Ignorantly believing that sexuality is a choice does not make one homophobic (or heterophobic).

[phleshdef]

When I was much younger and much more ignorant about such matters, I too once believed that sexuality was a choice and that one chose to be gay or straight or bisexual. I didn't believe any of those choices were the "wrong" choice, it was just a matter of what you liked. I was/am straight. I was not homophobic. I did not believe that being gay or bisexual was the wrong choice. I just hadn't yet connected the dots on "what we like" and "what we were born to like".

Of course, I grew out of my teenage years and got to experience the world, got more exposure to people that were different, etc and thus I corrected my previously ignorant assumptions, not just about sexual preferences but about other preferences as well. Having said that, there is no time in my life, then or now, that I did not fully support the idea of equal rights, for sexual orientation to play no role in who gets hired for a job (military included), for everyone to be protected against violence and harassment due to their sexual orientation and for non-heterosexual couples to be able to take the same plunge as heterosexual couples take when we are crazy enough to get married. (yes that was humor)

I have a feeling Valerie Jarrett feels the same way I do as far as that goes. Perhaps she really did just say something she didn't mean (it happens) or maybe she really was caught exposing an ignorant aspect of her point of view on the nature of sexual orientation. In either event, this labeling her as a bigot over her statement needs to stop. To automatically jump to the nastiest conclusions about her over that statement is true prejudice. It assumes things that she didn't say. It assumes a point of view that she did not express. If you watch the entire interview where this gaffe occurred, everything else she said actually expresses a point of view toward the GLBT community that everyone here should applaud.

Ignorantly believing that sexuality is a choice does not make one homophobic against those that are gay unless you are saying that it is somehow the "wrong" choice. That is not what she said. And the fact that she was sensitive enough to quickly back off that statement and apologize should be adequate. When we allow ourselves to get rabidly angry and judgemental like this, calling everyone a bigot or a homophobe because they said something that wasn't in an of itself anti-homosexual and was followed up by a tremendous amount of pro-GLBT sentiment, it cheapens our argument. It makes us look silly and it makes it harder for the country as a whole to take us seriously.

We know that there is more than enough scientific data and research of personal experiences out there to make the winning case for the idea that sexual attraction is a natural thing. But really, it shouldn't be an argument one way or the other. Equal rights for those of all sexual preferences should be something that we practice in a civil society, regardless of whether it was by choice or by nature.

[QC]

1. Were you the official White House liaison to the LGBT community when you were a kid? n/t

[chimpymustgo]

123. Thank you, QC. This is 2010. The President's Senior Counsel.

Liason to LGBT? Geez.

[QC]

130. My grandmother believed that the moon landing was faked on a Hollywood back lot.

She would not have been a good liaison to the aeronautical engineering establishment, don't you think?

[Egnever]

2. Agreed!

The only way you get offended by this is if you are overly sensitive to that phrase or you get it totaly out of context.

Course this is DU where a headline is all you need to send people off the deep end.

[mitchtv]

138. oh please, overly sensitive my foot

an insult is an insult

[aquart]

3. Good lord. What claptrap.

She believes they made the WRONG choice.

[phleshdef]

4. Where in her statements can you show me that she said that?

[treestar]

14. She cleared that up in her apology

I guess one thing I don't understand (and I'm sure you'll jump to conclusions rather than try to help me understand) is why the absolute desire to find others are homophobic? It appears people actually want to look for a slip up here so they can prove they have more enemies.

Where does that get you? If you want to believe every straight person is a homophobe, let's say you are right. Where does that get you?

[phleshdef]

22. Its definately a witch hunt for some. Which is sad because it takes the eye off the real enemies.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

141. I think it's the institutionalized homophobia evidenced by her use of the phrase...

... that's so upsetting or alarming to many, more so than homophobia on an individual level though that is alarming in this instance as well, considering her background and position.

Homophobia is deeply embedded in our society, unfortunately, in a way and to such a degree that it can exist internally and unconsciously even in a presidential adviser acting as liaison to the GLBT community.

Pointing out this uncomfortable fact is quite hardly a quest for enemies or a repudiation of all straight people.

Many, many straight people well understand the concept of heterosexual privilege, just as many, many white people understand the concept of white privilege and many, many men understand the concept of male privilege.

Where does all this understanding get us? Closer to the goal of true equality without arbitrarily assigned privilege of any sort, one would hope.

[11 Bravo]

181. Bull. Shit.

I've been all over Jarrett for her ignorant comment, but I've managed to do so without resorting to pure fabrications.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. I can't even get past your use of the term "heterophobic"

Seriously. :eyes:

[phleshdef]

10. Of course heterophobia is pretty much nonexistent. I was just making a rhetorical point.

[treestar]

15. OMG! You used a wrong word! Off to the homophobic dungeon for you!

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

108. "pretty much" being the operative term here... eom

[Obamanaut]

175. Heterophobia link

"Heterophobia is a term used to describe prejudice or discrimination against heterosexuals, usually in the context of the heterophobic person being homosexual or bisexual. This usage is a neologism, first appearing in print in 1990 as an analogy to homophobia. It does not have much currency outside the field of sexology, and has limited use even within that field"



http://the-medical-dictionary.com/heterophobia.htm

[leftstreet]

6. This argument would fly if Ms Jarrett happened to be 12 yrs old

A Presidential adviser cannot afford to be 'ignorant.'

[phleshdef]

7. Criticizing her ignorance is fine. It still does not mean she is homophobic.

[leftstreet]

21. What else is she 'ignorant' about? Will she denounce interracial marriage?

Will she ignorantly state that 'the poor will always be among us?'

Perhaps she believes people with substance abuse issues are just sinners?

Again, a Presidential adviser cannot afford to be ignorant.

