Walker: I don't know if being gay is a choice

[Likely Voter]

For anyone who opposes SSM (and ENDA) this is really the only position you can have. Once you agree that being gay isn't a choice, there is no longer any rationale for opposition to gay rights. So opponents have to be in the choice crowd (like Santorum or Carson) or "I dont know."  At least there is some consistency.  Rubio tried for moderate heroism by saying being gay isn't a choice, but gays still shouldnt be allowed to get married. In my book that is worse.

[Likely Voter]

I'm curious why a question like this is even asked. How in any way would his belief if it's a choice to be gay (which its obviously not) affect his ability to run the country. I wish we could actually talk about the issues for once.

Here is why. If you believe being gay is a choice, then gay people should be treated like model train enthusiasts. You have nothing against them and they have every right to enjoy their 'lifestyle' but they shouldn't have any 'special protections.'  Whereas if you believe it isn't a choice, then sexual orientation becomes like race/ethnicity. And therefore deserves protection from discrimination.

[Likely Voter]

This 'I dunno' thing is akin to how GOPers are handling climate change with 'I'm not a scientist.' The logic flows gay isn't a choice therefore we can ban SSM/dont need ENDA. Or climate change isn't real/isnt caused by humans therefore we dont need to regulate carbon, stop building new coal plants, etc.

THe GOPers arent ready to give up their positions (SSM is bad, regulating carbon is bad), but they realise the rationales for those decisions are making them look like idiots. So they now default to the 'I dunno' position.  From a policy perspective there is no difference between the most ardent climate deniar and most ardent gay hating bible thumper, but the "I dunno" is a copout to sound less like an idiot (but still kind of an idiot).