NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

I am confused....what hypocrisy?

I don't see the self-hating part, where is that in there? Additionally, it looks to me like the article is saying that Vice President Cheney and his wife ARE happy for the grand children announcement...

Are you reading between the lines here or something?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

Believe it or not there's more to your political party than who you sleep with.

First off, if you're going to start an intelligent discussion about something like this, irrational statements like "...those who would rather see her dead" are pointless and stupid.

Can you accept the concept that it's possible to disagree with someone's views and lifestyle without wanting to kill them? Maybe that's your way of thinking, but it's not everyone else's.

Also, can you accept the idea that it's possible to disagree with someone's beliefs or lifestyle and still love them? I guess not, since you already expect people to kill each other over it.

Just the other day my son came to me and asked me "Dad, what would you do if you found out that one of us was gay?"

My answer was that while I don't approve morally of the lifestyle, that would not change my love for that child. I wouldn't disown him or her, I wouldn't kick them out of my life, and it's that simple. Would I be happy about it? No. Would I be proud of it? No. But if my kids are old enough to decide for themselves how to live their lives then they don't require my approval. In any case, they'd still be my child and I'd still love them. I reminded him that in the Bible, Jesus Christ NEVER blew people off, especially sinners. (Well, He would sometimes dismiss Pharisees, but that's a separate issue.) He drew them near, and showed them love and compassion.

I would imagine that the Cheneys see it similarly, at least, I see nothing in the article to suggest otherwise.

Why are you trying to turn it into a battle?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

I thought it was only gay adoption that was illegal?

I thought it was only gay adoption that was illegal?

I don't think married gays get federal benefits.

I don't think married gays get federal benefits.

because the federal govt. doesn't recognize their marriage.

I don't see the self-hating part, where is that in there? Additionally, it looks to me like the article is saying that Vice President Cheney and his wife ARE happy for the grand children announcement...

Are you reading between the lines here or something?

No, you're just reading a looney who posts stuff on an Internet forum and rails about a news article that he/she/it doesn't understand.

Welcome to teh Intarwebs!

I don't think married gays get federal benefits.

they would get federal benefits for raising the child though right?

With that said I want to know how she got pregnant and how the couple decided who should play mother:confused:

The Cheneys have a gay pregnant daughter and are extatic about it. Karl Rove was supportive of his gay father. The Republicans love the gays, just not in public.

they would get federal benefits for raising the child though right?

With that said I want to know how she got pregnant and how the couple decided who should play mother:confused:

Artificial insemination maybe?

they would get federal benefits for raising the child though right?
yes, they would get the kiddie tax credits and all that.

With that said I want to know how she got pregnant and how the couple decided who should play mother:confused:

why does one of them have to be mommy?

First off, if you're going to start an intelligent discussion about something like this, irrational statements like "...those who would rather see her dead" are pointless and stupid.

Can you accept the concept that it's possible to disagree with someone's views and lifestyle without wanting to kill them? Maybe that's your way of thinking, but it's not everyone else's.

Also, can you accept the idea that it's possible to disagree with someone's beliefs or lifestyle and still love them? I guess not, since you already expect people to kill each other over it.

Just the other day my son came to me and asked me "Dad, what would you do if you found out that one of us was gay?"

My answer was that while I don't approve morally of the lifestyle, that would not change my love for that child. I wouldn't disown him or her, I wouldn't kick them out of my life, and it's that simple. Would I be happy about it? No. Would I be proud of it? No. But if my kids are old enough to decide for themselves how to live their lives then they don't require my approval. In any case, they'd still be my child and I'd still love them. I reminded him that in the Bible, Jesus Christ NEVER blew people off, especially sinners. (Well, He would sometimes dismiss Pharisees, but that's a separate issue.) He drew them near, and showed them love and compassion.

I would imagine that the Cheneys see it similarly, at least, I see nothing in the article to suggest otherwise.

Why are you trying to turn it into a battle?


So... he loves her, but he's still campaigning for her not to have the right to be by her partner's side should she be hospitalised. He loves her, but he still will not stand for legislation that would give his grandchild two legal parents.
He loves her, but he doesn't want her to have the same rights that are taken for granted by others.
Tough love, that.

It is absolutely hypocritical, because Republicans all over the country are doing everything in their power to deny any rights to gay and lesbian Americans.
If Mary and Heather keep living in Viriginia, it is doubtful that Heather will be able to be a co-parent, they will most likely need to move to Maryland.

But to I feel sorry for Mary if this happens, absolutely not. She encouraged the bigotry and discrimination and using gay bashing as a political weapon by the GOP. She sat back and openly supported Bush while he said that she and Heather were undermining America. She supported Sen Santorum when he compared her family to bestiality.

Artificial insemination maybe?

but that leaves the question of who is the father:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/story.bush.mon.jpg

why does one of them have to be mommy?

one of them has to carry the baby...unless they both get pregnant

yes, they would get the kiddie tax credits and all that.



why does one of them have to be mommy?

Because only one is pregnant. At least I assumed that's what CTP meant, how did they decide which one would actually have the baby.

First off, if you're going to start an intelligent discussion about something like this, irrational statements like "...those who would rather see her dead" are pointless and stupid.

Can you accept the concept that it's possible to disagree with someone's views and lifestyle without wanting to kill them? Maybe that's your way of thinking, but it's not everyone else's.

Also, can you accept the idea that it's possible to disagree with someone's beliefs or lifestyle and still love them? I guess not, since you already expect people to kill each other over it.

Just the other day my son came to me and asked me "Dad, what would you do if you found out that one of us was gay?"

My answer was that while I don't approve morally of the lifestyle, that would not change my love for that child. I wouldn't disown him or her, I wouldn't kick them out of my life, and it's that simple. Would I be happy about it? No. Would I be proud of it? No. But if my kids are old enough to decide for themselves how to live their lives then they don't require my approval. In any case, they'd still be my child and I'd still love them. I reminded him that in the Bible, Jesus Christ NEVER blew people off, especially sinners. (Well, He would sometimes dismiss Pharisees, but that's a separate issue.) He drew them near, and showed them love and compassion.

I would imagine that the Cheneys see it similarly, at least, I see nothing in the article to suggest otherwise.

Why are you trying to turn it into a battle?

You're all basing your "arguments" on this one article. The vice president promotes and supports laws banning gay marriage and making it harder for same sex couples to adopt or have children through in-vitro fertilization. He says he "disagrees with the President" but will not work against him. Does this not shout hypocrisy since his own daughter is gay and he "supports her?" It's like John Kerry being for the war before being against it (which we know was a crock but anyhow). His party has pushed legislation trying to outlaw gay marriage and revoke the right for same sex parents to adopt or become parents. How does he reconcile his patronige to a party that the "silent majority" would rather see burn in hell than be a mother? Who promotes wedge issues that divide America, would it be Karl Rove and the Republican party or have I been lost in a fricken cave somewhere for the past 6 years? The Cheney's allow their party to denigrate the daugghet and all like her all while saying they "support" her. If I belonged to a party who said "I hate N*ggers and my best friend is black (which he is) I'd have to find somewhere else to go. What is the mental block about this?

but that leaves the question of who is the father:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/george_w_bush_baby.jpg

A generous sperm donor :)

So... he loves her, but he's still campaigning for her not to have the right to be by her partner's side should she be hospitalised. He loves her, but he still will not stand for legislation that would give his grandchild two legal parents.
He loves her, but he doesn't want her to have the same rights that are taken for granted by others.
Tough love, that.

So you're suggesting that the only way to demonstrate love for someone is to fall into step and reject everything you believe in to accomodate their lifestyle.

but that leaves the question of who is the father:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/george_w_bush_baby.jpg



one of them has to carry the baby...unless they both get pregnant

If I recall, links to rotten.com are off limits here.

one of them has to carry the baby...unless they both get pregnant
I saw a news story the other day about a lesbian couple where the embreyo from one mom was implanted into the other to carry......so they are like both the mom's or something.

You know one is genetic but the other is on the birth certificate as mom because she gave birth to the kid.

I am confused....what hypocrisy?

of "supporting" his gay daughter while allowing his party to promote anti-gay legislation all over the country. That bold faced hypocrisy.

So you're suggesting that the only way to demonstrate love for someone is to fall into step and reject everything you believe in to accomodate their lifestyle.

I'm suggesting that if you love someone, you want what's best for them and makes them happy.
But maybe I'm wrong there and loving someone just means making positive press statements about them once in a while.

With that said I want to know how she got pregnant Just how many possible ways are there? Jeez.
and how the couple decided who should play mother:confused::rolleyes:

I saw a news story the other day about a lesbian couple where the embreyo from one mom was implanted into the other to carry......so they are like both the mom's or something.

You know one is genetic but the other is on the birth certificate as mom because she gave birth to the kid.

Might be a legal loophole to get both of them to be legal parents, too... clever.

You're all basing your "arguments" on this one article. The vice president promotes and supports laws banning gay marriage and making it harder for same sex couples to adopt or have children through in-vitro fertilization. He says he "disagrees with the President" but will not work against him. Does this not shout hypocrisy since his own daughter is gay and he "supports her?" It's like John Kerry being for the war before being against it (which we know was a crock but anyhow). His party has pushed legislation trying to outlaw gay marriage and revoke the right for same sex parents to adopt or become parents. How does he reconcile his patronige to a party that the "silent majority" would rather see burn in hell than be a mother? Who promotes wedge issues that divide America, would it be Karl Rove and the Republican party or have I been lost in a fricken cave somewhere for the past 6 years? The Cheney's allow their party to denigrate the daugghet and all like her all while saying they "support" her. If I belonged to a party who said "I hate N*ggers and my best friend is black (which he is) I'd have to find somewhere else to go. What is the mental block about this?

You based your rant on the same one article.

So do you think going through the litany of Cheney's political activities somehow strengthens your rant? We all know this already. It changes nothing. You still can't imagine people being able to reconcile these things. My original post stands as written.

they would get federal benefits for raising the child though right?

Yes.

With that said I want to know how she got pregnant and how the couple decided who should play mother:confused:

We don't need to know how she got pregnant, it's none of our business. As to why her, I imagine she wanted to have a baby and she’s already 37 and her partner is 45, seems reasonable.

So you're suggesting that the only way to demonstrate love for someone is to fall into step and reject everything you believe in to accomodate their lifestyle.

you're suggesting you can love your daughter while hating everything she is? I hate black people (I don't), my wife is black, so I can still love her? logic check please.

I saw a news story the other day about a lesbian couple where the embreyo from one mom was implanted into the other to carry......so they are like both the mom's or something.

You know one is genetic but the other is on the birth certificate as mom because she gave birth to the kid.

How creative.

If I recall, links to rotten.com are off limits here.

fixed now lets keep it a secret ;)

You know one is genetic but the other is on the birth certificate as mom because she gave birth to the kid.

but how would they decide who would go through the arduous process of pregnancy let alone the fact that the baby would identify it’s birth mother as the mummy

I'm suggesting that if you love someone, you want what's best for them and makes them happy.
But maybe I'm wrong there and loving someone just means making positive press statements about them once in a while.

You really can't see any middleground, can you? Seems to me the Cheney family has found a way to let their love for each other as a family to rise above all that, but you're not satisfied with that. You want to see mom & dad toss out their personal beliefs.

We don't need to know how she got pregnant, it's none of our business.

I'm just after a scandalous story :(

you're suggesting you can love your daughter while hating everything she is? I hate black people (I don't), my wife is black, so I can still love her? logic check please.

The only person I see using the word "hate" is you.

You based your rant on the same one article.

So do you think going through the litany of Cheney's political activities somehow strengthens your rant? We all know this already. It changes nothing. You still can't imagine people being able to reconcile these things. My original post stands as written.

Yes, because the world doesn't exist in the glass bubble you want it to. Cheney's statements and policies are relevant to his support for his child. He's supporting her in words only but working against her. Let's say you're a slave. While I'm telling you that slavery is evil and wrong, that I support you the whole way, I'm voting to keep slavery a part of American lifestyle (or tacitly supporting it). Is this moral? Is this right? I'm telling you one thing and using my power to help those who actually go against your cause. Get it yet? You cannot have it both ways. If you lovwe your daughter than stand up for her and others like her. Don't give her half assed support and then work against her in legislation.

yes, they would get the kiddie tax credits and all that.



why does one of them have to be mommy?

Take the egg from one of them, implant it in the other. Both are mommies, legally.

So... he loves her, but he's still campaigning for her not to have the right to be by her partner's side should she be hospitalised. He loves her, but he still will not stand for legislation that would give his grandchild two legal parents.
He loves her, but he doesn't want her to have the same rights that are taken for granted by others.
Tough love, that.

Nice False Dichotomies you have there.

Listen, if my wife told me she supported equality for all people and then went out and bought a slave (during slavery time) I would call her a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways as many would like it to be. You either stand for something or you stand for nothing.

You really can't see any middleground, can you? Seems to me the Cheney family has found a way to let their love for each other as a family to rise above all that, but you're not satisfied with that. You want to see mom & dad toss out their personal beliefs.

There is having personal beliefs, and then there is trying to force them to become laws.
One is perfectly ok, and I can tolerate them if not understand them. It's a compromise by both sides in order to get on with life together. The other is a very personal attack on the idividual you claim to love. "I love you, but I feel it's wrong for your child to have the legal security of two parents" is simply hypocrisy.

Nice False Dichotomies you have there.

Yes, I support you but I'm going to work to create laws against you and everyone like you. That's how much I love you!

Yes, because the world doesn't exist in the glass bubble you want it to. Cheney's statements and policies are relevant to his support for his child. He's supporting her in words only but working against her. Let's say you're a slave. While I'm telling you that slavery is evil and wrong, that I support you the whole way, I'm voting to keep slavery a part of American lifestyle (or tacitly supporting it). Is this moral? Is this right? I'm telling you one thing and using my power to help those who actually go against your cause. Get it yet? You cannot have it both ways. If you lovwe your daughter than stand up for her and others like her. Don't give her half assed support and then work against her in legislation.

