Cheney Daughter Remark

[J. J.]

I winced. I sighed. I moved on.

It was stupid. It will be forgotten.

No, it gives the GOP a chance to to damage Kerry.

[J. J.]

Lynne Cheney has been saying Kerry is "not a good man"...and repeating it over and over again... .   

Can she really draw these conclusions from one statement, no matter how awkward?

When the comment is about her daughter HELL YES!

[J. J.]

Kerry has already began "explaining" his remark, backpeddling.  Mary Cheney is not the candidate.  

It would be like Bush saying something about John Kerry's ex-wife.  That's not relevant.

Kerry is either desparate or exceptionally uncouth.

[J. J.]

  Yeah he's caught 75% of the Al Queda leadership and as Rice said this sunday that is of a group of 10s to 100s.  Good Job They caught (let's be generous) 86 leaders of AQ (probably includes the chaufer).  Hey guess what their replacements have already been recruited, trained, and our planning new sessions. (LIKE ATTACKING THE GREEN ZONE)

And do you really think that a summit or stationing the National Guard around the US is going to protect us from any of them?

[J. J.]

Here is what Kerry said:

"And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney‘s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she‘s being who she was, she‘s being who she was born as."

He's suggesting that Bush doesn't talk with Cheney's family.  He's putting words into her mouth.  He's using her to express his opinion.

[J. J.]

1980 - Jimmy Carter raises a question relating to his daughter in the debate and loses.

2004  John Kerry raises a question relating to someone elses daughter and loses?

Symmetry?

(as Zathros would say.)

[J. J.]

It won't have legs. The democrats didn't introduce it into the debate is was some kind of rumor, understandably, among the young. Plus, there is a "back door draft" going on which is related. It also brings home the truth that Rice/Cheney/Wolfowitz, et al., completely miscalculated.

The Democrates did intorduce it in the US House, in the Person of Kerry supporter Democrat Charles Rangel of NY.

"Democrat John Kerry talks about the draft.  Democrat Charlie Rangel introduces a bill in start up the draft.  What are the Democrats going to do with your children?"

That could be the October surprise.

[J. J.]

I agree with Elcorazon. I'm gay, i know its not a choice and you can't change it. And If I was Mary Cheney i'd be deeply offended by my parents trying to make poiltical capital out of it. And why on earth will no one ask Mary Cheney what she feels? Cheney uses his daughters lesbianism to his advantage when he needs to.

I'm hetrosexual, and frankly cannot be sure it it's by choice, i.e. being socialized that way from a very early age, or if it is something genetic.  I know I would not prefer to have sex with people of the same sex as myself, but that's about it.

I am not suggesting that sexual preference can be changed or "converted," but, respectfully, how do you know that a sexual preference is something you are born with?

BTW:  I don't have an answer to the question.

[J. J.]

A lot.  Bush honestly answered the question.  Kerry put words into someone elses mouth, without her consent.  If he wanted to quote someone openly gay, he could have quoted Barney Frank, for example.

I frankly (no pun intended) have no idea how someone becomes homosexual or a heterosexual.   This is a subject that is debated by psychologists, geneticist, and physiologists. 

Kerry, in his arrogance, gave his inexpert opinion, and attemped to pass it off as fact, and attemped to do this by citing a person that has made no public statement on it, without her consent.  That is the improper part.

[J. J.]

A lot.  Bush honestly answered the question.  Kerry put words into someone elses mouth, without her consent.  If he wanted to quote someone openly gay, he could have quoted Barney Frank, for example.

I frankly (no pun intended) have no idea how someone becomes homosexual or a heterosexual.   This is a subject that is debated by psychologists, geneticist, and physiologists. 

Kerry, in his arrogance, gave his inexpert opinion, and attemped to pass it off as fact, and attemped to do this by citing a person that has made no public statement on it, without her consent.  That is the improper part.

So, does Mary Cheney disagree with what Kerry said?

I have no idea.  The point is, he didn't ask and he told, on national television.  Now, if she had said something previously and in public, he could certainly state that it was her opinion.   As far as I know, she hasn't.  That is the point.

I have no doubt that many people, both hetero- and homosexual, feel that sexual preference is an innate characteristic, one that someone is born with.  I have no doubt that many people, both hetero- and homosexual, feel that it is an environmental trait, a learned trait.  I'm also sure that many feel it's a bit of both.  What triggers sexual preference is unknown, from a physiological and psychological standpoint.

Kerry errored in two ways:

1.  Invoking the name of someone, whose views he did not know, about their intimate and private views on her own sexuality.

2.  Stating something as fact, to support his political agenda, that is unknown.

In the first, he was uncouth, at best.  In the second, he was intellectually dishonest.  That is what we are complaining about.

[J. J.]

I have no doubt that many people, both hetero- and homosexual, feel that it is an environmental trait, a learned trait. 

Really? Can you find one homosexual that isn't involved in Right Wing politics or theology that says homosexuality is learned?

I've met a few, including one ex-woman who had a sex change to become a man and then prefered men.  I don't pretend to understand it.  Kerry does pretend to understand it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.  ;-)

[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.

[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.