Are they ashamed?

[guitarbyte01@yahoo.com]

During the third Presidential debate, John Kerry mentioned that Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian. Afterward the Cheney's were upset that Kerry would say that. Lynn Cheney said "that is not a good man, it was a cheap and tawdy political trick. That is not a good man."

The Bush/ Cheney people are trying to make a big deal out of something that's really insignificant to distract from the real issues. If Senator Kerry hadn't said it, they would have found something else to criticize him about.

John Kerry later said "he was only trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with having gay family members." He also said "It was meant as a very constructive comment, in a positive way," he told CNN.

Asked how his comment was constructive, Kerry told CNN, "It's respectful of who she is. And they've embraced her and they love her. I have great respect for them for that. And it seems to me that was the point I was trying to make."

A couple of weeks ago, Senator John Edwards made a reference to Cheney's daughter being gay when answering a question during the vice- presidential debate, Cheney thanked him for the comment.

Dick Cheney during a campaign visit on August 25, 2004, admitted his daughter Mary is a lesbian. Cheney wasn't even asked a question about her. He was asked if he favored amending the Constitution to ban 'same-sex marriage' as Bush does. Cheney said he didn't favor an amendment, but supported the President's decision.

Instead of just answering the question he was asked, Cheney admitted for the first time publicly that Mary is a lesbian. Why he admitted that I don't know. Most people were already aware that his daughter is gay, and nobody really cared about that.

Kerry did nothing wrong by mentioning it. If the Cheney's didn't want anyone mentioning their daughters sexual preference then Dick Cheney shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

The only reason why the news media is even talking about this, is they love controversy. And they want to try and make a controversy out of something that's really insignificant. It's an outrageous shame that Dick Cheney has brought Mary embarassment in front of the nation. :yikes:

[livius drusus]

As Scott Rosenberg points out in his blog (http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/), what the Republican operatives' outrage amounts to is: "what Kerry said about Mary Cheney is true. Yes, it is public. But for Kerry to spread that public fact to more voters is 'sleazy' because it highlights an instance where the administration is either divided or hypocritical or both."

Welcome to FF, guitarbyte01. Thank you for a fine first post and a great avatar choice. :hisign:

[Godless Dave]

The only reason why the news media is even talking about this, is they love controversy. And they want to try and make a controversy out of something that's really insignificant. That's one reason. The other reason is they are too lazy to do real reporting and this kind of thing is easy to "report".

[Clutch Munny]

Well, the biggest reason is that it's an excuse to use the word "lesbian". Again and again. Lesbian! A lot.

And as Daily Show reporter Samantha Bee observed: Girl-on-girl penguin sex? That's hot!

[dave_a]

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon said something to the effect of "Thank goodness the debates are finally over and the news media can now start serving our needs and giving us the news" Then there was a 1-2 second segment from a bunch of news shows all talking about the Kerry lesbian comment.

It was pretty funny.

[Socratoad]

Its just one Toad's less than humble opinion, but methinks Kerry could have got the same massage across with just a tad more class, however the mock outrage by the Cheney's and fellow travellers not only was bad acting but also simply reeks of hypocrisy. :blablabla:

[livius drusus]

I agree, Toad. I kinda cringed when I heard him use her name - not because it was a secret or anything, but rather because it had a bit of a whiff of a reminder to Bush's homophobic constituents. Edwards' comment didn't give me that impression at all.

But yes, the outrage is misdirection and hypocrisy, pure and simple.

[Godless Dave]

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.

[Clutch Munny]

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.

"Fair game"! You saw it, he said "fair game"! You don't mean something nice if you say "fair game"!


10th through 5th paragraphs from bottom, for those who haven't heard this spin point ad nas already... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135392,00.html)

[Megatron]

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.
Absolutely. Even if it was an underhanded stab at the current administration, I don't see how it was dirty play, considering their (or at least Bush's) stance on this shit.

Makes good TV though... :popcorn:

(ok, I'm lying, I'm sick of watching this shit... :fuming: )

[ApostateAbe]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that.

[beyelzu]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that.
on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point.

[ApostateAbe]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that. on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point. Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

[Godless Dave]

They fight dirty, we fight dirty. All the ridiculous slams on Kerry's wife came first.

[ApostateAbe]

They fight dirty, we fight dirty. All the ridiculous slams on Kerry's wife came first. Well, I expect the televised debates to be free from that sort of behavior, don't you?

