Am I annoyed by this?

Because I kind of don't think I am.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Governor Bill Richardson skirted a thorny debate on homosexuality during a Los Angeles forum that included six of the eight Democratic presidential contenders.

Richardson was asked Thursday whether homosexuality is a choice or biological and said he doesn’t see it as an issue of science or definition. He says he sees gays and lesbians as human beings.

The AP story makes this out as skirting a tough question, and maybe it is (I certainly don't think homosexuality is a choice). But I don't think it's an annoying or homophobic answer. I kind of had the same response to a big thread where people were debating gender identity and the whole trans thing.

Does 'choice' matter? Would it mean the people in question deserved rights and respect any less?

**added** Coincidentally, there's a post kind of about this at Pharyngula this morning, where PZ talks about some of the biological, hormonal factors of homosexuality.

Also, though, from an Ethnology student's point of view, other cultures don't really have 'gay' like we have 'gay.' In some cultures it's a life-stage thing, where young men are paired with each other, then when you're older you take a wife. In some cultures the separation of the sexes is extreme, and men have sex with women only during a special ceremony that is considered traumatic for the men. It would be interesting to see if the hormone levels or whatever in these cultures are any different, but that's all it would be - interesting. As an argument to base public policy on, it's pointless.

At least, that's the opinion of this straight cisgendered woman, if it means anything.