One Democratic candidate for President almost stood up for what he believed at the “gay Debate” last week but quickly shrugged it off and went back to pandering.
Governor Bill Richardson’s response at the gay debate the other night was just priceless. For one moment a candidate on that stage mistakenly said what he believed and it was the most uncomfortable moment of television I’ve seen since Hillary Clinton wore a low cut top on the Senate floor.
When asked if sexual orientation is innate or a choice, Richardson replied, “It’s a choice.” GASP! You could hear the groans from the audience. Co-host Melissa Etheridge was so stunned by Richardson’s answer she repeated the question trying to lead Richardson to the right answer.
Richardson then started flop-sweating like Albert Brooks in Broadcast News. Now, if he had any guts he would’ve stuck to his guns. But he practically apologized for telling the truth. He backpedaled as best he could with this priceless gem. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition.”
Uh…Governor, if it’s not an issue of science then your not being a scientist is irrelevant. He then added that he doesn’t like to categorize people. You know his campaign staff was running for the exits behind the stage calling the Clinton campaign and asking for a job.
Following the debate, however, Richardson’s campaign quickly issued a statement on his behalf saying, “Let me be clear – I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I’m not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.”
Well, one of the candidates almost stood up for truth for a few shining seconds.
August 13, 2007 at 6:06 am
Homosexual orientation may well be an inborn trait and something beyond choice. However, homosexual behaviour is a choice, and we are taught that it is an abomination before God, and a sin. (Expressing this view may well be soon considered a felony in the United States, as it is in many countries in Europe, if any of a handful of hate crime bills now being considered in Congress are passed.)
But to be fair, if heterosexual orientation is also an inborn trait (and there seems ample physical evidence in our design which suggests this is indeed the case) then it is also true, according to the Catholic faith, that heterosexual sex outside of marriage, or without the possibility of the act leading to procreation, is also an abomination and a sin.
Homosexualists aren’t being singled out for special treatment, if you think about it this way.
August 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I have many many evil urges which I try not to give into. Whether the urge is innate means little to me as well in the big picture.
August 14, 2007 at 2:12 am
This whole debate about whether or not homosexuality is “innate” or a “choice”; is the tedious equivalent of intellectual self-pleasuring; it might feel good to turn cartwheels over Gov Richardson’s uncertainty, but it will unltimately bear no fruit, and is bad for the soul.
Read the relevant parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church again. The Church has given us clear, practical instructions in our journey to Christian perfection; and that is what we must focus on. The Catechism is clear; homosexuals have always been, and probably always will be with us, and for many, homosexual desires are a source of distress and lifelong struggle.
But homosexuals are called by God to chastity and abstinence from sexual activity.
Heterosexuals, for their part are called to Christian charity and care for the needs of their brother man, and the avoidance of unjust discrimination (sometimes discrimination is just).
“Whether the urge is innate means little to me as well in the big picture.”
Precisely the point. Getting into a lather over the “innate” issue, when the Church has given clear teachings on sexual sin (whether that be homosexual or heterosexual) is an utter waste of time. Leave that to the Pentecostals and the Southern Baptists. To my mind, one of the main problems with sexual sin, is that too many people pray, like the young St Augustine, “Lord, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!”.
Your avarage Priest spends hours in the confessional listening to people in utter distress over their sexual urges (of whatever kind, from “impure thoughts” to far wilder shores…); the best confessors, in my opinion, give practical guidance not silly little sermons about the causes of homosexuality or any other kind of disordered sexual desire.
To turn cartwheels because Gov Richardson had a “painful moment of truth”, over the desires that result in homosexual behaviour strikes me as more than a little prideful. It’s a complex issue, and to characterize it as a clear-cut issue of “choice” when, clearly, for many, it is a source of pain and struggle, not only lacks Christian charity, it flies in the face of centuries of experience.