[beyelzu]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that. on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point. Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.


I disagree, played properly, which it wasnt, the point was the hypocrisy of the republican "family fucking values and religious right"

Plus it could have made some bigoted fundies not vote for shrub which is a good thing.

[ApostateAbe]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that. on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point. Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

I disagree, played properly, which it wasnt, the point was the hypocrisy of the republican "family fucking values and religious right"

Plus it could have made some bigoted fundies not vote for shrub which is a good thing.Do you really think there is a way to play it right if you are going to bring in the sexual orientation of your opponent's running mate's daughter in a televised debate? I just can't imagine how that can come off right no matter how you say it.

[viscousmemories]

Given that the Bush team stands on a platform of supposed moral purity, pointing out hypocrisy in thier position seems like a perfectly valid strategy to me. I agree, though, that Kerry handled it poorly. In context it seemed more like namecalling than a reasonable criticism of their moral posturing.

[godfry n. glad]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that. on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point. Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

I'm sorry...you're wrong... I want to know when a political candidate is being a fuckin' hypocrite, and that situation sizes it up succinctly. Bravo for Kerry.

godfry

[dave_a]

I'm sorry...you're wrong... I want to know when a political candidate is being a fuckin' hypocrite, and that situation sizes it up succinctly. Bravo for Kerry.

godfry

I don't think Bush has been hypocritical on the gay issue though. I think he has been remarkably consistent. He has always said that gays are people with rights, but that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Bush has stated that civil unions are fine where same sex couples have rights pertaining to thier union.

One can argue that this isn't enough and that seperate but equal has never worked, but at the same time I don't see anything hypocritical about Bush's position.

Note to those who don't know: I will not be voting for Bush. I am not a Bush supporter. Please spare me the recitation of all Bush's evils.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm sorry...you're wrong... I want to know when a political candidate is being a fuckin' hypocrite, and that situation sizes it up succinctly. Bravo for Kerry.

godfry

I don't think Bush has been hypocritical on the gay issue though. I think he has been remarkably consistent. He has always said that gays are people with rights, but that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Bush has stated that civil unions are fine where same sex couples have rights pertaining to thier union.

One can argue that this isn't enough and that seperate but equal has never worked, but at the same time I don't see anything hypocritical about Bush's position.

Note to those who don't know: I will not be voting for Bush. I am not a Bush supporter. Please spare me the recitation of all Bush's evils.

Okay...

So what's all the posturing by the Republicans on a statement of fact?

Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, is she not?

Kerry stated that did he not?

As I understand it, Kerry pointed out a fact about the Republican position on marriage between member of the same gender and that policy's affect upon a single member of the Administration's family. Republican policy would deny the simple opportunity to establish a committed and legal long-term relationship with a member of the same gender for that Cheney daughter.

Right?

SO WHAT?

What is the big frikk'n deal about Kerry's pointing out a simple fact? The way Lynn Cheney is reacting, you'd think that Kerry had called her daughter a child molesting crack whore.

:doh:

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

godfry, it really isn't a big deal, but I don't think it is anything that should be defended to the bitter end, either. When I argue politics with anyone, I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring--not only because it isn't directly relevant, but also because it shows low class and carelessness. If my sexual nature was being used as a political football in a national debate I didn't want any part of, it might very well piss me off.

Unfortunately, the biggest reason that Kerry isn't apologizing for this flub, I'm guessing, is that the apology would be used against him.

[beyelzu]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring

interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point.

[godfry n. glad]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring

interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point.

Exactamundo!

godfry

[Godless Dave]

They fight dirty, we fight dirty. All the ridiculous slams on Kerry's wife came first. Well, I expect the televised debates to be free from that sort of behavior, don't you?
Wish for? Yes. Expect? No. Bush lied outright at least once during that debate. The moral high ground loses elections.

[Godless Dave]

Do you really think there is a way to play it right if you are going to bring in the sexual orientation of your opponent's running mate's daughter in a televised debate? I just can't imagine how that can come off right no matter how you say it.
In case you haven't noticed, Bush has made the sexual orientation of millions of American citizens an election issue.

[Godless Dave]

I don't think Bush has been hypocritical on the gay issue though. I think he has been remarkably consistent. He has always said that gays are people with rights, but that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Bush has stated that civil unions are fine where same sex couples have rights pertaining to thier union.
That's what he says, but he also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which explicitly forbids those civil unions.