She needs to be fired

[phleshdef]

24. Straw men to my left, straw men to my right.

[leftstreet]

89. You're not listening to anyone on this thread

You've got all these intelligent people trying to explain something to you, but you keep running off toward the wrong goal post.

I don't know. I'm beginning to think your obtuseness might be less a choice than an orientation

[phleshdef]

96. I'm listening to plenty of people. I'm just not listening to you.

[phleshdef]

31. And seriously, you advocate people losing their jobs because they don't believe someone is born gay?

This is why the right wing has a field day with us and we fail to get the country to really rally around our causes. Extremist, unforgiving, intolerant BS like that.

[tkmorris]

33. When your job is advising the President? Absolutely.

[phleshdef]

34. Wow, punished for a personal thought and not one that indicates prejudice.

What an insane precedent to set.

[tkmorris]

45. Not concerned with prejudice

I'm more concerned that it is astonishingly ignorant. That might not be so bad if we were discussing say, the methane emissions of cattle but we aren't. We are discussing one of the most important social issues of our era, an issue which should be right smack in the middle of a Democrat's wheelhouse. This is our bread and butter.

The woman is supposed to be an advisor to the President. I expect her to be reasonably better informed on these issues than the average bear. Perhaps your standards are too low.

[phleshdef]

52. Astonishing? The point of view that its a choice is wrong. But its also still fairly mainstream.

I don't think anyone should be astonished that someone would still hold that opinion.

[tkmorris]

55. I'm not astonished that someone holds that opinion

I'm astonished that someone who holds that opinion (and really, this is an opinion much as "evolution is a sham" is an opinion) is deemed to be qualified to advise the President. ESPECIALLY a Democratic President.

[muffin1]

184. How would you feel if she believed the earth is flat?

Or if, during an interview, she said she didn't believe in evolution? There is no excuse for a person in her position to be that STOOPID.

[leftstreet]

37. Certainly all Presidential advisers should n/t

[muffin1]

182. In a DEMOCRATIC adminisration?

Absolutely.

[Iggo]

23. It means she's a fucking idiot.

[xchrom]

8. heterophobic? really? -- you and valerie need help. nt

[VMI Dem]

12. Its like reverse racism: some bullshit racists made up.

You get the picture.

[phleshdef]

16. I didn't say that to indicate that heterophobia exists. It basically doesn't.

Your own views of where/how sexual preferences originate do not indicate that you hold an ill opinion of that sexual preference. It does not make you anti-gay or anti-straight.

[myrna minx]

20. What I've gathered from today is that it's the poor put upon

hetrosexuals who are the *real* victims here. :eyes: Just look at all of the rampant hetrophobia!!!!

[phleshdef]

25. Such a divisive attitude.

[cwydro]

51. I know, right?

DU just keeps on amazing me lately...or not.

[Cid_B]

44. Right....

Just the every day racism that is spread across all cultures and races.... Nothing different about it no matter who it comes from...

[Obamanaut]

177. Linked above in response 175.

"Heterophobia is a term used to describe prejudice or discrimination against heterosexuals, usually in the context of the heterophobic person being homosexual or bisexual. This usage is a neologism, first appearing in print in 1990 as an analogy to homophobia. It does not have much currency outside the field of sexology, and has limited use even within that field"



http://the-medical-dictionary.com/heterophobia.htm

[AspenRose]

9. You may have a point.

Individual ignorance does not necessarily constitute malice.

Mass willful ignorance is usually used for malevolent ends, however.

If a person makes an ignorant statement and, after being corrected, expresses a desire to learn more and change their way of thinking, that should be applauded, not slammed.

Because we've all been in that situation at some point or another, about something. Those of us who want to change for the better use these events as a tool for learning and growth.

[treestar]

18. Which VJ did

In her apology, it showed she understood.

[AspenRose]

28. Something else that bothers me about what she said is the timing

This heartbreaking suicide just happened and feelings are justifiably raw right now. Making the kind of statement she did was bad, but the timing made it worse, IMHO.

[cbdo2007]

11. Maybe straight people should just stay out of LGBT issues all together?

Geez, if someone is going to get attacked like Jarrett is just for misspeaking, I'd rather just keep my damn mouth shut for fear of a backlash.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Um, all the 'issues' are straight issues. The bigotry comes from

them. If they actually stayed out of it, there would be no problem. It is straights who 'declare war on gays' in the name of their faith, it is straights who demand that we not have equal family rights, it is straight interference that is the source of each and ever 'issue' we speak of. If the heterosexual community could just let us be, there would be none of this nonsense.
Interestingly enough, the religion the anti gay people claim teaches this principle above all others- mind your own soul, and do not judge others. It says to keep your inspection turned inward, that the flaws you imagine in others are not your business at all.
Jarrett is not being 'attacked' she is being called out on her bullshit thinking. Her chosen surrogates for Obama declared war on gay people using that actual word, he said 'this is war'. He said we try to kill your children.
The attacks come from your community, and many of those attacks are actual groups of thugs with weapons, many are just stooges with ignorant words to use to bait the thugs.
The issues all spring from straight bigotry, all of them. Your community is the source of all of the problems between our communities. Can you accept that? Tell me what it is we do to you? In what way do we prevent your equality or happiness? Hmmmmmmm?

[cbdo2007]

78. You don't prevent my equality or happiness but the fact is that there is still

a huge amount of the population, which you explain in your post, who are constantly trying to take away and limit your rights. These aren't ALL straight people doing this because not all straight people believe that way, and the fact is that if there is ever going to be any change you're going to need straight people on your side to help change all the idiots minds who want to limit your rights.

Would you rather straight people stop trying to help LGBT get equal rights?

