Buck’s Gay Gaffe

Just goes to show that just like in Washington, maybe the shrillness of the Teabaggers only serves to turn the American people off…

Could some journalist please ask Ken Buck to tell us exactly when he “chose” to be a heterosexual?

Astonishingly enough, I’d rather be gay than in a gutter somewhere reeking of alcohol…

Why is a candidate for the Bigot Party being a Bigot NEWS?!?

He choses it every time he has sex with his wife, and it is a STRUGGLE!

President Obama, with a coarse voice, warned a crowd in Ohio: “They’re fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.”

.
“ACK!!! Where are all the gays at?”, Obama says…..we need them now more than ever to change the subject, and get us off the meme ….“the economy is what really matters, stupid”.

JNS- what a surprise..another negative article on a republican. Why is it a gaffe..because you and MSNBC say so. Liberals like yourself are in overdrive to try and discredit any non D candidate. It is so obvious it’s laughable.Seriously, like i said before are you trying out for KOS yet.

Jay busy muckraking with her dirty little paws again. Typical Swampland journolism.

Why is a gaffe? Well because it is stupid and untrue.

Don’t like a topic? Talk about something completely unrelated. It’s the Tea Party Way!

See also 6.1, IJ.

Jay, how dare you!
.
Once again, you’ve proven that you are Che Guevara worshiping proto-Maoist seeking to turn America into a Stalinist state under Sharia Law.
.
Have you no shame, Jay?
.
The next time you write something negative about the Glorious and Infallible GOP, I want you to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and instead of asking yourself “What would Saul Alinsky do?”, think like an American. Then write the Truth about the perfected GOP (whom everyone know is infallible), instead of articles like this where you hold politicians accountable for their words. You know who else holds people responsible for their words? Commies, that’s who!
.
Then, and only then, can we remove all notions of bias from our journalist-Americans by having them only write good things about Republicans and America, and bad things about Democrats (who hate America). One day, with luck on our side, all media will follow the lead of the Most Bestest Fox News. The only network with the courage to tell the unvarnished truth about the GOP, without diluting it with anti-American Democrats for some sort of faux ‘balance’ that only ACLU members and politically correct liberals believe in.
.
In the meantime, I hope your hanging your head in disgrace, Jay. No soup for you.

No wonder Miller has his own Jackboot squad! With people like Jay around we need them!

Buck seems to be revving up the old choice vs genetic mutation argument.

A report of Odenwald and Zhang’s findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation.

Such work stirs mixed emotions in the gay community. To some extent, gays and lesbians welcome the research because it supports what most of them have long felt: that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color, rather than a perverse life-style choice, as conservative moralists contend. And if that is true, then gays deserve legal protection similar to the laws that prohibit racial discrimination. “On a political level, genetic research does seem to move the debate along a certain path,” says Denny Lee of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York City. “When people understand that being gay or lesbian is an integral characteristic, they are more open-minded about equality for gay Americans.”

On the other hand, many gays are wary of the genetic hypothesis. It could, they fear, help promote the notion that gayness is a “defect” in need of “fixing.” “Any finding will be used and twisted for homophobic purposes,” says Martin Duberman, head of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York. “If it does turn out that for some people, there is a genetic or hormonal component, the cry will then arise to take care of that.” Indeed, the cry is already rising.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California, says that if a biological cause of homosexuality is found, then “we would have to come up with some reparative therapy to correct that genetic defect.”

No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person’s choice of sleeping partners.

Odenwald and Zhang do not pretend to have any easy answers. In fact the type of gene they’ve been studying in fruit flies could not begin to account for the complex variations in human homosexual behavior. For one thing, the gene does not cause flies to renounce heterosexuality altogether. If a “gay” fly is surrounded by females instead of males, he’ll fertilize the lady flies. So strictly speaking, the NIH flies are not homosexual but bisexual. And the gene produces no unusual behavior when transplanted into females: the scientists have produced no lesbian fruit flies

“Why is a gaffe? Well because it is stupid and untrue.”
.
No, it’s a gaffe because it’s stupid and what the Teatard Ken Buck really believes. Again the slobbering base goes ape and accuses “media bias” when they report the candidate’s own words. That will “discredit” them every time.

