Final Texas GOP 2014 Platform Says "Homosexuality Is a Chosen Behavior"

640px-NastRepublicanElephant.jpg
Thomas Nast
Rampaging GOP strikes again.

In month when Texas Republicans seemingly cannot stop saying dumb things about homosexuality, the party's finished 2014 platform makes it clear the state GOP isn't just ignorant about gay life -- it's willfully ignorant. They even put it in writing.

See also: Rick Perry Doubles Down on Stupid Talking About Conversion Therapy

Some of the platform's language is almost unfathomable in 2014. On top of the usual stuff -- God is mentioned 12 times, Judeo-Christian values are mentioned four times -- the new platform contains some especially contentious language about the LGBTQ community.

In a section titled "Strengthening Families, Protecting Life, and Promoting Health," the platform says the following:

"Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."

That's it. According to Texas Republicans gay folks in our state, for whatever reason -- certainly not any sort of privilege, protection from discrimination or granting of equivalent rights -- choose to feel attraction to whomever they are attracted. Just like, Unfair Park's sure, those who drafted the platform choose to feel attraction to their opposite-sex partners.

It's an all too common refrain, but for a party that claims to support small government and people fending for themselves, the Texas GOP sure cares a whole helluva a lot about what goes on in people's bedrooms and the deity or lack of deity they choose to believe or not believe in.

2014 Republican Party of Texas Platform

My Voice Nation Help
139 comments
DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Simple solution would be to Eliminate ALL Government Preference (discrimination) based on Marital status -- which should be unlawful anyway under Federal / State anti-discrimination laws anyway.


Stop discriminating against unmarried individuals, render NO ADVANTAGE for marriage in any Government or Social programs -- taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.


Place the archaic institution of "marriage" back into the civil / social arena from whence it came. 





DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

BTW -- why is Baby Dolls having such a difficult time finding and hiring "employees" -- dry-prostitutes -- that they've been running a daily banner advert on the DO's www site for over a month now?





laa2005
laa2005

There's absolutely nothing anyone could say to me to convince me Into being gay... Okay, so they may not be "born gay" but I believe you're wired differently. I love many, many gay people and have no problem with how they chose to have sex (when I'm not even present). Just because you sin differently doesn't mean you don't sin.

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Just don't understand why is the GOP and Christianistas so threatened of gay folk? 


And don't really care about Bucky's purient research



CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

To Bucky, whose ability to spew pseudo-academic bullshit is nearly unrivaled ... 

Your statement: "
the logical conclusion was that while there is likely a genetic component to sexual orientation, it is not a determining factor in their behavior- that it's still up to the individual to decide how they will live their lives."

The gist of your conclusion is that people don't have to act on what they feel is their sexual orientation, therefore acting on one's homosexual orientation is a choice, just as much as it is for heterosexuals. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Do you think there is any merit to the idea that self-imposed celibacy can and does result in anti-social behavior? Ask some kid-touching priests about that one.


Also, if we can agree that there is nothing immoral about homosexual sex, why would someone want to be celibate? Because you call them "deviants"? The fact that you persist in using the loaded term "deviant" tells me you have some emotional baggage on this topic because you are most likely a self-hating gay man. Where is that on the continuum?


Finally, here is the ACTUAL official position of the APA: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf


"There is no consensus among scientists 

about the exact reasons that an individual 

develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or 

lesbian orientation. Although much research 

has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, 

developmental, social, and cultural influences 

on sexual orientation, no findings have 

emerged that permit scientists to conclude 

that sexual orientation is determined by any 

particular factor or factors. Many think that 

nature and nurture both play complex roles; 

most people experience little or no sense of 

choice about their sexual orientation."

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

I had a heck of an interesting conversation with my Developmental Psychology instructor about this today.

He pointed out that the official position of the APA is that nobody is "born gay" or born heterosexual, or born bisexual. Their position is that sexual orientation exists on a continuum with each individual falling somewhere in between. 

He referenced a series of studies from the 1970's that sparked the change in their position (back then, sexual deviance of any kind was classified as a disorder in the DSM).  In those studies they observed that a significant number of people who identified themselves as gay had at other times identified themselves as straight, and lived a straight lifestyle (and vice versa).  Combined with twin studies, the logical conclusion was that while there is likely a genetic component to sexual orientation, it is not a determining factor in their behavior- that it's still up to the individual to decide how they will live their lives.

