NationStates Jolt Archive

The Cheney family has a patent on diluting language. Following the logic of the religious right it's "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." This child is not a gift from God but a purchase from a sperm bank. Unless Mary and her partner created this life while bumping uglies then it's not a "natural" child reproduction. Don't take this as me declaring that gay and lesbian couples should not have children, as I am in favor of any loving family who will give good care to a child. She also said that Wolf Blitzer's question to her father was out of line. How so? Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question? Mary Cheney wants it both ways and it doesn't gel. Lesbians cannot have babies naturally and after all, we all know what God intended right? The religious right is neither.

We had a thread about people like Mary Cheney a while back. I believe an agreement was reached to call these gay uncle Toms "pastor Teds". It needs to spread.

Um.... what? :confused:

The Cheney family has a patent on diluting language. Following the logic of the religious right it's "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." This child is not a gift from God but a purchase from a sperm bank. Unless Mary and her partner created this life while bumping uglies then it's not a "natural" child reproduction. Don't take this as me declaring that gay and lesbian couples should not have children, as I am in favor of any loving family who will give good care to a child. She also said that Wolf Blitzer's question to her father was out of line. How so? Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question? Mary Cheney wants it both ways and it doesn't gel. Lesbians cannot have babies naturally and after all, we all know what God intended right? The religious right is neither.

Is it just me or did that reach new levels of incomprehesibility?

Everything is a political issue.

Even belly button lint.

Everything is a political issue.

"In our age there is no such thing as keeping out of politics. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mess of lies, hatred, fear, and schizophrenia." (or something similar)
-- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language. Written in 1946 and it's still accurate.

Everything is a political issue.

Even belly button lint.

Of course! I have a right to my belly button lint! Freedom of choice, baby!

Everything is a political issue.

Even belly button lint.

are you pro or con on the BBL because if you are pro.......we can't be friends anymore. I am a single issue person and BBL is the issue I have chosen.

Everything is a political issue.

Even belly button lint.

Gah! Belly button lint is a derogatory term. Please use the politically correct term: navel detritus, you prejudiced ogre!

Gah! Belly button lint is a derogatory term. Please use the politically correct term: navel detritus, you prejudiced ogre!

Exactly.

are you pro or con on the BBL because if you are pro.......we can't be friends anymore. I am a single issue person and BBL is the issue I have chosen.

Can we pretend I'm pro, and get back to swapping bondage stories? :D

his (slight) loyalty to his daughter is the only thing that makes dick cheney seem like a real person and (marginally) good father instead of the evil overlord.

Gah! Belly button lint is a derogatory term. Please use the politically correct term: navel detritus, you prejudiced ogre!

bah, 'tis nought but the dregs of thread society, let them rot in hell and be called whatever foul names the demons can come up with for all I care.

Gah! Belly button lint is a derogatory term. Please use the politically correct term: navel detritus, you prejudiced ogre!

you people are so PC, lets all just call it was it is.......misplaced lint, lint, the lowest of fabric type matter.

Of course! I have a right to my belly button lint! Freedom of choice, baby!

Your freedom to choose belly button lint ends when the state suspects you of using it to mask a micro-marijuana grow-up in your navel cavity.

Can we pretend I'm pro, and get back to swapping bondage stories? :D

not on the boards, I will get banned. I don't want to put Kat in that position, she has been so nice always, you know?

not on the boards, I will get banned. I don't want to put Kat in that position, she has been so nice always, you know?

Ah, but you admit you have stories* to swap!

TGs were made of *these,
who am I to disagree...

A link to an article that hopefully explains the OP

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/washington/01cheney.html

What a novel idea...clarification on the topic! SEE THAT, OP!!???

:eek:

The Cheney family has a patent on diluting language. Following the logic of the religious right it's "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." This child is not a gift from God but a purchase from a sperm bank. Unless Mary and her partner created this life while bumping uglies then it's not a "natural" child reproduction. Don't take this as me declaring that gay and lesbian couples should not have children, as I am in favor of any loving family who will give good care to a child. She also said that Wolf Blitzer's question to her father was out of line. How so? Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question? Mary Cheney wants it both ways and it doesn't gel. Lesbians cannot have babies naturally and after all, we all know what God intended right? The religious right is neither.

Whle I agree with your last sentence, I think you're being rather harsh, don't you think? Dick Cheney has taken a lot of heat for supporting his daughter. More than any man should have to. And considering what an evil megalomaniacal mastermind he is, I think it says a lot about all the assholes and morons who disown their gay children.

Anybody who is a bigger dick than Dick Cheney is beyond redemption. :p

It's a child from a sperm bank more a gift from some dude who whacked it?

A link to an article that hopefully explains the OP

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/washington/01cheney.html

My apologies. I was typing quickly on a lunch break.

Point 1: Gay and lesbian people could make great parents.

Point 2: Supporting someone who wishes to repress your rights is just idiotic.

Point 3: The father and daughter acting like this issue is not in stark contrast to the political posturing of their beloved party is just laughable and at worst asshattery.

My apologies. I was typing quickly on a lunch break.

Point 1: Gay and lesbian people could make great parents.

Point 2: Supporting someone who wishes to repress your rights is just idiotic.

Point 3: The father and daughter acting like this issue is not in stark contrast to the political posturing of their beloved party is just laughable and at worst asshattery.

I feel it is more of a function of the two party sytem rather than any personal hypocrisy on Mary Cheney's part. In the USA, you only have two options, and it is probable that she agrees with Republican principles in all aspects except this one.

I agree with her statement that her child should not be a political issue.

the logic of the religious right
:confused:

his (slight) loyalty to his daughter is the only thing that makes dick cheney seem like a real person and (marginally) good father instead of the evil overlord.
Karl Rove's the same way, you know. He had this great, admiring relationship with his father, even after he came out of the closet. Kind of sickening to think that he would go on to support one of the most homophobic administrations in history.