Whenever these finatics go on about homosexuality being a “choice” I ask who would chose to be discriminated with, be made the object of scorn and ridicule and worst? How many young people have killed themselves because of how God made them? As for chosing who “our partner is” as Buck put it, I disagree. No of us total control over whith whom we fall in love. The military’s treatment of gays in the ranks is also a pretty good argument against it being a “lifestyle chose”. If homosexuality were nothing more a chose, the military practice would simply be to discharge anybody found to engage in homosexual relationships. Instead, then Pres. Clinton, the Congress and the military have decided that doesn’t go far enough. It was decided 17 years ago that homosexuals are a subclass of people, unworthy of serving the country they love.

*shrug*
.
Much ado about nothing.
.
He’s closer to factually correct on this issue than most Republican candidates. At least he admits people are born that way indirectly.
.
The gaffe isn’t comparing it to alcoholism. Technically, nothing he said isn’t correct. People are born alcoholics and work to overcome that. People are also born gay, and could theoretically work to suppress it.
.
Now, of course, telling someone they should suppress who they are is absolutely absurd, but at least Buck is admitting that this is in fact who they are and not some arbitrary choice.

“gaffe”? How is this a “gaffe”? Gaffe implies some kind of unintentional misstatement. This is who and what Ken Buck is. This is who and what the (vast majority) of the Republican Party is. This is Sarah Palin. This is Jim DeMint. This is Marco Rubio. This is Christine O’Donnell. And this is John McCain and John Boehner and for that matter Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and all the other phony moderates who prop up the nutcases.

What possessed Buck to use alcoholism – a disease that comes with all kinds of negative connotations – I’ll never know
What possessed him is this is what he thinks. Now you know. You’re welcome.

Jay, I know at Broderist Training Camp for Young Journamalists you were denied food and bathroom privileges until you could repeat “Republicans are all really reasonable moderates” five times in one breath, but really, when Republicans try to tell you who they are, what they believe, just listen to them. Feel free to pass this info on to Scherer and any of the kids from your bunkhouse at BTCfYJ. Ken Buck is not pretending to be an ignorant, bigoted troglodyte to appeal to his “base”. He really really is, honest and for true, an ignorant, bigoted troglodyte.

Oh, and…
Buck has made a convincing case to voters that he is not the “extreme” Tea Party candidate Bennet has asserted he is.
Speaking as a registered Colorado voter: No, no he has not. He has benefited from a lot dishonest and demagoguing ads–his own, Karl Rove’s, from the Chamber of Commerce–about “Obamacare” and “runaway spending”.

Rusty:
.
Whip out that magic wand! Let’s see what you can do!

╔═════════════════════
║ ■ Choice v Nature
╚═════════════════════

It’s an interesting question with no known answer, so I guess that makes it perfect for political debate. I don’t find what he said, even as a supporter of gay rights, to be alarming at all. Regardless of whether or not it is a choice to be gay, or a gay person is born with it, it is who they are and they should be able to legally do whatever they want with another consenting individual of adult age.

So, I don’t particularly view this as a gaffe unless he somehow contradicted himself or a history of his own talking points, accidentally.

╔═════════════════════
║ ■ Jay Newton-Small
╚═════════════════════

I find her reporting to be balanced. At times here pieces appear to have conservative slants and at others liberal, and to me that must mean she hangs out somewhere in the middle on a lot of this stuff or can at least shift her perspective around. And that probably also means that my bias itself is probably being overlaid on her writing. While it is true you can’t ever be truly objective, it would be wrong to say Jay shills for either the left or the right.

You could make that argument with others who write for time, notably Halperin and Klein are probably the best polar examples; and only Halperin ever really stands behind one viewpoint entirely.

…went on to compare homosexuality to alcoholism.

Considering that the right-wingers used to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, I guess things are moving in the right direction.

Now being gay is only as bad as being John Boehner.

… true, could it be that since a lot of them are alcoholics, this is them quietly admitting it is ok?

JNS — You said this:

Yesterday in a Meet the Press debate with Michael Bennet, Ken Buck misspoke. Badly.

Precisely how can you classify Ken Buck stating what he believes in as a misstatement?
..
It appears to me that he said exactly what he believes; he didn’t simply misspeak by saying up when he meant down. Your characterization of his statement is deeply flawed.

If Buck had announced that he was opposed to recognizing the “marriage” of a dozen men along with a couple of paramecia and an oak tree, Jay Newton-Small and Time magazine (and ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, the New York Times-Democrat, et al.) would have called that a “gaffe”.

The problem is alcoholism is considered a disease. Some people maybe genetically predisposed to the disease.
.
Gay and lesbians do not have a disease and they cannot by 12 steps do away with their genetic destiny, nor should they want to.