Then he cautioned me against trying to convince a die-hard homosexual that his behavior is a matter of choice - saying that such attempts are considered "reparative therapy" and in addition to not being very successful, has proved to be very dangerous to the individual.  He pointed out that when someone convinces themselves that they have a medical condition or genetic anomaly, without a doctor having diagnosed them as such, that it's a sign that they have a serious psychological condition (akin to hypochondria).  Trying to reason with such a person can cause a psychotic break, and shouldn't be attempted.  He pointed out that it's like trying to treat psoriasis with makeup - it may cover up the symptom, but it allows the real problem to fester.

So I apologize to any sexual deviants whose feelings were hurt by my posts.  The psychology of sexual orientation is highly complex, and it was arrogant of me to think that I could reason with y'all.  Mia culpa.

JackJett
JackJett

That is about the most insightful take on this issue I have yet to read.  I don't think I have even come across this in the gay press.  


It is an argument that has never crossed my mind and I have given this a lot of thought.  Hats off to you RTGolden.  Really.  

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

Bucky, in his own idiotic way, has brought up a good point, although it is buried in all his babbling.  If the Republicans claim is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then why are they advocating a 'cure' or a 'treatment' for it?  You don't treat people for choices, you punish them.  You treat people for involuntary conditions or ailments; disease, injury, deformity, etc.  You punish people for poor choices; criminals get jail time (theoretically), for instance.  As even the great everlastingphelps himself has stated on this very board: the litmus test for policy or laws such as these is; would you still support it if conditions were reversed?  If the alternative lifestyles were in the majority and were advocating ONLY recognizing homosexual marriage, and removing recognition for heterosexual marriage, would you still support the policy?  Or would you claim that this is an undue invasion of privacy, an over-reach by government into the private lives of the citizenry?

If you cannot claim that you would still support the policy under those conditions, you're nothing but a hypocrite.

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

Fuck those selfish, hateful, greedy assholes.


RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

This whole debate should be shifted into another direction.  It is obvious that something as personal and contentious as marriage should not be left in the hands of the government.  Tax everyone individually, a flat percentage based on income and assets.  If two people want to merge assets and incomes under a joint name, let them incorporate.  Marriages could then be left up to the two people desiring such a thing.

The debate is a mind-numbingly stupid waste of time.  Homosexuals being married will have no effect on heterosexual marriages, any particular religious faith or even God.  Homosexuals being able to marry won't shatter heterosexual marriages. (Infidelity by one or both partners, something actually immoral, is usually the cause of that).

Since we've gone so many years and made no headway in this debate, I say just scrap it.  Remove marriage from the equation, and the State has nothing left to bitch about.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

A fundamental flaw in the Democrats' position on homosexuality is that it's a genetic condition that controls their behavior.  To prove this, they selectively point to psychological studies that have proved that there is a genetic component, while ignoring other studies that have proved that their behavior, while influenced by genetics, is not dictated by it.

To support this argument, they frequently reference the genetics of eye color, even though eye color is not a behavior; or the genetics of skin color, even though skin color is not a behavior.

If Democrat gay rights activists want to be taken seriously and to advance their cause, they need to start being a little more honest, with themselves and others, about what the science really says - that genetics influences behavior, but does not control it. 

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@Sotiredofitall 

They're not threatened by it.  They're just bringing up the issue to change the subject away from their crazies, and onto the Democrat's crazies.

And it's remarkably effective, dontcha think?

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

re:  "most people experience little or no sense of choice"

The operative word there is "sense".  The position is not that they have no choice, it's that they FEEL like they have no choice.

re:  "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops ..."

The operative words here are "consensus" and "exact".  While there are certainly reasons for their behavior (as there are reasons for everything else in the universe) they are very complex and there is little agreement as to what those reasons are or how they apply. 


As the Kinsey studies of the 1950's proved, sexual orientation exists on a continuum - with each individual falling somewhere in between the extremes, and with BOTH behavior and genetics being factors as to where.

