Cheney Daughter Remark

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She could have a form of mental illness. Brambilla has discussed this in the past.

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

I'm consistently astounded at the intellectual dishonesty of Bush supporters. They muster "outrage" that Kerry would mention Mary Cheney being a lesbian and speculating that she would explain her sexuality in the same way that 98+% of homosexuals describe their sexuality.

But when Alan Keyes calls Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist" or some Republican describes her as mentally ill it's OK.

I never said I was outraged by the comment. Stop the prejudice by lumping us all together as one group. Seriously, knock off the childish sh**t.

[CollectiveInterest]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

[??????????]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

She would say 1. I would say 2. Obviously.

[J. J.]

This whole non-story just shows how desparate Bush is to run away from all his failures (the economy, the deficit, Iraq, etc etc). He doesn't have anything good to run on so he instructs Cheney and family to feign outrage. Obviously the Cheney's are being disingenous, because Dick thanked Edwards in the VP debate.

Edwards said in effect, it is good that the Cheney family supports their lesbian daughter.

Kerry said, in effect, this is how Mary Cheney thinks.

That is the difference.

[CollectiveInterest]

This whole non-story just shows how desparate Bush is to run away from all his failures (the economy, the deficit, Iraq, etc etc). He doesn't have anything good to run on so he instructs Cheney and family to feign outrage. Obviously the Cheney's are being disingenous, because Dick thanked Edwards in the VP debate.

Edwards said in effect, it is good that the Cheney family supports their lesbian daughter.

Kerry said, in effect, this is how Mary Cheney thinks.

That is the difference.

But if she does think the way Kerry said, what's the problem?

[J. J.]

Edwards said in effect, it is good that the Cheney family supports their lesbian daughter.

Kerry said, in effect, this is how Mary Cheney thinks.

That is the difference.

But if she does think the way Kerry said, what's the problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, you are assuming a something that neither you or Kerry knows.  Both of you are saying, "This is how Mary Cheney thinks."  No matter how she feels about the matter, any matter, it is uncouth to claim that someone else has opinion which they have never stated, especially on an imtimate matter.  If Ms. Cheney had stated her opinions publically, it would be different.  It would just as wrong to for Kerry to have said, "Just ask Barney Frank," unless he know Frank's opinion on the matter.

Second, it is mean-spirited to bring a candidate's family members into this.  What it Bush said, "Well, Senator, I wouldn't speak to the press the way your wife did."  Even though it was a public comment, recorded, and broadcast, it is still mean-spirted to mention her in that context.

Third, Kerry, in his arrogance, stated that sexual preference is inborn.  Neither he, nor anyone else, knows the answer to why someone is gay, straight or bisexual.  Kerry, in this, showed his intellectual dishonesty; Bush didn't claim that.  He didn't call it a choice, or a sin, but said, "I don't know," the honest answer.

Now CollectiveInterest, if you feel that there is evidence that sexual prefference comes about in only one way, please post the link.  If not, admit Kerry is intellectually dishonest on this issue.

[opebo]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

She would say 1. I would say 2. Obviously.

It isn't obvious, you just don't like it.  Some of use would say prefering a rural life is obviously a mental illness.

[??????????]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

She would say 1. I would say 2. Obviously.

It isn't obvious, you just don't like it.  Some of use would say prefering a rural life is obviously a mental illness.

Thats what I meant. He shouldn't have asked the question because naturally I would have answered 1 and 2.

[J. J.]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

She would say 1. I would say 2. Obviously.

It isn't obvious, you just don't like it.  Some of use would say prefering a rural life is obviously a mental illness.

Opebo, the question isn't if someone is gay, but what "causes" sexual preference.  We don't know.

The problem with Kerry's answer is that he not only claimed to know, but that he drug Ms. Cheney into it.

[opebo]

If Mary Cheney was honest about answering the question...

Which statement is closer to the truth?

1. Being lesbian is who you are.
2. Being lesbtian is a mental illness.

Answer the question. Which statement is closer to the truth?

She would say 1. I would say 2. Obviously.

It isn't obvious, you just don't like it.  Some of use would say prefering a rural life is obviously a mental illness.

Opebo, the question isn't if someone is gay, but what "causes" sexual preference.  We don't know.

The problem with Kerry's answer is that he not only claimed to know, but that he drug Ms. Cheney into it.

What causes sexual preference is of no interest to me, but what causes intolerance of another's sexual preference does interest me.  It seems to mainly stem from sick religion and a sick culture.  I'm all for Kerry pointing out Cheney's mistreatment of his family.

[J. J.]

Opebo, the question isn't if someone is gay, but what "causes" sexual preference.  We don't know.

The problem with Kerry's answer is that he not only claimed to know, but that he drug Ms. Cheney into it.

What causes sexual preference is of no interest to me, but what causes intolerance of another's sexual preference does interest me.  It seems to mainly stem from sick religion and a sick culture.  I'm all for Kerry pointing out Cheney's mistreatment of his family.