[Bluenorthwest]

137. I think straight people should see to the plank in their own eye

and leave us to our own specks. That is, they need to clean their own house. Not all straight people are the problem, but those making the problems are all straight. And the rest of you should get off your asses and do something about it. Clean your own house. Stop with the silent support for hateful preachers, take a some stands, speak out. Deal with your own.
Improve the hearts and minds in your own community, and stop hindering our community's happiness. The problems come from your community. Deal with it. Change it. Stop whining about it and own it.
In racial civil rights fight, the whole problem was white people. Not all of them. But all of the segragationists and haters were white. I'm white, yet I know this. The victims of the injustices were not the problem at all. Same thing here.
The sort of allies who whine 'if you really want our help, you will do it how we say' are not allies at all, so do as you wish. To help others, you show up and ask what they need.

[cbdo2007]

162. I get what you're saying, I know straight people are 100% of the problem...

but let's take your example, "show up and ask what they need."

Let's say someone shows up and says, "I want to help." You get them started and are casually talking to the person an hour later and they say during the conversation, "I totally support this as a lifestyle choice." What would you do? You would correct them, they would be embarrassed and say they're sorry, and everyone would get past it and keep up the fight together.

Or would you call them a homophobe and tell them to leave because you don't want their help for saying the wrong thing??

[superduperfarleft]

74. If you can't speak without your homophobia bubbling to the service

at inopportune times, yeah, you might just want to go ahead and keep your mouth shut.

[cbdo2007]

83. Ok....I'll stop supporting same sex marriage, if that's what you prefer.

[superduperfarleft]

84. Ah, another conditional ally. Seems to be a lot of those around here.

Glad to see you're willing to side against civil rights because someone was mean to you on a messageboard.

[cbdo2007]

95. Right conditional - you respect me and I'll respect you.

You disrespect me then I'll just keep my mouth shut. It isn't conditional, it's about common decency and if you've never misspoken in your life then you're a better person than the rest of us.

I'm not going to side against civil rights, but I'm not going to lend my support to someone just waiting for an opportunity to stab me in the back as soon as they get the chance if I get terms wrong.

[phleshdef]

116. I can't speak for that person. But gay or straight, progressives support equal rights w/o condition.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

13. Your apologetic post then would be comparable to 'Women who..

.... dress provocately, DESERVED to be raped'.

There is a fine line from 'mispeaking' and 'harboring incorrect presumptions'.

[phleshdef]

19. Please, elaborate how anything I said implies anything like that, and make sense this time.

[pipi_k]

29. I don't think so, but even if it were....

that still doesn't mean the person who said it wasn't just speaking from a place of misplaced ignorance.


This is something that really burns me about about groups of so-called intelligent people. They're never quite intelligent...or tolerant...enough to give someone else the benefit of the doubt.


Someone makes an unfortunate statement, and it's like sharks smelling blood in the ocean. Everybody is so damned positive that the person who made the statement is a bigot or racist or misogynist or whatever other "ist" there is in this world. It's almost like they have to pile on someone else to give themselves the feeling that they're better.

Tolerance for all...

oops...except for people who might only have had a brain-to-mouth glitch...or who may be suffering from some unfortunate ignorance.

:eyes:

[donco6]

129. LOL! It doesn't get more "blame the victim" than that.

Sheesh.

[myrna minx]

17. omg

[Catherina]

32. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier n/t

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. She is a highly compensated 'communications' specialist

who was just sent to speak to the HRC, where she also insulted the room. When you were an ignorant 12 year old boy, were you paid high six figures to spew your ignorance in public?
When your job is words, a 'poor choice of words' is a professional failure as well as in this case, a moment which shows her own limited mind and background.
She should be fired. For being incompetent.

[MadHound]

27. You might have a valid point if it weren't for a couple of things

First, Ms. Jarrett is a grown woman, and thus should know better.

Second, Ms. Jarrett is supposedly the liaison between the Obama administration and the LGBT community, and should, in that case, definitely know better.

This wasn't an innocent slip of the tongue, this wasn't innocent ignorance as you claim, this was a Freudian slip that reveals Jarrett's true feelings on the matter.

[phleshdef]

30. No, you are being prejudiced in assuming that it indicates anti-GLBT feelings.

You have not one drop of proof that simply believing sexuality is a lifestyle choice = anti-homosexuality.

And don't give me the grown woman spiehl. Being a grown up is overrated. No grown man or woman "knows better" on a lot of things. Thats just reality.

[MadHound]

35. Yeah, you're right,

I am being prejudiced in assuming that it indicates anti-LGBT feelings. Just as I would assume that if somebody from this administration used "nigger" in referring to African Americans would be racist, or that Mel Gibson's use of the word "kike" means that he's an anti-semite. Words and word usage means things, and frankly the only people that I've heard refer to being gay as a "lifestyle choice" over the past forty years have been RW fundies and other such homophobes.

And if you are a grown up, and don't know these basic rules of decorum, then you certainly shouldn't be the liaison officer between the administration and the LGBT community.

And frankly, the fact that you are so vigorously defending this woman's actions tells me a lot about you, none of it good. Either you're so blind in your support for this administration that you're willing to overlook anything and everything, or that you actually agree with this expressed viewpoint.

There is no excuse, none, for the use of this term by a member of this administration. The fact that she did a Freudian slip on this is quite revealing of how she personally feels. The response, or non-response of this administration is also quite revealing.

[phleshdef]

39. Horse shit from your first sentence.

Believing we choose our sexuality does not indicate any type of hatred whatsoever. I'd appreciate it if you would stop stooping to such levels, there are those of us that want to continue selling the message of equal rights to this country until we finally get them and you are standing in the way with such foamy mouthed, poorly reasoned nonsense.

[MadHound]

41. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, would you listen to yourself!

"Believing we choose our sexuality does not indicate any type of hatred whatsoever."

I'm stunned, I really am stunned that you would make such a bald faced statement.

Please, whatever you do, stop "selling the message of equal rights to this country" right now. You are a piss poor salesperson, and are actually doing more harm than good.

Have you no shame?

