Texas Governor Rick Perry, seen as a potential Republican presidential candidate in the 2016 election, compared homosexuality to alcoholism in remarks in San Francisco.

 

Perry made the comparison on Wednesday night during an appearance before the Commonwealth Club of California after being asked whether he believes homosexuality was a disorder, according to local media reports.

 

"I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that," Perry said in remarks broadcast on the local CBS affiliate.

 

"And I look at the homosexual issue in the same way."

 

A few people in the audience gasped in response, according to the CBS report.

 

A representative for Perry was not immediately available for comment.

 

Perry has been a staunch defender of a Texas constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage, saying states should be allowed to set their own policies for who can get married.

 

The already conservative Texas Republican Party in the past week adopted a hardline position on gay rights, adopting a policy at its convention that endorses "reparative therapy" for gays who seek to change sexual orientation through counseling.

 

The American Psychological Association has dismissed the idea that sexual orientation is a mental disorder and said mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

 

 

Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism at San Francisco event - NY Daily News

 

 

:ohbrother:

Can a mod fix the title so Rick Perry isn't little Ricky anymore! :bag:

And there's really people out there that think this idiot is qualified for the Presidency.

Gay conversion therapy doesn't lead to people becoming straight; it leads to kids trying to kill themselves from depression.

 

It's a barbaric practice that's been discredited by EVERY credible psychiatric organization.

 

Just awful.

So is it a choice or are you born gay?

Not sure it is a genetic trait to become a homosexual. but they do say alcoholism is hereditary.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but isn't he saying what many gays say? That a person is born gay, not a trait taught or "made"? I get all confused but I was thinking the more accepted thought is that being gay is a genetic trait.

"We are all gay. Its just what extent are you gay." - Ron White

 

Alcoholism probably was not the best metaphor but it would seem to fit. Just like most people do not chose to be an alcoholics there are people who certainly do not seem to simply 'chose' to be gay. There is something more that simple voluntary 'choosing' for most it would seem. Genetics, testosterone/estrogen levels (we all have both), physiological psychology makeup...who knows.

 

It would be nice if any government agency did not feel the need to define 'marriage'. Marriage is an institution that existed long before government. But because that 'status' drives so many governmentally controlled things and has policy, tax and financial impact there has been a drive to control it. Ideally, maybe, government would recognize civil unions generically, which is how the government views marriages. They are treated like business partnerships legally - where two unique legal elements become one legal entity. There are governmental impacts to redefining the traditional definition of marriage. Many policies, laws, etc. were defined 'assuming' marriage meant one man and one woman.

 

And once you start 'redefining' this term it is a valid question of 'where does it stop'. Can a marriage include more than two people - regardless of sex? Not sure how Utah deals with issue with its Mormon population. Can you have other legal partnerships of other configurations under the 'married' umbrella? How does that affect inheritance laws, tax laws, etc? Even if you have no issue with gay people or married gay people the question has to be what is the definition, how will it impact laws, taxes and other legal things managed by the government? Its not a religious question or a 'gay rights' question. It is a practical question or issue since laws, policies, tax rules, etc. were almost all designed around the assumption of a traditional marriage makeup. The safe route for government is to define 'marriage' in the traditional sense since that how almost all laws, etc that reference 'married' were derived. But will polygamist start demanding the right to be legally married? Why wouldn't they. And the cycle will start again most likely.

 

There are gay people. There will always be gay people. They should have access to anything married people do and not be treated differently at a legal level at all. Marriages are partnerships - at a legal level. Denying people the ability to enter into a partner that has been given special LEGAL capabilities in the laws certainly seems wrong. Every law that references marriage, husband or wife should examined. Eventually they will have to be anyway.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but isn't he saying what many gays say? That a person is born gay, not a trait taught or "made"? I get all confused but I was thinking the more accepted thought is that being gay is a genetic trait.

:thumb: What Perry said was "inartful" but the gist of what he said closely matches the opinion of many gay rights advocates. The jury is still out on the existence of a "gay gene" but it is pretty clear that genes play a role in sexuality. What Perry did was to acknowledge that some people may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, just as they may be genetically predisposed to fall victim to alcoholism - but that genes do not have to trump individuals' free will.

 

I think that Perry's view is more likely correct than that of people who claim that gay people do not make a choice to lead a gay lifestyle. It seems much more likely to me that multiple genes influence people's sexuality.