Unfortunately, still today, Democrats are promoting very bad science - insisting that sexual orientation is wholly a genetic condition (like Down's syndrome or Schizophrenia) over which a person has no control whatsoever, and that a person who chooses a gay lifestyle is unable to choose any other.  As you've demonstrated here, they twist and misinterpret perfectly sound psychological studies to fit their unsound political beliefs.


JackJett
JackJett

@bvckvs I had a heck of a conversation with my rational brain tonight and we decided that we have not seen such utter passive aggressive bullshit since the dawn of gayness.

I don’t know what your trip is nor do I care what the Association of Pathetic Assholes believes.  Yet we have too many impressionable teens who are having a hard enough time coming to terms with their own sexuality in such a conservative and religious environment that the last thing they need is an extra layer of utter shit stained psycho babble coming from some self- absorbed confused individual.  And if you are in that situation and you are reading this, do not trust me, go to The Trevor Project or any number of organizations that will remind you that you are awesome the way you are and there is not a god damned thing wrong with you. 

To others who may not support the gay community, at least listen to some parents who have lost their gay kids in a tragic way because they read this sort of shit and bottle it up.  It is NOT an easy process coming out, as may be evidenced in this diatribe.  Why make it any harder just to get a point across here?  

Mr initial-man …Your verbiage makes the folks at Westboro Baptist seem somewhat rational.  And just as you have the right to spew it and others to support it, I have every right to tell you that your self induced arrogance has got the best of you and this gay man thinks your views are not only off track but that you are full of shit it must be oozing out of your tantra.     

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@bvckvs So, it would be similar to someone trying to cover their ignorance by claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is 'tantric'?

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RTGolden1 

re:  "If the Republicans claim is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then why are they advocating a 'cure' or a 'treatment' for it?  "

Heroin addiction and domestic violence are lifestyle choices, too. But we still treat them as conditions that warrant a kind of reparative therapy.

JackJett
JackJett

@Montemalone Beautiful!  Is that your own original prose or from the recent Tribute to Maya Angelou?    Either way, it brought a motherfucking tear to my eye.  

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RTGolden1 

I agree with you for the most part, the issue of marriage linked to equality is the product of the government granting benefits and rights to those who are recognized as married. If there were ot this special treatment there wouldn't be such an uproar.

It is more than the tax consequences, or even issues of testament. I read about a gay couple in Plano who fathered 2 kids by a surrogate mother, and the State will not recognize them as fathers. Seriously, DNA tests proving fatherhood and the Judge would not allow for the fathers to be noted on the birth certificate.

It seems the institution of marriage is too intertwined into one's rights in many respects. While the idea of removing marriage from the equation may be a great idea, it is today an impractical act.

roo_ster
roo_ster

@bvckvs 

Indeed.

At this point it is not possible to show genetic causality of ANY complex human behavior. Too many factors and too many combinations possible.

CandyDate
CandyDate

@bvckvs @Sotiredofitall  Kinda like talking about mentioning crazy twice in one sentence might deflect attention away from the writer when it actually brings it on? Yes, very effective. 

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

What you seem to be missing is that, if we agree that sexual orientation has a very complex and as yet unknown causation, and that there is nothing inherently immoral with a homosexual lifestyle, then there is no good reason for withholding civil rights for gay people. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think that because - as you repeatedly emphasize - they are "deviants" that society has license to treat them as second-class citizens?

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@JackJett @bvckvs 

I understand your anger, now.  You take a great deal of comfort in a VICTIM mentality, holding that you are driven by your biology to behave the way you do.  Now, faced with the fact that you are the master of your own destiny and that your behavior is a matter of your own personal choice, you're reacting emotionally.

That's OK.  That's to be expected and it's perfectly natural that you would suffer from transference, blaming your emotional state on me for being the catalyst of this realization.

I forgive you.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@bvckvs @RTGolden1 Heroin use is a choice, as is the use of any drug. Addiction is a medical condition, not a choice.  Domestic violence is not a choice for the victim, so we treat the victim.  It is a choice for the perpetrator, and we punish them for that choice (hypothetically).