I feel it is more of a function of the two party sytem rather than any personal hypocrisy on Mary Cheney's part. In the USA, you only have two options, and it is probable that she agrees with Republican principles in all aspects except this one.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney#Attention_to_Cheney.27s_sexuality):

Mary Cheney did not publicly express her opinion of the amendment until her autobiography, Now It's My Turn, where she stated her opposition to the amendment, yet felt it important to support the president's re-election bid as she felt only he was capable of protecting the country from terrorist attacks.
:rolleyes:

Mary Cheney is a lousy human being.

There, I said it.

Mary Cheney knows that HER baby will grow up safe and rich. Mary Cheney knows that HER baby is going to enjoy all the legal and financial protections it needs, even if its mommies can't get legally married. Mary Cheney knows that HER legal rights to her child will be protected, because she's more than able to hire as many high-priced lawyers as are needed to do so.

So Mary Cheney is more than willing to stand by and support an administration that violates countless other gay families. She's more than willing to let other people's children suffer, because she knows that her privaledged position protects her and her family. She mouths empty sentiments about "opposing" anti-gay marriage bills, but she openly supports the people who push them. She knows that her rights are safe, so she doesn't give a fuck about the rights of all the other gay parents and couples out there.

It's the classic "good for me, but not for thee" mentality of the right wing these days. It's pathetic.

What exactely is this thread about? Is everyone just venting their opinions because they feel like it?

Mary Cheney is a lousy human being.
She knows that her rights are safe, so she doesn't give a fuck about the rights of all the other gay parents and couples out there.

It's the classic "good for me, but not for thee" mentality of the right wing these days. It's pathetic.

Damn Bottle, tell us what you really think. =)

Damn Bottle, tell us what you really think. =)
In my ever-so-humble opinion, there's no reason to mince words when it comes to hypocrites. People who personally profit from invading other people's private lives don't have any right to whine when their own lives get put under a microscope.

Of course! I have a right to my belly button lint! Freedom of choice, baby!

A mod hijack the thread! That's the green light guys, go nuts! :)

Mary Cheney is a lousy human being.

There, I said it.

Mary Cheney knows that HER baby will grow up safe and rich. Mary Cheney knows that HER baby is going to enjoy all the legal and financial protections it needs, even if its mommies can't get legally married. Mary Cheney knows that HER legal rights to her child will be protected, because she's more than able to hire as many high-priced lawyers as are needed to do so.

So Mary Cheney is more than willing to stand by and support an administration that violates countless other gay families. She's more than willing to let other people's children suffer, because she knows that her privaledged position protects her and her family. She mouths empty sentiments about "opposing" anti-gay marriage bills, but she openly supports the people who push them. She knows that her rights are safe, so she doesn't give a fuck about the rights of all the other gay parents and couples out there.

It's the classic "good for me, but not for thee" mentality of the right wing these days. It's pathetic.

As rare as this is, I gotta go against you on this, Bottle.

One divergence from a party line(even a relatively major one) doesn't mean anything. How many conservative republicans support stem cell research? Is Arlen Specter a RINO suddenly because he opposes presidential abuses of power? Mary Cheney is a Republican. Just because most republicans support anti-gay marriage bills and proposals doesn't mean she's somehow two-faced because she opposes them. I think many people(including possibly you) are letting the 'Cheney' at the end of her name blind you to the fact that she's a person with her own political agenda and when you have a choice between the party equivalents of McDonald's and Burger King, sometimes you have to wince, and go with McDonald's because at least they have tasty fries. :p

Whle I agree with your last sentence, I think you're being rather harsh, don't you think? Dick Cheney has taken a lot of heat for supporting his daughter. More than any man should have to. And considering what an evil megalomaniacal mastermind he is, I think it says a lot about all the assholes and morons who disown their gay children.

Anybody who is a bigger dick than Dick Cheney is beyond redemption. :p

Even Darth Vader retained a fondness for his son. And Dick Cheney (no joking here) is himself a proponent of the Dark Side. But of course Vader was eventually redeemed. Perhaps the day will come when he will throw Dubya into a nuclear reactor interupting his speech about the supposed threat to the American way of life posed by monogamous homsexual couples.

We had a thread about people like Mary Cheney a while back. I believe an agreement was reached to call these gay uncle Toms "pastor Teds". It needs to spread.

I'm going to start a thread for an official list of "Pastor Teds."

Don't you remember the good old days of how marriage used to be? Marriage should be between one man one woman, two cows, five goats, and ten acres of real estate. Let's face it, "traditional" marriage is a fictional thing. Even today, many "traditional" marriages are essentially business arrangements between two fathers with absolutely no element of love involved. As recently as a century ago, the vast majority of marriages fit this mold. So, to call gay marriage an insult to tradition is to misunderstand the issue. Unless we want mandatory dowries, let's stop claiming to preserve "traditions" as an excuse to oppress people.

And, given the oft-cited statistic that a child needs both a mother and a father to "develop normally", shouldn't single mothers be forced to remarry the drunken, abusive, adulterous slob they divorced in the first place (or to immediately replace a deceased spouse like a child's favorite puppy)?

As rare as this is, I gotta go against you on this, Bottle.

One divergence from a party line(even a relatively major one) doesn't mean anything. How many conservative republicans support stem cell research? Is Arlen Specter a RINO suddenly because he opposes presidential abuses of power? Mary Cheney is a Republican. Just because most republicans support anti-gay marriage bills and proposals doesn't mean she's somehow two-faced because she opposes them. I think many people(including possibly you) are letting the 'Cheney' at the end of her name blind you to the fact that she's a person with her own political agenda and when you have a choice between the party equivalents of McDonald's and Burger King, sometimes you have to wince, and go with McDonald's because at least they have tasty fries. :p

Arlen Specter will stand up and be very vocal about the things he disagrees with much of his party about, as do many of the Republican senators who support embryonic stem cell research.