[ApostateAbe]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring
interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point. beyelzu, I don't think there is anything shameful or embarassing about being gay either, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter what you or I think is shameful and embarassing. It matters only what is considered embarassing to the general population, and especially Mary Cheney and her family.

[godfry n. glad]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring
interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point. beyelzu, I don't think there is anything shameful or embarassing about being gay either, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter what you or I think is shameful and embarassing. It matters only what is considered embarassing to the general population, and especially Mary Cheney and her family.

As I understand it, the fact had already been publicly announced by the Cheney family. Why is Mary Cheney embarassed if they announced it to the world?

The only thing shameful and embarassing is their attitude.

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point. beyelzu, I don't think there is anything shameful or embarassing about being gay either, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter what you or I think is shameful and embarassing. It matters only what is considered embarassing to the general population, and especially Mary Cheney and her family. As I understand it, the fact had already been publicly announced by the Cheney family. Why is Mary Cheney embarassed if they announced it to the world?

The only thing shameful and embarassing is their attitude.

godfry It is still an embarassment to the general population. It would be a much greater embarrassment if it remained a secret until it emerged from someone other than the Cheney family (and it almost certainly would have come out eventually).

EDIT: And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified.

[godfry n. glad]

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point. beyelzu, I don't think there is anything shameful or embarassing about being gay either, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter what you or I think is shameful and embarassing. It matters only what is considered embarassing to the general population, and especially Mary Cheney and her family. As I understand it, the fact had already been publicly announced by the Cheney family. Why is Mary Cheney embarassed if they announced it to the world?

The only thing shameful and embarassing is their attitude.

godfry It is still an embarassment to the general population. It would be a much greater embarrassment if it remained a secret until it emerged from someone other than the Cheney family (and it almost certainly would have come out eventually).

EDIT: And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified.

To repeat:

The only thing shameful and embarassing is their attitude.

godfry

...and where do you get off telling us that it's shameful and embarassing to the "general population"? Do you speak for the "general population"?

[Godless Dave]

And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified.
Bush had already brought sexual orientation to the center of this political contest with the Federal Marriage Amendment. You can't have it both ways. If Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is off-limits, then every other American's sexual orientation should be off-limits too. Bush chose to make sexual orientation an issue.

[ApostateAbe]

To repeat:

The only thing shameful and embarassing is their attitude.
Once again, I agree, at least from our point of view. If only everyone else in the world thought like us, the sexual tendencies of other people wouldn't burden anyone with any shame at all.



..and where do you get off telling us that it's shameful and embarassing to the "general population"? Do you speak for the "general population"? Excuse me, maybe it isn't an embarassment to the general population, sorry about that. How about if I said that it is an embarassment to the general population of conservatives which the Cheney family is part of--does that sound more agreeable?

[godfry n. glad]

..and where do you get off telling us that it's shameful and embarassing to the "general population"? Do you speak for the "general population"? Excuse me, maybe it isn't an embarassment to the general population, sorry about that. How about if I said that it is an embarassment to the general population of conservatives which the Cheney family is part of--does that sound more agreeable?

Then I'd say they are the ones with a problem, because their candidate made the issue a campaign issue and their candidate made the Cheney daughter's sexual orientation public.

As noted by GD, they cannot have it both ways.

Their posturing about the shame of Kerry is sickening to me. They are the ones who should be ashamed.

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified. Bush had already brought sexual orientation to the center of this political contest with the Federal Marriage Amendment. You can't have it both ways. If Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is off-limits, then every other American's sexual orientation should be off-limits too. Bush chose to make sexual orientation an issue. A support for a prohibition on gay marriage doesn't bring any personal embarassment on any single individual, as disagreeable as it is.

[ApostateAbe]

..and where do you get off telling us that it's shameful and embarassing to the "general population"? Do you speak for the "general population"? Excuse me, maybe it isn't an embarassment to the general population, sorry about that. How about if I said that it is an embarassment to the general population of conservatives which the Cheney family is part of--does that sound more agreeable?
Then I'd say they are the ones with a problem, because their candidate made the issue a campaign issue and their candidate made the Cheney daughter's sexual orientation public.

As noted by GD, they cannot have it both ways.