[phleshdef]

54. I stand by my statement 100%. The origins of sexual preference should be irrelevant.

I believe if you are attracted to the same sex, you were born to be. Science supports that. Widely common personal experiences support that.

But even if I was wrong and reality was the opposite, that people chose to be with the same sex or the opposite sex, its still something that should have no negative bearing over your life in any way, shape or form. The belief that sexual preference should never be a roadblock to equal rights and opportunities is all that is required to be pro-equal rights.

One is not required to have the correct perspective on how people arrive at their sexual identity in order to support equal rights. Thats apparently your argument and its full of fallacies.

[TriMera]

65. Sexual preference. Really?

You just contradicted yourself in a very telling way.

[phleshdef]

70. Wow, the incorrect understanding of what the word preference means is insane.

[TriMera]

77. The word preference implies a choice.

Consider yourself informed.

[phleshdef]

81. No, it does not. Consider yourself ignorant.

[TriMera]

85. Okay, I'll just let you keep running around here

like a 2 year-old with a full diaper.:hi:

[phleshdef]

124. You don't have the ability to let or not let me do anything.

That, aside from your apparent lack of ability to refute any point I've made, should be duly noted.

[muffin1]

185. +1,000,000

:toast:

[MadHound]

69. I'm from Missouri, show me.

Show me any adult, of sound mind, who believes that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", yet still believes in full equality for the LGBT community.

You can't. That's what you don't, or won't, understand. It is only bigots and homophobes who believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice. That is the reality of our society.

And that you still continue to defend this says a lot about you, none of it good.

[phleshdef]

71. LOL Stupid. Its like you expect me to start giving out people's facebook addresses or something.

[MadHound]

86. No, not wanting facebook addresses

But I can show you scads of people on the right who think that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", all of whom are virulent homophobes. People like Falwell, Graham, Warren, etc.

Can you show me anybody who thinks that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", who isn't a virulent homophobe?

Shouldn't be that hard, if it is as common as you say.

[phleshdef]

90. I showed you myself when I was younger.

And I can show you scads of people on the right that think a lot of things. Valerie Jarrett isn't on the right and I really don't give a fuck about who you have on the right to put on display. Its irrelevant to me. You might as well just break Godwin's law and bring up Nazis or something.

[MadHound]

98. That's the key, WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER!

Valerie Jarret is a grown woman, who is, moreover, the liaison officer to the LGBT community. In that position you aren't supposed to make such mistakes.

But she did, and frankly it showed us what she truly thinks. Just like the non-response of this administration shows what they truly think of the LGBT community. And like how your defense of the indefensible shows about your own mindset and motives.

You are defending the indefensible, and tying yourself up into ethical and moral knots doing so. I suggest that you stop right now before you hurt yourself. It's far too late for you to conceal your own motivations in this spirited, but misguided defense of the indefensible.

[phleshdef]

103. No thats not the key. Many great people spent their whole lives being wrong about certain things.

There is nothing to defend. She did not imply one way or the other that being homosexual is inferior. You can't prove that. Its not there. And to say it is there is a dishonest argument.

[MadHound]

118. So you're just completely overlooking the fact that she is the administration liaison

To the LGBT community. That doesn't matter either to you, hmmm?

The simple phrase "lifestyle choice" does imply that being homosexual is inferior. If you don't know that, if you don't recognize that, then your ignorance in these matters has apparently extended beyond your youth. Or perhaps it simply isn't ignorance at all:shrug:

[phleshdef]

121. No it doesn't. Making a choice is not inferior to being born a certain way.

If you choose to buy into utter garbage such as that, thats your problem. It completely lacks a solid, logical foundation either way.

And no, it doesn't matter to me, because she is pro-gay rights.

[MadHound]

125. Again, you're overlooking the fact that she is the administration liaison,

She should know better

Care to address that, or are you just going to continue dancing around that inconvenient fact?

[phleshdef]

142. Its not inconvenient for me in the slightest.

It doesn't bother me. You will live.

[MadHound]

148. Keep on showing those true colors,

You apparently have no shame, and will defend the indefensible.

[phleshdef]

153. More cliches, more fake passion. Thats all you got at this point.

[MadHound]

157. No, you know what I've really got at this point? Disgust, sheer and simple disgust

I would have never, ever thought that I would read the kind of ongoing crap that you're spewing on this board. How you ever made it to a thousand plus posts without getting your ass kicked out of here for the obvious bigotry and homophobia that you are exhibiting on this thread is simply a miracle.

I really have nothing more to say to you, you've said it all and frankly I don't want to deal with your shit anymore. You are no better than the ignorant haters that one finds at FR and other such sewers. So I'm going to go now, I have better things to do than read your mindless, insulting drivel. So you've got the last word, use it how you see best. I see no need to continue to worked up by such insulting, clueless, homophobic drivel as yours.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

166. Epic and disgusting fail but a fine representation of what we're up against. n/t

[muffin1]

186. Jesus fucking christ

the right wing uses the 'choice' meme to condemn GLBTIQers. Their line of reasoning is that a person CHOOSES a 'deviant lifestyle', so they deserve what they get. Why are you pushing this for them?

[QC]

111. "sexual preference." That really says it all.

No wonder you have no idea why people are so offended by "lifestyle choice."

[phleshdef]

115. Being offended by "sexual preference" displays a misunderstanding of the scientific term.

[QC]

117. Speaking of "sexual preference" reveals a staggering ignorance

of that phrase's sociopolitical context.

You really should stop lecturing on topics you know absolutely nothing about.

[phleshdef]

120. I refuse to acknowledge ridiculous, imaginary sociopolitical contexts.

Deal with it.

[QC]

128. That context might well be ridiculous, but it's not imaginary, as it is a cornerstone

of the religious right's campaign against sexual minorities, an issue about which you know little and care even less but which is important to those of us who are living it.

