though. What, would someone just snap his fingers and be sexually attracted to the same sex? Would he be faking it and just decide to be with a guy for—well, I don’t know.
It’s hard to even begin to conceive of such a scenario, because it’s so ludicrous.
codie lord
Nov 23 at 4:39 AM
Alex, I think you missed the entire point Phil was making in his article. “you can’t fathom how it would be a choice?” That speaks volumes…
TJ Whittle
Nov 23 at 4:41 AM
What will happen to religious groups who oppose gay marriage, once gay marriage has become the law of the land? These groups will obviously be viewed as groups of institutionalized bigotry. Do you think things will simply play out similar to how the Mormons were persuaded by the government to change their views on blacks?
Will American Catholics be persecuted by the government for their religious views? This has already happened in Massachusetts, with the state forcing Catholic Charities to end its adoption program for refusing to allow gays to adopt. By stating that there is an unequivocal right for gays to adopt, you are in fact calling me a bigot for saying that they shouldn’t.
The issue of gay rights and homosexuality is much more complex and affects many more aspects of society than this column considers.
Instead of exploring the depth of the issue, the column sets up straw men on the opposing side, simply for the base joy of knocking them down. It seems to me that this column was the result of a half hour of the writer vomiting his political beliefs all over a computer screen, rather than considering the complexity of the issue.
(Don’t hate me Phil - remember I bought those four pizzas the other night. I hope you, and Knepper, will at least consider what I have to say.)
Patrick McCluskey
Nov 23 at 4:43 AM
I agree Codie! The ignorance just oozes from his post! The point of the article was beyone him.
Zachary Barnes
Nov 23 at 4:48 AM
Mr. TJ LITTLE:
Yet, another bigot hiding behind his religion. Sad, really.
I have one thing to say and I’m really surprised this isn’t been brought-up much more frequently.
Why in the world do these religous groups who do nothing in their churches, but preach POLITICS still have TAX EXEMPT status?????????????????????????????????
You want your cake and you want to eat it too?
I say, no more!!!!!
Also, stop giving the real christians bad names.. I’m tired of it and so are the rest of them!
Larry Forcier
Nov 23 at 4:56 AM
It’s hilarious that Mr.Whittle is whining that catholics are being persecuted by the government. You have no idea what persecution is all about, Mr.Whittle. Some nerve you have playing the victim. You are talking out of your ass!
I guess I should cut you some slack now that I see you are still in school and delivering pizzas. You have alot of living to do. Maybe you will open your eyes one day to what is really going on in this world.
Patrick Vernon
Nov 23 at 5:02 AM
Dear TJ, The answer to your first question is yes. Nothing will change, however. You are considered bigots now(before it is the law of the land) and you will certainly be considered bigots after it becomes law of the land. HAVE NO DOUBT, IT WILL BECOME LAW OF THE LAND!
Alex Knepper
Nov 23 at 6:19 AM
What am I missing here? He’s saying that being gay is not a choice, but even if it were, who cares?
I’m just confused about how to imagine a scenario in which a person “chooses” to be gay. I don’t even know what that means. Does he will himself to be into the same sex, or does he just label himself gay, get with guys, but is not really attracted to them..?
Adam
Nov 23 at 6:55 AM
Dear TJ,
I frankly surprised that a Roman Catholic such as yourself would be so concerned over same-sex marriage. While I understand that marriage equality is against Church dogma, doesn’t the Church have more problems to worry about these days?
You guys still have the ongoing and recurring problem of homosexual child molestations by Catholic priests. The Church has paid millions of dollars in hush money in order to keep these crimes secret. Yes, I understand that the Church views same-sex marriage as sinful. However, I believe the Church should be more worried about how to prevent child molestations by the clergy rather than injecting yourself into the lives of others.
I’m not calling you a bigot just because you oppose marriage equality. I support your right to ban gays from marrying each other. You have that right guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, the gays who are advocating for same-sex marriage don’t want to force you or the Church to accept their proposed institution of marriage. The Church can and continue to ban religious same-sex marriage now and forever.