I don't think that Bottle is saying there is a problem with Mary Cheney being Republican and opposing some Republican proposals. The problem is that she only pays the smallest amount of lip service to opposing them. She has done more to support Republican candidates who would relegate homosexuals to second class citizenship than she has to support Republican candidates who would oppose such legislation.

If Mary Cheney were a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and actively supported them, that would be one thing. As it is, she gives active support to those who agree with such policy. Her own father fights for such policy. And therein lies the hypocrisy. She doesn't need to fight against this legislation, because her wealth and social position mean that she will never have to deal with the adverse consequences of such legislature. And she does absolutely nothing to stop it - supporting those who would enact it instead.

Mary Cheney is a filthy hyprocrite bitch.

As rare as this is, I gotta go against you on this, Bottle.

One divergence from a party line(even a relatively major one) doesn't mean anything. How many conservative republicans support stem cell research? Is Arlen Specter a RINO suddenly because he opposes presidential abuses of power? Mary Cheney is a Republican. Just because most republicans support anti-gay marriage bills and proposals doesn't mean she's somehow two-faced because she opposes them. I think many people(including possibly you) are letting the 'Cheney' at the end of her name blind you to the fact that she's a person with her own political agenda and when you have a choice between the party equivalents of McDonald's and Burger King, sometimes you have to wince, and go with McDonald's because at least they have tasty fries. :p
No, I simply believe that there are some things that should be deal-breakers.

There are some subjects where you are going to have to compromise. I accept that, and I agree that it's a normal part of politics that we all have to deal with. But there are some subjects that should be automatic deal breakers.

If a candidate agrees with me perfectly on every issue, except for the tiny detail that he advocates re-instituting black slavery, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is perfectly aligned with me except for the fact that she believes all atheists should be deported from the country, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is terrific except for their belief that women should never have gotten the vote, that's a deal breaker. You don't support candidates who view you, or your fellow citizens, as inherently sub-human.

As a gay American, if Mary Cheney had any integrity at all she would consider it a deal breaker when somebody pushes laws and amendments that deny fundamental civil rights to gay citizens. That's a no-fucking-brainer.

But the reason she doesn't is because she knows that HER rights are safe. She knows that she's rich and from a powerful family. She's gonna be fine. So she is prepared to overlook the tiny minor detail that her father's administration is fighting to ensure that gay people are not full citizens. That's pathetic.

No, I simply believe that there are some things that should be deal-breakers.

There are some subjects where you are going to have to compromise. I accept that, and I agree that it's a normal part of politics that we all have to deal with. But there are some subjects that should be automatic deal breakers.

If a candidate agrees with me perfectly on every issue, except for the tiny detail that he advocates re-instituting black slavery, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is perfectly aligned with me except for the fact that she believes all atheists should be deported from the country, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is terrific except for their belief that women should never have gotten the vote, that's a deal breaker. You don't support candidates who view you, or your fellow citizens, as inherently sub-human.

As a gay American, if Mary Cheney had any integrity at all she would consider it a deal breaker when somebody pushes laws and amendments that deny fundamental civil rights to gay citizens. That's a no-fucking-brainer.

But the reason she doesn't is because she knows that HER rights are safe. She knows that she's rich and from a powerful family. She's gonna be fine. So she is prepared to overlook the tiny minor detail that her father's administration is fighting to ensure that gay people are not full citizens. That's pathetic.

Bottle, you sum it up perfectly. The problem is that she knows she's above reproach and will not have a problem. For those who do not have her connections or money they are just SOL. She does this knowing full well that other gay and lesbian couples are under assault from the religious right and many member of her own party. If someone said, "all blacks will be returned to slavery" and your husband or wife was black, what would you do? Supporting an organization that discriminates against the core of your being is the height of hypocrisy. The daily show and Chrissy Gephart nailed it last night. I repeat that the "gift from God" thing is still a crock of shit. Did her partner impregnate her? Does her partner produce sperm? Then it would be asymmetrical to the natural laws of God and biology. Once again, I support families of any two loving individuals raising a child, but cut the bullshit here. What she is doing is saying "what is right for me is just tough cookies for the rest of you. My father and the President want not allow you to have exactly what I have." Marriage is not sacred in America, even Michael Jackson got married and had kids for Christ's sake. Brittany Spears got married twice and has two kids. Getting married and having children in America merely requires a pulse and working reproductive organs.

Arlen Specter will stand up and be very vocal about the things he disagrees with much of his party about, as do many of the Republican senators who support embryonic stem cell research.

I don't think that Bottle is saying there is a problem with Mary Cheney being Republican and opposing some Republican proposals. The problem is that she only pays the smallest amount of lip service to opposing them. She has done more to support Republican candidates who would relegate homosexuals to second class citizenship than she has to support Republican candidates who would oppose such legislation.

If Mary Cheney were a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and actively supported them, that would be one thing. As it is, she gives active support to those who agree with such policy. Her own father fights for such policy. And therein lies the hypocrisy. She doesn't need to fight against this legislation, because her wealth and social position mean that she will never have to deal with the adverse consequences of such legislature. And she does absolutely nothing to stop it - supporting those who would enact it instead.

I was under the impression that Dick Cheney opposd such legislation also. :confused:

I was under the impression that Dick Cheney opposd such legislation also. :confused:

Perhaps, but is passive support anything more than an "also ran?" in the scheme of things. If you have a belief you stand up for it, not wait quietly on the side lines while others attack what you believe.

No, I simply believe that there are some things that should be deal-breakers.

There are some subjects where you are going to have to compromise. I accept that, and I agree that it's a normal part of politics that we all have to deal with. But there are some subjects that should be automatic deal breakers.

