Are they ashamed?

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

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]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

No, because that comment wasn't meant as a debating weapon. There is a big difference.

[livius drusus]

How do you know?

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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

why?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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?

godfry

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

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

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]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

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

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by 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.