However, marriage is also a civil institution. Homosexuals are asking and pleading for civil marriage. Civil marriage differs completely from the religious marriage that the Church has a right to ban. While the Church does not have to sanctify marriage under the eyes of God, it does not have a right to interfere between the civil contract of marriage between one gay person to another gay person.
Your religious liberties are not at stake when it comes to civil marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of fairness and equality. As a straight guy, you have the right to marry and divorce. Gays do not have that right.
I completely support your right to oppose religious marriage. I oppose religious marriage equality. However, I am hopeful that religious institutions will become receptive to marriage equality in the future. Until then, all gays should have a right to have full, complete and unrestricted civil marriage equality.
Thanks
Adam
Nov 23 at 6:56 AM
I apologize for the typo in the first sentence.
Mary
Nov 23 at 7:25 AM
As a virgin, I must add that being Catholic is not a choice.
Eve
Nov 23 at 7:37 AM
Since we have an Adam, we need an Eve:
What happens when we decided that just because something is natural, it’s OK?
Isn’t it natural for us to be naked? Why are we wearing clothes?
Isn’t it natural for us to covet things? Why is it wrong to steal?
Isn’t it natural for us to want to force others to do our work for us? Why is slavery wrong?
Isn’t it natural for us to want to defecate wherever is closest? Why are we potty trained?
We are created by God, we are given gifts, and we are supposed to use those gifts within certain ways.
Just as it is wrong to have carnal relations with children, animals, Clawde Z. Eagle, our sister, our 1st cousin, our hand, it is also wrong to have illicit carnal relations with a person of the opposite sex. Come on people, get real!
Eve
Nov 23 at 7:38 AM
Rather *same sex*
Adam’s Rib is not the only thing that I have, I also have his knack for typos.
Adam
Nov 23 at 7:51 AM
Dear Eve,
Since we going by the Bible now, I only wish I could beat some sense into you. Unfortunately for you, the Bible says you should be subservient to me. Since you brought up “Adam and Eve”, as Adam in the relationship, I can do whatever with you. Your body is mine, according to the Bible and God. Now what kind of punishment would suit a bigoted woman such as yourself, Eve?
If you want to follow the Bible all the way, that’s fine with me. Don’t pick and choose the verses of the Bible you want to follow. Just remember that God views you and your gender as beneath men. Now go make me some food, I’m hungry.
This would be great except for the fact that I’m not religious. Since I met you Eve since our “divine creation”, I have gained the ability to reason. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about you.
Love,
Adam
Adam
Nov 23 at 7:55 AM
Another typo-
*Since our “divine creation”, I have gained the ability to reason.
Damn it Eve, your leaf down there is so distracting.
Jed Bartlett
Nov 23 at 8:36 AM
Eve,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc&feature=related
Eve
Nov 23 at 8:59 AM
That’s a great video! But it’s pure fiction, a Democratic President not using a teleprompter? That never happens.
Adam-
The Bible never says that women are below men. Rather women play a very important role in salvation history. We hear the story of Esther the Queen who saved her people. We have the Virgin Mary who by her willing acceptance of God made man kind’s salvation possible.
You also can’t be selective sir.
eve
Nov 23 at 9:00 AM
And Adam, just because you’re looking for validation for what you did with your roommate the other night is no reason to say being gay is OK.
Wait
Nov 23 at 9:03 AM
“Do you think things will simply play out similar to how the Mormons were persuaded by the government to change their views on blacks? “
Yes, yes I do.
Also, I feel like this sentence proves that you have absolutely no rational argument.
Tucker
Nov 23 at 10:49 AM
Dear TJ,
I agree with the previous posters, that nothing will change. Once a bigot, always a bigot. As a recovered Catholic, I do believe that the problems within your church far outweight the fact that some LGBT folk want marriage equality.
And let’s set the record straight, so to speak. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was not closed by the government. Catholic Charities CHOSE to not serve the LGBT community with tax monies it recieved from the Commonwealth. That is illegal under Massachusetts law. Instead of changing their policies to meet the guidelines for using taxpayer monies (something they CHOSE to do for other requirements), they CHOSE NOT to accommodate the Commonwealth, thus the monies were retracted.