You can't theorize on what has passed between them. You make it sound as if the father has to reject all of his moral or political beliefs in order to accomodate his child. That does not appear to be necessary as they seem to get along fine.

As I said earlier, if I found out one of my kids is gay then I'd still love them, but that doesn't obligate me to change my personal beliefs and go marching in a parade.

You can't theorize on what has passed between them. You make it sound as if the father has to reject all of his moral or political beliefs in order to accomodate his child. That does not appear to be necessary as they seem to get along fine.

As I said earlier, if I found out one of my kids is gay then I'd still love them, but that doesn't obligate me to change my personal beliefs and go marching in a parade.

It doesn't. But how do you think your child would feel if you joined the Westboro Baptist Church after telling her/him you loved them?

There is having personal beliefs, and then there is trying to force them to become laws.
One is perfectly ok, and I can tolerate them if not understand them. It's a compromise by both sides in order to get on with life together. The other is a very personal attack on the idividual you claim to love. "I love you, but I feel it's wrong for your child to have the legal security of two parents" is simply hypocrisy.

No it's not personal. Let's try an analogy. Suppose my son is a rabid environmentalist who wants to see all automobiles scrapped for the sake of clean air. Also suppose I am a politician who has some power to legislate such an action. If I refuse to do so, because I disagree with him, is that a personal attack against him? Does it mean I can't love him? Does it mean that we can't put that issue aside and still love each other?

Apparently the Cheneys have found a way to succeed in being a family despite those differences. Why must you begrudge them that?

Yes, I support you but I'm going to work to create laws against you and everyone like you. That's how much I love you!

You give me exactly what I want, when I want it, whatever it is, or I'll jump up and down and stomp my feet while screaming that you don't love me...

Not much of an argument. What she's doing isn't illegal, and Cheney isn't trying to make it illegal.

It doesn't. But how do you think your child would feel if you joined the Westboro Baptist Church after telling her/him you loved them?

Elaborate, please. What is the Westboro Baptist Church?

You really can't see any middleground, can you? Seems to me the Cheney family has found a way to let their love for each other as a family to rise above all that, but you're not satisfied with that. You want to see mom & dad toss out their personal beliefs."We hate people like you but we love you" is still hypocrisy. It's slightly better than "We hate you and therefore disown you", but the idea that it's a viable "middle ground" between two extremes is laughable.

You give me exactly what I want, when I want it, whatever it is, or I'll jump up and down and stomp my feet while screaming that you don't love me...

Not much of an argument. What she's doing isn't illegal, and Cheney isn't trying to make it illegal.

You said that so much better than I did...

"We hate people like you but we love you" is still hypocrisy. It's slightly better than "We hate you and therefore disown you", but the idea that it's a viable "middle ground" between two extremes is laughable.

Now you're jumping on the hate bandwagon. Only you and the OP are saying it.

No it's not personal. Let's try an analogy. Suppose my son is a rabid environmentalist who wants to see all automobiles scrapped for the sake of clean air. Also suppose I am a politician who has some power to legislate such an action. If I refuse to do so, because I disagree with him, is that a personal attack against him? Does it mean I can't love him? Does it mean that we can't put that issue aside and still love each other?

Apparently the Cheneys have found a way to succeed in being a family despite those differences. Why must you begrudge them that?

Not quite an acurate analogy. Let's assume that you had the option to get a piece of legislation through that would give a huge tax-cut to ecologial cars with far less emissions than regular cars. But you refuse to do it, because you believe it's humanity's right to destroy the planet whatever way you see fit.
How do you think your son would feel about you?

I don't begrudge them anything, I hope both his daughters will have happy lives and enjoy raising their children. But I don't belive him when he says he loves his daughter.

Now you're jumping on the hate bandwagon. Only you and the OP are saying it.Actually, no. I'm merely attacking your argument that somehow treating your own family member with respect while at the same time supporting the party that denies them their rights is somehow acceptable.

Elaborate, please. What is the Westboro Baptist Church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Not quite an acurate analogy. Let's assume that you had the option to get a piece of legislation through that would give a huge tax-cut to ecologial cars with far less emissions than regular cars. But you refuse to do it, because you believe it's humanity's right to destroy the planet whatever way you see fit.
How do you think your son would feel about you?

I don't begrudge them anything, I hope both his daughters will have happy lives and enjoy raising their children. But I don't belive him when he says he loves his daughter.Actually, neither analogy is accurate, since we're talking about something that's not a choice. ;)

Actually, neither analogy is accurate, since we're talking about something that's not a choice. ;)

True, but I was trying to accomodate. ;)

Actually, no. I'm merely attacking your argument that somehow treating your own family member with respect while at the same time supporting the party that denies them their rights is somehow acceptable.

For the record, I don't believe the Government ought to be involved in any form of marriage, one way or the other.

Having said that, you respond as if it hasn't ever occurred to you that the very issue of whether those rights exist at all is the point on which they disagree. Can you see that?

Not quite an acurate analogy. Let's assume that you had the option to get a piece of legislation through that would give a huge tax-cut to ecologial cars with far less emissions than regular cars. But you refuse to do it, because you believe it's humanity's right to destroy the planet whatever way you see fit.
How do you think your son would feel about you?

I don't begrudge them anything, I hope both his daughters will have happy lives and enjoy raising their children. But I don't belive him when he says he loves his daughter.

In your analogy, can yuo imagine the possibility that my son might love me anyway?

And it's not your place to judge how Cheney feels about his daughter. According to your analogy, she ought to stop loving him, too, but it doesn't appear that she has.

I think they've figured out something that some people on this board can't imagine... Love transcending everything else. The very argument often used to defend homosexual relationship issues.

For the record, I don't believe the Government ought to be involved in any form of marriage, one way or the other.


Since marriage is a social contract, I believe only governments and the respective couples should be involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Thanks for the link.

If I found out one of my kids was gay, told them I still loved them, and then joined this organization, I'd hope that my kids would approach me as open-minded as they'd want me to approach them, and we could come to an understanding that allowed our family to continue to be strong.

Is that so impossible for you guys to imagine?

I mean, look at it this way, If Cheney's daughter should, by your arguments, be horribly hurt and offended by her father's politics, why doesn't SHE hate HIM? Why doesn't she turn her back on him for the sake of not being a hypocrite?

That cuts both ways, doesn't it? Happily, neither seems to have done that. I think that's marvelous.

Since marriage is a social contract, I believe only governments and the respective couples should be involved.

I think it ought to be a simple contract, with no Government involvement at all except to enforce terms, no different from any other private contract.

In your analogy, can yuo imagine the possibility that my son might love me anyway?

And it's not your place to judge how Cheney feels about his daughter. According to your analogy, she ought to stop loving him, too, but it doesn't appear that she has.

I think they've figured out something that some people on this board can't imagine... Love transcending everything else. The very argument often used to defend homosexual relationship issues.

Oh, I don't doubt that your son could still love you. I kept loving my father after years of neglect and abuse.
That doesn't make my father any less of a dickhead, though, does it?
I'm not saying she shouldn't love him. That's only natural. I'm saying he should wake up and try and find a compromise that has the best interests of both his children (and his future grandchildren) at heart, rather than simply trying to block everything that might help them.

I think it ought to be a simple contract, with no Government involvement at all except to enforce terms, no different from any other private contract.

That would be the easiest, yes.

No it's not personal. Let's try an analogy. Suppose my son is a rabid environmentalist who wants to see all automobiles scrapped for the sake of clean air. Also suppose I am a politician who has some power to legislate such an action. If I refuse to do so, because I disagree with him, is that a personal attack against him? Does it mean I can't love him? Does it mean that we can't put that issue aside and still love each other?

Apparently the Cheneys have found a way to succeed in being a family despite those differences. Why must you begrudge them that?

In the first case you are not working for treating him with unequal rights the second is

A better analogy would be if you had a black son in the 1900's(lets say the mom was black) but you are a politician with the power to remove segragation laws but do not because you do not think that they should go to the same schools as white kids

If you said you loved your son I would call BS on that too

For the record, I don't believe the Government ought to be involved in any form of marriage, one way or the other.

Having said that, you respond as if it hasn't ever occurred to you that the very issue of whether those rights exist at all is the point on which they disagree. Can you see that?Oh it has occurred to me. I believe that people that believe those rights don't exist are wrong on that account. But then again, you apparently agree with me: There shouldn't be any government interdiction of who you're allowed to marry, so long as it's a consenting adult.

Oh, I don't doubt that your son could still love you. I kept loving my father after years of neglect and abuse.
That doesn't make my father any less of a dickhead, though, does it?
I'm not saying she shouldn't love him. That's only natural. I'm saying he should wake up and try and find a compromise that has the best interests of both his children (and his future grandchildren) at heart, rather than simply trying to block everything that might help them.

I think you're being a little disingenuous here. I can'y say whether your dad was a dickhead or not, but not every parent that disagrees with his child is one, even over an issue that people feel passionately about.

Evedently they HAVE found some sort of compromise that they both can live with. That should be obvious.

As for what he's blocking, come on. EVRYTHING that might help them? You know, a lesbian couple are defined by far more than their own sexuality. As large as the issues involved are, it's not EVERYTHING.

it might be because i live in the UK but i'm not aware that any legislation removing rights from LGBT have been passed in the US.

what laws have actually been passed that discriminate against LGBT? because if the answer is none then the accusation that cheney is a hypocrit is kind void.

Oh it has occurred to me. I believe that people that believe those rights don't exist are wrong on that account. But then again, you apparently agree with me: There shouldn't be any government interdiction of who you're allowed to marry, so long as it's a consenting adult.

Yes, on that we agree. It doesn't however, mean that people can't have other opinions, and that those opinions are just as valid as yours or mine.

In the first case you are not working for treating him with unequal rights the second is

A better analogy would be if you had a black son in the 1900's(lets say the mom was black) but you are a politician with the power to remove segragation laws but do not because you do not think that they should go to the same schools as white kids

If you said you loved your son I would call BS on that too

Your ideas of what it means to love somebody seems to hinge on whether or not they see things the way you see them.

That would be the easiest, yes.

It would settle a lot of these issues, too.

Yes, on that we agree. It doesn't however, mean that people can't have other opinions, and that those opinions are just as valid as yours or mine.I totally disagree. An opinion does not have merit simply by being different from mine. Some things, such as child porn, homophobia, and racism are wrong, and I'm not about to stamp them as ok simply because I'm supposed to be tolerant.

it might be because i live in the UK but i'm not aware that any legislation removing rights from LGBT have been passed in the US.

what laws have actually been passed that discriminate against LGBT? because if the answer is none then the accusation that cheney is a hypocrit is kind void.

How so?

His hypocrisy is not dependent on him succeeding in getting discriminatory legislation actually implemented

You can hate anyone you want, that's the American way, it's just that you can't legislate against it. I hate nutso conservative religious martyrs, but I'm not trying to ban them.

I totally disagree. An opinion does not have merit simply by being different from mine. Some things, such as child porn, homophobia, and racism are wrong, and I'm not about to stamp them as ok simply because I'm supposed to be tolerant.

Which is interesting, considering that's exactly what you expect others to do for issues that you support and they don't.

How so?

His hypocrisy is not dependent on him succeeding in getting discriminatory legislation actually implemented

because theres more to being a member of the republican party than hating gays.

Your ideas of what it means to love somebody seems to hinge on whether or not they see things the way you see them.

At some point you have to do that

I know some people that beat their kids but claimed to love them when the state took them away.

Maybe it is my projection of what love is I don't think someone that beats their kids truly loves them and I don't think someone that works to make sure they are treated unequal by society to love them.

Your ideas of what it means to love somebody seems to hinge on whether or not they see things the way you see them.

No. It is based on how they act towards the person they claim to love.

Which is interesting, considering that's exactly what you expect others to do for issues that you support and they don't.It is, however I condemn other opinions based on an evaluation of their merit. I am tolerant of opinions different than mine, just not all of them.

Mary Cheney is personally a hypocrite (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/kim):
It's not like Mary Cheney's been quietly pursuing lesbianism by playing softball and raising cats in Northampton. She has devoted her entire career to providing cover for lesbian-hating organizations, corporations and political parties.

Before the 2000 campaign she worked as a liaison to the gay and lesbian community for Coors Brewing Company, a rather masochistic occupation, since Coors is just about as antigay as you can get. In the early 1970s Coors required prospective employees to submit to a lie-detector test in which the company asked if the respondent was a homosexual (prompting Harvey Milk to organize a boycott of Coors beer). Throughout the 1970s and '80s, the Coors family used generous donations from the Adolph Coors Foundation to launch right-wing groups like the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation--which coined the term "the homosexual agenda" in publications like Gays, AIDS and You. Meanwhile, the company busted unions (leading to an AFL-CIO boycott), and individual family members like William Coors made racist speeches to black audiences claiming "one of the best things that they [slave traders] did for you was to drag your ancestors over here in chains" (this statement led to a boycott by numerous minority groups).

Facing a nationwide protest, the Coors family, which controls both the brewery and the foundation, executed a savvy PR campaign. In 1993 they restricted the Adolph Coors Foundation's grants to Colorado organizations, while spinning off $36.5 million of unrestricted assets to endow the non-Coors named (though still Coors-controlled) Castle Rock Foundation, which continued to fund far-right groups. And while Coors Brewing extended domestic partnership benefits to gays and lesbians in 1995, its former CEO and favorite son, Peter Coors, is now running for Senate in Colorado on a platform that touts his support of a sweeping constitutional amendment that would not only ban gay marriage but could also eliminate domestic partnership benefits for unmarried couples.