Their posturing about the shame of Kerry is sickening to me. They are the ones who should be ashamed.

godfry Yes, they should be ashamed.

Maybe the biggest trouble here is we are too wrapped up in our own points of view to see the perspective of the other side. I'll make an analogy, and maybe that will help.

I have a sexual fetish towards Asians. It has already been made somewhat public. Now suppose my dad is VP of the United States and is running for re-election, and the president supports a constitutional amendment for the prohibition of interracial marriage. But my dad opposes it along with his opponent.* And during a nationally televised debate, my dad's opponent says, "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to the vice president's son, who has a fetish for Asian chicks, he would tell you that he is being who he was, he's being who he was born as."

That would piss me off big time. I want no part of that debate, and I don't my fetishes to be a national topic to be thrown about by political candidates and news pundits.

*footnote: Dick Cheney opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[viscousmemories]

This may be the stupidest thread I've ever read.

[ApostateAbe]

This may be the stupidest thread I've ever read. Who's stupider, the thread, or the person who reads it all? ;)

[livius drusus]

I didn't much like the comment, but not because I consider it embarassing or invasive for Mary Cheney. She's just too far out of the closet for that to be a factor.

Abe, did you have the same reaction to Edwards' comments about the Cheneys loving their daughter?

[ApostateAbe]

I didn't much like the comment, but not because I consider it embarassing or invasive for Mary Cheney. She's just too far out of the closet for that to be a factor.

Abe, did you have the same reaction to Edwards' comments about the Cheneys loving their daughter? No, because that comment wasn't meant as a debating weapon. There is a big difference.

[livius drusus]

How do you know?

[ApostateAbe]

How do you know? Because it seems to be obvious from the context. Edwards said it to point out the positives in Dick Cheney instead of the negatives.

And Edwards and Cheney are very close to agreeing on the point of gay marriage. Edwards opposes the ban, and Cheney would prefer that there not be a ban, but he supports it just because the president sets the policy.

[beyelzu]

And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified. Bush had already brought sexual orientation to the center of this political contest with the Federal Marriage Amendment. You can't have it both ways. If Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is off-limits, then every other American's sexual orientation should be off-limits too. Bush chose to make sexual orientation an issue. A support for a prohibition on gay marriage doesn't bring any personal embarassment on any single individual, as disagreeable as it is.
wrong,

by opposing civil rights of homosexuals, the conservatives are saying that homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural and that gays and and lesbians are at best second class citizens. This is particularly true when both marriage and civil unions are opposed. Please note that the conservatives actually say that gay marriage and civil unions threaten the institution of marriage.

[beyelzu]

This may be the stupidest thread I've ever read.
why?

[godfry n. glad]

This may be the stupidest thread I've ever read. Who's stupider, the thread, or the person who reads it all? ;)

...and then publicly comments that it's the stupidest thread they've every read? :no2:

godfry

(...sorry, but "stupider" just rankles...)

[ApostateAbe]

And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified. Bush had already brought sexual orientation to the center of this political contest with the Federal Marriage Amendment. You can't have it both ways. If Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is off-limits, then every other American's sexual orientation should be off-limits too. Bush chose to make sexual orientation an issue. A support for a prohibition on gay marriage doesn't bring any personal embarassment on any single individual, as disagreeable as it is. wrong,

by opposing civil rights of homosexuals, the conservatives are saying that homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural and that gays and and lesbians are at best second class citizens. This is particularly true when both marriage and civil unions are opposed. Please note that the conservatives actually say that gay marriage and civil unions threaten the institution of marriage. OK, I agree with that. Now can we also agree that the act of singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point.

[beyelzu]

How do you know? Because it seems to be obvious from the context. Edwards said it to point out the positives in Dick Cheney instead of the negatives.

And Edwards and Cheney are very close to agreeing on the point of gay marriage. Edwards opposes the ban, and Cheney would prefer that there not be a ban, but he supports it just because the president sets the policy.
Yet, Cheney still supports legislation that would officially make it impossible for a particularly minority to be granted civil liberties that the majority of us take for granted. Since the minority includes his own daughter, I think that there is definitely a legitimate point here. Cheney doesnt mind taking away civil liberties from his own family in the name of political expediency.

I think that it is really fucking sad that most of the amendments actually give rights and here the administration is trying to use the process to take away the rights of of a particular group.