 

What should be clear to everybody is that human behavior is ultimately a choice. Most Catholic priests choose to lead celibate lives but they were not born destined to that lifestyle. Why does anybody believe that it is not the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals who do not become priests or nuns? Furthermore, why do gay rights extremists insist that being gay or straight is a discrete trait and that there is no "sliding scale" based on the influence of one's genes and environment?

 

Rick Perry is far from my first choice as a president because I just don't think that he is all that bright. Neither is Obama but yet here he is in the middle of his second term.

I don't know, I take his comment as they have a choice to be gay or straight and I disagree with him. It's not a choice, it's what you are, it's not a perversion, it's how you're born. They're different than heterosexuals and some heteros have a hard time with identifying or accepting what they simply don't understand. Sad thing is it makes it even tougher on homosexuals since society perceives what is normal and society often treats different as pariahs.

I don't know, I take his comment as they have a choice to be gay or straight and I disagree with him. It's not a choice, it's what you are, it's not a perversion, it's how you're born. They're different than heterosexuals and some heteros have a hard time with identifying or accepting what they simply don't understand. Sad thing is it makes it even tougher on homosexuals since society perceives what is normal and society often treats different as pariahs.

People do make the choice. Bi-sexuals are real. So are the people who live a straight life and then abandon their families to live a gay lifestyle. There are also many cases of people making the opposite choices - living a gay lifestyle for years and then getting married and raising a family.

 

Maybe those cases are relatively rare, but such instances are common enough to make it clear to me that some choice is involved and the intensity of people's preference for one sex over another is not uniform.

People do make the choice. Bi-sexuals are real. So are the people who live a straight life and then abandon their families to live a gay lifestyle. There are also many cases of people making the opposite choices - living a gay lifestyle for years and then getting married and raising a family.

 

Maybe those cases are relatively rare, but such instances are common enough to make it clear to me that some choice is involved and the intensity of people's preference for one sex over another is not uniform.

Is it not possible that they were struggling with who they really were? Fighting it, living a lie because they had a hard time coming to terms what their sexual attraction really is and living i fear of how they will be treated by family and friends?

 

Bi-sexuals are just greedy. :lol2: I kid.

 

The world is not black and white, there are shades of grey. There are many people who identify as bisexual in this world, I believe that is how they are born, attracted to both sexes.

The primary problem with the issue of gay rights is we as a people continue to cross back and forth between secular law and religious beliefs. As stated before, government had no right to claim authority over the institution of marriage. I echo the sentiment that the government should issue civil unions to any adult, consentual couple that requests one, heterosexual or homesexual. Definition of equal rights and pretty much common sense. I have heard the alcoholism-homosexuality comparison argument before. One of the items I took away from it was although it is biblically wrong to act on homosexual or drunken tendencies, government shouldn't be in the business of enacting law based on religion. Prohibition was wrong, so is disallowing one group of consenting adults from what another group of consenting adults has access to. The alcoholism-homosexuality comparison argument goes much better as a religious argument, not as a polticial one. But then again, that's the problem: separating the issue into two separate arenas. Just like the government cannot tell me what religion to subscribe to, it cannot dictate my sexual preference. The freedom to make these fundamental human choices, even choices another individual makes that I don't religiously subscribe to, is something that we say we hold dear but sometimes don't really show it.

Is it not possible that they were struggling with who they really were? Fighting it, living a lie because they had a hard time coming to terms what their sexual attraction really is and living i fear of how they will be treated by family and friends?

 

Bi-sexuals are just greedy. :lol2: I kid.

 

The world is not black and white, there are shades of grey. There are many people who identify as bisexual in this world, I believe that is how they are born, attracted to both sexes.

It is certainly possible that people who bounce between heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles are "struggling with who they really were," but the bottom line is people do choose how they act in response to emotions and genes influence our emotional makeup. For some people, it is an easy choice and for others it is a difficult choice subject to periodic changes.

It is certainly possible that people who bounce between heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles are "struggling with who they really were," but the bottom line is people do choose how they act in response to emotions and genes influence our emotional makeup. For some people, it is an easy choice and for others it is a difficult choice subject to periodic changes.

You really think homosexuality is a choice?

You really think homosexuality is a choice?

Homosexual behavior is a choice. For some, it is a much easier choice to make than it is for others. I think that I have explained the basis of my position in my posts above.