Textee: Please watch this video before commenting on homosexuality. If you watch it and are not moved, I worry about your sanity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/joel-burns-texas-councilman_n_761260.html

apr2563, My MIL goes to a church that “prays” people straight. They’d had no success so far, but they keep plugging away. Their preacher is also 50, never had a girlfriend, never been married and lives with a male “room-mate” to share expenses. They’re so clueless they’d be funny if they weren’t so pathetic. Every few months he gives an anti-gay sermon (that proves to them that he’s straight). I call him Sister Mary Butt Plug just to p!ss off the MIL.

Before I go watch a movie, here’s a good idea of what he looks like: A whiter, out of shape Pillsbury Dough Boy that gets red in the face and trembles when he gets mad. Everything makes him mad.

sacredh: My mother and aunts never believed Liberace was gay. He was a good Catholic boy who loved his mother.

Someone should ask Mr. Buck if he could choose to be sexually attracted to a man, if he so desired.

When you are doing what is natural, you don’t have to make a choice.

What I can’t understand is why anybody has any doubt that orientation is genetic in nature.

All I know is that when I began the 6th grade, girls had kooties and the boys didn’t want to be near the girls.

One day I was sitting in class and I just had this feeling… no, she doesn’t have kooties. No, there’s something really cool about her.. Then I had this strange feeling like I had five limbs. I looked down and discovered I did have fifth limb.

Then I began to think that this whole girls have kooties thing was just a myth.

Either sexuality is totally genetic or gay guys never found out that girls don’t have kooties.

Obviously, sexual desire is completely involuntary.

Think about this: hasn’t every heterosexual man sexually wanted a woman he didn’t like to hang out with at all? If anything at all about sexual desire is a choice, then nobody would ever sexually desire somebody they don’t get along with.

Obviously gays had the opposite experience than I did and instead began to like to check out other guys instead. It doesn’t take any imagination that I can not take credit for my heterosexuality being a good idea. All I know was that I suddenly realized girls don’t have kooties when I was eleven and years old and never could have thought differently even if (which nobody would) wanted to be anything else.

To misspeak is not simply to say something that some people find offensive. If what you say is so offensive that it may turn people against you, as a politician that could possibly be construed as a misstatement. However, what Buck said will have little to no effect. People’s minds are already made up on the homosexuality issue, and his comments were so utterly insignificant as to have no influential impact whatsoever. Democrats are still voting Democratic. Republicans are still going Republican. Supporters of homosexuality probably find the comments distasteful -though I’m not sure why- and opponents of homosexuality most likely agree with Buck’s comments to an extent. This was just a lede to instigate more senseless partisan bickering. Well played, JNS.

apr2563, you’d have to see these people to believe them and even then it would only be 50/50 if you believed your own eyes. You remember the flap over the “hicky” West Virginians? These people are worse than those actors. Before I banned them from the house they’d have a prayer meeting here and be throwing their hands up in air and praising Jesus because the popcorn or cake was good. They blame the devil and demons for all their problems. Black people, Mexicans, democrats, gays and liberals are just behind.
.
They’d eat all the food, pray, cry, pray some more, leave a mess and insult me and my wife in our own home. I finally told them all to get the f**k out and never come back.

“Supporters of homosexuality probably find the comments distasteful -though I’m not sure why-”
.
Seriously? If a Mormon likened choosing Catholiscism to a cult, drug addiction or alcoholism you wouldn’t find that distasteful or upsetting? People’s minds aren’t set in stone regarding many issues. The issue of gay marriage is gaining greater acceptance year by year. People’s minds can change.

” Democrats are still voting Democratic. Republicans are still going Republican.”
.
Agreed on that part.
.
“Supporters of homosexuality probably find the comments distasteful -though I’m not sure why- and opponents of homosexuality most likely agree with Buck’s comments to an extent.”
.
What is a “Supporter of homosexuality..” mean?
.
Does that mean not beating up gay people?
.
In that case, nearly everybody who does not go to jail for assault is a “Supporter of homosexuality.’
.
If you mean supporter of gay marriage over civil unions, I, myself, have no idea what the difference is other than a couple of words and, therefore, say give them civil unions so that they can visit one another in the hospital but don’t bother calling it marriage since some religious people will get very angry sharing a word with gay people in which case I am a “opponent of homosexuality ”
.
I just know that my attraction to women is biological in nature from my experiences and believe that any man who can recall that part of their life when they suddenly found girls sexy already knows that, no matter what good decisions we’ve made in our lives, sexual orientation was not a choice.
.
But I do agree with you that it is not really a gaff nor an issue.