At the very center of the Coors duck and cover operation was Mary Cheney, who was hired as "corporate relations manager for the gay and lesbian market" not because of her PR-savvy but because she was lesbian, a Republican and the daughter of Dick and Lynne Cheney. Not that she wasn't deeply committed to her job: As PR flack she toured the country with 1999 International Mr. Leather to promote Coors beer in gay bars. Cheney was not just a member of the lesbian community but a market analyst who researched, cultivated and delivered that community to a corporate dynasty seeking to paint over decades of active support for homophobic causes.

In 2002 Mary Cheney joined the board of the gay Republican Unity Coalition (the even-more-right-wing alternative to the Log Cabin Republicans), declaring that the RUC "reflects my fundamental beliefs and principles" and that "we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans." As Mary Cheney was uttering these words, John Ashcroft's Justice Department was busy filing an amicus brief in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case that, had the Supreme Court agreed with it, would have kept lesbian sex a felony crime in several states. Cheney quietly left RUC after one year, just as President Bush rushed to Rick Santorum's defense when the senator likened homosexuality to bigamy, incest and bestiality (much to the dismay of the RUC). And her name is notably absent from RUC statements lamenting Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
She's worked actively against gay rights--that her parents are psychotically anti-gay to the point that when John Edwards complimented them on the relationship they have with their daughter, they took it as an insult, is beside the point. She's a self-loather who associates with a party which actively hates her and her lifestyle.

Which is interesting, considering that's exactly what you expect others to do for issues that you support and they don't.

Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance.

No. It is based on how they act towards the person they claim to love.

At some point you have to do that

I know some people that beat their kids but claimed to love them when the state took them away.

Maybe it is my projection of what love is I don't think someone that beats their kids truly loves them and I don't think someone that works to make sure they are treated unequal by society to love them.

You don't know how he acts toward his daughter. You keep equating his political activity with his personal relationship with his daughter and MAYBE if they didn't get along or if she spoke out against him you might have some merit in that argument, but that's not the case. Apparently, Ms. Cheney does not agree with you, yet she's the one you're pretending to speak out for.

Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance.

How intolerant of you ;)

It is, however I condemn other opinions based on an evaluation of their merit. I am tolerant of opinions different than mine, just not all of them.

Then your true colors are revealed.

"All opinions beliefs are equal as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of my own."

You don't know how he acts toward his daughter. You keep equating his political activity with his personal relationship with his daughter and MAYBE if they didn't get along or if she spoke out against him you might have some merit in that argument, but that's not the case. Apparently, Ms. Cheney does not agree with you, yet she's the one you're pretending to speak out for.

Nope...apparently not. The Nazz just made that point very clear.
I think they deserve each other. *shrugs*

Mary Cheney is personally a hypocrite (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/kim):

She's worked actively against gay rights--that her parents are psychotically anti-gay to the point that when John Edwards complimented them on the relationship they have with their daughter, they took it as an insult, is beside the point. She's a self-loather who associates with a party which actively hates her and her lifestyle.Wow... Well there's another good reason not to drink Coors...

Mary Cheney is personally a hypocrite (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/kim):

She's worked actively against gay rights--that her parents are psychotically anti-gay to the point that when John Edwards complimented them on the relationship they have with their daughter, they took it as an insult, is beside the point. She's a self-loather who associates with a party which actively hates her and her lifestyle.

I disagree with you, but at least you're being consistent. THAT is refreshing on this thread. :)

How intolerant of you ;)

In that respect, I gladly label myself intolerant. :p

Nope...apparently not. The Nazz just made that point very clear.
I think they deserve each other. *shrugs*

Isn't that kind of like calling someone a race-traitor for being part of an interracial couple?

it might be because i live in the UK but i'm not aware that any legislation removing rights from LGBT have been passed in the US.

what laws have actually been passed that discriminate against LGBT? because if the answer is none then the accusation that cheney is a hypocrit is kind void.

Numerous states, including the lovely, colorful one I live in, have either passed laws or amended their constitutions to specify that "marriage" is only between one man and one woman. The Federal government's Defense of Marriage Act says that the states need not recognize same-sex marriages even if concluded or recognized by another state, and that the US government shall not recognize same-sex marriages at all. These laws make me a second-class citizen in my own country by depriving me of rights that heteroexual couples enjoy freely. There are, by the government's own accounting, 1138 specific rights that "marriage" gets you that I am not entitled to by virtue of being a lesbian.

Then your true colors are revealed.

"All opinions beliefs are equal as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of my own."If I didn't consider my beliefs morally and ethically superior, why should I have them in the first place? You're painting that as though it was bad simply because I admit it, instead of taking a look at what my beliefs entail and evaluating them on their own merit.

In that respect, I gladly label myself intolerant. :p

lol

Tempted to sig that, but nah ;)

You don't know how he acts toward his daughter. You keep equating his political activity with his personal relationship with his daughter and MAYBE if they didn't get along or if she spoke out against him you might have some merit in that argument, but that's not the case. Apparently, Ms. Cheney does not agree with you, yet she's the one you're pretending to speak out for.
Maybe he treats her with respect and love in their personal life, but politically and in any public encounter, he actively opposes (practically) her and her lifestyle. There is no more of a ridiculously hypocritical family than the Cheneys, and especially the gay daughter.

If I didn't consider my beliefs morally and ethically superior, why should I have them in the first place? You're painting that as though it was bad simply because I admit it, instead of taking a look at what my beliefs entail and evaluating them on their own merit.

I believe that my own beliefs are more correct than others too, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that in this country, they ARE equally valid within the context of public debate.

Isn't that kind of like calling someone a race-traitor for being part of an interracial couple?No, it would be more like calling a black man that delivers a white supremacist speach at a KKK rally a traitor.

Isn't that kind of like calling someone a race-traitor for being part of an interracial couple?

Huh??? :confused:

Maybe he treats her with respect and love in their personal life, but politically and in any public encounter, he actively opposes (practically) her and her lifestyle. There is no more of a ridiculously hypocritical family than the Cheneys, and especially the gay daughter.

So anybody that doesn't accomodate their other family members is a hypocrite unless they disown them. Gotcha.

Then your true colors are revealed.

"All opinions beliefs are equal as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of my own."

So are you saying that the belief in ethnic superiority is morally equal to that which argues for equal treatment of all ethnicities?

Huh??? :confused:

Well it just seemed like some of yuo guys are suggesting that in order to be consistent, Ms. Cheney shoudl hate her father and have nothing to do with him, but now you're rejecting her for not doing so.

I believe that my own beliefs are more correct than others too, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that in this country, they ARE equally valid within the context of public debate.I disagree. Some ideas are not valid simply because they are other ideas.

So are you saying that the belief in ethnic superiority is morally equal to that which argues for equal treatment of all ethnicities?

Like them or not, such personal opinions are equal under the law. It's why the KKK has a right to demonstrate publicly, distateful as their message may be to the rest ofus.

I disagree. Some ideas are not valid simply because they are other ideas.

Spoken like a true right-wing nutjob.

So anybody that doesn't accomodate their other family members is a hypocrite unless they disown them. Gotcha.
Frankly, they would be less hypocritical if they disowned her. They support their daughter but publicly and politically do everything in their power to stop the sort of things their daughter is doing and the very thing their daughter is? And she does it herself.

Well it just seemed like some of yuo guys are suggesting that in order to be consistent, Ms. Cheney shoudl hate her father and have nothing to do with him, but now you're rejecting her for not doing so.

Nope. I'm rejecting her for apparently hating herself.

No, it would be more like calling a black man that delivers a white supremacist speach at a KKK rally a traitor.

I wasn't aware that Ms. Cheney had delivered any speeches against homosexuals.

I disagree with you, but at least you're being consistent. THAT is refreshing on this thread. :)

What do you disagree with? She's gay, and she's worked with anti-gay groups. How else can you describe that other than self-loathing and hypocritical?

Nope. I'm rejecting her for apparently hating herself.

You seem to claim a very impressive degree of insight into her personal thoughts and motives.

Frankly, they would be less hypocritical if they disowned her. They support their daughter but publicly and politically do everything in their power to stop the sort of things their daughter is doing and the very thing their daughter is? And she does it herself.

I wasn't aware the Cheney family had attempted to outlaw homosexuality.

You seem to claim a very impressive degree of insight into her personal thoughts and motives.

Ok, what would you call a gay person working for anti-gay groups?
What do you call a Jew working for Nazis?
What do you call a black person working for a white supremacist group?

Spoken like a true right-wing nutjob.Right back at you.

I'm saying that an idea does not receive value by being different, it receives value based on what it is. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but that doesn't mean that their opinions are valid or that I should give them any credibility. I evaluate the ideas on other criteria than them simply being different from mine.

Ok, what would you call a gay person working for anti-gay groups?
What do you call a Jew working for Nazis?
What do you call a black person working for a white supremacist group?

Being a liason between the homosexual community and Coors sounds more to me like people trying to actually *gasp* COMMUNICATE!

Like them or not, such personal opinions are equal under the law. It's why the KKK has a right to demonstrate publicly, distateful as their message may be to the rest ofus.

Didn't ask about legality. Certainly they're legal. I asked about morally equal.

i love my lesbian monkey slaves

they're purr-fect!

Right back at you.

I'm saying that an idea does not receive value by being different, it receives value based on what it is. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but that doesn't mean that their opinions are valid or that I should give them any credibility. I evaluate the ideas on other criteria than them simply being different from mine.

Right back at me? I'm not the one saying that ideas besides my own are wrong by simple virtue of disagreeing with me.

I wasn't aware the Cheney family had attempted to outlaw homosexuality.
Promotion of and support of moves against homosexuality.

Being a liason between the homosexual community and Coors sounds more to me like people trying to actually *gasp* COMMUNICATE!
Communicate very loose disapproval of anti-homosexual activity.

Right back at me? I'm not the one saying that ideas besides my own are wrong by simple virtue of disagreeing with me.That's pretty funny, because neither am I.

Didn't ask about legality. Certainly they're legal. I asked about morally equal.

Morality has nothing to do with law. I said under our legal protections, those opinions are equal. Obviously each person sees their own beliefs as morally correct. I said that, too.

I see Cheney's situation rather like this:
If hhis Daughter grew up straight and married a jewish fellow and cheney were a member of the Nazi Party which was exterminating jews all over the place and yet he still claimed to be supportive of her, he would be LYING to SOMEBODY.
In the same way, as a member of the GOP and having a gay child HE STILL IS LYING TO SOMEBODY.
I agree with the OP and sundry that such is HYPOCRISY.
One is either FOR or AGAINST one or the other.
"One cannot serve two masters", says so in the Bible.

I dont agree wiv Gay parents, i think the child would be in a unstable home. A child needs a mum and a dad which are opposite sexes, i also disagree wiv gag marriage aswell i dnt think Gay parents are apporiate.

What do you disagree with? She's gay, and she's worked with anti-gay groups. How else can you describe that other than self-loathing and hypocritical?

So if I'm a Swede and I actively campaigns against the objectives of the Swedish societies' political agenda, that makes me a self hater too? I don't think so. False association there.

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

Another question: How much venom and rage can you fit into one post? Those bitter angry feelings aren't going to help anyone, least of all you.

I think it is in no way hypocritical to love and support your daughter, but not condone her lifestyle. And I don't see how people who are in relationships that cannot produce children naturally have a 'right' to be parents (as you infer by saying that her party is denying her freedom). Addoption is a privalige accorded by the state, and the state has the right to decide whom it will grant this privalige to.

These matters are decided by the voice of the people, in a representative government, and right now the prevailing opinion is that it would be irresposible to grant addoption privaliges to homosexual couples. If you want to change it, seek to persuade people to accept your point of view. Viciously condemning those who upose you is not a persuasive argument.

My answer was that while I don't approve morally of the lifestyle, that would not change my love for that child. I wouldn't disown him or her, I wouldn't kick them out of my life, and it's that simple. Would I be happy about it? No. Would I be proud of it? No. But if my kids are old enough to decide for themselves how to live their lives then they don't require my approval. In any case, they'd still be my child and I'd still love them. I reminded him that in the Bible, Jesus Christ NEVER blew people off, especially sinners. (Well, He would sometimes dismiss Pharisees, but that's a separate issue.) He drew them near, and showed them love and compassion.

I would imagine that the Cheneys see it similarly, at least, I see nothing in the article to suggest otherwise.

Why are you trying to turn it into a battle?

I always find it infuriating when people say they will "disagree" or "disapprove" of someone's "lifestyle" and that that should be accepted and "normal."

Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being black, Jewish, Chinese or Hispanic. Would it be alright if we "disapproved" of people being Jewish? Oh wait, that already happened.

This is a battle, especially in the United States. Many other countries not only allow gay marriage, but gay adoption and full integration into society. And these countries still have churches and Christianity.

Supporting your children fully in who they are is your job as a parent. Don't think you (or Cheny for that matter) diserve any special rewards for not disowning your kids.

I don't think the Cheneys are hypocritical. At least, no more than any other family.

One can support the Republican party while not believing in all aspects of their platform. Just like I support Chavez in general, but do not support his restrictions on the freedom of the press. Without any information to the contrary, I would give the Cheneys the benefit of the doubt.

I do not think that The Nazz's article showed Mary Cheney, or any Cheney, to be self-hating or homophobic.

The Cheneys may simply feel that the federal government has no right to legislate in this arena. Or think the Republicans are wrong about this one issue.

I always find it infuriating when people say they will "disagree" or "disapprove" of someone's "lifestyle" and that that should be accepted and "normal."

Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being black, Jewish, Chinese or Hispanic. Would it be alright if we "disapproved" of people being Jewish? Oh wait, that already happened.

...


That's kind of a leap isn't it? Jewish children come from Jewish parents, do gay children come from gay parents? No, I didn't think so. The analogy is flawed.

You can't theorize on what has passed between them. You make it sound as if the father has to reject all of his moral or political beliefs in order to accomodate his child. That does not appear to be necessary as they seem to get along fine.

