CNN Anchor Ashleigh Banfield Quickly Pressed Into Apology for Saying Gay Is a 'Lifestyle Choice'
CNN doesn’t understand why the Catholic Church would pick on nuns that take vows to serve it would be expected to toe the church line on certain beliefs. They insist that nuns should be more liberated women than that. Such women's lib does not apply to CNN anchors, who are subjected to mental “crackdowns” of their own from the gay speech police.
On her CNN program Early Start on Thursday, anchor Ashleigh Banfield was in the middle of denouncing an obscure and extremist Kansas pastor who was recorded calling for government execution of gays (citing the gay-activist blog goodasyou.org). But in her pro-gay sermon, she used politically incorrect terminology and was ticketed by the cops at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation for using the allegedly defamatory words “Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice by people.” Into the punishment room she went, and an on-air confession and expression of remorse would follow:
LGBT community members and allies sent countless tweets to CNN and Banfield. Blogs and news sites including Advocate.com weighed in. GLAAD contacted CNN yesterday and the network quickly announced that Banfield would speak out this morning. Ashleigh also began tweeting about her remarks.
This morning Banfield made it clear that being gay is not a choice, saying:
BANFIELD: I made some comments yesterday that ended up getting a lot of traction out there, not only on Twitter but elsewhere. And I want to be very, very clear about what my comments were about. I probably misspoke and mangled words, but I want to be very clear.
When I said that incest and pedophilia involve people who don’t have a choice — victims who don’t have a choice — and then said a gay relationship, you do have a choice, they are not crimes. Gay people involved in relationships are not committing any crimes at all. However, those who perpetrate incest and perpetrate pedophilia are committing crimes. I don’t know that my comments were taken in that light and I certainly hope they were, but in no way did I ever want to suggest that being gay is a choice. It is not. And I probably used the word “lifestyle choice” — not what I meant to say at all. Being gay is not a choice; being in a voluntary gay relationship is a choice. It is not a crime.
So I hope that at least clears up any of the comments I made after that story of the pastor. And in no way do I agree with or stand by any of the comments that that pastor made either.
Banfield stepped into the Cynthia Nixon hole. One can never suggest that anyone chooses homosexuality and you must never call it a "lifestyle." That's one of those gay profanities. Whatever you do, never mention the indecisive Anne Heche types who can't seem to stick with one choice.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Considering there is no proof
Submitted by NMEwithin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:12pm.
Considering there is no proof of a "gay gene" to date, it is in fact a lifestyle choice
Exactly!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:00pm.
The entire argument about homosexuality is always begun with the unspoken "agreement" that it is something wired into the genes of the person. I'm still waiting to see this proof, and until then will consider homosexuality as a preference for a certain type of sexual behavior.
My arguments concerning this are not based on Biblical teachings, but I don't discount those. I want to see absolute, undeniable evidence that would stand up in a truly just court of law. Until then, LGBT is to me, just another grouping of mental disorders.
Genetic proof? Don't know that will ever happen.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:11pm.
There is a growing school of thought in psychiatry that there is a subset of humans with "fluidic sexuality". It's estimated to be a very small percentage of the population depending on whose research into the subject you have available, but the concept is that those individuals in that group basically will take anything they can get.
Funny, we used to just call that by a different name.
The so-called "gay gene" remains yet to be identified, and if so it brings with it a whole boatload of medical issues that no one wants to discuss. If a "gay gene" is ever discovered, it will then open the door to such considerations as genetic testing, whether parents would be free to abort a fetus that tests positive, whether it becomes a disability, etc. This is not opening a can of worms, but rather more like a potential tsunami of issues the LGBT community has not considered.
Let me guess...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:02pm.
"Funny, we used to just call that by a different name."
Would that be nymphomania?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Some of the synonyms included:
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:28pm.
1) nymphomania - in women
2) satyriasis - in men
3) hyperlibidinous - not gender specific
4) sleaze - universal
couldnt have said it better
Submitted by realamerican69 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:30pm.
couldnt have said it better myself!
Actually it is a choice
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:16pm.
Especially the B part of the LGBT folks. They apparently have it the best because they can choose one or the other (or sometimes both).
But here is my question to the Banfields and other's. If we are talking about L & G (leaving out the Bs and the Ts)...what exactly does "incest" mean and why on earth would it be something that was concidered wrong or criminal? I mean isn't it two consenting adults and shouldn't they be allowed to "do" whatever it is their little hearts desire?
In the "olden" days it was a problem not only because of the psychological problems but also because of the genetic issues that could arrise from any offspring. But within the narrow world of "L & G", that issue is nonexsitent so why whould it be a problem? What is the argument against two sisters who want to get married?
And to continue in this logical mind experiment, if we are allowing and celebrating two women to marry or two men to marry, what is the argument against three women who want to get married or four men?
I mean...once you divorce the religious and moral aspect from the issue of marriage there is no logical reason to place any restrictions on it at all.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Great Points
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:57pm.
And to take things further, if a brother and sister are lovers, and they are "punished" with a pregnancy, they can always get a test to see if the baby is the "right" sex and not a "retard", and just abort the little sumbitch if it's not up to snuff. Gee, it's neat to be a liberal, isn't it??
I just don't understand why
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:28pm.
I just don't understand why they are so dead set against recognizing homosexuality as a choice; what is the virtue of something that is forced on you? It seems to me that homosexuals should be proud of their lifestyle choice, but they aren't, and maybe that tells us something.
Blind squirrel
Submitted by KornKing on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:03pm.
Ashleigh blurts out the truth(which may be rare) and then has to quick hide the acorn
As Woody Allan so eloquently put it
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:28pm.
"Bisexuals have a 50% better chance of getting a date on Saturday night"....that alone is enough to make it a choice to some people....Banfield included....anybody remember a couple of months ago, one of the female guests looked particularly hot, and she kept commenting on how sexy the guest looked, to the point that the person asked Banfield if she were hitting on her.....I almost fell out of my chair....LOL...
And as we all know, Woody found his date . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:47pm.
. . . in Mia Farrow's home.
People are forced to be gay?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:44pm.
Ok, celibacy is a 'life style" choice, for you choose to be celibate. Promiscuity is a "life style choice," for you choose to be promiscuous. Even heterosexuality is a "life style choice," because you can always be celibate (it's kind of hard to be declared "heterosexual" when you don't have sex at all), so why isn't homosexuality a "life style choice?" Are people being forced to be gay? Are men and women forced to perform homosexual acts? That's called rape!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not being a scientist
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:48pm.
OK, I'm just an ignorant nobody so maybe someone more learned than I can explain something to me.
If being gay is genetic how has homosexuality managed to exist for thousands of years?Since gays don't reproduce why hasn't the as-yet-undiscovered "gay gene" been deselected from the the gene pool by now?
I don't understand how the so-called gay gene would be recessive, either. As I understand it a recessive gene's traits are not expressed unless the gene is inherited by both parents. In that case would not every child born to these parents then be gay? How then does that explain families with more than one child where only one is gay?
I have a theory on that.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:06pm.
I have a theory on that, the "gay gene" is a recent mutation, one that appeared because of over-population. Its nature's way of thinning the population. In other words, it a self-destruct gene and gay people, in and of themselves, are nature's way of saying: you and your direct descendents are not needed as part of the human race any more, so be done with you!
Needless to say, my theory isn't very popular amongst the homosexuals. Not that I blame them. After all, who want's to be thought of as a evolutionary dead end? It would explain that "gay gene" though.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Once a biology major, a long, long time ago...
Submitted by Bob60506 on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 1:24pm.
Okay, it's been *many* years since I took Biology 101, but this seems logically sound; it's a great argument. Given your argument, the only way the gene could pop up would be via genetic mutation -- and what are the odds of that happening over and over and over...? (I'ts been awhile since I studied statistics, too. Maybe someone else could help out with that!)
Meh
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:07pm.
I don't care why people are gay or why people are straight. We all have to coexist.
A homosexual relationship is no more different than a heterosexual one, aside from the obvious physical attributes.
Evolutionary speaking...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:15pm.
Evolutionary speaking, we won't have to "coexist" with the gays for long. They will eventually "breed" themselves right out of existence. Until them, well, have a nice life! I hope you enjoy your status as an evolutionary failure.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So you reject the argument homosexuality is a choice...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:25pm.
Kudos for challenging the conventional NB narrative.
Jer
Yup. No difference at all.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:45pm.
And The Folsom Street Fair is a perfect example of that.
.
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:17pm.
So, are you saying that all LGBT people behave this way?
Nope.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:26pm.
But there is no equivalent PUBLIC heterosexual spectacle.
Well, there is Mardi Gras
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:00pm.
Well, there is Mardi Gras.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Look up abomination in the dictionary
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:07pm.
That's what God said homosexuality is. If you approve of homosexuality, you are abominable.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Why are you so anti-science?
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 9:42pm.
Why are you so anti-science?
Big difference between homo and hetero sexual
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:17pm.
The human body was designed for heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is inherently harmful to the body.
And they wonder why their
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:08pm.
And they wonder why their rating are so horrible?
Uhhh-huhhh, it'd be a choice,
Submitted by ray johnson on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:57pm.
Uhhh-huhhh, it'd be a choice, but a tough choice...but she'd have to have the glasses on.
Yeah cause
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:36pm.
if it's a choice then that takes away victimhood status.