If a candidate agrees with me perfectly on every issue, except for the tiny detail that he advocates re-instituting black slavery, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is perfectly aligned with me except for the fact that she believes all atheists should be deported from the country, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is terrific except for their belief that women should never have gotten the vote, that's a deal breaker. You don't support candidates who view you, or your fellow citizens, as inherently sub-human.

As a gay American, if Mary Cheney had any integrity at all she would consider it a deal breaker when somebody pushes laws and amendments that deny fundamental civil rights to gay citizens. That's a no-fucking-brainer.

But the reason she doesn't is because she knows that HER rights are safe. She knows that she's rich and from a powerful family. She's gonna be fine. So she is prepared to overlook the tiny minor detail that her father's administration is fighting to ensure that gay people are not full citizens. That's pathetic.

...

...well...

Pfft!

I have no response to this. I guess Mary Cheney is a hypocritical bitch afterall.

Taco? *hands you a taco* :D

Perhaps, but is passive support anything more than an "also ran?" in the scheme of things. If you have a belief you stand up for it, not wait quietly on the side lines while others attack what you believe.

Among politicians, that's a survival trait. :p

mary cheney is not insulated from the harm that anti-gay rights laws do. she still cant marry her lover. her lover still cant be her child's legal parent. if her lover has a baby, mary will never be that child's parent and that child can be removed permanently from her life at her lovers whim.

mary cheney is still dissed by the party she is working for. she gets the same criticism as any unmarried lesbian mother gets. i doubt that even her powerful father keeps certain extreme republicans from shunning her.


the stupid bitch STILL supports them against her own freaking self interest. she makes the calculation that supporting mommy and daddy is more valuable to her than standing up for herself and people like her.

...

...well...

Pfft!

I have no response to this. I guess Mary Cheney is a hypocritical bitch afterall.

Taco? *hands you a taco* :D
Hehe, I'm just glad to find that we are still on the same side (as usual).

*Munch, munch*

LG always has the bestest munchies...

I was under the impression that Dick Cheney opposd such legislation also. :confused:

Not that I've seen. I have yet to see him speak out against such legislation, while being a part of an administration that actively pushes for it. When asked about it, he usually gets uppity and says he doesn't want to talk about it.

He may personally oppose such legislation, but when it comes to politics, all he has done is support it.

mary cheney is not insulated from the harm that anti-gay rights laws do. she still cant marry her lover. her lover still cant be her child's legal parent. if her lover has a baby, mary will never be that child's parent and that child can be removed permanently from her life at her lovers whim.

Highly unlikely. A person with the kind of money Mary Cheney has and the kind of political pull that her family has won't be affected by any of that. Her partner may not be married to her, but they aren't going to have to worry about being denied access to each other if one is in the hospital or being denied inheritance. Nobody is going to try to go up against Mary Cheney and the Cheney family on that.

It's a sad fact, but those with money and influence are always insulated from such situations - and thus often think they are unimportant.

mary cheney is still dissed by the party she is working for. she gets the same criticism as any unmarried lesbian mother gets. i doubt that even her powerful father keeps certain extreme republicans from shunning her.

the stupid bitch STILL supports them against her own freaking self interest. she makes the calculation that supporting mommy and daddy is more valuable to her than standing up for herself and people like her.

Indeed.

Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question?
When have the republicans ever claimed that gay people shouldn't be allowed to have children?

They've argued it should be discouraged, but never prohibited. As such, when one does (Mary), she's just another mother. While the republicans might feel that society would be better if fewer gays had children, they have never gone so far as to argue it should be forbidden.

Even Darth Vader retained a fondness for his son. And Dick Cheney (no joking here) is himself a proponent of the Dark Side. But of course Vader was eventually redeemed. Perhaps the day will come when he will throw Dubya into a nuclear reactor interupting his speech about the supposed threat to the American way of life posed by monogamous homsexual couples.

I've always said Bush was Jar-Jar Binks. The inarticulate bumpkin who somehow managed to elect true evil into power despite all natural laws.

When have the republicans ever claimed that gay people shouldn't be allowed to have children?

They've argued it should be discouraged, but never prohibited. As such, when one does (Mary), she's just another mother. While the republicans might feel that society would be better if fewer gays had children, they have never gone so far as to argue it should be forbidden.

Well, she's not really "just another mother". Despite the fact that her child is just as much a child as any other, her child will be entitled to less legal protections. One of said child's parents will not be able to fully care for her, and she can be ripped from her home if her biological mother dies, despite the fact that she has another parent.

Now, this isn't going to happen to Mary Cheney specifically. If she died, her money and family influence could make absolutely certain that her child remained with her partner and that her partner gained full custody of the child. Other couples don't have such options.

The Republicans may not argue that it should be forbidden, but they do advocate policies that make it much more difficult for homosexuals to raise children - and offer those children much less legal protection.

Well, she's not really "just another mother". Despite the fact that her child is just as much a child as any other, her child will be entitled to less legal protections. One of said child's parents will not be able to fully care for her, and she can be ripped from her home if her biological mother dies, despite the fact that she has another parent.

Now, this isn't going to happen to Mary Cheney specifically. If she died, her money and family influence could make absolutely certain that her child remained with her partner and that her partner gained full custody of the child. Other couples don't have such options.

The Republicans may not argue that it should be forbidden, but they do advocate policies that make it much more difficult for homosexuals to raise children - and offer those children much less legal protection.

I'd call something like that the Strom Thurmond Clause: It applies to every one of their kind, except your own kids.

Hmm... I tend to think the opposite, "God is an issue for Childern, not a gift for Polticians.

Well, she's not really "just another mother". Despite the fact that her child is just as much a child as any other, her child will be entitled to less legal protections. One of said child's parents will not be able to fully care for her, and she can be ripped from her home if her biological mother dies, despite the fact that she has another parent.