As I said earlier, if I found out one of my kids is gay then I'd still love them, but that doesn't obligate me to change my personal beliefs and go marching in a parade.

no, it doesn't require you march in a parade to support their beliefs, but would you acively work against them? That is my question I await an answer on. Cheney has actively worked for legislation that would not allow his daughter to be treated with equality that she wants.

You give me exactly what I want, when I want it, whatever it is, or I'll jump up and down and stomp my feet while screaming that you don't love me...

Not much of an argument. What she's doing isn't illegal, and Cheney isn't trying to make it illegal.

He has in the past supported legislation to make it impossible for two parents of same sex orientation to raise a child. No, thankfully it is not illegal and it should not be.

Now you're jumping on the hate bandwagon. Only you and the OP are saying it.

OK, so you're trying to say that the fundies of the religous right never use "HATE" in anything they do or say? Is that really the avenue you want to go down?

So if I'm a Swede and I actively campaigns against the objectives of the Swedish societies' political agenda, that makes me a self hater too? I don't think so. False association there.

If you actively campaigned to make yourself a second-class citizen, then yes, you would be an obvious self-hater.

If I were, for instance, to campaign against women being treated equally under the law, that would strongly suggest that I am a self-hating woman who thinks I am inferior to men.

There is a difference between being a Swede and disagreeing with the current politics of Sweden and being a gay person who thinks gay people should be treated like dirt.

I think it is in no way hypocritical to love and support your daughter, but not condone her lifestyle.

There is a difference between "not condoning" and "actively campaigning against."

And I don't see how people who are in relationships that cannot produce children naturally have a 'right' to be parents (as you infer by saying that her party is denying her freedom). Addoption is a privalige accorded by the state, and the state has the right to decide whom it will grant this privalige to.

The only reason to deny gay couples the ability to adopt children is if they are somehow a danger to the children. If having gay parents is dangerous to children, as they obviously believe, the Cheney's should be horrified that their daughter plans to have a child with her lesbian partner, and should try and take said child away.

Instead, they are very happy that their granddaughter will be born to lesbian parents (which obviously means they don't think lesbian parents are a danger) and happily condone policies that mean their grandchild will have one parent who cannot even gain the legal responsibility, much less the legal ability, to properly take care of said child.


One can support the Republican party while not believing in all aspects of their platform.

Indeed. But one would then, especially if one were a leader within that party, try and change said platform. At the very least, one would not actively support that portion of it.

The Cheneys may simply feel that the federal government has no right to legislate in this arena. Or think the Republicans are wrong about this one issue.

If that were true, they would actively speak out against the legislation the federal government has already made or is attempting to make, rather than supporting it. If that were true, being rather prominent within said party, they could (and should) attempt to change the party's line on that issue.

Not quite an acurate analogy. Let's assume that you had the option to get a piece of legislation through that would give a huge tax-cut to ecologial cars with far less emissions than regular cars. But you refuse to do it, because you believe it's humanity's right to destroy the planet whatever way you see fit.
How do you think your son would feel about you?

I don't begrudge them anything, I hope both his daughters will have happy lives and enjoy raising their children. But I don't belive him when he says he loves his daughter.

Your son being a rabid environmentalist is a choice that he would make while beign gay is not. Try and refute it all you want as biological and neuroligcal sutdies have been done showing a correlation in the brain actiivity of gay people which is convex to that of heterosexuals. Your son being an environmentalist is a choice you can make to disagree on. You should however, if in a position to pass legislation to help his cause, expect him to be a little angry you did not go his way.

no, it doesn't require you march in a parade to support their beliefs, but would you acively work against them? That is my question I await an answer on. Cheney has actively worked for legislation that would not allow his daughter to be treated with equality that she wants.

I thought you said she didn't want it and that's why you called her a self-hater. But that's a side point I suppose.

Since when did being homosexually inclined mandate that one carry and follow a strict interpretation of a single political party’s agenda?

Yes, because the world doesn't exist in the glass bubble you want it to. Cheney's statements and policies are relevant to his support for his child. He's supporting her in words only but working against her. Let's say you're a slave. While I'm telling you that slavery is evil and wrong, that I support you the whole way, I'm voting to keep slavery a part of American lifestyle (or tacitly supporting it). Is this moral? Is this right? I'm telling you one thing and using my power to help those who actually go against your cause. Get it yet? You cannot have it both ways. If you lovwe your daughter than stand up for her and others like her. Don't give her half assed support and then work against her in legislation.

No it's not personal. Let's try an analogy. Suppose my son is a rabid environmentalist who wants to see all automobiles scrapped for the sake of clean air. Also suppose I am a politician who has some power to legislate such an action. If I refuse to do so, because I disagree with him, is that a personal attack against him? Does it mean I can't love him? Does it mean that we can't put that issue aside and still love each other?

Apparently the Cheneys have found a way to succeed in being a family despite those differences. Why must you begrudge them that?

This is a terrible analogy. You are comparing a political belief to a fundamental element of one's being.

A better analogy would be back in 1930's Germany. You have Jewish Friends and even a child who converted to Judiasm to marry, but you also are a high ranking member of government. You decide that your loyalty to party demands that you support the Nuremburg laws even though it will deprive your friends and family of their rights. You claim that you still love your friends and family, but you have to stick to your convictions and support the anti-Jewish laws.

That is the analogy you need to use, and that the kind of hypocrisy that the Cheneys endear.

That's kind of a leap isn't it?

No, there is no evidence whatsoever that being homosexual is a "lifestyle." Homosexual persons lead every type of lifestyle that heterosexual persons live. Some are frivolous with their money. Some are not. Some are drinkers. Some are not. Some do drugs. Some do not. Some are promiscuous. Some are monogamous. Some like sports. Some do not. Some like to go out dancing. Some do not. And so on....

A lifestyle takes a lot more to describe than, "Holy crap! You're attracted to whom?!!??!?!?!?"

A homosexual is attracted exclusively or almost exclusively to members of the same sex. That is the only thing that sets them apart from heterosexuals, who are attracted exclusively or almost exclusively to members of the opposite sex. Calling that a "lifestyle" makes equivalent sense with calling men who find themselves attracted to tall women members of a different lifestyle from men who find themselves attracted to large breasts.

Jewish children come from Jewish parents, do gay children come from gay parents? No, I didn't think so. The analogy is flawed.

The analogy isn't flawed. You have simply chosen an irrelevant point. All blue-eyed people do not have blue-eyed parents, but that doesn't make "blue eyes" a "lifestyle".

For the record, I don't believe the Government ought to be involved in any form of marriage, one way or the other.

Having said that, you respond as if it hasn't ever occurred to you that the very issue of whether those rights exist at all is the point on which they disagree. Can you see that?

At last we can agree on something. I believe it should be the ribght of a religious marriage to be condoned only by a particualr church. A civil union giving the rights of a legal contract is all that should be in the interest of government. Marriage is a commitment before God, and therefore is the soul responibility of the church.

as some people on this site may rember, i'm very much against gay adoption. as some or all, republican politicians are also. preventing gay adoption, isnt about discriminating against gays, or taking away 'thier rights', but making sure children benifit comes first over individuals 'rights'.

however, maybe dick Cheney will agree with me, even though we are against gay adoption, his daughter is pregnant, we cant stop that, so only she can bring up the child. thus its allowed for this gay to have children.
idont know dick chaney so dont what his opinion on it is, but he seems happy.

That's kind of a leap isn't it? Jewish children come from Jewish parents, do gay children come from gay parents? No, I didn't think so. The analogy is flawed.

The analogy is in the choice, or lack of it. I suppose you can choose not to be Jewish, to a certain extent, but you certainly cannot choose to be black, white or gay.

as some people on this site may rember, i'm very much against gay adoption. as some or all, republican politicians are also. preventing gay adoption, isnt about discriminating against gays, or taking away 'thier rights', but making sure children benifit comes first over individuals 'rights'.

however, maybe dick Cheney will agree with me, even though we are against gay adoption, his daughter is pregnant, we cant stop that, so only she can bring up the child. thus its allowed for this gay to have children.
idont know dick chaney so dont what his opinion on it is, but he seems happy.
Yeah because its much better to let kids rot in foster care then with a gay parent :rolleyes:

Your reasoning for preventing gay adoption are BS

If you were arguing that Strait couples should be given preference in adoption cases then your view would match what you claim it does.

But right now there are not enough people willing to adopt the kids we already have in the system

as some people on this site may rember, i'm very much against gay adoption. as some or all, republican politicians are also. preventing gay adoption, isnt about discriminating against gays, or taking away 'thier rights', but making sure children benifit comes first over individuals 'rights'.

however, maybe dick Cheney will agree with me, even though we are against gay adoption, his daughter is pregnant, we cant stop that, so only she can bring up the child. thus its allowed for this gay to have children.
idont know dick chaney so dont what his opinion on it is, but he seems happy.

If your concern was truly the child's benefit, and you truly believed that having gay parents would be detrimental to the child, then you would, by simple logical progression, have to be against Mary Cheney and her partner raising a child.

If the Cheneys truly see homosexual couples raising children as a problem, they shoudln't be happy about their daughter being pregnant. In fact, it should depress the hell out of them that their grandchild is going to be raised in such a horrible environment

If you see no problem with them raising this child, then having homosexual parents is obviously not a danger to children in your eyes and you have no reason to oppose adoption by homosexual parents. Same goes for the Cheneys. Either homosexual parents are a danger to children, or they are not.

At least try to be consistent. Even if I disagree with your views, I will respect them a little more if they aren't wildy inconsistent.

it might be because i live in the UK but i'm not aware that any legislation removing rights from LGBT have been passed in the US.

what laws have actually been passed that discriminate against LGBT? because if the answer is none then the accusation that cheney is a hypocrit is kind void.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8303545

http://aidan-promoution.exhub.com/archives/marriage_ammendment.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek


http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage

For the fine fellow who asked for the ammendments and laws passed, or attempted to curb same sex civil rights

Another question: How much venom and rage can you fit into one post? Those bitter angry feelings aren't going to help anyone, least of all you.

I think it is in no way hypocritical to love and support your daughter, but not condone her lifestyle. And I don't see how people who are in relationships that cannot produce children naturally have a 'right' to be parents (as you infer by saying that her party is denying her freedom). Addoption is a privalige accorded by the state, and the state has the right to decide whom it will grant this privalige to.
I have two very good heterosexual friends who are unable to conceive - they cannot produce children naturally - and they have adopted two insufferably cute children. By your logic they, too, should be disbarred from adopting.

These matters are decided by the voice of the people, in a representative government, and right now the prevailing opinion is that it would be irresposible to grant addoption privaliges to homosexual couples. If you want to change it, seek to persuade people to accept your point of view. Viciously condemning those who upose you is not a persuasive argument.
Sometimes the voice of the people, as you say, is out of step with reality. I will concede that point, however, and say yes, my fellow citizens do seem to feel that homosexual citizens deserve fewer rights than heterosexual citizens. And yes, one should organize and try to persuade people over to our view-point. There are gay and lesbian organizations doing just that. But those efforts are frequently met with vicious condemnation, with wild accusations of the vague "Gay Agenda" and specious claims that we already have all the rights we seek, as long as we marry someone of the opposite sex. It gets a little frustrating.

As for the Cheneys, the Vice President is not only Mary Cheney's father, he is arguably the most powerful man in the Republican Party. If Dick Cheney wanted the anti-gay planks of the platform removed, they'd be gone, and I bet the RNC would be claiming they were never even there. But does he do that, to support his daughter? It's the same old "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing you get from people. I wonder if the Cheneys think this is just a phase Mary is going through?

The issue here is an example of Republican elitism. The Cheneys can be trusted to be gay and have children. Federal benefits? They're multimillionaires, the kid will be brought up in grand style regardless of custody rights, health insurance, or any other thing we peons normally have to worry about.

Morally there's no problem because morality in the elitist view, is for the great unwashed who could get up to all sorts of mischief without the police, the courts, and an angry God ready to come down on them with both feet if they stray. Mary Cheney has always been exempted from the slanders against homosexuals perpetrated by the right wing, because she's "one of them". If one of us is gay and wants to have children, then we're a sign of the decline of civilization.

Is there hypocrisy? You'd have to be honest first to even worry about that. The right wing elite is pathologically dishonest, and so this disconnect exists between us and them, allowing them to do whatever they want, whatever would brand us as perverts, and they will be accepted by their families and fellow elites.

Mary Cheney is personally a hypocrite (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/kim):

She's worked actively against gay rights--that her parents are psychotically anti-gay to the point that when John Edwards complimented them on the relationship they have with their daughter, they took it as an insult, is beside the point. She's a self-loather who associates with a party which actively hates her and her lifestyle.

agreed, I believe my op says something about self hating homosexual. She is just as bad as her parents if not worse. She's of the "everything different for me because of ealth and priveldge but the rest of you can burn" mindset.

If your concern was truly the child's benefit, and you truly believed that having gay parents would be detrimental to the child, then you would, by simple logical progression, have to be against Mary Cheney and her partner raising a child.


taking a child away from thier parent is alot worse than leting a gays adopt.

taking a child away from thier parent is alot worse than leting a gays adopt.

But having a child with no parents is better than letting gays adopt?

Once again, you are being very inconsistent here.

If gays are so bad at raising children - so bad, in fact, that it is a danger to allow them to raise children with no homes, why on earth would a gay couple suddenly be good at it simply because one of them gave birth?

Are gay parents a danger to children or not?

Wai!

So anybody that doesn't accomodate their other family members is a hypocrite unless they disown them. Gotcha.

No, if you say you love them in private and work to hurt them in public you are a hypocrite. Isn't that easy to understand. It's like me saying I love you while I drive a knife into your heart.

You seem to claim a very impressive degree of insight into her personal thoughts and motives.