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog @RTGolden1 Of course, you're correct, and the right thing to do is to equalize marriage, across the board, for all people.  I just think it would be better to get the government out from behind our doors and curtains and back out there working on roads and bridges and delivering mail and national defense.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@fred.garvin.mp.713 

...and the wind is directed right at him, at gale-force speed.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@roo_ster 

At this point it is not possible to show genetic causality of ANY complex human behavior

bzzt, wrong answer.

Aggressiveness is highly heritable. Recent experimental work has linked individual differences in a functional polymorphism of the monoamine oxidase-A gene (MAOA) to anger-driven aggression. Other work has implicated the dorsal ACC (dACC) in cognitive-emotional control and the amygdala in emotional arousal.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn_a_00592

science is uncovering many genetic factors with causality to behavior, including the sexual orientation of people.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

Gay marriage isn't about civil rights.  Under Clinton, several proposals were put forward with Republican support that would have guaranteed same-sex partners rights they wanted at the federal level.  Democrats rejected them all because they called it "civil union" instead of "marriage".

To folks outside of the gay Democrat community, that's like if black people were to have rejected emancipation on the grounds that they wanted to be called "white".

As far as your sensitivity about the word "deviant" - it's not about morality; it's about math and science..

JackJett
JackJett

@bvckvs Dearest Dr. Bucky, My partner of 23 years and I want to thank you for taking our case under your wings and allowing us to fly again.  Through you and your ministry we now understand just how totally fucked up we are.  From our tantricity, transferance, victim mentality, anger, reacting emotionally, sexual deviant with a disorder, a "die hard" homo, hypocondriac, potential psychotic break, festering psoriasis in addition to being ignorant, stupid etc.


I would have never know these things and yet you do and have never met me.  Your ability is beyond magical and again, thank you so much and know we appreciate it.  We are both preparing to better ourselves through the power you have instilled in us.  


Again thank you Bucky,  my partner thanks you, my family thanks you, my canine thanks you as should everyone who you are gracious enough so spread your words of wisdom with.  




JackJett
JackJett

@RTGolden1 @bvckvs RT, come with us.  Drink Bucky's Kool-Aid.  We are fools if we don't accept his every word as the holy gospel.  

roo_ster
roo_ster

@mavdog @roo_ster 

And you have just shown you do not know the difference between correlation and causation.

 
Come on back when you have a rudimentary grasp of the difference.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@bvckvs Bucky, you do realize you're espousing "separate but equal" policy, right? However,  your premise is flawed because you are conflating civil unions with marriage. While the rights conferred under both may be virtually identical, the significance in many people's minds, of the term "marriage" carries with it great cultural significance. Can a couple who have a civil union say, "I'm married," for example? No. It's a fine distinction, but one that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to maintain, merely so they can say that those in a civil union aren't married in the traditional sense.


And, no, your comparison to emancipation is completely wrong. Emancipation rendered black people free, just as white people were. Your parallel would work if emancipation had declared all black people in the South as similar to free, but used a different word, like "un-enslaved."


You can claim your use of "deviant" is purely based on logic, but you can't deny the negative connotations of the word. Sensitivity training might be in order.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bvckvs "Gay marriage isn't about civil rights."


Same types of bigoted people used to utter the same obscenities about denying Negroes the right to marry White women, not too long ago in the U$A's ugly history.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

Separate but equal is about forbidding contact between members of different groups.  That's not what civil unions does.

re:  " the term "marriage" carries with it great cultural significance"

That goes to the heart of my point - that gay marriage isn't about civil rights.  The civil rights issues would have been resolved by civil unions - which Democrats rejected.  It's about wanting the government to fulfil their insatiable emotional needs.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bvckvs @JackJett


When did you choose to be a heterosexual, homophobic bigot?


How does other peoples' different choices affect your tenuous grasp on heterosexuality?


Will too much homosexuality in society cause you to become a homosexual?



CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

Let me ask you this: is it a civil rights issue when there is a minority that wants to be treated the same way as the majority by having their union recognized with the same legal terms? Further, is it conceivable that by using different terms to delineate same sex from heterosexual marriages, the stage is being set for further discrimination in terms of benefits?

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @bvckvs @JackJett 

Ignorant, passive aggressive questions like that are part of the reason why rational people dismiss gay rights activists as irrelevant.

If you want to be treated as a reasonable person, you'll have to behave reasonably.  Throwing tantrums like a Tea Party Republican won't get you anything but ridicule.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

On your first point - It  can be.