Now, this isn't going to happen to Mary Cheney specifically. If she died, her money and family influence could make absolutely certain that her child remained with her partner and that her partner gained full custody of the child. Other couples don't have such options.

The Republicans may not argue that it should be forbidden, but they do advocate policies that make it much more difficult for homosexuals to raise children - and offer those children much less legal protection.

OR

if mary cheney died, her powerful family could decide to take the child away from the only other parent it has on the grounds that only THEY are blood relatives.

OR

if mary cheney died, her powerful family could decide to take the child away from the only other parent it has on the grounds that only THEY are blood relatives.

Perhaps, but it would be very public and very messy and would highlight the problems with their political position - something they'd be unlikely to want to do.

With someone more anonymous, on the other hand, who notices?

Well, she's not really "just another mother". Despite the fact that her child is just as much a child as any other, her child will be entitled to less legal protections. One of said child's parents will not be able to fully care for her, and she can be ripped from her home if her biological mother dies, despite the fact that she has another parent.
And that's a major problem with the way adoption rules work, but it's not really relevant.
The Republicans may not argue that it should be forbidden, but they do advocate policies that make it much more difficult for homosexuals to raise children - and offer those children much less legal protection.
As I said, the republicans favour discouraging child-rearing by gay parents. But they're not expressly stopping them, and as such they have not contradicted themselves, here.

As it happens, I disagree with the republicans on this issue. I see no reason why heterosexual couples (specifically married couples - another complaint I have) should have special powers when compared to other citizens.

And that's a major problem with the way adoption rules work, but it's not really relevant.

Of course it's relevant. She's not "just another mother." She's a lesbian mother. As such, those controlling the Republican party think that she and her children are entitled to less legal protection than any other mother and her child. (so long as said lesbian mother isn't Dick Cheney's daughter)

As I said, the republicans favour discouraging child-rearing by gay parents. But they're not expressly stopping them, and as such they have not contradicted themselves, here.

You don't have to expressly stop something to be working very hard to stop it - and thus interfering with the rights of the populace. Jim Crow laws didn't expressly stop black people from voting, but one would hardly say that they didn't remove the rights of black citizens.

As it happens, I disagree with the republicans on this issue. I see no reason why heterosexual couples (specifically married couples - another complaint I have) should have special powers when compared to other citizens.

I'm glad you disagree.

The OP is borderline nonsensical, but the quote itself is incredibly off.

Even if we postulate the existence of a deity, a child is certainly not a gift from him, unless we're talking immaculate conception. It's the natural byproduct of unprotected heterosexual intercourse.

And a child is often a political issue, on any side of the political spectrum. The right wants to protect what it sees as children's rights by challenging abortion, and the left protects what it sees as children's rights by supporting social welfare and education. Then of course there's the loony(-er?) right that wants to keep children out of the hands of the evil gays. It's all political. Humanity is political.

(so long as said lesbian mother isn't Dick Cheney's daughter)
We don't know that.
You don't have to expressly stop something to be working very hard to stop it - and thus interfering with the rights of the populace. Jim Crow laws didn't expressly stop black people from voting, but one would hardly say that they didn't remove the rights of black citizens.
No one's claiming they're not enganged in significant social engineering, here. The question is, does Dick's acceptance of Mary's child contradict the party's opinion? And I don't think it does.

We don't know that.

One thing we can definitely say about our country is that money and influence get you around all sorts of legal and social obstacles. Always have.

No one's claiming they're not enganged in significant social engineering, here. The question is, does Dick's acceptance of Mary's child contradict the party's opinion? And I don't think it does.

The fact that he'd most likely be perfectly willing to provide that child (and that child only) with all the protections of a child born to a heterosexual woman does.

Would, "Hey, we like this black person, so we should let him vote even if he doesn't meet the Jim Crow standards," have contradicted the opinions of those who enacted such laws?

<snip>

Would, "Hey, we like this black person, so we should let him vote even if he doesn't meet the Jim Crow standards," have contradicted the opinions of those who enacted such laws?
This is precisely the point. The Cheney stance (and they are not the only political family caught in this dilemma) is unavoidably hypocritical, for both Dick and Mary.

We cannot know what Dick Cheney really, personally thinks about gay rights, and we cannot know what Mary Cheney really, personally thinks about the Republican right wing's attitudes towards gay rights. What we can know is that both of them gain personal benefit from supporting a party faction that opposes equal rights for gays. The right wing supports the kind of pro-business politics that made and keep Dick richer than hell and connected to power. And not to put to fine a point on things, Mary stands to inherit a significant share of that wealth as long as daddy doesn't disinherit her. Dick obviously is not going to disown his daughter over her sexuality, but if she did something that undermined his political/financial ambitions? Possibly, he wouldn't even then, but if any of us were Mary, what would our assumption be?

It seems clear to me that Dick is willing to sacrifice his daughter's rights for the sake of his own power base, and that Mary is willing to sacrifice her own rights and those of all American gays for the sake of keeping in good with daddy. Neither one of them really gives a rat's ass about the rights of citizens. That much father and daughter have in common, and that and a total lack of personal integrity seem to be defining traits of the Cheneys.

We had a thread about people like Mary Cheney a while back. I believe an agreement was reached to call these gay uncle Toms "pastor Teds". It needs to spread.

Personally, I prefer a term that I heard in the movie Malcolm X. Back in the slavery days, it wasn't uncommon for plantation owners to have one or more slaves who worked in the house and got to live inside (albiet in some dingy room in the basement or attic). They would delude themselves into thinking they were better-off than all of the slaves working in the fields. They'd talk about "our house." But get right down to it, and they were still just another slave in the eyes of the whites; not equals, not people. To the slaves in the fields, though, they were something worse. They called the deluded sell-outs "house niggers." So, that's what I like to call people like Mary Cheney. She's deluded herself into thinking that because her daddy happens to protect her from the lousy treatment that his privileged buddies dish out to the rest of 'her kind,' that there isn't a problem, that she isn't in fact a second-class citizen. Thinks that because she's shielded from the inequities showered on 'all those other dykes,' that everything's okay and that no one should call attention to it because then the bubble would burst. Anyone points out how unjust it is, then the delicate web of crap shielding her would get pulled apart and she might end up 'out in the fields' picking cotton and getting whipped. It makes me sick. I'd *love* to hear that some bureaucrat with no idea who she was sent her packing as just another dirty lesbo and it was all over CNN, see her try and say that it's "inappropriate."