[phleshdef]

143. So what? The religious right also uses charitable giving as a frame to get people to give them money

I could give less of a fuck what frames the religious right uses for anything. Valerie Jarrett is hardly a member of the religious right. Irrelevant this this argument.

[fascisthunter]

134. I'm Straight and Have to Say, you are missing a big point here

Chosen lifestyle=meaning gays are not natural, but a perversion of nature itself.

It's pretty clear to me...

[phleshdef]

144. I'm not missing a damn thing. I just don't agree with that equation.

If someone believes that all sexual orientation is chosen, straight or gay, then they aren't saying one is more natural than the other. You apparently didn't read my original post in its entirety. There is no proof whatsoever that Jarrett was making the assessment that gay is inferior, NONE. How she believes one arrived at the place of being gay or straight says ZERO about whether she believes there is a moral divide between the 2.

[fascisthunter]

178. if you say so... I think listening to what the gay community is saying to you here...

would be very beneficial. Your argument is just insulting people more than helping to mend any division or disdain due to her words.

[ThomCat]

174. Yes it does!

It absolutely does.

It is one of the defining beliefs of a homophobe.

If you think that sexuality is a choice, then YES, you are a homophobe. PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION!

[laughingliberal]

169. +1000 nt

[cwydro]

53. Yup.

Ditto.

[joeybee12]

36. Un-reccing for total cluelessness...n/t

[phleshdef]

40. Give yourself a high five for refuting nothing.

[quinnox]

38. People jump on any old little thing all the time

And get outraged and over-react, its the DU way!

[ZombieHorde]

42. Would you feel the same if she used a racial slur, as opposed to an orientation slur? nt

[AspenRose]

59. Now that you mention it...

...that was my frame of reference when expressing my opinion above.

See, being a woman of color, I hear lots of ignorant things all the time. So then I get to make a judgment call: Was that person really clueless...and should I give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them - or were they deliberately, willfully evil in their intent, really don't plan to change their opinion, and said it to get a rise out of people (in which case they are deserving of my wrath)?

I am going to walk out on a limb and speculate that there are a lot of people around VJ's age who think the same way she opined.

(Many of them are probably black, too, with limited exposure to GLBTQ people, which would be an environment conducive to creating and allowing ignorance. I hear a lot of people saying here she SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. But if you come from that kind of environment, are you really going to know better? That's a whole other issue...strains between GLBTQs, the black community in general and the Obama Administration specifically, but that's another topic.)

So: Were they to say something similar to what she did, and assuming you've discerned that they had no nefarious intent, but were simply ignorant, are you 1) going to give them the benefit of the doubt and seize the opportunity to patiently correct them, especially if they desire to do the right thing...

or are you 2) going to let anger, resentment and frustration over the lack of progress in GLBTQ matters in ths country (which is totally justified, BTW) give you permission to feel justified at kicking them down when they've admittedly done something regretfully stupid?

[pipi_k]

43. I looked for any video that showed her saying that, didn't find it, but did

find a transcription.

Taken from what she said:


"Before I spoke at the HRC dinner, I met backstage with Tammy Aarberg, her son Andrew. These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice.
But yet when he left the home & he went to school, he was tortured by his classmates."


I don't see her as being Public Enemy #1.

Something similar could be said of a heterosexual who is, as we know, born that way but has a few choices as to what sort of lifestyle he or she chooses.

The person can have sexual relationships...or be celibate.

Maybe what Ms Jarrett was referring to was not how the young man was born, but what he chose to do with his sexual orientation. He can certainly CHOOSE to be sexual, or he can CHOOSE to be celibate.

That's another possibility that, unfortunately, many here probably won't even want to consider because, really, it's just so much FUN to hate someone even when they only think they know what's in that person's heart.

[Zenlitened]

145. What in the world does celibacy have to do with anything?

:shrug:

[Barack_America]

46. What does using a phrase a woman in her position should know is offensive make her?

What does having such a phrase in her working vocabulary, ready for easy access, make her?

What does uttering said offensive phrase without a moment's pause or instant regret make her?

Think of your own vocabulary and why you've omitted certain words that refer to various ethnic groups, genders or sexual orientations. Why have you deemed them not suitable to be uttered? Would people who respect those groups still say those words?

Do you believe the old argument that one can have not a racist bone in their body, yet still say "n****r" simply because they're so used to hearing it?

[VMI Dem]

47. Bigoted.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack_America]

60. Ah, have you revealed your true motivation here?

"Lets see if you care more about being honest or more about finding whatever reason you can to say something nasty about anyone that works for the White House"

In any case, given that the poster was replying to my post to you, perhaps you could do the same?

[phleshdef]

63. Your post is rhetorical nonsense full of false equations. Why should I bother?

[Barack_America]

68. So you'll be taking the standard cop-out then?

Pity.

[phleshdef]

72. Calling you out for false equations is pretty much my argument and a valid one.

You are the one copping out from defending those false equations.

[Barack_America]

76. How can I address what you perceive to be a "false equation"...

...without you first identifying them and providing your arguments for why you believe them to be as such?

[phleshdef]

88. You wrote 4-5 sentences. Its not very hard to read your own post...

...and realize where you made equations. You equate using racial slurs and the like with the belief that people choose to be gay or straight. I can't really think of a better word to describe that than the old reliable "stupid". You do not have to be correct on where sexual orientation originates in order to believe that people in the GLBT are normal and of equal status as those that don't fall into those categories. Thats a false equation. You don't have to believe someone is born gay in order to not hate gay people.

[Barack_America]

97. Um, "lifestyle choice" is a slur. You seem to not realize that.

I see no problem equating one slur to another.

When a person is willing to use a slur, what does that make that person?

It's not a difficult question.

