In her interview with Katie Couric, Palin says one of her closest friends is gay. Interestingly, she describes it as a choice — a key dividing line between social conservatives (who argue that it is a choice) and many others who argue that homosexuals are born gay.
Couric had asked about a seminar at her former church geared toward helping homosexuals change proclivities through prayer:
But what you’re talking about, I think, value here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can pray it away, because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin. And you know, I don’t know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don’t know what’s prayers are going to be asked and answered.
But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
posted October 1, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Considering the sort of position she has been placed in, it was probably the best answer that could be expected of her. At least she did not say that they should be fed to the polar bears.
posted October 1, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I think the jury is still out on the issue of homosexuality being a “choice”. Since many homosexual people felt an affinity for the same sex since early childhood, it’s difficult to say whether that can be considered a “choice”. Can one choose at say, age 4? Can one know what is implied in that choice as an adult? I don’t think so. I think that most parents would agree that their children come somewhat “ready made” with their own strengths and weaknesses regardless of what parents would like them to be. Some children are natural artists or mathematicians. Is that a choice too? I don’t think so.
posted October 1, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Gee, how big of Sarah to accept her friend’s “choice” to be a lesbian. She doesn’t judge people. I’m so impressed!
) (not) Though some still think it is a choice, I can’t understand why anyone would choose to be discriminated against by the laws that still are on the books and treated like a “sinner” with the whole bit about hell by some who think there is such a place, as well as other ways. I can’t imagine choosing that for any reason.
posted October 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm
If you’re going to quote her, quote her correctly. First of all, she says nothing about that particular church’s bulletin, but I’m sure you meant to tie her into what the particular church is doing by stating that fact just as Couric tried to tie her into it by flashing the picture behind her interview. She is not a member of that church. What she said was this:
“When the media gets it wrong it frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and be able to make up their mind about a persons’ values. You know what, I don’t know what prayers are worthy of being prayed and what prayers are going to be answered or not answered. ”
Once again, the media, you, gets it wrong.
posted October 1, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I personally believe that the question of whether homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant to the gay-rights debate. While it is deplorable to discriminate against someone because of something that they can’t change, that doesn’t mean that it is the only form of unacceptable discrimination. For instance, most people would agree that religion (or faith, spirituality, etc.) is clearly a choice. Yet religion is protected in the first amendment. And what could be more of a choice than speech, which is also protected in the first amendment?
Suppose a man were fired because he only dated redhaired women? That would be a form of absurd and unacceptable discrimination, and I would oppose it. Yet an argument that he could only date redhaired women would be laughed out of the public debate.
posted October 1, 2008 at 11:44 pm
There is too much scientific evidence that being homosexuality is not a choice for most people. The treatment of homosexuality by some Christians is appalling.
How about people born with both male and female parts? Was that a “choice?”
Within my denomination, there has been considerable disagreement about the Church’s statement on homosexuality. There have been attempts at each major church conference to have a more accepting statement, which still has not happened. Many individuals churches are very accepting of homosexuality.
A few months ago, the Presbyterian Church voted to allow ordaining homosexuals.
I pray that someday Christians will accept homosexuals as equal children of God.
A saying:
God don’t make no junk.
posted October 5, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Homosexuals by virtue of their nature are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Even though there are variants in all of creation and degrees of attraction as evidenced by the famous Kinsey Report of the 1950′s, true homosexuals are exclusively attracted to their own sex. If homosexuality were a choice then you are saying that heterosexuals could also be homosexuals and feel just as sexually attracted to their own sex but choose not to. No honest true heterosexual would ever claim to be attracted to their own sex.
We should be more concerned with being loving compassionate beings and minding our own business than judging anyone elses.
posted December 12, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Religion. Now THAT’S a choice.
posted May 26, 2011 at 9:58 pm
I like it very much, thank you