My apologies. I was typing quickly on a lunch break.

Point 1: Gay and lesbian people could make great parents.

Point 2: Supporting someone who wishes to repress your rights is just idiotic.

Point 3: The father and daughter acting like this issue is not in stark contrast to the political posturing of their beloved party is just laughable and at worst asshattery.

You know, belonging to a political party shouldn't mean that you are subsumed completely into the Overmind. There are plenty of people who belong to a political party and yet retain their own opinions on some of the issues.

As much as I despise Cheney -- supporting his daughter makes him human.

You know, belonging to a political party shouldn't mean that you are subsumed completely into the Overmind. There are plenty of people who belong to a political party and yet retain their own opinions on some of the issues.

As much as I despise Cheney -- supporting his daughter makes him human.

How much is he supporting her? Personally, he's probably doing a lot, but he's a man of significant political power, and his party, over which he holds no little sway, considers his daughter an abomination and works to pass legislation which consigns her and others like her to second class status at best, criminals at worst. I hate to be cliche and drop the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" line on him, but it's apt here. You can't be a leader and expect to dodge questions of personal and political hypocrisy.

Mary Cheney is a lousy human being.

There, I said it.

Mary Cheney knows that HER baby will grow up safe and rich. Mary Cheney knows that HER baby is going to enjoy all the legal and financial protections it needs, even if its mommies can't get legally married. Mary Cheney knows that HER legal rights to her child will be protected, because she's more than able to hire as many high-priced lawyers as are needed to do so.

So Mary Cheney is more than willing to stand by and support an administration that violates countless other gay families. She's more than willing to let other people's children suffer, because she knows that her privaledged position protects her and her family. She mouths empty sentiments about "opposing" anti-gay marriage bills, but she openly supports the people who push them. She knows that her rights are safe, so she doesn't give a fuck about the rights of all the other gay parents and couples out there.

It's the classic "good for me, but not for thee" mentality of the right wing these days. It's pathetic.

Absolutely! If her daddy wasn't the vice president, didn't have the money and power to keep her shielded from the treatment that his buddies and sponsors would happily dish out, then she might find herself having to grow enough of a backbone to actually take a principled stand. As it is, she's just another pampered traitor to her kind. When the just revolution comes and the oppressors and bigots and exploiters are lined up against the wall, I'd say put her right next to her dad. Maybe he'd shield her then, too. Luckily there'll always be another bullet. Tolerate no collaboration.

How much is he supporting her? Personally, he's probably doing a lot, but he's a man of significant political power, and his party, over which he holds no little sway, considers his daughter an abomination and works to pass legislation which consigns her and others like her to second class status at best, criminals at worst. I hate to be cliche and drop the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" line on him, but it's apt here. You can't be a leader and expect to dodge questions of personal and political hypocrisy.
For truely, all men quake and tremble at the raw, unrestrained, planet-moving forces that an elderly vice-president and his lesbo-liability control.
Or perhaps acting the way certain posters here would want him too would only serve to destroy his career without making one person (gay or straight) the slightest bit better off. Especially since, since the anti-gay rhetoric is just an attempt to mobilize the Republican-base, and it never actually goes anywhere.

Absolutely! If her daddy wasn't the vice president, didn't have the money and power to keep her shielded from the treatment that his buddies and sponsors would happily dish out, then she might find herself having to grow enough of a backbone to actually take a principled stand. As it is, she's just another pampered traitor to her kind. When the just revolution comes and the oppressors and bigots and exploiters are lined up against the wall, I'd say put her right next to her dad. Maybe he'd shield her then, too. Luckily there'll always be another bullet. Tolerate no collaboration.

Using fascist methods to battle oppression? I can't see that going well. You'd just create an even more hypocritical USA. I would rather not have my country being a democratic socialist hypocracy after dealing with a republican corporatist hypocracy. Talk about trading the frying pan for the fire.

As rare as this is, I gotta go against you on this, Bottle.

One divergence from a party line(even a relatively major one) doesn't mean anything. How many conservative republicans support stem cell research? Is Arlen Specter a RINO suddenly because he opposes presidential abuses of power? Mary Cheney is a Republican. Just because most republicans support anti-gay marriage bills and proposals doesn't mean she's somehow two-faced because she opposes them. I think many people(including possibly you) are letting the 'Cheney' at the end of her name blind you to the fact that she's a person with her own political agenda and when you have a choice between the party equivalents of McDonald's and Burger King, sometimes you have to wince, and go with McDonald's because at least they have tasty fries. :p

Buying the McDonalds because you think it's the lesser of two evils is one thing. Appearing in a commercial for them and saying "mmm, eat McDonalds!" while gagging on one shit pickle that they put in your burger is another. It makes you disingenuous, it makes you a liar. And when someone calls it-- says "but doesn't McDonalds have some real quality control issues where sometimes they use some pretty lousy pickles"-- and you jump in to denounce that as an "inappropriate" question, then you're a special breed of sell-out. If she feels the need to vote Republican because she "is" a Republican, fine. But sticking up for them when they get into office on the backs of gay people-- getting out the vote on the basis of fag-bashing amendments-- is dispicable.

