I understand the argument, but maybe the twice-divorced candidate isn’t the guy who should be making it:
Q: Do you believe that people choose to be gay?
GINGRICH: I believe it’s a combination of genetics and environment. I think both are involved. I think people have many ranges of choices. Part of the question is, do you want a society which has a bias in one direction or another?
Q: So people can then choose one way or another?
GINGRICH: I think people have a significant range of choice within a genetic pattern. I don’t believe in genetic determinism and I don’t think there is any great evidence of genetic determinism. There are propensities. Are you more likely to do this or more likely to do that? But that doesn’t mean it’s definitional.
Q: So a person can then choose to be straight?
GINGRICH: Look, people choose to be celibate. People choose many things in life. 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 as a religious vocation or for other reasons.
First, permit me to say that there is no conclusive evidence — none, zero, zilch — that homosexuality is genetically determined.
“Propensities,” I dunno. But to bring up “people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation,” given his own track record? Am I the only one who thinks this might hurt Newt with Catholics? And do you think maybe Catholic voters in Iowa might suddenly remember that there is a Catholic candidate on the ballot who is, y’know, actually Catholic?
Seems the hardest thing in the world for Newt is to just STFU and say “I don’t know!”
There is much evidence that a propensity to homosexuality is genetically based. In fact, in many creatures it is triggered by environmental pressures. I find Newt’s response quite reasonable, and even a little refreshing. You’re stretching unnecessarily. We all recognize the urgency in defeating Newt and Romney in Iowa and getting the real conservatives some traction. But that won’t happen with these types of emoti-posts. Please relax and concentrate on those things that matter most and on which you are most expert.
There may not be evidence that homosexuality is genetically based, but there is evidence that it is congenital. Which amounts to the same thing to the person who is afflicted, so to speak.
And yes, I do think you are alone out there in thinking that it will hurt Newt with Catholics just because he made a parallel with celibacy. I think you pretty much have to be hoping and praying for an excuse to hold that against him.
Tell me about it.
BTW, maybe Newt can opine on whether the propensity to open a ginormous Tiffany account to appease girlfriends and wives you cheat on is a choice or an orientation?
Are you suggesting Newt’s mom rubbed diamonds on her belly when she was carrying little Newty?
I always figured homosexuality was genetic. For the lack of better words, a birth defect. Like having six toes on one foot.
Not saying this to attack anyone, just to explain.
Humans aren’t the only creatures that can be attracted to their own sex, instead of the opposite.
Anyhow, anything that stops Newt is a good thing.
I have to go with Ladd on this one. Wow. Just…wow.
I don’t believe Newt is capable of giving a yes or no answer. Everything needs to be the subject of a “national conversation.” Blah, blah, blah.
Newt Gingrich – mindlessly babbling to fill up space since 1943.
[…] McCain opines on a quote from Newt regarding […]
It is a choice for humans with free will.
You aren’t required to engage in homosexuality just because you might be attracted to somebody of the same sex.
We do see it in nature and back in Roman times. People like sex, but is homosexuality genetic, probably not.
This seemed like a very reasonable answer to me, and makes me like Newt better (and yeah I’m a ‘Go Santorum! Guy’ but more than that I try to be honest much of the time.)
I have a propensity to smack idiots in the face, but I resist it because its wrong.
I like what George Gilder said about homosexuality. Its something that you have to go through a number of gates to get to, and once you try it, it can be like drug addiction. You think you’re experiencing your true self. Also, like drugs it is very, very bad for your health (not even counting AIDS).
Newt is a choice within a significant range of genetic pattern.
First, the “Catholic vote,” like the Loch Ness Monster and Middle East Peace Process, has more assertion than evidence behind it.
Second, I’m a filthy Papist and I find nothing offensive in the analogy.
When will these geniuses learn to “Reaganize” their responses to these kinds of question?
Shorter Newt: “Well, you see, there’s this, and that, and this , and that, and this, and that, so obviously you can’t answer that with comple certitude on a Wednesday. Unless you meant this other factor, which we can say, specifically, blah, freaking blah, blah, blah.”
The Reaganized Conservative Answer: “Science still has yet to teach us anything about the origins of homosexuality. Until the science catches up with reality, shouldn’t we err on the side of a system that has worked for millenia?”
You see it in people for the same reason you see it in “nature”. Guys with little dicks, or whatever problem causes them not to be able to have a satisfactory heterosexual relationship, need to have some form of sexual release, so if they can’t function right with a woman, what other choice do they have? It’s hard to fault them, and if they insist they have that “right” more power to them, but they needn’t expect me to pretend that its “normal” because it sure as hell is not.
Actually, there is not much evidence that it is genetic. The one study everyone likes to point to was proved to be faulty. The rest is still just speculation.
What, and miss a chance to pontificate?