Why do you ignore the nazz when he catches you with your pants down? Mary Cheney works as campaign manager for her father's campaign while Bush/Cheney use gaybaiting tactics to divinde and conquer the christian right. Going so far as to promote anti-gay legislation in many states sa wedge issue. "Daddy, I promise to promote your views especially when you're using your platform to destroy everything that I stand for. I don't care that you want to remove the rights for my partner and I, as long as you win Daddy. Then ends justify the means daddy."

But having a child with no parents is better than letting gays adopt?

Once again, you are being very inconsistent here.

If gays are so bad at raising children - so bad, in fact, that it is a danger to allow them to raise children with no homes, why on earth would a gay couple suddenly be good at it simply because one of them gave birth?

Are gay parents a danger to children or not?

its about if they are good parents are not. its not about the home enviroment. its the fact that from the age of 1-18 thier life will be hell in the majority of schools. bullied children become usually very violent people in the future, i mean children who are continuously bullied through thier lives, not all, but most.

its about if they are good parents are not. its not about the home enviroment. its the fact that from the age of 1-18 thier life will be hell in the majority of schools. bullied children become usually very violent people in the future, i mean children who are continuously bullied through thier lives, not all, but most.

So we should leave kids in foster care because some kids in school are ignorant fucks?

its about if they are good parents are not. its not about the home enviroment. its the fact that from the age of 1-18 thier life will be hell in the majority of schools. bullied children become usually very violent people in the future, i mean children who are continuously bullied through thier lives, not all, but most.

So is that a yes? You think gay parents place their children in danger because the kids will be bullied?

I should start a poll thread so people can declare their opinion on this once and for all: yes or no, do you (plural, not you specifically, Gorias) think that homosexuals deserve citizen fewer rights than heterosexuals? Someday ...

So if I'm a Swede and I actively campaigns against the objectives of the Swedish societies' political agenda, that makes me a self hater too? I don't think so. False association there.

you can leave the fricken country, she can't stop being gay.

its about if they are good parents are not. its not about the home enviroment. its the fact that from the age of 1-18 thier life will be hell in the majority of schools. bullied children become usually very violent people in the future, i mean children who are continuously bullied through thier lives, not all, but most.

So you do believe that children are in more danger if their parents are homosexual.

If that is true, you should be in favor of taking Mary Cheney's child away and putting that child in a place where life will not be hell, where the child will not be bullied, etc. After all, her children are not going to be bullied over her sexuality any less simply because she is a a biological, rather than an adoptive, mother.

Of course, it's rather silly to assume that children are not going to be bullied simply because their parents are heterosexual, but if that is truly your stance, then you should be working to ensure that all children are raised by heterosexual parents.

Another question: How much venom and rage can you fit into one post? Those bitter angry feelings aren't going to help anyone, least of all you.

I think it is in no way hypocritical to love and support your daughter, but not condone her lifestyle. And I don't see how people who are in relationships that cannot produce children naturally have a 'right' to be parents (as you infer by saying that her party is denying her freedom). Addoption is a privalige accorded by the state, and the state has the right to decide whom it will grant this privalige to.

These matters are decided by the voice of the people, in a representative government, and right now the prevailing opinion is that it would be irresposible to grant addoption privaliges to homosexual couples. If you want to change it, seek to persuade people to accept your point of view. Viciously condemning those who upose you is not a persuasive argument.

Not only is he not "condoning" her lifestyle he is supporting legislation to the contrary. How do you reconcile that? If you are a jew and I am a Nazi I can tell you I love you all I want. However, when I allow people to put you into the oven what the hell does that word mean? Get it now?

So is that a yes? You think gay parents place their children in danger because the kids will be bullied?


when the majority of youth culture accept it, i will too. then it will be ok. idont what its like in america, but where i'm from it wouldnt accepted.

Not only is he not "condoning" her lifestyle he is supporting legislation to the contrary. How do you reconcile that? If you are a jew and I am a Nazi I can tell you I love you all I want. However, when I allow people to put you into the oven what the hell does that word mean? Get it now?

Not a good analogy.

No one is putting gays in ovens.

I can disapprove of you all I like - let's say you have a heroin habit that I don't approve of. But I can still love you, even if I call the police and have them arrest you for possession.

This is a terrible analogy. You are comparing a political belief to a fundamental element of one's being.

A better analogy would be back in 1930's Germany. You have Jewish Friends and even a child who converted to Judiasm to marry, but you also are a high ranking member of government. You decide that your loyalty to party demands that you support the Nuremburg laws even though it will deprive your friends and family of their rights. You claim that you still love your friends and family, but you have to stick to your convictions and support the anti-Jewish laws.

That is the analogy you need to use, and that the kind of hypocrisy that the Cheneys endear.

Thank goodness for those who still believe in ciruclar logic.

Not a good analogy.

No one is putting gays in ovens.

I can disapprove of you all I like - let's say you have a heroin habit that I don't approve of. But I can still love you, even if I call the police and have them arrest you for possession.

It's a perfect analogy as the Nurenmburg laws at the time state that it must be done. The platform of the Bush Republicans is that gays are unfit to raise children and be married. No matter how many times you tell you child you love them, if you legislate your opinion into law you are hurting them in the end. Are you not? Then my loving a jew and ushering them to the oven analogy still works.

It's a perfect analogy as the Nurenmburg laws at the time state that it must be done. The platform of the Bush Republicans is that gays are unfit to raise children and be married. No matter how many times you tell you child you love them, if you legislate your opinion into law you are hurting them in the end. Are you not? Then my loving a jew and ushering them to the oven analogy still works.
Nope, not even close.

Perhaps you are in love with the idea of victimhood, and want to see gays as being in the situation of being shoveled into ovens, to get more sympathy.

Nothing could be further from reality.

There is a difference between "not condoning" and "actively campaigning against."

So if the parents of a drug abuser campaign for stricter drug laws they aren't 'supporting' their child?

There is, of couse, a good deal of political double talk going on here. There always seems to be a great deal of that, especially in the higher offices of government. No one seems to be able to rise to that level of authority without becomming a master of double speak.

I think it is rather dispicable that people are dragging this woman's personal life into the spot light for politcal gain. But you don't hear the gay rights people complaining about that. If anything they are jumping on the band waggon. They are just as willing to crucify one of their own who doesn't tow the line (if not more so) as they are to persecute anyone else who doesn't support their views.

I think if the homosexual lobby wasn't so millitant they would find that most people are willing to live and let live. But when you start attacking their deeply held convictions about things like marriage and family people that normally would have left you in peace will fight against you, because they feel threatened.

when the majority of youth culture accept it, i will too. then it will be ok. idont what its like in america, but where i'm from it wouldnt accepted.

Some of us realize that things wont change if everyone waits to accept something till it is popular

So if the parents of a drug abuser campaign for stricter drug laws they aren't 'supporting' their child?

There is, of couse, a good deal of political double talk going on here. There always seems to be a great deal of that, especially in the higher offices of government. No one seems to be able to rise to that level of authority without becomming a master of double speak.

I think it is rather dispicable that people are dragging this woman's personal life into the spot light for politcal gain. But you don't hear the gay rights people complaining about that. If anything they are jumping on the band waggon. They are just as willing to crucify one of their own who doesn't tow the line (if not more so) as they are to persecute anyone else who doesn't support their views.

I think if the homosexual lobby wasn't so millitant they would find that most people are willing to live and let live. But when you start attacking their deeply held convictions about things like marriage and family people that normally would have left you in peace will fight against you, because they feel threatened.
I would live and let live if they actually let me live. As of now that is not true, its easy to say "Live and let live" when it is not your rights being restricted to live like the rest of the population

So if the parents of a drug abuser campaign for stricter drug laws they aren't 'supporting' their child?

There is, of couse, a good deal of political double talk going on here. There always seems to be a great deal of that, especially in the higher offices of government. No one seems to be able to rise to that level of authority without becomming a master of double speak.

I think it is rather dispicable that people are dragging this woman's personal life into the spot light for politcal gain. But you don't hear the gay rights people complaining about that. If anything they are jumping on the band waggon. They are just as willing to crucify one of their own who doesn't tow the line (if not more so) as they are to persecute anyone else who doesn't support their views.

I think if the homosexual lobby wasn't so millitant they would find that most people are willing to live and let live. But when you start attacking their deeply held convictions about things like marriage and family people that normally would have left you in peace will fight against you, because they feel threatened.

F already. Did anyone put the drugs in the person's hands? Did they come out the womb with a crack pipe stuck to their lips? Then your comparison is utterly flawed. She's gay, not smoking rock which is an independent decision. As for you and Eve, do you think that by passing anti-gay marriage legislation they are hoping their child will not be gay. You pass harsher drug laws to stop drug use. So you pass harsh laws against homosexual rights to stop homosexuality? It doesn't work that way.
OK eve, maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around. You're a jew and the law says I have to turn you in to a camp. I do it, telling you I don't mean it because I care for you but I'm just too much of an Fing coward to stand up for what I believe in. I then go out and petition to government to make it a crime for anyone who harbors a jew to be put to death as well. After all, I'm just doing it because I love you. Or maybe this, you like chocolate ice cream. I tell you that I love you and want you to be happy. Happiness to you is chocolate ice cream. I am in a politician of power and have the ability to pass a law stating that chocolate ice cream cannot be made. I love you and want you to be happy, but I just want to take away the thing that makes you happy. Her father activiely works to promote laws that make it harder for her to have equal rights under the law. He says he loves her, but he just wants to promote laws that work against her at every turn. What, he's hopinh suddenly she'll switch to penis? Your analogy is flawed as I've shown you numerous times.

homosexcuals r imorle

F already. Did anyone put the drugs in the person's hands? Did they come out the womb with a crack pipe stuck to their lips? Then your comparison is utterly flawed. She's gay, not smoking rock which is an independent decision. As for you and Eve, do you think that by passing anti-gay marriage legislation they are hoping their child will not be gay. You pass harsher drug laws to stop drug use. So you pass harsh laws against homosexual rights to stop homosexuality? It doesn't work that way.
OK eve, maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around. You're a jew and the law says I have to turn you in to a camp. I do it, telling you I don't mean it because I care for you but I'm jus ttoo much of an Finhg coward to stand up for what I believe in. I then go out and petition to government to make it a crime for anyone who harbors a jew to be put to death as well. After all, I'm just doing it because I love you. Or maybe this, you like chocolate ice cream. I tell you that I loe you and want you to be happy. Happiness to you is chocolate ice cream. I am in a poition of power and have the ability to pass a law stating that chocolate ice cream cannot be made. I love you and want you to be happy, but I just want to take away the thing that makes you happy. Her father activiely works to promote laws that make it harder for her to have equal rights under the law. He says he loves her, but he just wants to promote laws that work against her at every turn. What, he's hopinh suddenly she'll switch to penis? Your analogy is flawed as I've shown you numerous times.

No, you're analogy is flawed because you keep mentioning the death part.

No one in the US has proposed putting homosexuals to death.

Which is why your posts are an illogical appeal to emotion, rather than cogent argument.

We're here, we're queer, we have homes and families just like you do, and we're not going anywhere. Get used to it. By the way, Mary and Heather wouldn't be "co-parenting," they'd both be parents. Our families aren't any different than yours. :upyours:

By the way, it's only a matter of time until we can get married too. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. What we do doesn't effect anyone else. :sniper:

Nope, not even close.

Perhaps you are in love with the idea of victimhood, and want to see gays as being in the situation of being shoveled into ovens, to get more sympathy.

Nothing could be further from reality.Actually, the environmentalist example given by NB was further from reality than that.

You're being a nitpicker. The situation is similar because gays are in effect being treated as second class citizens where certain things are concerned. An extreme example where almost everyone can agree that such behavior is false is the alienation of Jews under the Nazi regime, with marriage laws that forbade marriage to a person of Jewish descent.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the race laws that forbade marriage between blacks and whites that existed in the United States.

No, you're analogy is flawed because you keep mentioning the death part.

No one in the US has proposed putting homosexuals to death.

Which is why your posts are an illogical appeal to emotion, rather than cogent argument.

ok, let's take it away from death. I'm just going to deny you life liberty and teh persuit of happiness. Not a big deal right? You'd probably rather die than live under those terms. Now, if I say I love you and accept you and legislate against you how is this not hypocrisy. You have yet to answer this question and I don't think you can which is why you avoid it. I legislate something which I know will hurt you emotionally and limit your freedom and it's all good right?

:upyours:

:sniper:

I don't even want to know what your first post was like...

Actually, the environmentalist example given by NB was further from reality than that.

You're being a nitpicker. The situation is similar because gays are in effect being treated as second class citizens where certain things are concerned. An extreme example where almost everyone can agree that such behavior is false is the alienation of Jews under the Nazi regime, with marriage laws that forbade marriage to a person of Jewish descent.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the race laws that forbade marriage between blacks and whites that existed in the United States.

Dear God thank you. What part of denying you life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is foreign to you Eve? You are being treated as less than an equal human being, and by your own family no less. I say I love you, them slap you, rinse, lather and repeat. Saying I support you while actively working to legislate against you is hypocrisy.

all "marriages" should be a social contract according to government. It should give you legal rights and respnsibilities and that is it. If you want to get married you should do so in your own church if they allow it. If they do not, petititon them or move to another church that allows it.

ok, let's take it away from death. I'm just going to deny you life liberty and teh persuit of happiness. Not a big deal right? You'd probably rather die than live under those terms. Now, if I say I love you and accept you and legislate against you how is this not hypocrisy. You have yet to answer this question and I don't think you can which is why you avoid it. I legislate something which I know will hurt you emotionally and limit your freedom and it's all good right?

Doesn't mean you don't love me. Maybe to me you appear misguided, but you still love me.

What about that do you not understand?

Tell you what - the only thing that bothers me about the whole gay thing is their whole victimhood thing.

I know plenty of gay people in the workplace, my church, and my family, and none of them are victims. I don't see them being harassed, shot at, burned, beaten, fired from jobs, or anything else.

They have everything right now except legal marriage (and that's not far off, because it would be stupid to keep opposing it).