For truely, all men quake and tremble at the raw, unrestrained, planet-moving forces that an elderly vice-president and his lesbo-liability control.
Or perhaps acting the way certain posters here would want him too would only serve to destroy his career without making one person (gay or straight) the slightest bit better off. Especially since, since the anti-gay rhetoric is just an attempt to mobilize the Republican-base, and it never actually goes anywhere.
Tell that to the gay people living in those states which have passed marriage bans so restrictive that they preclude sharing things like health insurance benefits even when the company one of the partner works offers it for domestic partners.

her kind
"Her kind"? Her kind?
Since when did she sign your club's little book? At what point did she pledge loyalty to the Great God of Homosexual Unity? The only "kind" she has are her family, girlfriend and child, and so she is showing perfect loyalty to her "kind."
You, however, are not one of "her kind", you're just an angry little rhetorician with a persecution complex and a need to belong so great that you've built this magical idea of Gay Unity in your head.

"Her kind"? Her kind?
Since when did she sign your club's little book? At what point did she pledge loyalty to the Great God of Homosexual Unity? The only "kind" she has are her family, girlfriend and child, and so she is showing perfect loyalty to her "kind."
You, however, are not one of "her kind", you're just an angry little rhetorician with a persecution complex and a need to belong so great that you've built this magical idea of Gay Unity in your head.

No, you're right on one thing-- I'm not one of "her kind." However in my initial usage of the term, I meant it in the way that the oppressors frame it. To the fag basher, a dyke is a dyke is a dyke, there are no "good lesbians" and "bad lesbians," there are just "her kind," and when you don't have the sense to realise that there are people out there who hate you-- and everyone that they lump in with you on the basis of some characteristic-- then you need to wake the fuck up. That's how I was framing "her kind." "Her kind" as in all the dirty dykes and fags who-- regardless of whether or not we see ourselves as united, whether or not we're some monolith, whether or not we have a common cause or whether we can't stand each other half of the time-- the bigots that she's tacitly supporting would like to see shipped off to some change ministry or a big bullseye shaped island. "Her kind" as in "she's just another individual person with her own views and biases, but they have painted the exact same bullseye on her back as they have on every other unrepentant gay person's back. That's "her kind." But as for your usage of it, no, she isn't "one of us" because she's too dense, too coddled and pampered to feel threatened even though she parties with people who'd happily see her exiled or killed. Take away her family's money and they'd never even let her in the door with her 'dyke partner' and their 'poor abused child.' Frankly I'd rather not have anything to do with her.

As for me and my 'persocution complex' and my 'delusions of unity.' It isn't a complex when the persocution's real. Were the jews in Nazi Germany having a 'persocution complex?' Did black people 'imagine' their oppression, or the desirability of being able to present a common front against it? Trust me, I know better than to think that every other homo out there is on the same page as me. Some of them are illiterate or too fucked up on poppers to care about reading. Some of them think that just because they personally haven't been gay bashed (yet) that there's no one left out there who'd happily beat them to a pulp and leave them for dead. Think that because they've had the fortune of getting an apartment and not getting fired from their job and not having been spit on so far means that the fight's over. They think that because they've found safe harbour in some pretty gay ghetto that there aren't streets where they'll get killed for walking down it holding hands with their partners. So no, I know those ones are out there and that I can't expect them to raise their voice over anything, because they think the discussion's done. But there are also those-- your derided 'rhetoriticians'-- who know that the bigotry is still there, that we are under threat, and wish that there was more of a united front. There is no magical unity; what there is is the *need* for unity, hammered out, built with work and education, not some magic fucking wand.

How about this: if you haven't ever worried about getting fired for being gay, if you haven't ever counted shadows on the sidewalk and felt hypervigilant for gay-bashers in the bushes, and if you haven't ever heard some hate-mongering preacher with a devoted congregation numbering in the thousands given the microphone to say how he supports the government because 'its values are in line with ours,' or if you haven't grown up hearing stories about your people being lynched, or gassed, or burned, if you haven't felt under threat, then you don't claim to presume to speak with any authority about persocution.

Using fascist methods to battle oppression? I can't see that going well. You'd just create an even more hypocritical USA. I would rather not have my country being a democratic socialist hypocracy after dealing with a republican corporatist hypocracy. Talk about trading the frying pan for the fire.

I'm not talking about some one-sided purge that hands the world on a plate to the other radical extreme, I'm talking about excising a malignant tumor to save the healthy surrounding tissue. It isn't a matter of shooting everyone who ever disagreed with me. But people have a sovereign right to defend themselves. If you just want to live your life unoppressed, treated like a human being, and someone who thinks that you're subhuman picks a fight with you, and they're relentless-- you *know* that they're going to keep coming for you as long as they're alive-- then I say you're justified in letting them reap what they sow. If they want you dead and won't accept a comprimise, you have to kill then, and that doesn't make you 'as bad as them'-- and it sure as hell doesn't make you worse-- if they're the ones who started it by coming after you when you just wanted to live your life. But for argument's sake, what alternative would you propose? Should the citizens who are oppressed in an unjust state just shut up and deal with it, because trying to overthrow their oppressors might be 'too disruptive?' And what, it necessarily follows that they couldn't work towards a middle-ground in the aftermath? Suppose there was a popular uprising in Iran to overthrow the oppressive theocratic regime-- is that to be condemned because the only possible alternative would be the 'other extreme,' some wanton godless democracy? Personally I don't think egalitarians taking over would be so quick to throw their principles by the wayside and become 'freedom facists.'

As for the methods of achieving change; if you categorically rule out using the weapon of the enemy to overthrow the enemy, then you can never hope to survive, let alone to win. If you won't even entertain the notion of using force to upend a regime that stands on force, that abuses force, that only understands force, then you deny yourself any opportunity to ever effect change. Because while you're idealistically pussyfooting around, they'll be busy exterminating you as only they know how to do. So to say that using a gun to oust a facist who relies on guns to maintain authority invalidates your cause... well again, what alternative do you propose? A frikken hunger strike? Because yeah, he'll feel *real* bad as you waste away. Might even bring in a violin player and have them shot.