Acceptance. Tolerance. Two vastly different realms. One can be tolerant of homosexuality without accepting homosexuality as something perfectly routine. I don’t insult gay people, I don’t hurl insults at them, I don’t think they should be denied the honor of serving their country or discriminated against in terms of suffrage, property rights, holding office, or employment. Simply put, I don’t justify or moralize treating them as second-class citizens. But, I find homosexuality itself to be something that I cannot condone. What can I say, I am an extremist deserving of tar and feathers.

I’ll have to disagree with you both on this one. I think it was a gaffe and an issue. Maybe an issue than is not really important to the three of us, but to gays it certainly would be. I think his analogy displayed both a certain amount of intolerance and ignorance on his part. It doesn’t really bother me if two religious groups get involved in a little name calling because I’m not religious. It’s important to them because it’s a part of who they are and what they believe. To me, it would be like gays saying heterosexuals only go for a member of the opposite sex because of job opportunities or social pressure. That would offend me because I don’t think I had any choice in being straight. It was just natural to me and a part of what makes me who I am.

Exiled, don’t feel bad. We all have things we can’t condone. I’ve told my son before that if he ever turned into a republican or married one, I’d still love him, but I’d disinherit him. He’ll get the love, the cash prizes would go though.

” But, I find homosexuality itself to be something that I cannot condone. What can I say, I am an extremist deserving of tar and feathers.”
.
Well, to me it’s like asking if I condone or don’t condone being short or having red hair. I don’t think I condone having red hair.

Christ! I hate short people with red hair. Why’d you have to bring them up?

free,

Source?

“Republicans are still going Republican. Supporters of homosexuality probably find the comments distasteful -though I’m not sure why- and …”

Because if he is elected to the US Senate he could be voting on issues like DADT, or on a Teapublican bill to refuse federal education money to any school that employs a gay male or unmarried female teacher.

Unmarried females? Sure thing, dude. Keep up the hyperbole.

Redheads have no souls.

Exiled: To people who are bullied and harrassed about their sexuality when a political figure speaks in public and compares homosexuality to a disease (alcoholism) they have a right to be irate. You may be tolerant and not speak out but many are not. Perhaps you should actively speak out to your political bretheren.
.
Actually, the always reserved Senator DeMint did declare homosexuals, unwed mothers and unmarried sexually active women should not be hired as teachers.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/demint_sexually_active_unmarried_women_and_gay_teachers_should_be_barred_from_classrooms.php
.
Remember Demint is the chief promoter of the TP candidates. Not hyperbole.

Exile, please see comment 20.9

Exiled_,

Senator DeMint:

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing “traditional marriage,” according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/02/demint-gays-unmarried-pregnant-women-teachers_n_748131.html

DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/04/demint-unmarried-female-teachers-allowed

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that even though “no one” came to his defense in 2004 after he said that gay people and unwed mothers should be banned from teaching, “everyone” quietly told him that he shouldn’t back down from his position.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/demint_sexually_active_unmarried_women_and_gay_teachers_should_be_barred_from_classrooms.php

It isn’t hyperbole. He said it.
Question: If his policy opinion were to prevail, who would be empowered to investigate the private lives of all teachers to ferret out the gay pedophile and whore teachers, and bring them to the attention of the moral authorities for trial and certain banishment from the holy halls of academe?

Question 2: I thought that was settled on “Little House on the Prairie”, and Laura won. Right?

Apr,
.
I know that you are addressing Exiled, but, you are right that Buck’s remarks are a clear call for discrimination against homosexuals and unless one believes that orientation is contagious (if it were, then nobody lives in Boston would come back heterosexual – a massive gay community there some of whom used to sexually harass straight male cab drivers which was incredibly irritating to say the least) and should be offensive.
.
What does one do when they know an alcoholic? You shun them when they get drunk and demand that they cease consuming alcohol. This is advocating the shunning of homosexuals, which involves and requires discrimination against them.
.
On the other hand, issues closer to my own heart, I find their denial of modern economics regarding restarting the economy using a stimulus package, their hatred of organized workers, hatred of immigrants, denial of climate change and, amongst the most religiously fanatical, the denial of evolution so offensive that I expect nothing less than totally ignorant and offensive behavior of the Teapublicans.
.
Remember the 1980s and 1990s when you had Republicans like Bob Dole: boring but honest and willing to deal with reality? Where did those Republicans go? They were pretty tolerable.