Are they ashamed?

[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.

[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.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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.

[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.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

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.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

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]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

'
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.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[godfry n. glad]

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.

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