Tell you what - if you want to be gay AND a victim, go live in Iran - and publicly announce your gayness. Then see what it means to be a victim.

when the majority of youth culture accept it, i will too. then it will be ok. idont what its like in america, but where i'm from it wouldnt accepted.

I'm not completely sure I understand you, but it seems as if you're saying that you don't care to be a pioneer, you'll just wait until "the majority" tells you it's okay to accept gay people.

What do you think about gay people? Do you know any? Do you think we should have equal rights with straight people?

I can disapprove of you all I like - let's say you have a heroin habit that I don't approve of. But I can still love you, even if I call the police and have them arrest you for possession.

So being attracted to member of the same sex through no fault of your own and wishing to form a loving relationship is similar to injecting a dangerous drug into your body?


So if the parents of a drug abuser campaign for stricter drug laws they aren't 'supporting' their child?

False analogy. Drug abuse is harmful. Being naturally attracted to members of the same sex is not.

A better analogy would be, "If the parents of a white man who is exclusively attracted to black women campaign for anti-miscegenation laws, are they supporting their child?" I would say no, as they are actively working to keep their son from forming a loving relationship with the partner of his choice.

I think it is rather dispicable that people are dragging this woman's personal life into the spot light for politcal gain. But you don't hear the gay rights people complaining about that. If anything they are jumping on the band waggon. They are just as willing to crucify one of their own who doesn't tow the line (if not more so) as they are to persecute anyone else who doesn't support their views.

Suppose we were to transport back in time. If a black man supported Jim Crow laws and asked to be treated as a second class citizen, do you think those campaigning for equal rights would have supported him? Do you think they would have said, 'Hell, yeah! Make blacks second class citizens and pass laws to keep them from voting! Good job!"

I think if the homosexual lobby wasn't so millitant they would find that most people are willing to live and let live. But when you start attacking their deeply held convictions about things like marriage and family people that normally would have left you in peace will fight against you, because they feel threatened.

People's viewpoints aren't being attacked. The problem is that those who have these "deeply held convictions" aren't content to live and let live. They wish to force their own convictions and viewpoints upon everyone through force of law. If they were truly content to live and let live, they wouldn't be actively trying to keep homosexuals and their families from being treated equally under the law.

I don't think it is "militant" to ask for equal treatment. Was it "militant" when women and their supporters campaigned for the right to vote? Was it "militant" when blacks and their supporters campaigned for their rights? Why then is it "militant" when homosexuals and those who support them do the same?


No one in the US has proposed putting homosexuals to death.

Actually, I have heard people propose just that. But the larger political movements never start out that way, they move to that as the oppression of a particular group becomes accepted.

But if you don't like that, suppose we do it this way:

Suppose you were a member of a white family. Your son is pretty much exclusively attracted to black women. He doesn't really know why. He didn't choose it, but that is how it is. He is in a happy relationship with that black woman and loves her dearly. You, a prominent member of a political party with a great deal of power, lobby for anti-miscegenation laws. You are actively attempting to keep your son from being able to gain all the same protections that he could gain if he would just date a white woman instead, but he isn't attracted to white women.

Do you truly love and support your son?

Suppose the same situation. You actively campaign to keep interracial couples from adopting. After all, that simply isn't a safe situation for the children, right? Would you be happy when that woman got pregnant and was going to carry an interracial child that would then be raised in an unsafe situation because his parents were not of the same ethnicity? Or would it be just a tad bit hypocritical for you to be happy about the situation in just this case, since it was your son and all, but to still think that all other interracial couples should not have children?

Doesn't mean you don't love me. Maybe to me you appear misguided, but you still love me.

What about that do you not understand?

Tell you what - the only thing that bothers me about the whole gay thing is their whole victimhood thing.

I know plenty of gay people in the workplace, my church, and my family, and none of them are victims. I don't see them being harassed, shot at, burned, beaten, fired from jobs, or anything else.

They have everything right now except legal marriage (and that's not far off, because it would be stupid to keep opposing it).

Tell you what - if you want to be gay AND a victim, go live in Iran - and publicly announce your gayness. Then see what it means to be a victim.
Then you have people like me who have been hospitalized twice because of it

But of course having a lung punctured with a knife for being a "fag" is not victimization :rolleyes:

all "marriages" should be a social contract according to government. It should give you legal rights and respnsibilities and that is it. If you want to get married you should do so in your own church if they allow it. If they do not, petititon them or move to another church that allows it.

I don't want to give up the legal rights that come along with my marriage. :(

But if you don't like that, suppose we do it this way:

Suppose you were a member of a white family. Your son is pretty much exclusively attracted to black women. He doesn't really know why. He didn't choose it, but that is how it is. He is in a happy relationship with that black woman and loves her dearly. You, a prominent member of a political party with a great deal of power, lobby for anti-miscegenation laws. You are actively attempting to keep your son from being able to gain all the same protections that he could gain if he would just date a white woman instead, but he isn't attracted to white women.

Do you truly love and support your son?

Suppose the same situation. You actively campaign to keep interracial couples from adopting. After all, that simply isn't a safe situation for the children, right? Would you be happy when that woman got pregnant and was going to carry an interracial child that would then be raised in an unsafe situation because his parents were not of the same ethnicity? Or would it be just a tad bit hypocritical for you to be happy about the situation in just this case, since it was your son and all, but to still think that all other interracial couples should not have children?

First, love and support are two different things.

Yes, it's love, even though it is misguided. Just because someone's efforts at love are misguided doesn't mean they love you any less.

I don't want to give up the legal rights that come along with my marriage. :(

No reason why you should. I simply want the same rights even though the person I'm married to is the same sex as me. I'm not asking or demanding to be married by your church. I just want the government that I pay taxes to, to afford me the same rights you and Mr. Smunkee have.

I don't want to give up the legal rights that come along with my marriage. :(

That would be covered under a civil union which should be allowed between any consenting adults


So you can get married without claiming legal status or you can get the legal status without getting married or both

all "marriages" should be a social contract according to government. It should give you legal rights and respnsibilities and that is it.

Indeed. That is precisely what civil marriage is. Unfortunately, it is denied to certain people on the basis that some religions don't like it.


First, love and support are two different things.

Someone who truly loves another will support them. Otherwise, they aren't showing love at all.

Yes, it's love, even though it is misguided. Just because someone's efforts at love are misguided doesn't mean they love you any less.

When they are so misguided as to approximate hate, I would say it absolutely does mean they love you less. At the very least, they have no clue what love actually is.

I'm curious - since when does "love" mean "I will always accede to your every wish, demand, and belief"?

Sounds strange to me.

Then you have people like me who have been hospitalized twice because of it

But of course having a lung punctured with a knife for being a "fag" is not victimization :rolleyes:Well, if they weren't attacking you with an oven, you made a false analogy :p

I'm curious - since when does "love" mean "I will always accede to your every wish, demand, and belief"?

Sounds strange to me.I don't know, I've always preferred to settle for "Love you the way you are."

Doesn't mean you don't love me. Maybe to me you appear misguided, but you still love me.

What about that do you not understand?

Tell you what - the only thing that bothers me about the whole gay thing is their whole victimhood thing.

I know plenty of gay people in the workplace, my church, and my family, and none of them are victims. I don't see them being harassed, shot at, burned, beaten, fired from jobs, or anything else.

They have everything right now except legal marriage (and that's not far off, because it would be stupid to keep opposing it).

Tell you what - if you want to be gay AND a victim, go live in Iran - and publicly announce your gayness. Then see what it means to be a victim.

ok, one more time. You are German. I say I love you and want you to be happy but create a law where all Germans are not allowed to marry non-Germans. You love an Italian boy. I have no infringed upon your rights? I have no kept from you the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? I'm not doing anything to you "personally" just making sure your entire group lives by my moral code. Nothing wrong with that right?

I'm curious - since when does "love" mean "I will always accede to your every wish, demand, and belief"?

Sounds strange to me.

When the wish is to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, thats a pretty big one.

Well, if they weren't attacking you with an oven, you made a false analogy :p

I did?

I did?There was a smily. I was being sarcistic... :(

No reason why you should. I simply want the same rights even though the person I'm married to is the same sex as me. I'm not asking or demanding to be married by your church. I just want the government that I pay taxes to, to afford me the same rights you and Mr. Smunkee have.
I support that.
That would be covered under a civil union which should be allowed between any consenting adults


So you can get married without claiming legal status or you can get the legal status without getting married or both

why would you get married if you didn't want to have the legal stuff too? :confused:

I support that.


why would you get married if you didn't want to have the legal stuff too? :confused:

Dont know some people would just like the title ... I dont think it makes much sense either but it would be a possibility

There was a smily. I was being sarcistic... :(

:) I guessed thats why I did not get mad I was just confused sorry man :fluffle:

Doesn't mean you don't love me. Maybe to me you appear misguided, but you still love me.

What about that do you not understand?

Tell you what - the only thing that bothers me about the whole gay thing is their whole victimhood thing.

I know plenty of gay people in the workplace, my church, and my family, and none of them are victims. I don't see them being harassed, shot at, burned, beaten, fired from jobs, or anything else.

They have everything right now except legal marriage (and that's not far off, because it would be stupid to keep opposing it).

Tell you what - if you want to be gay AND a victim, go live in Iran - and publicly announce your gayness. Then see what it means to be a victim.

I, too, know a lot of gay people who aren't victims. But gay people are victimized in the US, harassed, shot at, burned, beaten (Matthew Shepard), fired from jobs (at universities, in the armed forces, all sorts of places). We're accused of automatically being child molesters (though this is, I think, more a problem for gay men than for gay women). We're the object of pity and condescension from our Christian friends and relatives ("love the sinner, hate the sin"). I cannot make next-of-kin decisions for my partner without showing our "papers" but you could for your spouse and no one would even question you. And our legal arrangements can be challenged by family members, whereas, no one would even question you.

Simply put, I do not have full citizen rights in the US simply because I am homosexual. I don't want to be a victim or a foreigner in my own country, and I try not to see myself that way. I love my country and I want her to treat all her citizens equally. Today, that is simply not true.

I support that.

Thank you. :)

I'm curious - since when does "love" mean "I will always accede to your every wish, demand, and belief"?

Sounds strange to me.

Never. But it does mean that the person who loves the other will try and understand those wishes and beliefs and wish for their loved one to find happiness and live the best life that they can.

I, too, know a lot of gay people who aren't victims. But gay people are victimized in the US, harassed, shot at, burned, beaten (Matthew Shepard), fired from jobs (at universities, in the armed forces, all sorts of places). We're accused of automatically being child molesters (though this is, I think, more a problem for gay men than for gay women). We're the object of pity and condescension from our Christian friends and relatives ("love the sinner, hate the sin"). I cannot make next-of-kin decisions for my partner without showing our "papers" but you could for your spouse and no one would even question you. And our legal arrangements can be challenged by family members, whereas, no one would even question you.

Simply put, I do not have full citizen rights in the US simply because I am homosexual. I don't want to be a victim or a foreigner in my own country, and I try not to see myself that way. I love my country and I want her to treat all her citizens equally. Today, that is simply not true.

My problem is that when I meet gay people online (this doesn't seem to happen in person), the usual line that gets trotted out is that a Matthew Shepard happens every minute, or that the government is about to put them in the ovens.

I know gay and lesbian couples in my neighborhood who have their own children.

Yes, there's a bit more that could be done. But by and large (with the exception of certain backwards ass areas where ignorance may always reign), the US is a much friendlier place than some would have you believe.

Not a good analogy.

No one is putting gays in ovens.

I can disapprove of you all I like - let's say you have a heroin habit that I don't approve of. But I can still love you, even if I call the police and have them arrest you for possession.


Eve,
Until just a few years ago, it was still illegal to be gay in many states. There are tens of millions of people, mostly in the GOP, who want to make it illegal again. Can you not remember just a few years ago when Sen. Santorum decried the 6 members of the Supreme court who disagreed with the law? Can you not remember how people like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said we needed to support these laws?

So say the new members of SCOTUS overturn their previous decision, are you now going to call the cops on your gay neighbors because being gay is illegal where you live again, even though you still love them? Would you send your old child to jail because of who he is?

And just to restate, I never compared being gay to the Holocaust. The initial Nuremburg laws did not open the death camps, they simply denied Jews any political rights. They established Jews, Gypsys, and yes gay people as unfit for society. They slowly took away their right to own propery, run business, work as teachers, etc. It was upon these laws that further crimes against humanity were built. And these are exactly the kind of laws that many in this country are trying to establish today.

So before you criticize my analogy, I think you need to learn a little more of history, it seems you are lacking in some background there.

I don't want to give up the legal rights that come along with my marriage. :(

agreed, and you wouldn't have to. Under a system where all people wre granted the same rights through civil union your would be greanted the same legal rights under the law. No different than what you have now. The only differentiation is that if you wanted to be married you'd have to do that in a church who condones your marriage. Marriage is a religious term while it should not be a legal term. You follow me Smunkee?

agreed, and you wouldn't have to. Under a system where all people wre granted the same rights through civil union your would be greanted the same legal rights under the law. No different than what you have now. The only differentiation is that if you wanted to be married you'd have to do that in a church who condones your marriage. Marriage is a religious term while it should not be a legal term. You follow me Smunkee?

Confession is a religious term. Therefore, it cannot also be a legal term. Courtrooms should stop using the term "confession" immediately, as a confession is when you tell your sins to a priest, he assigns penance, and you receive absolution. See how silly that sounds?

It's rather silly to suggest that a word cannot be used in different contexts. Meanwhile, using a different word would necessitate losing some of the rights associated with civil marriage, so I don't know that we really want to go with that.

Eve,
Until just a few years ago, it was still illegal to be gay in many states. There are tens of millions of people, mostly in the GOP, who want to make it illegal again. Can you not remember just a few years ago when Sen. Santorum decried the 6 members of the Supreme court who disagreed with the law? Can you not remember how people like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said we needed to support these laws?