[phleshdef]

102. No, its not. And 1 of my main points is we need to take that argument away from the other side.

Its not a slur to disagree one way or the other of the origins of sexual orientation unless you are using that to make an argument degrading a particular sexual orientation. And our answer to the whole argument should be that it doesn't matter how someone arrives there, they should be able to do so freely and with a shared set of equal rights. This is forest before the trees nonsense to begin with. But we are making it even worse with drawing overreactive conclusions against Valerie Jarrett because of it.

[MadHound]

139. Wow, you're just totally clueless, aren't you

"Lifestyle choice" not a slur?

Sad, just sad. Apparently you've yet to grow out of the ignorance of your youth.

[phleshdef]

147. Is it a slur when someone says you made lifestyle choice about things that aren't sexuality related?

No, its not a slur. Its only a slur if you believe and are implying its somehow a bad lifestyle choice. She wasn't and thats pretty much the end of it. I know you want this so bad, but you simply can't have it.

[MadHound]

150. Have you finally twisted yourself into a pretzel shape by now?

You have been defending the indefensible all afternoon and evening now, why? Would you be doing the same if this were a member of the Bush administration? My guess, probably not. But since this is a Democratic administration, you're willing to excuse anything.

Sad to have such a lack of morals, such a lack of principles.

[phleshdef]

154. LOL, defaulting to the same things you say every thread when you are losing an argument.

Guess what, that shit doesn't work with me. You can yell George Bush all day, it still isn't giving you any material to actually refute my points, it just makes you look desperate.

[muffin1]

187. My father tells me all the time that he isn't a racist.

But then he goes on to say things like, "but they ARE lazy". He really *believes* he's not a racist and is just being honest.

Apparently you and Valerie Jarrett think *believing* homosexuality is a choice doesn't make one homophobic.

My father IS a racist, and you and your friend Valerie are homophobes.

[Rhythm]

48. You lost me at the term "sexual preferences"

It's not, "I can't decide... shall i have the steak, or the lamb?" :eyes:

[pnwmom]

58. I don't think the term "sexual preference" necessarily implies choice.

But what if some people -- bisexual people, especially -- do feel they have a choice? Is it wrong for them to act on it? Should we let the fundies tell them that acting out on their inclination is wrong? Because it's only okay if there is NO choice?

[phleshdef]

62. That person doesn't understand that the word preference applies to non-choices as well as choices.

[phleshdef]

61. What the hell is wrong with "sexual preference"? Thats incredibly silly.

[cwydro]

49. Good for you for using "orientation" in most of your post.

But you went back to "preference" at the end.

I don't "prefer" women to men. I am gay. Period.

Do you "prefer" the opposite sex or are you just plain straight?

I don't think you get it. But keep trying; we gay folk love being lectured by you intelligent, indulgent straights.:eyes:

[phleshdef]

64. No. You do prefer men. You were born to prefer men. Prefer does not always imply choice.

The word is used in the same fashion in the scientific community for many different reasons.

[cwydro]

66. Uh no.

I am a gay woman.

I do not "prefer" men. Lmao. Reading comprehension?

[phleshdef]

73. LOL. My apologies. Thats embarassing.

[cwydro]

159. No worries.

I do "prefer" women who look like women however...hate skinny minnie things...so there you go. Now you have a preference

[Touchdown]

94. I prefer trim men who are shorter and slightly younger than me.

But if the right one came along and flew me to the moon, I could fall for a bigger, taller and older man with a few more pounds on him.

Preference means we have favorites, but we can still accept the less than favorite. For me... women never enter into this equation.

I prefer chocolate to vanilla, Coke To Pepsi, BMW to Volkswagen. I could drink a Pepsi if that's all they have. I could never fall in love with a woman. No preference there.

[mitchtv]

164. as a youth, I would have "preferred" to be straight

but I am not attracted to them , no matter how many I tried, I am attracted to men.No one choses this life.

[CBR]

101. Honestly until the Jarrett comment, I did not know

sexual preference was a bad thing to say. I, of course, knew about lifestyle choice but no clue on the sexual preference. Good thing I know now.

[phleshdef]

105. Yea I didnt get the memo on preference either. Being a scientifically used phrase and all...

...I imagined it wasn't an issue.

[Touchdown]

173. "Scientific"? By whom and in what context?

Throw in the year it was used, while your at it.

Did you drop by the homepage of NARTH? Is that where your getting your "science" from?

[AspenRose]

113. This is a good thing.

A lot of us straights are learning a lot of things.

I know I personally would never want or intend to offend anyone but it could probably happen, and it is a little scary to know as a straight ally that I'd be judged very harshly for making a mistake.


I will say, though, that I can understand the anger with the apology sounding lame to some people's ears, especially being a member of this administration. Time will tell if she can fix her error beyond her apology and make things right.

[pnwmom]

50. I wonder if all the naysayers here read through to your last sentence:

" Equal rights for those of all sexual preferences should be something that we practice in a civil society, regardless of whether it was by choice or by nature."

I agree, absolutely.

Many homophobes accept that homosexuality is natural and biologically determined -- yet they still despise it. In fact, if there was a biological way to avoid the birth of homosexual babies, they would want to. So do we gain that much by focusing on the issue of "choice or nature"? Shouldn't we be supporting gay people no matter what -- no matter how they "got that way"?

Below is an essay from the "radical queer" point of view that would support your thinking.

(From what I've read though, Gayle Madwin's view is more common among women lesbians and bisexuals than among gay men.)

http://www.queerbychoice.com/homophobes.html

"Does the idea of choice encourage homophobes to say that
queers don't deserve equal rights?