[Godless Dave]

All other issues aside, I have to say that endlessly nitpicking over one sentence is what makes politicians afraid to speak their mind and motivates them to spout meaningless inoffensive focus-grouped drivel instead.

If we're going to focus on one statement, let's talk about how Bush denied ever saying that he didn't spend much time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and accused Kerry of exxagerating by making that claim, even though Bush is on record as saying exactly that.

[Godless Dave]

Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point.No. I vociferously disagree with that. Actually, I agree with the letter of what you said, but I think advocating discrimination against a large amount of people is much, much more reprehensible than embarassing one individual.

I also dispute that Mary Cheney or her family were embarassed, since she has been out of the closet for some time.

[beyelzu]

OK, I agree with that. Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point.
If the cheney's didnt know about their daughter's sexual orientation and if they had not already publicly acknowledged said orientaton than I would be in partial agreement with you.

However, as far as mainstream society is concerned being homosexual is no longer the kiss of death that it used to be. Queer Eye for the Straight guy, Will and Grace, hell, even the term metrosexual all point to a society that is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality. The problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality and not mainstream society imho.

[godfry n. glad]

And I would like to add that an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. If, before, it remained on the sidelines, then it is brought to the center of a political contest, then the embarassment is amplified. Bush had already brought sexual orientation to the center of this political contest with the Federal Marriage Amendment. You can't have it both ways. If Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is off-limits, then every other American's sexual orientation should be off-limits too. Bush chose to make sexual orientation an issue. A support for a prohibition on gay marriage doesn't bring any personal embarassment on any single individual, as disagreeable as it is. wrong,

by opposing civil rights of homosexuals, the conservatives are saying that homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural and that gays and and lesbians are at best second class citizens. This is particularly true when both marriage and civil unions are opposed. Please note that the conservatives actually say that gay marriage and civil unions threaten the institution of marriage. OK, I agree with that. Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point.


Sorry... I won't agree with that, because I see the Cheney's publicizing that fact in a press conference as using it a political fodder in the election (to assure homosexual voters that Republicans really are sensitive to homosexual issues, despite their cozying up the the religious fundamentalists on the "abomination in the eyes of the Lord" issue; "See...even the Vice President has a lesbian daughter.") as having made it clear that she was not embarassed by it...nor was Lynn Cheney.

It is not Kerry who has made the Cheney daughter's sexual preference a campaign issue, it was the Cheneys. Having done so, it's highly hypocritical of them to castigate Kerry when he uses the same information they made public - in the campaign.

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point.No. I vociferously disagree with that. Actually, I agree with the letter of what you said, but I think advocating discrimination against a large amount of people is much, much more reprehensible than embarassing one individual. I certainly agree with that. I have much more contempt for Bush for that reason, but it is still no excuse for John Kerry to do what he did.

I also dispute that Mary Cheney or her family were embarassed, since she has been out of the closet for some time. Like I said, an embarassment is not made null just because it is made public. I think the analogy I made earlier can draw a good perspective on why that is.

[ApostateAbe]

OK, I agree with that. Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point. If the cheney's didnt know about their daughter's sexual orientation and if they had not already publicly acknowledged said orientaton than I would be in partial agreement with you.

However, as far as mainstream society is concerned being homosexual is no longer the kiss of death that it used to be. Queer Eye for the Straight guy, Will and Grace, hell, even the term metrosexual all point to a society that is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality. The problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality and not mainstream society imho. OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret.

[ApostateAbe]

How do you know? Because it seems to be obvious from the context. Edwards said it to point out the positives in Dick Cheney instead of the negatives.

And Edwards and Cheney are very close to agreeing on the point of gay marriage. Edwards opposes the ban, and Cheney would prefer that there not be a ban, but he supports it just because the president sets the policy. Yet, Cheney still supports legislation that would officially make it impossible for a particularly minority to be granted civil liberties that the majority of us take for granted. Since the minority includes his own daughter, I think that there is definitely a legitimate point here. Cheney doesnt mind taking away civil liberties from his own family in the name of political expediency.

I think that it is really fucking sad that most of the amendments actually give rights and here the administration is trying to use the process to take away the rights of of a particular group. Can't say I disagree on this one.

[godfry n. glad]

OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret.

:qsigh:

Again....

