Watch: Tim Pawlenty Says Science 'In Dispute' About Homosexuality
Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty last week said that he's a fan of Lady Gaga, including her pro-gay anthem, "Born This Way."
Perhaps he's not listening to that track closely enough, because the recently glitter-bombed candidate told Meet the Press host David Gregory today that "there’s no scientific conclusion that [homosexuality] is genetic."
Here's the transcript:
GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?
PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it’s behavioral or if it’s partly genetic –
GREGORY: What do you think?
PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.
GREGORY: So you think it’s not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you’re born that way.
PAWLENTY: There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that.
As Zack Ford at ThinkProgress points out, the country's leading medical groups agree that a variety of factors, including genetics, play a role in determining a person's sexuality.
The American Psychological Association, for example, describes sexuality as “a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.”
Watch Pawlenty and Gregory's exchange, AFTER THE JUMP...
Is their genetic evidence that heterosexuality isn't a choice?
Posted by: MattS | Jul 10, 2011 2:09:49 PM
I'd say I hit the nail on the head based on the HUGE chip on your shoulder.
Posted by: Dexter | Jul 10, 2011 2:09:55 PM
Ok Dexter, there's no arguing with a fool I guess. Meanwhile, back to Tim Pawlenty...
Posted by: Jay | Jul 10, 2011 2:13:44 PM
It's all Bullsh*t. Who in their right mind would deliberately choose to be gay considering the high price paid for it in most households, religious groups, communities, countries? These guys have something bad wrong with them if they think somebody would deliberately choose to expose themselves to the kind of haters his party is rife with. Just insane.
As my Daddy used to say, If being gay were a choice it wouldn't take you long to make a different one.
Posted by: Danny | Jul 10, 2011 2:15:00 PM
I have to give Pawlenty a pass on this one. Yes, he's said some anti-gay stuff in the past, but in this case he obviously had no idea what to think and came clean about it.
And he didn't sign that awful pledge!
Posted by: Jason (the commenter) | Jul 10, 2011 2:16:37 PM
Perhaps the best way for the gay community to argue for our rights is to concede, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality IS in fact a choice. So what? That doesn't actually change the debate at all because either we have Freedom or we don't, the right to pursue happiness as we define it, and neither religion nor majority opinion should have any say in it. I certainly don't remember Tim Pawlenty or any other Republican or Religious Right figure (the same thing these days) offering up their life choices for debate, so why should I or anyone else?
Personally I'm more in favor of gestational factors, hormones and such, but the looking for the "cause" is both offensive and quixotic. Looking for "causes" inherently carries a negative judgement and in any cases it's unlikely there's only one. And even if you could "fix" it, what would humanity lose in the process?
In the past studies seem to show that male homosexuality ran along matrilineal lines, so it's kind of entertaining to think that if there IS a "gay male gene" it's actually expressed in women. Both my brother and I are gay and I know of many other families with more than one gay son, including one family where all 3 sons are gay. What if the "gay male gene" isn't a male gene at all but an XX-linked trait that effects hormone levels during pregnancy, making females of a certain lineage more likely to produce gay male children?
Not that it matters, just an entertaining (to me at least) thought.
Posted by: Codswallop | Jul 10, 2011 2:23:00 PM
What isn't in dispute is Pawlenty's ignorance.
Posted by: Francis | Jul 10, 2011 2:26:46 PM
Hey Jayz,
It's pretty comical you calling anyone a fool after the comments you've made on various posts throughout this site. Irony is funny.
Posted by: Tyrone | Jul 10, 2011 2:27:59 PM
I think that part of what makes the LGBT civil rights struggle separate and unique from other movements is that we have first had to establish ourselves as legitimate beings. There's usually little doubt of a person's gender or skin color; however, sexual orientation has been seen as a bit nebulous by our opponents.
It's easy to deny a person equal rights if they are what they are because of a choice. Should the law accommodate people's choices? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's much more difficult morally and ethically to deny a person's rights if what they are is undeniable and unquestioned. That's why I think Pawlenty's words this morning about choice are so damaging to our community.
Posted by: Jay | Jul 10, 2011 2:37:57 PM
This is ridiculous! An idiotic Republican demagogue, who rejects the theory of evolution, if going to "defer to scientists" on this matter. Is a little bit of consistency too much to expect from people like Pawlenty? I'm not overly familiar with scientific research into homosexuality; I've heard the "Gay gene" claims, the "Exotic becomes erotic" stuff, but at the end of it all what does it matter? People should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want as long as there's consent. Sadly that's a concept that's alien to the fundamentalist and the clowns that pander to them. That is all!
Posted by: Sean | Jul 10, 2011 2:38:09 PM
While there is almost certainly a genetic component, the American Psychological Association's statement about biological factors does not, in fact, suggest genetic factors. There's more to biology than genes.