I smell a Nobel Prize in Medicine for one of you geniuses. Well done!1!!11!!
”
First, permit me to say that there is no conclusive evidence — none, zero, zilch — that homosexuality is genetically determined.”
You’ll know they’ve found some when banning abortion becomes a hot gay issue.
“First, permit me to say that there is no conclusive evidence — none, zero, zilch — that homosexuality is genetically determined.”
There most certainly is conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not chosen. People do not and cannot choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. It’s not a choice. Period. Now, if you want to believe that the statement “Homosexuality is not a choice” is equivalent to the statement “Homosexuality is genetically determined,” then you will believe that. But the truth is that genes are not the only component of inheritance. It’s a lot more complex than that. The fundamental point is that homosexuals do not “choose” to be homosexual any more than you “chose” to be heterosexual. You did not choose to be heterosexual. You just ARE.
“Until the science catches up with reality, shouldn’t we err on the side of a system that has worked for millenia?”
Heterosexual marriage has “worked for millennia”? On which planet?
“Its something that you have to go through a number of gates to get to, and once you try it, it can be like drug addiction. You think you’re experiencing your true self. Also, like drugs it is very, very bad for your health (not even counting AIDS).”
And you know this — how? Are you gay? Where’s your evidence for these claims?
Conservatives will not return to power on the backs of people conservatives find “disgusting.”
Try policies which unite the country in the spirit of the Preamble.
Translation-Give me my welfare check!
Not only am I gay, but I’m a drag queen, and the lead singer in a Broadway production of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
You can go and read George Gilder’s ‘Men and Marriage’, but the sheer brilliance of his analysis, and the kindly said lack of political correctness might cause your brain to melt.
i don’t think people think homosexuality’s a “choice” as in you just wake up one day and decide that way. the question is whether it’s innate for 100% of the people who identify as such, and therefore whether it’s OK to encourage kids with certain feelings to identify as homosexual at a young age. and the existence of people who’ve “experimented” with bisexuality and “hasbians” who have switched orientation without feeling obligated by religion would suggest that it’s not.
If homosexuality can be shown to be a genetically determined condition leading to markedly higher rates of depression, suicide, and a host of diseases from “gay bowel syndrome” to AIDS, shouldn’t any government intervention be seeking prevention and a cure?
I might be wrong here, but I don’t think government should be in the business of financing operations to increase one’s dick size.
psychological disorder until the 70’s i believe, that is all I have to say on it.
“… the question is whether it’s innate for 100% of the people who identify as such, and therefore whether it’s OK to encourage kids with certain feelings to identify as homosexual at a young age. and the existence of people who’ve “experimented” with bisexuality and “hasbians” who have switched orientation without feeling obligated by religion would suggest that it’s not.”
A person can “experiment” with sexual activity by having sex with someone of the same gender and not be gay or lesbian. That’s not the same thing as being, and realizing or understanding that you are, gay or lesbian. Most individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, or who feel that they are gay or lesbian, have felt that way since their earliest memories, albeit of course not labeling it as “gay” or “lesbian” or “homosexual.” It’s not just about “experimenting with sex.” It’s about how you feel inside. I had crushes on boys, and felt something different inside about the opposite sex than my own, for as long as I can remember. Nobody questions that. It’s no different with being gay or lesbian.
“If homosexuality can be shown to be a genetically determined condition leading to markedly higher rates of depression, suicide, and a host of diseases from “gay bowel syndrome” to AIDS, shouldn’t any government intervention be seeking prevention and a cure?”
It’s not homosexuality that leads to higher rates of depression and suicidal feelings, DaMav. The solution is prevention and cure of anti-gay hatred, hatred, and ignorance about what homosexuality is and is not — not prevention and cure of homosexuality. And oh, by the way, hi DaMav. Now I know where you disappeared to.
This one, oh newly minted graduate of the Paula Poundstone School of Stand-Up Rhetoric.
If heterosexual marriage is such a disaster, why do gays want to simulate their own version?
They don’t. Gays do not “want to simulate their own version.” There aren’t different “versions” of marriage. Marriage is marriage. Gays simply want the same right every other adult has to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. And to deny them that right is both constitutionally and morally wrong.
So you, then, as a human with free will, are choosing to be heterosexual. It’s a conscious and deliberate choice you made. You aren’t required to engage in heterosexuality just because you might be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. People like sex, but you don’t have to be heterosexual just because you’re a person who likes sex.
Homosexuality is not an affliction.
“For the lack of better words, a birth defect. Like having six toes on one foot.”
I think it’s more accurately described as a variation. A naturally occurring variation. There are many such normal variations in nature.
this guy is supposed to very smart. weiiI have tell ya that statements
about gay being a choice is just plain old stupid as in a 5 year old
way