It is not Kerry who has made the Cheney daughter's sexual preference a campaign issue, it was the Cheneys. Having done so, it's highly hypocritical of them to castigate Kerry when he uses the same information they made public - in the campaign.

godfry

[beyelzu]

OK, I agree with that. Now can we also agree that the act singling out the sexual orientation of one person to use as debate fodder is much more embarassing to that one person than the proposal to ban same sex marriages for all gays? It wasn't clear before, but that was my point. If the cheney's didnt know about their daughter's sexual orientation and if they had not already publicly acknowledged said orientaton than I would be in partial agreement with you.

However, as far as mainstream society is concerned being homosexual is no longer the kiss of death that it used to be. Queer Eye for the Straight guy, Will and Grace, hell, even the term metrosexual all point to a society that is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality. The problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality and not mainstream society imho. OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret.


All the more reason to point out the hypocrisy of the Bush/Cheney position.

btw, I also am not glad that Kerry made the comment, becuase I think that the resulting spin may have cost him votes. Not becuase I actually disagree with the comment iitself.

[ApostateAbe]

OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret.
:qsigh:

Again....

It is not Kerry who has made the Cheney daughter's sexual preference a campaign issue, it was the Cheneys. Having done so, it's highly hypocritical of them to castigate Kerry when he uses the same information they made public - in the campaign.

godfry I still think there is still a big difference between the act of bringing information public and the act of using it as debate fodder against your opponents.

[beyelzu]

OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret.
:qsigh:

Again....

It is not Kerry who has made the Cheney daughter's sexual preference a campaign issue, it was the Cheneys. Having done so, it's highly hypocritical of them to castigate Kerry when he uses the same information they made public - in the campaign.

godfry I still think there is still a big difference between the act of bringing information public and the act of using it as debate fodder against your opponents.

'
I think that it depends on the reasons for making the information public and part of the campaign.

If it was done to avoid embarassment than you are right, but since the woman is openly gay, this doesnt seem to be the case. Rather, Godfy's point that the administration was trying to paint itself all warm and fuzzy towards homosexuals and lesbians while being opposed to gay marriage is probably more spot on.

[ApostateAbe]

OK, so if you say that the problem lies with the religious right's inability to accept homosexuality, and if the Cheney family is part of the religious right, then it follows that Kerry's comment was personally offensive to the Cheney family. You might then try to blame it on the Cheney family for bringing it out in public, but they had to bring it out, because it would be a greater embarassment if it come out from outside the family, as if it were a dirty secret. :qsigh:

Again....

It is not Kerry who has made the Cheney daughter's sexual preference a campaign issue, it was the Cheneys. Having done so, it's highly hypocritical of them to castigate Kerry when he uses the same information they made public - in the campaign.

godfry I still think there is still a big difference between the act of bringing information public and the act of using it as debate fodder against your opponents.
'
I think that it depends on the reasons for making the information public and part of the campaign.

If it was done to avoid embarassment than you are right, but since the woman is openly gay, this doesnt seem to be the case. Rather, Godfy's point that the administration was trying to paint itself all warm and fuzzy towards homosexuals and lesbians while being opposed to gay marriage is probably more spot on. OK, so you and godfry are saying that the administration brought up the sexuality of Dick Cheney's daughter to make them appear compassionate about gays. Well, I am not yet convinced of that. If it is true, then what Kerry said can be excused (especially if he also made the case that the behavior of the administration is as you say it is). I am done arguing about this, since it really isn't important, and I need to go to work soon.

[viscousmemories]

The "stupidest thread I've ever read" comment was a private joke just for me, sorry. I can't think of anything more ridiculous then a person who isn't interested in a discussion criticising others for engaging in it (which has happened to me many times) so when I posted that I was laughing so hard I could barely see straight. Yeah I'm twisted.

But I really do think there's something very wrong with having a big protracted argument about the merits of a completely insignificant issue. I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's response to Tucker Carlson's "What do you think of the O'Reilly vibrator story":

"I'm sorry? I don't."

It just seems to me that arguing about this petty, trivial issue is exactly what the Republicans want people to be doing. And I think it's hurting America. :)

[godfry n. glad]

It just seems to me that arguing about this petty, trivial issue is exactly what the Republicans want people to be doing. And I think it's hurting America. :)

That would go a long way towards explaining why Lynn Cheney is having a cow in public over an innocuous statement by Kerry.

godfry

p.s. - See the "100 facts and 1 opinion" thread for more cogent and relevant issues...