Posted by: Randy | Jul 10, 2011 2:43:23 PM
@Jay- what exactly do you think this post is about? Patting Paw-yawn-ty on the back for his obviously stupid statements? No, it's calling him out on it- the same way it's done to everyone regardless of skin-tone.
Homophobia isn't a blacks-only issue. It's a religious issue, an ignorance issue, and a fear issue.
If there simply seems to be a disproportionate number of black celebrities/public figures getting called out on homophobic actions/statements perhaps it's more an issue with the community itself and the strong religious ties it has to evangelical christianity.
It's just silly to come into a post deriding a white politician over his ridiculous statements and try to argue that we only call out black people for it, though. I hope you understand that.
Posted by: AedanCRoberts | Jul 10, 2011 4:08:57 PM
Disregarding his traditional marriage and traditional couple thing, he really isn't saying anything I don't agree with when it related to whole "is it a choice?" argument. The simple fact is that we don't know.
Hell, I might have been born gay. Or maybe genes had nothing to do with and it was my environment when I was young. Or maybe my genes made me predisposed to being homosexual. Or maybe it has to do with hormones in the womb.
The thing is, we don't know, and it doesn't, or shouldn't really pertain to the gay-rights movement. Both sides of the issue should just leave this whole debate behind, it's pretty irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
Posted by: David C. | Jul 10, 2011 4:18:41 PM
And I do hope the writer of this blog is aware that there has been no conclusive evidence on the origins of homosexuality... there have been hints, even strong ones. But we don't have a definitive answer.
Sure, it's PROBABLY a mixture of complex causes, that's not that hard to figure out. In fact, by PROBABLY I mean EXTREMELY LIKELY.
In the end, there has been no study that has given a definitive answer, and anyone that says otherwise is just fooling themselves.
Posted by: David C. | Jul 10, 2011 4:29:52 PM
I didn't think these guys believed in science. You know...according to them in gets in the way of that creation thing.
Posted by: Tony | Jul 10, 2011 7:50:48 PM
Uh...factually, he is correct.
Posted by: David | Jul 10, 2011 9:24:05 PM
has anyone considered karma?
Posted by: my2cents | Jul 10, 2011 9:49:09 PM
Who cares what he says?
Who cares what he claims to think?
He is nothing.
And so is the Republican party.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jul 10, 2011 10:37:55 PM
Um, Timmy, you're awfully cute. So, um, if I can choose to be gay, then so can you. So, um, if you're not, like, real busy next Saturday night, how about a "presto-change-o" from straight to gay and we can, like, go out or something or maybe we can just, um, hang around and watch a movie and you can spend the night and I'll, like, cook breakfast in the morning and then, you can, um, change back to straight? Really. You won't be disappointed. Um, maybe you might decide to just, you know, choose to stay gay. I mean, like, we can go to Niagara Falls and, you know, get married. So, um, good idea or what?
Posted by: jamal49 | Jul 11, 2011 1:59:00 AM
The ex-gay truth will prevail.
See www.narth.com, www.gaytostraight.org, www.peoplecanchange.com.
"Gay-affirmative science" is junk, wishful thinking on the part of "gays" and radical feminists with emotional problems.
The ex-gay truth will prevail.
Posted by: Sharon Kass | Jul 11, 2011 5:00:02 AM
It's kind of sad that today we are still having to justify our very existence, instead of debating specific issues related to the community. Am I the only one who is insulted by these questions?
Posted by: frank | Jul 11, 2011 7:30:39 AM
oooh look, miss kass is here, a bigot blessed us with her presence! im honored
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2008/04/541/
Posted by: mld | Jul 11, 2011 7:44:03 AM
The reason we don't hear anything from Romney is that all his money is going to come from corporate donors while Pawlenty, Bachmann and Santorum pick up the scraps among the social conservatives and evangelicals hoping somehow to gain traction.
Posted by: anon | Jul 11, 2011 10:33:07 AM
Moron.
Posted by: ThorNYC | Jul 11, 2011 2:42:56 PM
Alright, somebody help me out here because I'm confused. When republicans say homosexuality is a choice, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that gays are not really attracted to people of the same sex but choose to have gay sex anyway? Why would they do that? What kind of sex is sex with someone have no feelings for?
Let's refine the question. It's not hard to see why heterosexual young people would have one or two same-sex sexual encounters for the purpose of experimentation (sort of a discovering of their own identity). But at the end of the day, if you experience no attraction toward people of the same sex, then long-term gay sex and relationships are not for you. In that case that's the end of experimentation and you go back to what you're truly attracted to.
So the "choice" theory of homosexuality might explain the first one or two (ok a few more) same-sex encounters. It does NOT explain why same-sex committed couples would shack up with each other for years. So when these teabaggers get fed the usual bs in church about homosexuality being a choice, they need to ask themselves if they would get into a 20-year relationship with someone they're not really attracted to.
This is not an issue that needs science. This is an issue that needs commons sense and some critical thinking, both of which are nowhere to be found among teabaggers.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 12, 2011 12:19:45 AM