But your second point is more salient to the subject at hand - because you yourself used two different terms to refer to the two different situations... and you did it without victimizing either.  The reason you used two different terms is because they are, indeed, two different situations.

Moreover, you were speculating that there might be some vague and unnamed form of discrimination - where civil rights are about very specific issues.

---

For my money, there's a very simple solution to the whole mess.  Instead of inviting the government into your bedroom to regulate family membership - the issue should be getting government out of the family licensing business altogether.  Instead of marriages, the partnership should be treated as any other contractual relationship - where two or more people can enter into an agreement that specifically lays out what rights (and responsibilities) they want to grant each other.

That would benefit not just gay people - but bisexuals and trisexuals and trannys and the whole rainbow of LGBTQ folks.  It would even benefit straight people, because it would more accurately define what their expectations of each other are.  They would also be free to call each other "spouse", "husband", "wife", "partner", "butt-buddy" or whatever other term suits them - even to call the agreement a "marriage".

Only if treated like any other contract could there be true marriage equality.

bippyizod
bippyizod

@bvckvs @DonkeyHotay @JackJett You know that digging that bullshit hole deeper and deeper is not going to help you out.  Plus you are building wall that will make it harder for people to help you come out.  It is never too late. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bvckvs "why rational people dismiss gay rights activists as irrelevant."


False, twice, in a single phrase.


So why are you so afraid of homosexuals that you feel the need to hate and marginalize them?



CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@bvckvs Am I to understand that you don't believe there are differences in the benefits conferred upon civil unions vs. marriages? I believe you are mistaken, namely when it comes to federal benefits. Also, please don't play word games with me. I used adjectives to describe two types of scenarios - "same sex" and "hetero." That means nothing other than I recognize that there are two scenarios -- one in which the spouses' genders are either the same or different. That does not mean, however, that they should be treated differently in terms of rights and benefits.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

You're argument is moot because there is currently no such thing as a "civil union".  So if we create such a thing, we can make it whatever we want.  And nobody here is saying that they should be treated differently from marriages - so that argument is moot, as well.

As for your complaint about "word games", it sounds like your problem there is that I took you seriously when you didn't want me to. 

But I can't apologize for taking you at your word.  Rather, it's up to you to understand this about yourself - why you spoke of the two different kinds of relationships AS two different kinds of relationships.  I think that if you can take a hard, honest look at why you did that, you'll understand better why the rest of us, too,  see them as different and that they are, indeed, different.  Perhaps, then, you won't feel so persecuted by folks who recognize this fact.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum 

You just did exactly what I baited you into doing - ignoring every important point to focus one unimportant misstatement.

You've been ignoring almost every important point throughout this conversation - and even went so far as to equate not being able to marry your friend with black slavery.

This is why, as I said from the start, that the Republicans; decision to address sexual deviance and reparative therapy was such a keen one.  It's because it baits the deviant community to go all drama queen, making the GOPers appear to moderates as the less loony choice.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@bvckvs Bucky, you simply say things that aren't true. Above, you say "there's no such thing as civil unions," which I addressed directly. And when I pointed out that your stated premise -- that civil unions (which you don't think actually exist) are treated exactly the same way as marriage -- is false, you do exactly what you accuse me of -- ignore it.


Are you as delusional as you portray yourself? If not, you must admit 1. civil unions do, in fact, exist in this country, and 2. they are not treated the same way marriages are, namely in terms of federal benefits.


As far as the GOP appearing "less loony," I submit that the fact Americans' support for same-sex marriage continues to grow says otherwise. On average, the party platform that appears "less loony" would tend to actually gain support, not lose it, as the Republicans are doing.

bippyizod
bippyizod

@bvckvs @CogitoErgoSum When a closet case homophobe gets their bigot train to the end of the track and have no place to go, they simply cut it of with a line in the sand.  I reject your submission tran slates to the fact he sees his own hypocrisy spinning in circles. 

Just a note to bvc, Cogito and Hotay clearly know their shit so perhaps you should think twice about getting into THIS argument with THESE two.  These guys/gals are our of your paygrade.  Even with the six weeks of Richland Hills Education. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...