"Most people believe we should have the right to freely choose our religious beliefs without loss of other civil rights. Why shouldn't we have the same right to freely choose our sexual preference? Queer by choice people challenge homophobes to answer that question. We assert that we have a right to choose to be queer. It's none of the government's business, our parents' business, or anyone else's business but our own to decide which gender we should fall in love with or marry. And it's insulting to all queers that the mainstream queer movement (especially in the United States) argues in court on a regular basis that the reason people have a right to be queer is that we supposedly can't help it. That is not the reason that anyone has the right to be queer. The reason everyone has the right to be queer is that everyone has the right to control their own mind and body unless it infringes on anyone else's right to control their mind and body. Two queers making passionate love to each other are not infringing on anyone else's rights; they're simply making each other happy.

"So why are so many queers so afraid of the idea of choice? This is an age in which Dr. Laura recently motivated hundreds of thousands of homophobes to flood Vermont lawmakers' offices with letters and phone calls railing angrily against the possibility of same-sex marriage, on the grounds that gay people are, in the words of Dr. Laura, "biological errors." Yes, you heard that right: she said biological. And hundreds of thousands of listeners heard her words and obediently called the Vermont lawmakers; offices to complain that the "biological errors" should not be allowed to marry. Gosh, what a lot of good that biological theory did for queer rights."

[phleshdef]

67. No, many are purposefully missing the good stuff so they can pick at petty non-issues.

Like incorrectly parsing the use of the word "preference" or taking the rhetorical usage of "heterophobic" entirely too serious.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. That 'choice' trip is the dogma of the McClurkin ex-gay churches

Lifestyle. So insulting. Choice, also insulting as all hell. As are most of your posts. This one is maybe the worst thing I have ever read on DU. Ignorant and divisive. Heterosexuals love to bait hooks and play word games.
Dr Laura is one of yours, a part of and voice of the straight community. Her antics do not define that which is real, dear, she is a radio entertainer for straight folks.
And you might consider using the word gay. Straight folks typing 'two queers' sounds vile. Just so you know. It makes the entire thing you wrote seem just so naff.

[pnwmom]

93. You must have read that post too quickly, because

your reading comprehension is off.

I didn't write that essay about choice, and I didn't use the word "queer" except in quotes, to refer to the self-identified "radical queer" -- a lesbian named Gayle Madwin -- who wrote the essay.

And the point she -- not I -- made about Dr. Laura is that you won't disarm the Dr. Laura's of the world by insisting that being gay is determined before birth -- that people like her despise gay people whether sexual orientation is strictly the result of biological factors or not. In fact, if they think it is biological, then they consider it a defect. Something to be fixed. Does that attitude leave gay people any better off?

[GoneOffShore]

79. You make good pragmatic points well backed up.

Unfortunately you are also on a losing wicket.

Not because you're wrong, but because you go against the prevailing wisdom here.

And before anyone starts flaming me -

Sexual orientation is not a matter of preference.

Marriage is a right that all people should have, right along with divorce.

No citizen should have the right to vote on any other citizens rights.

DADT and DOMA are unconstitutional. They were wrong from the start and they're still wrong.

Bullying is wrong.

Monsanto sucks.

The gods are dead.

[county worker]

80. Yeah it does.

If gays chose to be gay than straights chose to be straight. That's because we don't have dual sexual orientations. If it were a choice to be gay than a gay person would also have the heterosexual orientation that they chose not to do anything with and that just is not the case.

So, since no heterosexual can say they chose that orientation, they would also have to know that homosexuals didn't chose theirs either. Refusing to accept the logic of that is not lack of knowledge, it is denial of truth and the only reason to deny that truth is to promote the bigotry of homophobia.

[phleshdef]

82. No it doesn't.

I agree that you can't make the argument that someone chooses to be gay without accepting that people choose to also be straight. Thats the logical fallacy many of the "choose to be gay" crowd fall into.

But you missed my main points. You can believe that sexual orientation is motivated by choice and life experiences and still fully support equal rights and believe that being gay is normal, moral and no different than being straight.

[county worker]

99. I disagree. Supporting equal rights in that case is hollow.

What is the motive? You don't need to support equal rights. Gays have equal rights in the sense that we all have equal rights. You support not denying them equal rights but you deny part of their person hood.

[phleshdef]

104. No its not. In that case it would be like supporting equal rights for religion.

Or the right not to practice a religion at all. Thats an example of a true choice that we have equal rights in this country for.

You are not required to believe someone is born gay in order to FULLY support equal rights. Period. There is no valid argument against that.

[Touchdown]

87. Yes it is.

What you are really doing when you believe that, is that every GLBT person who has personal experience is either lying to you or somehow using fantastical thinking about their experiences.

In other words, you are calling us either delusional... or liars.

[phleshdef]

92. If you believe all sexual orientation is a choice, then you are also saying straight people are.

At least by your logic, you would be.

She never indicated one way or the other any feelings of superiority towards one sexual orientation over the other.

[Touchdown]

100. If you believe that SO is a choice, then it is not us that is delusional.

Gay people are not pathetic little children who's stories should be taken with a grain of salt. We are real people who know who we are, and what our life is/was like.

[phleshdef]

106. Wouldn't you say that "gay people are born gay" is a relatively new fact for our society?

In the grand scheme of history anyway? The acceptance of homosexuality has taken leaps and bounds in just the past decade, but we are still not entirely out of the caves. Societies have to digest changes in traditional thinking and it doesn't happen overnight.

[Touchdown]

110. No.

Gay people have known this through personal experience throughout the ages. It's just only recently that a few straight people stopped patronizing us.

[phleshdef]

114. Whether gay people knew it or not is irrelevant.

Gay people have been persecuted in this country since the beginning. It wasn't until very recently that these kinds of equal rights even seemed possible.

[Touchdown]

132. Irrelevant?

More patronizing. It's not as if human evolution made this possible. Activism, setbacks, wars with religion, Phil Donahue, murders, bashings, AIDS and science (pushed by glbt people) made this happen.