So say the new members of SCOTUS overturn their previous decision, are you now going to call the cops on your gay neighbors because being gay is illegal where you live again, even though you still love them? Would you send your old child to jail because of who he is?

And just to restate, I never compared being gay to the Holocaust. The initial Nuremburg laws did not open the death camps, they simply denied Jews any political rights. They established Jews, Gypsys, and yes gay people as unfit for society. They slowly took away their right to own propery, run business, work as teachers, etc. It was upon these laws that further crimes against humanity were built. And these are exactly the kind of laws that many in this country are trying to establish today.

So before you criticize my analogy, I think you need to learn a little more of history, it seems you are lacking in some background there.

I think you need to read more history yourself. The Jewish question was never really a "question" at all.

The analogy is exceedingly poor - here we have gays acquiring more and more rights over time, rather than having them taken away over a fairly short time period.

Tell me, did Santorum say to put gays up the chimney? Using government forces and funds?

Or is that just rampant paranoia (not that Santorum isn't an asshole)?

I'm curious - since when does "love" mean "I will always accede to your every wish, demand, and belief"?

Sounds strange to me.

when they say that love is unconditional. I love you but won't support you in your law career. I love you, but I won't support you being gay. I love you, but I will not tolerate you dating that N*gger. What does love mean to you? Just words I suppose without real actions to support it.

when they say that love is unconditional. I love you but won't support you in your law career. I love you, but I won't support you being gay. I love you, but I will not tolerate you dating that N*gger. What does love mean to you? Just words I suppose without real actions to support it.

Nope.

I love you, therefore I won't pay for you to live in my apartment while you remain intentionally indolent even though you're intelligent, educated, and able-bodied, and the economy is going great. You get a job, and contribute, or your ass is in the street.

I love you, therefore I won't stand there and let you beat your significant other to a pulp just because you are in a bad mood - I'm going to kick your ass in that case.

I love you, but I won't let you drink yourself into an early grave. I'm going to pour out your liquor, no matter how many times you buy it.

Shall I go on?

Oh, and you're my gay friend. I love you, but I'm not gay. So if you ask me to have sex with you, I'm still going to say no. Does that mean I don't love you?

I think you need to read more history yourself. The Jewish question was never really a "question" at all.

The analogy is exceedingly poor - here we have gays acquiring more and more rights over time, rather than having them taken away over a fairly short time period.

Tell me, did Santorum say to put gays up the chimney? Using government forces and funds?

Or is that just rampant paranoia (not that Santorum isn't an asshole)?

Using government forces and funds to deny the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness should be enough...agreed? Futher, Dick Cheney supporting his daughter while promoting legislation to remove rights from everyone like her is hypocrisy. This was my original statement. Do you disagree?

F already. Did anyone put the drugs in the person's hands? Did they come out the womb with a crack pipe stuck to their lips? Then your comparison is utterly flawed. She's gay, not smoking rock which is an independent decision. As for you and Eve, do you think that by passing anti-gay marriage legislation they are hoping their child will not be gay. You pass harsher drug laws to stop drug use. So you pass harsh laws against homosexual rights to stop homosexuality? It doesn't work that way.
OK eve, maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around. You're a jew and the law says I have to turn you in to a camp. I do it, telling you I don't mean it because I care for you but I'm just too much of an Fing coward to stand up for what I believe in. I then go out and petition to government to make it a crime for anyone who harbors a jew to be put to death as well. After all, I'm just doing it because I love you. Or maybe this, you like chocolate ice cream. I tell you that I love you and want you to be happy. Happiness to you is chocolate ice cream. I am in a politician of power and have the ability to pass a law stating that chocolate ice cream cannot be made. I love you and want you to be happy, but I just want to take away the thing that makes you happy. Her father activiely works to promote laws that make it harder for her to have equal rights under the law. He says he loves her, but he just wants to promote laws that work against her at every turn. What, he's hopinh suddenly she'll switch to penis? Your analogy is flawed as I've shown you numerous times.

People aren't born gay either. There is no evidence to suggest this, it's a lie that a certain segment of the population has been trying to foist upon the rest of us for some time. Some people may be more prone to the behavior than others, just as some people are more prone to substance addiction, but they still have a choice.

Some people like to hide from the negative consequences of their actions by absolving themselves of any responsibility for their choices. What they don't realise is that this makes them feel powerless and even more miserable. An empowering (though I will admit some times frightening) thought is this one: I am responsible for my choices and the consequences thereof. It's scary because it leaves you with no place to hide from those conseqences, but it is also empowering because if you got yourself into this mess by your own choices, then you have power to get yourself out of it by makeing choices.

I don't believe we are doomed to play the hand that fate deals us, I believe we can choose who we will be and what we will do. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar. This is the truth, and I am bold to declare it. I will always defend a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.

My problem is that when I meet gay people online (this doesn't seem to happen in person), the usual line that gets trotted out is that a Matthew Shepard happens every minute, or that the government is about to put them in the ovens.

I know gay and lesbian couples in my neighborhood who have their own children.

Yes, there's a bit more that could be done. But by and large (with the exception of certain backwards ass areas where ignorance may always reign), the US is a much friendlier place than some would have you believe.

It's probably because you would meet gays in fora like these, where there's a "discussion" going on. People tend to get a bit more incensed on-line than off. I can't think of the last time I invoked the Shepard thing, if at all.

I disagree about there being only a "bit more" to do. There are defense of marriage acts in around half the states and on the Federal books. You can actually get fired for being gay, though that's as much a function of some states being "at will" employment states than a lack of protections. Still, it's used to get rid of gays.

Certainly the US is friendlier than, say, the Muslim world or even Gorias' Ireland, it seems. But please don't fool yourself into thinking that with a couple of more tweaks to the laws, gay people and straight people will be joining hands and singing Kumbaya around the fire. We're not there until my Lady and I can stroll down to City Hall, buy a marriage license, go through the requirements (blood test, waiting period, whatever) and be married, legally.

Using government forces and funds to deny the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness should be enough...agreed? Futher, Dick Cheney supporting his daughter while promoting legislation to remove rights from everyone like her is hypocrisy. This was my original statement. Do you disagree?

I was arguing with your ovens analogy.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and does not have the force of law.

If you want to accept what the Founding Fathers wrote in other documents as precedence for how we should live, then I would take portions of the Federalist Papers, and demand my own thermonuclear weapon - after all, they argued quite cogently that the right to bear arms was an individual right.

It may be hypocrisy in Dick Cheney's case, but you're not his daughter, and you're not Dick Cheney. I have yet to meet the family that has zero halfwit peccadillos and their own twisted ways to see that through.

Nope.

I love you, therefore I won't pay for you to live in my apartment while you remain intentionally indolent even though you're intelligent, educated, and able-bodied, and the economy is going great. You get a job, and contribute, or your ass is in the street.

I love you, therefore I won't stand there and let you beat your significant other to a pulp just because you are in a bad mood - I'm going to kick your ass in that case.

I love you, but I won't let you drink yourself into an early grave. I'm going to pour out your liquor, no matter how many times you buy it.

Shall I go on?

Oh, and you're my gay friend. I love you, but I'm not gay. So if you ask me to have sex with you, I'm still going to say no. Does that mean I don't love you?

All of the incidents you named infinge upon the rights of others. Does being gay and wanting to live life like every other tax paying American infringe upon others? Nope, so your points are patently misguided. Don't flatter yourself to think your gay friend will force themself on you. They'd just ask that you wouldn't support sodomy laws, and other of their like, which would denigrate from their life. They'd ask that you wouldn't support anti-gay marriage ammendments which refuse them the rights of everyone else. Are they detracting from another's right to live and let live? No, but you are by supporting a law that doesn't allow them to live and love the person of their chosing. I appreciate you helping me make my point with your last post. :fluffle:

So if I'm a Swede and I actively campaigns against the objectives of the Swedish societies' political agenda, that makes me a self hater too? I don't think so. False association there.

If you don't know the difference between being gay and being a member of a nation, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

All of the incidents you named infinge upon the rights of others. Does being gay and wanting to live life like every other tax paying American infringe upon others? Nope, so your points are patently misguided. Don't flatter yourself to think your gay friend will force themself on you. They'd just ask that you wouldn't support sodomy laws, and other of their like, which would denigrate from their life. They'd ask that you wouldn't support anti-gay marriage ammendments which refuse them the rights of everyone else. Are they detracting from another's right to live and let live? No, but you are by supporting a law that doesn't allow them to live and love the person of their chosing. I appreciate you helping me make my point with your last post. :fluffle:

Have I said anywhere in this thread that I support any law that doesn't allow gays to marry?

Nope.

Try wiping your shoes off before you post.

And yes, I've been propositioned more than once by gay friends, some of whom were extremely put out by my not taking them up on it.

Nope.

I love you, therefore I won't pay for you to live in my apartment while you remain intentionally indolent even though you're intelligent, educated, and able-bodied, and the economy is going great. You get a job, and contribute, or your ass is in the street.

I love you, therefore I won't stand there and let you beat your significant other to a pulp just because you are in a bad mood - I'm going to kick your ass in that case.

I love you, but I won't let you drink yourself into an early grave. I'm going to pour out your liquor, no matter how many times you buy it.

Shall I go on?

Oh, and you're my gay friend. I love you, but I'm not gay. So if you ask me to have sex with you, I'm still going to say no. Does that mean I don't love you?

None of these are anything like, "I love you, but because you're gay, I want you to have less rights than all other human beings in this country."

None of them are like, "I love you, but I want your partner and children to have less protections than you could give them if you would only be heterosexual."

None of them are like, "I love you, but I think your love for your spouse is wrong, so I'm going to try and make laws to make life harder for you."

I don't want to give up the legal rights that come along with my marriage. :(
You wouldn't have to. It would only mean that same sex couples could get the same rights you get. The civil marriage part of it would extend to everyone.

People aren't born gay either. There is no evidence to suggest this, it's a lie that a certain segment of the population has been trying to foist upon the rest of us for some time. Some people may be more prone to the behavior than others, just as some people are more prone to substance addiction, but they still have a choice.

Some people like to hide from the negative consequences of their actions by absolving themselves of any responsibility for their choices. What they don't realise is that this makes them feel powerless and even more miserable. An empowering (though I will admit some times frightening) thought is this one: I am responsible for my choices and the consequences thereof. It's scary because it leaves you with no place to hide from those conseqences, but it is also empowering because if you got yourself into this mess by your own choices, then you have power to get yourself out of it by makeing choices.

I don't believe we are doomed to play the hand that fate deals us, I believe we can choose who we will be and what we will do. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar. This is the truth, and I am bold to declare it. I will always defend a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.

Ah, so all I need do is choose to be heterosexual and all will be right with the world? Would that it were so divinely simple.

Is it genetic? You say there is no evidence, I say there is, you'll never believe me and I don't believe you, so let's pass over that issue.

Assume homosexuality is purely a choice. I choose it. Why should I be denied my rights as a citizen of the United States of America, born and raised here, because of that choice? Some people in the 19th century chose to follow Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and they were hounded out into the desert. Yet no one is passing any "Mormons can't get married" laws (except maybe the "Mormons can't have polygamous marriages" ones). Would you say to those pioneers of the Latter Day Saints that if they simply made a different choice, Smith wouldn't have been lynched in Illinois and they and their families wouldn't have had to cross the great American Desert and the mountains to settle next to a huge salt lake? Would you? If not, then please do not insult me by saying I can be okay if I simply choose differently.

People aren't born gay either. There is no evidence to suggest this, it's a lie that a certain segment of the population has been trying to foist upon the rest of us for some time. Some people may be more prone to the behavior than others, just as some people are more prone to substance addiction, but they still have a choice.

Some people like to hide from the negative consequences of their actions by absolving themselves of any responsibility for their choices. What they don't realise is that this makes them feel powerless and even more miserable. An empowering (though I will admit some times frightening) thought is this one: I am responsible for my choices and the consequences thereof. It's scary because it leaves you with no place to hide from those conseqences, but it is also empowering because if you got yourself into this mess by your own choices, then you have power to get yourself out of it by makeing choices.

I don't believe we are doomed to play the hand that fate deals us, I believe we can choose who we will be and what we will do. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar. This is the truth, and I am bold to declare it. I will always defend a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.


blah blah blah, they've done EKGs comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals and found differences. They done blood tests in response to stimuli which procve a correlation. They've done MRI that measure brain activity and proven a correlation in the way homosexual react in contrary to heterosexuals. So in your world homosexuals can become straight so they won't suffer from their choices? They'd chose something that would have them ridiculed and treated with distain? Really?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology

http://www.whyarepeoplegay.com/

http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/queer-choice.html

http://homosexuality.researchtoday.net/

Enough? No one will effectively prove the link well enough for homophobes to accept I suppose. They'll accept there's a fat gene, but not one that can make you gay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/homosexuality-2

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000057.cfm

Damn these educated people are so stupid. Dr's, Deans, Geneticists, Molecular biologists, all idiots!!!!!!!!

None of these are anything like, "I love you, but because you're gay, I want you to have less rights than all other human beings in this country."

None of them are like, "I love you, but I want your partner and children to have less protections than you could give them if you would only be heterosexual."

None of them are like, "I love you, but I think your love for your spouse is wrong, so I'm going to try and make laws to make life harder for you."

Sure they are.

If I throw someone out of my house who was counting on me supporting them, I'm certainly trashing their life (for whatever reason I might have thrown them out).

The difference is one of scale.

People aren't born gay either. There is no evidence to suggest this, it's a lie that a certain segment of the population has been trying to foist upon the rest of us for some time.

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that sexuality is greatly affected before birth, and pretty well set before puberty. The exact factors are unknown, but all available evidence points to sexuality being a biological trait, just as any other biological trait. And, as it is a complex biological trait, the factors that can affect it are many. Choice, however, is not one of them any more than I can actively choose to sweat or menstruate.