And to Adam… the priests that are molesting children (and they are molesting both boys AND girls) are not homosexuals. They are pedophiles. Most of the priests caught in this scandal identify as heterosexual (95% of all pedophiles are straight). Let’s not blame the gays for the pedophile priest issue. There is a whole slew of issues on that one…
Adam
Nov 23 at 11:00 AM
Tucker,
Thanks for your clarification. I would like to add that the priests involved in the scandals were not involved in pedophilia The appropriate term is hebephilia or the sexual attraction to pubescent children.
Nevertheless, thanks for your clarification that most pedophiles are straight. I did not mean to imply in any way that homosexuals are predominately pedophiles.
The Catholic Church has long had problems with gay men within the ranks of the clergy. Some of these closeted priests are homosexuals. An even smaller percentage abused male children. I only brought up gay Catholic clergy to show the hypocrisy of opposing gay rights while tolerating and hiding gay child molester priests within the ranks of the Church.
Steve
Nov 23 at 12:00 PM
Why does it matter what sex the celibate priests aren’t having?
A rational woman
Nov 24 at 1:56 AM
I felt a post by a non-ultraconservative female was necessary.
Mary, I really don’t understand how being Catholic is a not choice. Religion is a very personal choice- one of the most personal choices that one can make every single day.
And sorry Eve but do you ever listen to yourself and realize how ridiculous you sound? You just can’t take all of the Bible literally. Some of it is supposed to be a metaphor.
(Also, thanks Jed, that’s one of my fave episodes of WW.)
GayCatholic
Nov 24 at 2:26 AM
God made me gay… he also knew I would become Catholic, and I don’t think he minds that I am a EMC (even if I do have a boyfriend).
sfhuskybear
Nov 24 at 7:52 AM
sorry i disagree. saying it doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not opens us up to the exact slippery slope argument the religious right uses all the time. well if it’s ok for gay guys to get married then a man who chooses to marry his sister should be allowed to get married. being gay is an innate, immutable characteristic. no different than being black or asian. and as such, we deserve the same protections and rights as anyone else.
Alex Knepper
Nov 24 at 9:37 AM
Can we get back to feminism? Much more contentious.
Dannie
Nov 24 at 3:13 PM
sfhuskybear, why exactly is it wrong to marry your sister? Didn’t Abraham marry his half sister Sarah? (Assuming you are familiar with biblical stories). You might mention polygamy because that is usually the next thing people mention. But what is ‘wrong’ in doing that exactly? Everyone should make a choice for themselves and everyone does not have to agree with it so long that all parties involve consent and it does not bring harm to anyone. I’m sorry, but that slippery slope is exactly what the religious right eschews as it relates to the issue of gay rights. But that is, I believe, only due to their ignorance and fear. It was the same slippery slope argument that was put forward for interracial marriage. After all, is that not a choice? Whether being gay is a choice or not, it should not matter. I should have the freedom to choose. I should not have to pander to the irrational fear of others when the right does not even pertain to them… For the record, I don’t believe being gay is a choice.
grandma832
Nov 24 at 5:53 PM
Since it’s pretty obvious that most of you are under 30-35 I’m just wondering how you will feel if one of your children or grandchildren is born gay? Are you going to abandon them? Will you be embarrassed by them? I have a gay grandson. When he told me, my comment was ” so what? It makes no difference to me. You will always be my grandson and I will always love you the same”
Adam
Nov 24 at 8:18 PM
Thanks grandma832 for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you. If I had a gay child, I would not care one bit about his sexuality. Though I admit, I would be worried about how he would be treated by society.
I believe that homosexuality is not a choice. However, I believe that we should not try to justify the existence of homosexuality as a “choice” or not. Why should we care?
If scientists find a “gay gene” then I believe opponents of homosexuality will start equating the gay gene as a defect. Right wing scientists will try to fix this “defect” using scientific research. It will be just like trying to find the cure for autism or Multiple Sclerosis. Those conditions are caused genetic defects.
Lets not try to give right wing religious bigots a genetic reason to oppose homosexuality. I propose that we should not care about the causes of homosexuality. All people should be treated fairly and equality.
Anonymous
Nov 25 at 9:22 AM
Here I thought this was going to be an interesting article and yet its another of way too many focuses on tired old debate and assessment of gay rights.
Macdarragh
Nov 25 at 11:37 PM
In direct response to Eve,
Q. Isn’t it natural for us to be naked? Why are we wearing clothes?
A. We wear clothes because it’s cold. When early people moved away from the Equator we used animal furs, which later became clothing to cover ourselves and protect ourselves from the cold. Those that remained in the Equatorial area only started to dress when forced to by the “civilized” white invaders. They of course recognized the naked as savages.
Q.Isn’t it natural for us to covet things? Why is it wrong to steal?
A.No it is not natural to covet things. Society did not covet until the advent of settled communities. As wanderers or hunter gatherers we focused on sharing. Simply put we didn’t want to have anything that had to be carried which wasn’t absolutely necessary. Whatever was had was divided among the family, group or the tribe. Not until we started farming did we settle as a society and look around at what our friends and neighbors had, then we developed covetousness.
Q.Isn’t it natural for us to want to force others to do our work for us? Why is slavery wrong?
A.No it is not natural to want to force others to do for us. Again it is an inherited trait developed after society settled and started farming.
Q.Isn’t it natural for us to want to defecate wherever is closest? Why are we potty trained?
A. Yes it is perfectly normal to want to defecate wherever is closest. All animals want to do so. The difference between us and the animals is that we as a society have decreed it better, safer, and more polite notto do so. It’s not that long since societies shared communal restrooms.
We are created by God, we are given gifts, and we are supposed to use those gifts within certain ways.
Those certain ways only became law when males started to dominate society. There most successful method was through what was called religion.
According to the majority of religions one is supposed to love ones fellow man. Or in another religions words “Love thy Neighbor.” There is no differentiation in that statement to identify whether he is black, white, gay or otherwise different than society decides to accept. In fact some religious philosophers will tell you that he actually means “man” so you dear Eve are “off the hook.” God help us.
Jan Y
Nov 26 at 2:49 PM
Frankly, I believe that the Vatican is a model of hypocrisy! Do you know that it had, not too long ago approved sainthood for the 19th century English Cardinal John Henry Newman, well noted to be gay?
Besides, the Vatican ought to be going after their Roman Catholic Church in Dublin for continuing to cover up decades of child abuse by priests to protect the church’s reputation instead of trying to control female bodies in the U.S. See today’s AP article, “Church in Ireland Said to Have Covered Up Abuse” in NY Times. Do you realize that that more than 96% od Italy’s population is Christian, and the Vatican can’t even ban the legalization of abortion in Italy, or stop the approval of the RU-486 abortion drug from being approved in Italy? Perhaps the church leaders see American women are too lame to ve able to control their own bodies!
Jan Y
Nov 26 at 2:58 PM
By the way, I have many gay friends I’m proud to call them ‘friends.’ I’m a mother and not lesbian, but I consider my gay friends for who they are in terms of their honesty and goodness, and not for what they are not. My gays friends are what they are, and no one can convince me that they have a choice of not being gay. Besides, gays do contribute to taxes and there’s no reason why they can’t enjoy the same benefits offered to straights.
QuadRat
Nov 30 at 8:15 PM
I would like to call out Alex Knepper on his completely ignoring the issue on hand. Phil’s article is calling out the conservative argument that homosexuality is a choice and therefore should be fixed rather than allowing gays to be given rights and integrated in society. What Phil is saying, is that even if homosexuality is a choice it should not matter, our rights should not be infringed upon based on our lifestyle choices. I believe, like you, that homosexuality is something you are born. Therefore I also believe that individual rights should not be infringed upon based solely on genetics. Being a gay male yourself knepper, I would love to hear where you stand on this debate.
Huh at GayCatholic
Nov 30 at 11:16 PM
What’s an EMC?
God made me gay… he also knew I would become Catholic, and I don’t think he minds that I am a EMC (even if I do have a boyfriend).
