At the gay issues debate the other night, Bill Richardson (a man I'm sorry is doing so poorly in the Democratic race) said something a lot of people who believe in freedom and free choice might have said about homosexuality:

At least one candidate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, seemed to stumble when asked by Etheridge if he believed homosexuality was a choice or biological.

"It's a choice," he said at first. "I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition."

When pressed on the point that opponents of gay rights often assert that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, Richardson said, "I don't think it's a matter of preferences, I think it's a matter of equality."

Few would understand, although I think that Ann Althouse quite possibly does:

Was that really a "stumble"? Maybe Richardson did waltz into a forum on gay rights unprepared to deal with the most basic gay rights subjects. I seriously doubt that. He's no fool. So what's up? It's possible that he takes science seriously -- as opposed to ideologically -- and he's refraining from making declarations about things that he doesn't know to be scientific fact. It's possible that he may mean -- and I think this is the best position -- that even if homosexuality is a matter of choice -- "preferences" -- gay people deserve equal rights. But I suspect that Richardson is interested in maintaining the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. People who care about gay rights ought to follow up on that, because it's the foundation for justifying discrimination.

But here's an altogether different reaction to Richardson's remarks:

All in all, the audience evidently got the answers they were hoping for (with the exception of a unanimous endorsement for "same-sex marriage"). However, the crowd collectively gasped when Governor Richardson said that homosexuality is "a choice," rather than an inborn trait, momentarily sucking all the hot air from the room.

The debate represented the culmination of decades of relentless propaganda, intended to justify and promote the homosexual lifestyle, foisted on society by an assiduous homosexual lobby.

...the fact that this debate even took place is a sad commentary on the moral state of our union. It's shameful that our nation's moral standards have nose-dived to the point that it's now considered good and "tolerant" to hold a debate organized entirely around the promotion of sexual immorality.

What's next? Are presidential candidates going to be asked to participate in a debate on how to garner widespread acceptance of adultery or incest? Are members of the growing polygamy lobby and the pedophile group NAMBLA going to tap candidates for a televised debate to promote their chosen lifestyles?

Thousands of years of history, every major world religion, the unambiguous science of human biology and good old-fashioned common sense have established that homosexual behaviors are both immoral and destructive to the lives, health and spiritual well-being of those who choose to participate in those behaviors.

What am I supposed to say? I've tried politely answering email from this guy, but he never saw fit to answer. He cares -- he really and truly cares -- what other people (strangers he doesn't even know) might possibly be doing with their genitalia. Why else would he send me these emails? Why do people care what others do with their genitalia? (I don't, but there's no inverse Golden Rule.)

As I keep saying, there's no debating these issues. Seriously, how would supporters of gay marriage debate supporters of sodomy laws? They are not on the same page.

Any ideas, feel free to speak up.

MORE: It also occurs to me that this entire issue runs afoul of the old principle of "Never talk about religion or politics." Because of its cultural nature in this society, the gay issue doubly violates this rule, plus it involves sex! Not just sex, but a form of sex with which activists on both sides have very strong feelings.

As to the people who simply want to be left alone, who don't have strong feelings, who don't know or claim to know the scientific arguments (or who don't especially care what other people do sexually), they are seen as ignorant and uncaring by activists on one side -- and immoral by activists on the other.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid this issue is not going to go away over the next year.