Well Edward's certainly doesn't think Cheney "mistreated" his daughter, and said so on national TV. 

You comments are just a sick distortion, which are unfortunately typical of the loony Left.  I'm sure many serious Democrats would be as appalled as I am by your sick comment, that Cheney is guilty of "mistreatment of his family."  It is not shared by either Kerry or Edwards, from their public statements.

The question was on what makes someone to be gay or generally how sexual preference is determined.  Nobody, as of yet, knows.  Bush told the truth here, Kerry didn't.

[elcorazon]

are you gay j.j.?
When did you decide?

[Bogart]

The thing that I think makes Kerry's comments troubling is not the topic nor the fact that he mentioned Mary Cheney specifically. What is troubling is that he was speaking from an uniformed point of view. He made the assumption that all gay Americans think the same way when clearly this is not the case. As a gay man, I find very little difference between Kerry's assumption and the assumption that all African-Americans think the same way simply because they are black, for example. His comments seem to indicate that he feels that all gays can be lumped together in the same way.

As to the question of choice---it is not. However, Bush was more intellectually honest because he admitted that he did not know.

[J. J.]

are you gay j.j.?
When did you decide?

I have already posted my sexual preference and the fact that cannot say if that preference was an inborn or learned trait.

Once again we see the loonie Left at it again.  Only in this case elcorazon didn't bother to read the previous posts.  Not really the brightest thing to do.

[J. J.]

Well, it's not like Mary is in a coma.
She could speak up for herself.
Why she supports someone like Bush is beyond
me. Perhaps some day she'll clue us all in.

Mary isn't on the ballot and doesn't have to.  Why don't we ask Thearse the same question, which John was better?  Largely because such a question is an intimate one and isn't relevant to the question.

[elcorazon]

I read the thread.  Sorry I couldn't remember your discussion of this issue over the course of a 12 page thread.  I remember back in high school, I was thinking of going on a date, so I had to decide; should I ask a boy or a girl?  For me, it was a pretty easy decision, and one I've been resolute about, never waffling or going back on my decision.  I guess for you, it was different, huh?

[J. J.]

I read the thread.  Sorry I couldn't remember your discussion of this issue over the course of a 12 page thread.  I remember back in high school, I was thinking of going on a date, so I had to decide; should I ask a boy or a girl?  For me, it was a pretty easy decision, and one I've been resolute about, never waffling or going back on my decision.  I guess for you, it was different, huh?

No, it was easier, and a lot earlier; I've been attracted to females since I was a boy and they were girls.  Look, I make no claim that sexual preference is inborn, learned, or a little bit of both; I frankly suspect option #3.   That includes heterosexual preference; I have no idea if mine was an inborn trait or something learned or some combination. 

If you've read the thread, my position should be clear on how sexual preference is determined, I frankly don't know.  It should also be clear why Kerry's comment was so offensive and arrogant.

[elcorazon]

The question was whether it was a "choice" or not.  Even if it's not genetic, I don't think anyone really thinks it's a "choice".  Kerry's response was accurate, well stated and perfectly legitimate.

Bush's response was ignorant, politically motivated and mostly off point.

Here's what I wonder:  how did Mary Cheney come to become gay if she was raised by the Cheneys and if it's somehow a "choice"?

[ATFFL]

The question was whether it was a "choice" or not.  Even if it's not genetic, I don't think anyone really thinks it's a "choice".  Kerry's response was accurate, well stated and perfectly legitimate.

Bush's response was ignorant, politically motivated and mostly off point.

Here's what I wonder:  how did Mary Cheney come to become gay if she was raised by the Cheneys and if it's somehow a "choice"?

How do the children of evangelical christians become pagans?  That is something that is clearly a choice.

It is not appropriate to bring the children of candidates in to the campaign, even if they are on the trail.  You are supposed to leave family out of it.  Even Dukakis did not bring up some of W's stupid comments back in '88 and W gave him some good lines he could have used.

[elcorazon]

Often children of evangelical christians see their parent's hypocracy and rebel against it.  Do you think that's what happened to the Cheneys?  Did Mary see the horrible nature of a heterosexual relationship and decide it'd be better to become homosexual?  I doubt it.

I wonder if Bush agrees with statesrights that it's a medical disorder, but didn't want to say it for fear of the political ramifications.

[J. J.]

The question was whether it was a "choice" or not.  Even if it's not genetic, I don't think anyone really thinks it's a "choice".  Kerry's response was accurate, well stated and perfectly legitimate.

Bush's response was ignorant, politically motivated and mostly off point.

Here's what I wonder:  how did Mary Cheney come to become gay if she was raised by the Cheneys and if it's somehow a "choice"?

A "choice" can be a subconscious one, which is what the argument is.   The terms that I would use are "learned" and "inborn," though we could use "nature or nurture."  A trait that is learned can be unlearned.