[phleshdef]

149. Yea irrelevant when I'm talking about mainstream societally accepted points of view.

I think you are purposefully ignoring what I'm saying in order to just argue some more honestly. But you know as well as I do that this country has been generally anti-homosexual for a long time and its only recently that we've started to really grow out of that as an acceptable form of bigotry, just like it took a long, long time for racism to become widely felt as unacceptable.

[Touchdown]

167. So you think straight people are "mainstream"?

More patronizing. You are hopeless. Try and listen to glbt people instead of telling us what we're all about. I've had enough lectures from the likes of you for a lifetime.

[donco6]

133. So, in other words,

"be patient, it took over 100,000 years to get out of living in caves, how long do you think it will take for gays to have their rights recognized?"

[TBF]

91. You may have been confused as a teen, but she is nearly 54 years old -

she's had time to figure it out. If she is really so insular and uneducated why in the world has Obama chosen her as an advisor? Maybe she likes to bake him cookies or something, so he brought her to Washington?

You know I'd expect this ignorance and insensitivity from the Republicans, but this party is going to have a real problem if inclusivity is not a democratic trademark anymore.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. Ignorantly believing that sexuality is a choice does not make one homophobic (or heterophobic).

This is true. However, it is a homophobic buzzword. Someone addressing the issues facing my community would do well to be aware of anti-gay (homophobic) words/ideas. Also, your title is incorrect; the term you should have used was "heterosexist."

[JuniperLea]

112. "should be something that we practice in a civil society"

Indeed! No one should be the thought police... no one should try to force a belief on anyone else... but equal rights and civility can be practiced without the pushing and shoving and is key to actually being "civilized."

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

119. Does believing "heterophobia" even exists make one ignorant?

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

122. Who believes in heterophobia?

No one. I was just making the point that a certain perspective does not automatically mean you are against ANY particular sexual orientation.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quinnox]

126. heterophobia is an interesting and novel term regardless

Whether it truly exists or not, I have never heard of it and am glad to learn new things.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

127. So you're whole point is that it's ok to use the term sexual preference?

Then you really don't have any kind of clue whatsoever.

[phleshdef]

156. Its a scientific term. And one that is not used to exclusively imply choice.

I reject the made up, bullshit meme that sexual preference implies that people are not born gay. It does not. So I will continue to use the phrase because it is an accurate phrase to use and one used by the science and medical community to describe the expression of one's sexuality. You'll get over it.

[donco6]

160. Then you'll continue to offend gay folks such as myself.

But then, I doubt that's a problem for you.

[mitchtv]

165. wrong

the term used and preferred is "sexual orientation" I don't know what scientist you mean maybe Dr Laura

[laughingliberal]

171. +1000 nt

[fascisthunter]

135. what some do to spin against criticism

homophobia is now being defended.

"Up is down, right is left...." are ya fucking kidding yourself or us?

[NMMNG]

140. M'kay

[RainDog]

146. If she's that ignorant, she's the wrong person for the job

if she's that ignorant about the debates and the jargon that she appropriated from the religious right - she's the wrong person for the job.

in other words, she appears to be too ignorant to do the job for which she is being paid.

[phleshdef]

155. I'm fine with someone having that opinion. It still doesn't mean she is a homophobe.

[jgraz]

161. Ignorantly believing that Jews run the world does not make one anti-semitic

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

172. Good point nt

[donco6]

180. LOL! Well of COURSE not.

After the gymnastics we've seen here the last few weeks, I'm confident some people could justify ANYTHING.

[BlueCheese]

163. I kind of agree and kind of disagree.

I agree that it is possible to wrongly believe that sexual orientation is a choice and still not be homophobic. It betrays a certain large amount of ignorance, but if a person still genuinely believes in full equality then he or she is not necessaily prejudicial. If I got the bizarre idea that people could choose their skin colors, but still thought everyone deserves equal treatment, I don't think that would make me a racist.

The problem is that I do think that the great majority of people who do believe that being gay is a choice are in fact homophobic. You almost have to believe that to justify discrimination against gays, because you can't blame someone for something he or she had no choice over. This, combined with how in 2010 almost anyone with an open mind knows that sexual orientation is not a choice, is why people are naturally skeptical of anyone who uses the phrase "lifestyle choice". I mean, Dick Cheney knows it's not a choice. Ted Olson knows it's not a choice. Cindy McCain knows it's not a choice. The thinking is, "How could someone not know that, unless she needs a reason--namely, prejudice-- to believe otherwise?"

I won't get into the phrases "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation", except to say people I've heard people who believe that we're born straight or gay use the term "sexual preference". I understand the phrase is on its way out, but people who say it don't necessarily mean any harm.

[jgraz]

168. Ignorantly believing that blacks are lazy does not make one a racist.

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

170. One can believe blacks are lazy but still believe they deserve equal rights.

:sarcasm:

[Heidi]

176. Validating ignorance is what cheapens an argument.

Further, the old "they chose it" makes it easy for the hateful, ignorant and/or apathetic to take a "Well, s/he _chose_ to be homosexual" stance when a gay person is bullied, bloodied, murdered or otherwise treated as "less than" the rest of us.

And using DU as a platform to spread right-wing buzz words like "heterophobic" is what makes us look silly.

[Catherina]

179. Thank God for unrec. I shudder to think of this having positive recs. n/t

[muffin1]

188. For real.

Was there a meeting where half of DU decided to shit on the GLBTIQers? Every single time I've logged on in the last few days I have to read about 'pet issues' or how 'you people' are hypersensitive. What. The. Fuck.

[QC]

189. From time to time it's open season on the queers.

I'm not sure who decides that or how they announce it, but word certainly gets out fast, doesn't it?

[muffin1]

183. Valerie Jarrett

is not a CHILD. If you make it to her age, and still believe that? Homophobic, and ignorant to boot.

I notice in your last line you used the term 'sexual PREFERENCE'...:eyes: