Cheney Daughter Remark

[elcorazon]

I have no clue what you're talking about J.J.  I'd love to disagree with you or even agree with you if I could only figure out what you're trying to say.

[J. J.]

I have no clue what you're talking about J.J.  I'd love to disagree with you or even agree with you if I could only figure out what you're trying to say.

To summarize, it is arrogant of me to assume that the reason you are so incredibly stupid is due to genetics, a congenital defect, environment or God's will.

[elcorazon]

Learn to write a coherent sentence and then maybe I'll have a clue what you're saying, you useless excuse for a debater.

[J. J.]

<<elcorazon's tasteless expletive indicating his near complete lack of verbal skills deleated>> you J.J.

First, you really should have read the posts, especially the one where I indicated that it wasn't my prefference.  :-)

Second, that is an example of what I've been talking about, in summary.  Take out the words "you're," and insert "Mary Cheney"; strike the words "are so incredibly stupid" and "is lesbian."  There you have the summary.

I'm suggesting to the gentle reader that, Kerry, and elcorazon, show their ultimate arrogance on this issue by these statements.  You'll note that elcorazon asked if I was gay and if I made a choice, well after I indicated that I was straight and that I didn't know how it happend.

Third, don't mess with North Phila.  ;-)

[elcorazon]

Mary Cheney is a lesbian

the more people hear this the better.
Not sure why you bring it up here though.

J.J. - you can call me stupid, but I'm the tasteless one.  You are so hypocritical, its ridiculous.

[J. J.]

the more people hear this the better.

J.J. - you can call me stupid, but I'm the tasteless one.  You are so hypocritical, its ridiculous.

I called your comment tasteless; it was. 

I referred to you as "stupid" in an example, though considering what I've posted, you are incredibly dense for not reading it, from your first entry with me on the subject.  Let's see:

1.  After stating I was straight and could not say if it a matter of birth or socialization, you asked if I was gay and if I chose.

2.  After posting a responce, you said you didn't understand it.

3.  After indicating that the fact that Ms. Cheney's sexual preference was known and discussing the appropriateness of Kerry's comment, you repeat "Mary Cheney is a lesbian."

You are not exactly exhibiting intelligence in these posts.   You are giving people good examples of why Kerry's comments are inappropriate.

Please, indulge yourself all you wish.  You are helping my candidate.

[elcorazon]

typical of a Republican to alter my comments to make them seem illogical.

I read your posts prior to my question, but over the course of dozens/hundreds of posts forgot who said what; your only defense to my arguments is that I forgot about a point you had previously made.  Another typical Republican deflection of the issue.  Why not address my points rather than make personal attacks?

[J. J.]

typical of a Republican to alter my comments to make them seem illogical.

I read your posts prior to my question, but over the course of dozens/hundreds of posts forgot who said what; your only defense to my arguments is that I forgot about a point you had previously made.  Another typical Republican deflection of the issue.  Why not address my points rather than make personal attacks?

I have, you stated you couldn't understand them. 

I'll try to make it simple for you.  Nobody knows what triggers sexual preference on a biological or psychological level.  Has anybody isolated the "gay gene?"  No.  How about the "straight enzyme?"  No.  The "bi-sexual trauma?"  No.   Any claim that that this is by choice or by birth cannot be legitimately claimed.  If you claim that you know the answer, you are being intellectually dishonest.  We don't know.

Further, is their an element of choice, even if genetic?  In my family, males have suffered heart disease for generations, and, from what the doctors tell me, it is hereditary.  Now, even with that hereditary likelihood, I can do things to modify that likelihood, e.g. like a healthier lifestyle.  I can choose not to.  So even if we get evidence of a genetic basis for sexual preference, there may still be a choice involved.  We don't know.

In this, as to what triggers sexual preference, we have no real evidence to support any conclusion.  We have a lot of conjecture, but I can't explain why one brother in a family is straight while another is gay.  I've seen a few old statistics, but they could be argued either way.

Kerry said, and I'm paraphasing, "The reason people are gay is because they are born that way."  You stated that you believe that sexual preference "is NOT a choice."  Of course when you make that statement, you don't know.  Kerry does not know.  Any claim at this point in time, is dishonest.

In Kerry's case, his intellectually dishonest statement, was directed at his supporters who believe that preference is a matter of birth.  Bush's answer was intellectually honest, stating what our knowledge base is, that we do not know what triggers sexual preference.

Now, what don't you understand about the answer.  You comments have other problems, but I'll take it one step at a time.

[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.

[ATFFL]

Both of you should stop for the night, calm down, come back in the morning and reread everything the other person posted today.  Both of you have done a damn fine job of making fools of yourself.

Stop.

Rest.

Come at it fresh on the morrow.

[J. J.]

Tredrick, I wanted to see if he'd realize that copied a duplicate message after an hour, and without new material.  You'll note he hasn't.

[elcorazon]

You're right tredrick.  Sorry everyone, but J.J. just got me very angry.  Here's a letter I just sent to the Chicago Tribune in response to an editorial from yesterday's paper on this subject:

There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of John Kerry’s utterance of the name of Mary Cheney at the final presidential debate last week, so much that even a week later, in an article published October 20 in the Chicago Tribune, Kathleen Parker devoted an entire editorial to lambasting the evil democrats for being so politically impolite, suggesting that any attempt to invoke the name of an opponent’s family member is improper.

My reaction to this is simple:  BUNK.  I actually do think Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter to make a political point.  He wanted to point out that there is a hypocrisy in the administration’s position(s) on gay rights.  He also wanted to accentuate the fact that Bush’s running mate disagrees with Bush on this issue.  He also may have wanted some right wing voters to be aware that Cheney has a gay daughter.

All of these are perfectly valid political considerations.  All politicians frame issues in the way to best make their point.  Kerry could have given a one-line response, “No, I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice.”  But had he done so, his answer would have been less convincing.  The fact that presumably good parents raised an intelligent, seemingly well-adjusted daughter who is in a high level position in the campaign AND who happens to be gay makes Kerry’s point clearer than any generic statement possibly could.

The only possible reasons that the Republicans and the Cheneys are so “offended” by this issue are (1) they are ashamed to admit that Mary is gay (although her sexuality is not a secret); and (2) they want to make political points of their own and take the focus OFF the issues and onto irrelevancies like the “politeness” of John Kerry.

I only hope voters aren’t fooled by this obvious political strategy.  If you support Bush’s policies, by all means vote for him, but don’t do so because of irrelevancies like whether Kerry’s decision to bring up Mary Cheney’s name in a debate was “polite.”

[J. J.]

Nice to know I'm agreeing with the Tribune.

Actually, I'm not angry with you.  I just feel sorry for you.  I really do mean that.

[freedomburns]

I feel sorry for you JJ.  For someone who thinks he's smart, and advertises his superior intelligence to the world with a MENSA bumpersticker on his car, you sure do say some dumb things sometimes.

freedomburns

[J. J.]

I feel sorry for you JJ.  For someone who thinks he's smart, and advertises his superior intelligence to the world with a MENSA bumpersticker on his car, you sure do say some dumb things sometimes.

freedomburns

If I valued your opinion, I'd be insulted.  I've read your posts and realize that it's really Freedumbburns.

However, you did make several incorrect assuptions.  I have never claimed "superior intelligence."  You inferred it; that's your conclusion, not mine (but, fortunately, I don't value your conclusions).   I do have a Mensa bumper sticker on my car, but not to "advertize" anything to the world.

[elcorazon]

Nice to know I'm agreeing with the Tribune.

Actually, I'm not angry with you.  I just feel sorry for you.  I really do mean that.

You actually are agreeing with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, not the Tribune. 

The only thing that really makes me angry is your refusal to address my points and instead insult me, then your gloating when you made an incomprehensible point rather than trying to clarify your point.

I enjoy an intelligent discussion of issues, but when the other side can't stick to making their point and addressing mine, I get angry.

I hope no one was offended at any point.

Why not just agree to disagree since this argument isn't going anywhere?

[J. J.]

The only thing that really makes me angry is your refusal to address my points and instead insult me, then your gloating when you made an incomprehensible point rather than trying to clarify your point.

I enjoy an intelligent discussion of issues, but when the other side can't stick to making their point and addressing mine, I get angry.

I hope no one was offended at any point.

Why not just agree to disagree since this argument isn't going anywhere?

I have addressed you points.  Your first comment directed at me was, "Am I gay? And when did I chose?"  I had already indicated that, I have no idea how I came to my sexual preference and that I was straight.   

I've been one of the few Republicans on this site that has consistently said, in effect, "This may or may not be a matter of choice; this may or may not be a matter of birth.  This might or might not be a combination of the two." I would not call that unclear.  That a factual statement, since there isn't solid evidence either way.  It doesn't imply that gay people are evil, sinful, or are mentally ill or that straight people are good, holy, or are mentally healthy.  It states that what we don't know what factors shape sexual preferrence.

You have claimed that you "believe," along with John Kerry, that it is an inborn trait; you've even added that it might be God's will that someone is gay.  I submit that this is intellectually dishonest and exceptionally arrogant for either you or Kerry to claim this, since it isn't based on any factual evidence.  You dragging God's mind into this, is exceptionally arrogant.  Neither of us know what that will is.

You also stated:

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?

What Bush has proposed is not to make gay marriage illegal.  It is to permit one state to determine what constitutes a marriage within that state.  It does not prevent any state from permitting same sex marriage.  It would be fine for PA, for example, to permit same sex marriages, but NJ would not have to recognize that marriage within NJ; NJ would not be able to regulate what PA does.

Now, you have stated something as fact that isn't and you have stated something as Bush's position that is not Bush's position.

My only conclusions, based on that is, could be that:

1.  You are being intellectually dishonest intentionally.

2.  You don't understand the issue because you cannot understand the issue.

You've indicated that you didn't understand.

[elcorazon]

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.

This is your only post where I suggested I didn't understand your point.  I've addressed all the other points elsewhere.

Here's a quote from Bush's initiative supporting the amendment:

Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

I believe he is officially outlawing "gay marriage", while "allowing" states to make "other arrangements" for other non-marriage unions. 

Your description is clearly inaccurate.  I can only conclude:

1. you are intentionally lying about Bush's position; or
2. you don't understand his position.

[J. J.]

He is the part you left out:

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. ...



Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

Now, I'm not seeing that this says, at al, same sex marriage is being illegal.  It refers to a certain part of Article IV,  Section 1., the "full faith and credit" clause.  It is clear, in that context, that the call here, modifies that specific clause.   (BTW: I did cite that clause earlier; I guess you either didn't look at it or understand it either.)

This is, as are serveral current constitutional amendments (12th, 13th, 18th 25th), overides a section of the Constitution.  It states that one state does not have to recognized a specific act, a same sex marriage, of another state,.  This is why the press release cites the "full faith and credit" clause.

[elcorazon]

He is the part you left out:

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. ...



Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

Now, I'm not seeing that this says, at al, same sex marriage is being illegal.  It refers to a certain part of Article IV,  Section 1., the "full faith and credit" clause.  It is clear, in that context, that the call here, modifies that specific clause.   (BTW: I did cite that clause earlier; I guess you either didn't look at it or understand it either.)

This is, as are serveral current constitutional amendments (12th, 13th, 18th 25th), overides a section of the Constitution.  It states that one state does not have to recognized a specific act, a same sex marriage, of another state,.  This is why the press release cites the "full faith and credit" clause.

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

[J. J.]

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

This does not make same sex marraige illegal.  I can site two examples. 

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed.  It said in part (Section 1), that the right to all citizen cannot be abridged.  It also says Section 2. that the right to vote only "can be denied to male inhabitants of such State being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States... " for certain this, e.g. engaging in rebellion or convicted of a crime.

Now the states could, and some did, deny the right to vote to females and to people under 21.  Was it illegal, because of this, for people under 21 or women to vote?  No!  There were states that permitted women to vote well before the  19th Amendment (I think WY was one of the first) and states that permitted 18 year olds to vote prior to the 26th (possibly NJ).  The fact that the Constitution did not required something did not and does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment states that no state constitution nor the US Constitution can be interpreted to "require" that same sex marriage.  That does not prohibit any legislature from doing it.

This is the famous "straw man" tactic, misrepresent the other guy position and attack the false position.  It is, of course, intellectually dishonest, or perhaps based on a lack of understanding.

[A18]

The question is, what does "require" mean? At first sight this looks like it would only stop activist judges.

But if a state passes law instituting same sex unions, is that the legislature requiring that same sex marriages be recognized by law - or just a law making same sex marriages recognized by law?

It's an interesting question. I lean towards the latter.

[elcorazon]

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

This does not make same sex marraige illegal.  I can site two examples. 

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed.  It said in part (Section 1), that the right to all citizen cannot be abridged.  It also says Section 2. that the right to vote only "can be denied to male inhabitants of such State being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States... " for certain this, e.g. engaging in rebellion or convicted of a crime.

Now the states could, and some did, deny the right to vote to females and to people under 21.  Was it illegal, because of this, for people under 21 or women to vote?  No!  There were states that permitted women to vote well before the  19th Amendment (I think WY was one of the first) and states that permitted 18 year olds to vote prior to the 26th (possibly NJ).  The fact that the Constitution did not required something did not and does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment states that no state constitution nor the US Constitution can be interpreted to "require" that same sex marriage.  That does not prohibit any legislature from doing it.

This is the famous "straw man" tactic, misrepresent the other guy position and attack the false position.  It is, of course, intellectually dishonest, or perhaps based on a lack of understanding.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights.

Under the proposed amendment, civil unions could be legal, but need not be recognized by other states.  Marriage would not be possible between same sex couples in the United States.

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

[A18]

Yes, it does require that marriage only be between a man and a woman. Almost everyone supports that.

[opebo]

Yes, it does require that marriage only be between a man and a woman. Almost everyone supports that.

Individual rights are meaningless if those rights are at the whim of the majority.  Saying 'everyone supports that' is not a good argument - of course the majority often supports horrors.  The vast majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews, or perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of Americans used to support banning interracial marriage.  For that matter a lot probably still do!