If sexual preference is "learned," it can be "unlearned."  Notice I said "sexual preference," not homosexuality.  If we are talking about a learned trait, someone who is "straight" could learn to be gay.  If sexual preference is "learned," and I "learned" to be straight, I have made a choice not to "learn" to be gay.  That is where choice comes into the picture.  

Now, is sexual preference a learned trait?  Good heavens, I don't know.  Elcorazon, you don't know.  Mary Cheney doesn't know.  John Kerry doesn't know.  George Bush doesn't know.  Bush's intellectually honest answer to the question was, "I don't know."

As to Mary Cheney's raising, I don't know that either.  I am however, quite sure, that the Cheneys were not the entire influence on her life, and it is possible that they did something, unintentionally, that began to set her down that course as well, if this is a learned trait.

If we knew what "caused" sexual preference, we'd be able to answer the questions.  As far as know, nobody yet has isolated a gene that triggers sexual preference, so that everyone with a certain genetic structure behaves one way and everyone with a different genetic structure behaves another.  That does not preclude the existence of one however, so I'll stick with my "I don't know" answer.

[elcorazon]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

[J. J.]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

The question was almost philosophical.  There is substantially more evidence for the other two that this.

I don't know exactly what amount of "nature or nurture" goes into sexual preference; it has never been established.  We don't if it's genetic, congenital, or environmental.  You don't, and I think you are intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't.  I wish Kerry had been as well.

[elcorazon]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

The question was almost philosophical.  There is substantially more evidence for the other two that this.

I don't know exactly what amount of "nature or nurture" goes into sexual preference; it has never been established.  We don't if it's genetic, congenital, or environmental.  You don't, and I think you are intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't.  I wish Kerry had been as well.

more evidence for the other 2 what?

I believe sexual "preference" (a misnomer) is NOT a choice.  I don't understand the "exact" root of its manifestation, but I believe (not know, but strongly believe) that it is NOT a choice.  Kerry agrees with me, I think, and rather than AVOID the question, he answered it to the best of his knowledge.

How would you feel if the candidates were asked questions about the deficit and they said "I don't know what will happen".  That'd be the truth, but I doubt it would go over well.

When asked about all kinds of things, the true answer would be "I don't know".  The whole point of the debate is to answer it to the best of your own ability.

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?  What if it ISN'T a choice?  What if it IS what GOD intended?

By the way, I hated Kerry's answer on this subject as well.  Gay marriage should be LEGAL. Period.  The truth is he knows if he said it, it'd be poor politics.  I'm not sure he's right, but candidates HAVE to think about these things if they want to win.  Don't kid yourself Bush AND Kerry make decisions constantly based on the political ramifications. It's just the way of the world.

[J. J.]

I believe sexual "preference" (a misnomer) is NOT a choice.  I don't understand the "exact" root of its manifestation, but I believe (not know, but strongly believe) that it is NOT a choice.  Kerry agrees with me, I think, and rather than AVOID the question, he answered it to the best of his knowledge.

How would you feel if the candidates were asked questions about the deficit and they said "I don't know what will happen".  That'd be the truth, but I doubt it would go over well.

When asked about all kinds of things, the true answer would be "I don't know".  The whole point of the debate is to answer it to the best of your own ability.

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?  What if it ISN'T a choice?  What if it IS what GOD intended?

By the way, I hated Kerry's answer on this subject as well.  Gay marriage should be LEGAL. Period.  The truth is he knows if he said it, it'd be poor politics.  I'm not sure he's right, but candidates HAVE to think about these things if they want to win.  Don't kid yourself Bush AND Kerry make decisions constantly based on the political ramifications. It's just the way of the world.

I find nothing about "sexual preference" to be a misnomer.  It refers to the sex of the partner would choose, if givin a choice.

The "best of his knowledge" is poor and can't really be guessed at.  He doesn't really know, so he makes up an answer to pander to the group he's trying to attract to his cause.  He chose the politically correct answer, for him, which may or may not be the correct answer.  He didn't do so based on reality, just what he thought, incorrectly, sounded good.   

Bush has not proposed making same sex marriages illegal.  He has supported a constitutional amendment stating that one state is not required to recognize another state's marriage.  If a state, PA for example, wishes to permit them, NJ doesn't have to recognize them. 

PA, my home state, should not be in the business of telling NJ, or any other state, that it must accept marriages beyond the traditional bounds, with NJ's own boundries.  This is why Clinton, hardly a reactionary, supported and signed, the Defense of Marriage Act; Kerry opposed it.  There is a serious constitutional threat to that act, hence the ammenment.

I find it interesting, in light of the issue, that you've reached the possible conclusion, that this "IS what GOD intended."  You know what, I'll agree with you.  For all I know this could be what God intended.  To reach that conclusion, I'd have to know the mind of God.  I make no claim to.

Elcorazon has given perhaps the best example of arrogance, claiming that his "believes" that sexual preference is not "a choice," and that it might be "what God intended."  This is the type of arrogance seen in John Kerry's answer and is one of the many reasons he should not be president.