Alex Knepper
Dec 1 at 12:00 PM
“I would like to call out Alex Knepper on his completely ignoring the issue on hand. Phil’s article is calling out the conservative argument that homosexuality is a choice and therefore should be fixed rather than allowing gays to be given rights and integrated in society. What Phil is saying, is that even if homosexuality is a choice it should not matter, our rights should not be infringed upon based on our lifestyle choices. I believe, like you, that homosexuality is something you are born. Therefore I also believe that individual rights should not be infringed upon based solely on genetics. Being a gay male yourself knepper, I would love to hear where you stand on this debate. “
I understood his argument.
There is no “right” to state-sponsored marriage; my viewpoint completely accommodates his issues. I want marriage to be completely privatized and taken out of the realm of government.
The current debate over same-sex marriage is a false one. It really should be a debate about whether the government has any goddamn business sanctioning marriages in the first place.
Old geezer
Dec 1 at 1:56 PM
The Eagle reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDj7bjAv2s
Nicholas Russotto
Dec 1 at 4:55 PM
Not to jump on the bandwagon of bashing Mr. Whittle, but in addition to his post being hypocritical and debasing, it is also factually inaccurate. Catholic Charities of Boston, the organization I assume Mr. Whittle is referring to, was not “forced” to stop its adoption ministries; indeed, it chose to do so itself. The state played no part. Rather, it is just one more example of the Catholic church not getting its way and, like a petulant child, picking up its toys and going home. It seems that something similar will be happening in the District once its own gay marriage bill is passed in a few weeks by the City Council. Mr. Whittle would do well to check his facts, lest he sound further misguided than we already know him to be.
protest too much
Dec 2 at 3:13 PM
Do you think Mr. Whittle doth protest too much?
separation of church and state
Dec 2 at 10:05 PM
I believe the best way to go about marriage equality would be to have the govt recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults for tax purposes. Then it’s up to the church in which they have the service to decide whether to consider that a “marriage”. That way, the conservative religions can call it a marriage if it falls within their own definition (e.g. man and woman) but even if they don’t, the government still recognizes the civil rights of the couple.
Because the argument’s not about what rights a gay/straight/transgender person has a citizen, it’s about WHAT RIGHT does the government have to stop two people from living together as they wish?
Mr. Whittle, what a guy!
Dec 3 at 6:13 PM
“Mr. Whittle would do well to check his facts, lest he sound further misguided than we already know him to be.”
Who is this “we”? I don’t know Mr. Whittle to be anything other than correct on this issue. Do you know him in a different setting Mr. Russotto?
Another thing, Mr. Whittle was addressing a constitutional issue, not a moral one. So all of these attacks on him are completely invalid.
I am sure he would be willing to discuss this if people would actually reply to his actual argument instead of blindly attacking him for his beliefs.
side note: Calling people bigots isn’t open minded. Tell me, why is it that liberals are very “accepting” of people, unless those people disagree with what they have to say? “Oh sure, you can say whatever you want and we will except you for who you are, unless we don’t like what you say.” How is that fair?
Thank you,
Someone with a brain
Young'un
Dec 6 at 12:32 AM
Exactly. Whether it’s a choice or not, gay people should not be subject to discrimination. Separation of church and state is all important when it comes to this. Religious beliefs should not be brought into a civil rights issue. Government decisions should not be influenced by any religion. And yet, all the Bible thumpers who think that every single word of their precious book (written by MAN) is to be taken literally continue to insist that homosexuality is a sin, and gays should therefore be denied rights that heterosexuals have.
When religion is taken out of the equation, there is no argument against gays. No argument at all. (Not that there is a valid argument against gays WITH religion, but I think my point is made.)
PS: Thank you, Jed Bartlett, for that lovely video.
Bryan Debussy
Dec 7 at 4:21 PM
It’s good to see Rabbi Cohen and Rev. Mark on this list.
http://www.clergyformarriage.com/read.html
Post a comment
Comments are reviewed: inappropriate, off-topic or offensive content may be deleted.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.