Some people may be more prone to the behavior than others, just as some people are more prone to substance addiction, but they still have a choice.

People have a choice in behavior, yes. However, homosexuality is not a behavior. it is a sexual orientation. It means that a person is exclusively or near exclusively attracted to members of the same sex (attraction here referring to sexual and romantic attraction). Yes, they can decide whether or not to try and seek out a loving relationship, just like heterosexual can, but they do not choose those who they are attracted to, any more than the rest of us.

Did you get a visit from the sexuality fairy who gave you a choice in what gender(s) you would be attracted to that the rest of humanity missed out on?

Ah, so all I need do is choose to be heterosexual and all will be right with the world? Would that it were so divinely simple.

Is it genetic? You say there is no evidence, I say there is, you'll never believe me and I don't believe you, so let's pass over that issue.

Assume homosexuality is purely a choice. I choose it. Why should I be denied my rights as a citizen of the United States of America, born and raised here, because of that choice? Some people in the 19th century chose to follow Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and they were hounded out into the desert. Yet no one is passing any "Mormons can't get married" laws (except maybe the "Mormons can't have polygamous marriages" ones). Would you say to those pioneers of the Latter Day Saints that if they simply made a different choice, Smith wouldn't have been lynched in Illinois and they and their families wouldn't have had to cross the great American Desert and the mountains to settle next to a huge salt lake? Would you? If not, then please do not insult me by saying I can be okay if I simply choose differently.

Well, what's wrong with a polygamous marriage then?

Have I said anywhere in this thread that I support any law that doesn't allow gays to marry?

Nope.

Try wiping your shoes off before you post.

And yes, I've been propositioned more than once by gay friends, some of whom were extremely put out by my not taking them up on it.

Way to ignore all or most of what I said. All of the things you said infringe upon the right of others. I wasn't speaking of you supporting the laws that negate homosexual rights, but Dick Cheney does. That5 was my point of which you conveniently left out. Circle back and realize that Dick Cheney supports a systems that infringes upon the rights of his daughter. Try reading the entire fricken post and putting in perspective of past posts before you drool on me.

Well, what's wrong with a polygamous marriage then?

To me, not much. Depends on with whom. ;) But you know what I mean. Getting rid of polygamy was one of the conditions under which Utah became a state.

To me, not much. Depends on with whom. ;) But you know what I mean. Getting rid of polygamy was one of the conditions under which Utah became a state.
Hey, I'm still trying to figure out why the other poster thought I didn't want gays to have rights... :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm still trying to figure out why the other poster thought I didn't want gays to have rights... :rolleyes:

Didn't, but Dick Cheney did and that was my point?

Sure they are.

If I throw someone out of my house who was counting on me supporting them, I'm certainly trashing their life (for whatever reason I might have thrown them out).

No, you aren't. You have explained that said person was engaging in self-destructive behavior, when they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Refusing to support them, in this case, is an action meant to help them become adults.

The difference is one of scale.

No, the difference is in the intent. Every action you described is one intended to help the person in question or protect others from them. Taking alcohol away from an alcoholic will help them to overcome their addiction. Helping a person to become self-sufficient makes them, well, self-sufficient and in a much less precarious position than depending on others for everything. Keeping someone from beating up their SO keeps someone from getting hurt, and your loved one from doing somethign they will regret.

However, attempting to keep someone from finding a loving relationship does nothing but harm them. Attempting to keep someone from protecting their family does nothing but harm them (and their family). The intent of these actions is to harm people who disagree with you, not to help them. No one is being harmed by being homosexual. In fact, the harm in these situations comes from the family who chooses to take actions against them, rather than being stopped by it.

Didn't, but Dick Cheney did and that was my point?

Someone sure did say it. Shall I quote?

Eve,

It's called the state of Virginia. If my partner and I moved to Virginia, I could not even make him executor of my will. Virginia has made it illegal for same sex partners to have any legal documents, they are all null and void
-no hospitalization visits
-no co parenting
-no power of attorney
-no co-ownership of property (it's technically no longer allowed).

This issue is in most of the country we are not gaining new rights, we are quickly losing them every day. More and more states are supporting views like that of Virginia. yes, there are still some intelligent places like NJ, MA, VT, NY and CA. But in many parts of the country, no, it is getting much worse, especially the south. Even South Africa, which was a land of hatred and oppression just 20 years ago, is now a beacon of hope and tollerance.

Yes, these are laws that are being specifically targeting gay and lesbian citizens and under the false guise of 'no special rights' denying all basic rights. They have no other purpose than to hurt gay people. And it gets back to hypocrisy because the Cheney's use the power of the office to try and get discriminitory laws passed, like those in Virginia, all for the sake of getting re-elected. Talking out of one side of his mouth saying he disagreed with these laws, but fully supporting fellow party members in government in passing them.

And why do you need to keep going back to the issue of drug addicts when talking about gay citizens? My partner and I have been together over 12 years. I think we have a healthier relationship than most married hetero couples, but that part is just my opinion. But in any event, there is nothing unhealthy about it.

If I were on drugs or addicted to booze, I would hope that anyone who really loved me would do what ever it took to get me off drugs. If they didn't love me, I would expect them to let me OD. We are dealing with this now with our nephew when we recently found out he has been doing coke. He is now undergoing random drug tests with the understanding that if he fails, he will be sent to boot camp rehab. So go ahead and criticize my previous analogy, but stop comparing me to a drug addict who needs help. It only helps show your ignorance.

:headbang:

Someone sure did say it. Shall I quote?

Let me make my intent clear. I do not believe that you support the denial of rights to homeosexuals. There, I said it. whoo :cool: I do find it hypocritical that Dick Cheney supports leghislation and campaign strategies that vilify homeosxuals and ban gay marriage while claiming to love and support his daughter. He supports her, just not anyone else like her and including her. He supports her personal choice but will bait voters with the devisive issue for his own political gain. This was my original argument before we got off on this tangent.

mm:cool: mm tasty arguments of hoomosapiens. :fluffle:

The analogy is exceedingly poor - here we have gays acquiring more and more rights over time, rather than having them taken away over a fairly short time period.

Tell me, did Santorum say to put gays up the chimney? Using government forces and funds?

You're right - the whole debate over gay rights mostly works to convince people that the USA is becoming more free even while new laws are making it more tyrannical than ever.

Of course, Santorum didn't say to kill gays - for that matter, the Nazis never came out and officially said they were going to kill Jews. They just went and did it, with a lot of propaganda to show how cozy life at the camps was.

Meanwhile, persons of another sexual orientation, pedophiles, are being denied even the basic rights of free speech and freedom of assembly - and not only is the fourth estate doing nothing to stop this, they are moving it forward by supporting ever more draconian laws and even financing hate groups. In fact, about a year ago Congress came very close to making it illegal to even be attracted to children - probably by way of incompetence - but fortunately the wording of the bill was changed at the last minute. What a mess that would have made, effectively making upwards of 50 million Americans non-persons overnight. As a Canadian friend of mine has pointed out, it almost seems like the US government is trying to start a rebellion.

Also speaking of Santorum - he has a very cute daughter, and I'm angry with him for making her stand up in front of the cameras when he made his concession speech, so the whole nation could see her crying. Rather thoughtless, to say the least.


Baldur

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/index.html

This part vexed me:

Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the newly announced pregnancy as unwise.

"Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea," said. "Love can't replace a mother and a father."

Argh! :mad:

Love can't replace a mother and a father?!? Lord knows, I'd rather have an abusive, alcoholic father and a submissive mother than two loving lesbian parents. Love simply has no place in family. :p

Yeah. You are a little late, though: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509870

Yeah. You are a little late, though: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509870

Well, I'll be damned.

Anyone who finds anything wrong with two loving gay people being parents needs to be slapped in the face.

Dick Cheney is a hypocritical bastard son of a bitch who should be tortured to death with railroad spikes.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

I think Mary Cheney is a goddamn whore and would not feel bad if she was murdered tonight.

Dick Cheney is a hypocritical bastard son of a bitch who should be tortured to death with railroad spikes.

...You wouldn't happen to be a fan of Buffy, would you?

Have I said anywhere in this thread that I support any law that doesn't allow gays to marry?

Nope.

Try wiping your shoes off before you post.

And yes, I've been propositioned more than once by gay friends, some of whom were extremely put out by my not taking them up on it.

Sounds like someone is suffering from inflammation of the ego. :p

I think Mary Cheney is a goddamn whore and would not feel bad if she was murdered tonight.

This is how you get sent on a vacation from the forum.

Taking bets on how long until Cheney asks the couple to go on a celebratory hunting trip... :p

Sounds like someone is suffering from inflammation of the ego. :pWhy? If you're not homophobic, but still straight, it's extremely flattering (especially since they are often more straightforward about it).

Focus on the Family? More like Focus on a Patriarchal Society.

Well, I'll be damned.

Most likely.

its about if they are good parents are not. its not about the home enviroment. its the fact that from the age of 1-18 thier life will be hell in the majority of schools. bullied children become usually very violent people in the future, i mean children who are continuously bullied through thier lives, not all, but most.

I was bullied in school, and I'm not very violent. Most of the other kids who were bullied who I know are now in college and the bullies are now working at 7/11, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc.

Also, where I live, a kid would not be bullied because of having gay parents. At least not nowadays. That's not the case for the whole country though, I know.

Love can't replace a mother and a father?!?

Pfft, as if fags and dykes can even feel love. That's for heterosexuals only.

Most likely.

He'll only be damned if he actually loves his wife and kids. :rolleyes:

Pfft, as if fags and dykes can even feel love. That's for heterosexuals only.
But of course. Hetero couples are all about the emotional bonds between them with making love being just an expression of that.

Queers are just about the fucking.

:rolleyes:

But of course. Hetero couples are all about the emotional bonds between them with making love being just an expression of that.

Queers are just about the fucking.

:rolleyes:

Just like Britney Spears and her 55-hour marriage, plus her and Federline.
And J-Lo with her 6 marriages.

:rolleyes:

Queers are just about the fucking.

The degenerates!

/I wish.

Just like Britney Spears and her 55-hour marriage, plus her and Federline.
And J-Lo with her 6 marriages.

:rolleyes:

And lots of people 'round here.

Just like Britney Spears and her 55-hour marriage, plus her and Federline.
And J-Lo with her 6 marriages.

:rolleyes:

And Newt Gingrich dumping his first wife while she was in the hospital with cervical cancer. Such good examples.

(J Lo's been married six times?!?!)

Just like Britney Spears and her 55-hour marriage, plus her and Federline.
And J-Lo with her 6 marriages.

:rolleyes:
Oh no, no, Pancake-chan, those were just sluts and whores, not a true relationship.

Ok, I'm going to stop now, trying to think like those idiots is making my head hurt, giving me a bad taste in my mouth, and upsetting my tummy.

And Newt Gingrich dumping his first wife while she was in the hospital with cervical cancer. Such good examples.

(J Lo's been married six times?!?!)

I think so.

I think so.

Me too.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/

Well well, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Cheney brought this issue to the forefront. How can her father support policies that do not allow his daughter to have her freedom and still claim he loves and "supports" his daughter? Seriously, can he say he loves and supports his daughter while publicly condeming her life with policy at a federal level? I'm all for her and wish her well, but even she is a self hating lesbian who allows her party to be ruled by those who would rather see her dead. How much hypocrisy can we fit in one news article? I dunno, how much do we have here!?

If gay parents raise gay kids and straight people raise straight kids... DOES THAT MEAN CHENEY IS GAY?!??!

What I find interesting here is the continued double standard espoused by folks. When it's a Democrat, they are homo-loving, liberal socialists. Let it be the child of the number two Republican in the country, we should get all warm and fuzzy and marvel at just how sweet, loving and concerned Richard and Lynn Cheney are about their lesbian daughter.

In the meantime DICK moves at cross purposes to his daughter's long term welfare. He supports a party that not only does not generally accept homosexuality (except deep in the closet), but also attempts to demonize and make illegal loving, long term relationships very similar to the type that his daughter is in. You tell me who is confused.

Richard Cheney is a big, fat hypocrite and he knows exactly what he doing. Winning elections. He is sacrificing his daughter at the altar of political convenience and power.

If there is a hell, he will roast in it for eternity and I have a nice pack of marshmallows ready to send to him there...postage due.

I was bullied in school, and I'm not very violent. Most of the other kids who were bullied who I know are now in college and the bullies are now working at 7/11, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc.

Also, where I live, a kid would not be bullied because of having gay parents. At least not nowadays. That's not the case for the whole country though, I know.

I never understood the whole, "But they'll be bullied!" argument. Children will be bullied, for any number of things. If a child wants to be a bully, they will find a reason, or make one up. If the "your parents are gay," reason isn't there, another one will be found.

Most likely.

:eek:

:p

:D

I never understood the whole, "But they'll be bullied!" argument. Children will be bullied, for any number of things. If a child wants to be a bully, they will find a reason, or make one up. If the "your parents are gay," reason isn't there, another one will be found.

Exactly. Kids will find stuff to be mean to each other about, they always have and probably always will.

Nope, not even close.

Perhaps you are in love with the idea of victimhood, and want to see gays as being in the situation of being shoveled into ovens, to get more sympathy.

Nothing could be further from reality.
Of course, you'll do everything in your power to fight against the idea of the GLBT community being made victims until they ARE finally shoved into ovens and then finally decide you might've been wrong?
There's no chance to UNDO genocide once it has happened.
We fight to PREVENT genocide, just like you fight to prevent our preventing genocide with your argument that 'It isn't happening RIGHT NOW!"
The only reason it ISN'T happening is because people are STRENUOUSLY opposing the Republican plans for Genocide of the Homosexuals.

If gay parents raise gay kids and straight people raise straight kids... DOES THAT MEAN CHENEY IS GAY?!??!
...Oh my god, too many possible replies!

Dick is totally straight. What sort of gay guy gets so close to Bush?