As for me and my 'persocution complex' and my 'delusions of unity.'
Normally I might feel the need to defend my point about your delusions, but, I think what comes next says it all:
It isn't a complex when the persocution's real. Were the jews in Nazi Germany having a 'persocution complex?' Did black people 'imagine' their oppression, or the desirability of being able to present a common front against it?
Exaggerate much? You really think your struggle compares to people who were systematically imprisoned, disenfranchised and murdered? Just because a few dozen states don't want you to get married and the pastor down the street can be really cruel sometimes?
It may not be a complex when the presecution's real, but it certainly is a complex when you feel the need to pretend that the Fourth Reich is lurking around every corner just so you can justify this silly sense of outrage.
How about this: if you haven't ever worried about getting fired for being gay, if you haven't ever counted shadows on the sidewalk and felt hypervigilant for gay-bashers in the bushes, and if you haven't ever heard some hate-mongering preacher with a devoted congregation numbering in the thousands given the microphone to say how he supports the government because 'its values are in line with ours,' or if you haven't grown up hearing stories about your people being lynched, or gassed, or burned, if you haven't felt under threat, then you don't claim to presume to speak with any authority about persocution.
And you think that just because you happen to like penii more than I you have a monopoly on paranoia? It doesn't matter what your sexuality, race or religion happens to be, there is someone out there who would happily beat you to a pulp for having it. So I guess that means we all "need" unity, right? Then the Black Homosexuals can finally carry out their holy war on the White Anarcha-Feminists, I only hope that they don't run out of walls to throw people against.

At least your sexuality is legal and mainstream enough to base sitcoms around, people don't even bother to preach against mine.

Exaggerate much? You really think your struggle compares to people who were systematically imprisoned, disenfranchised and murdered? Just because a few dozen states don't want you to get married and the pastor down the street can be really cruel sometimes?
Way to understate what homosexuals have had to endure over the last hundred years at least. You really ought to just stick to snark, because when you try to actually debate, you come off as, well, less than informed. I'm not saying that Gay Street Militia isn't overstating his case--just that you're guilty of the other extreme.

Way to understate what homosexuals have had to endure over the last hundred years at least. You really ought to just stick to snark, because when you try to actually debate, you come off as, well, less than informed. I'm not saying that Gay Street Militia isn't overstating his case--just that you're guilty of the other extreme.
Find me a Gay Plantation, Gay Death Camp, or Will Truman Law in the US, then I'll be willing to accept that one can make those sorts of comparisons. Until then, those claims are not only wrong, but should be considered insulting to the millions of people who fought and died to oppose real oppression.

Find me a Gay Plantation, Gay Death Camp, or Will Truman Law in the US, then I'll be willing to accept that one can make those sorts of comparisons. Until then, those claims are not only wrong, but should be considered insulting to the millions of people who fought and died to oppose real oppression.

Suck up the snot that's hanging from your nose, Spotty.

Find me a Gay Plantation, Gay Death Camp, or Will Truman Law in the US, then I'll be willing to accept that one can make those sorts of comparisons. Until then, those claims are not only wrong, but should be considered insulting to the millions of people who fought and died to oppose real oppression.

How about examples of people who literally got away with murder simply because their victims were gay? Hey, I can give you examples of that from within the last decade. How about people being denied jobs or housing or being beaten by cops simply because they're gay and open? Same deal. Just because you don't personally find any similarities between the two examples doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you're not as smart as you imagine you are.

Suck up the snot that's hanging from your nose, Spotty.
Given that adolescents are far more given to imagining themselves the target of oppression, rather than pointing out that such imaginations are wild exaggerations, I find your comment most perplexing.
If anything, I should hope you would fit me into the "crochety old man who hates life"-stereotype, as it would match my brand of indignation far better.
Still, everyone loves acne jokes, so I'll let you slip by with a C-.

Given that adolescents are far more given to imagining themselves the target of oppression, rather than pointing out that such imaginations are wild exaggerations, I find your comment most perplexing.
If anything, I should hope you would fit me into the "crochety old man who hates life"-stereotype, as it would match my brand of indignation far better.
Still, everyone loves acne jokes, so I'll let you slip by with a C-.

Like I said--you're much better with snark. Stick with your strengths, Fiddles.

I don't particularly think Mary Cheney is an awful person, except insofar as any Republican who still supports Bush is. She seems to be an unsaintly person in a tight bind, who quite reasonably would rather just people leave her alone.

It seems to me that there are plenty of reasons a Republican could find to support her party despite its anti-gay stance, and it is hardly hypocrisy to do so.

How about examples of people who literally got away with murder simply because their victims were gay? Hey, I can give you examples of that from within the last decade. How about people being denied jobs or housing or being beaten by cops simply because they're gay and open? Same deal. Just because you don't personally find any similarities between the two examples doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you're not as smart as you imagine you are.
Then he should compare his plight to that of the Roma in Europe, but we still haven't reached the level of "systematic disenfranchisement accompanied by death squads and forced labor." Keep trying, though, I really have nothing else to do for the next couple hours.

I don't particularly think Mary Cheney is an awful person, except insofar as any Republican who still supports Bush is. She seems to be an unsaintly person in a tight bind, who quite reasonably would rather just people leave her alone.

It seems to me that there are plenty of reasons a Republican could find to support her party despite its anti-gay stance, and it is hardly hypocrisy to do so.

If she were simply trying to be a private individual, I'd be inclined to agree, but Mary Cheney is a political activist working in the public sphere, and so opens herself up to this kind of scrutiny.

Then he should compare his plight to that of the Roma in Europe, but we still haven't reached the level of "systematic disenfranchisement accompanied by death squads and forced labor." Keep trying, though, I really have nothing else to do for the next couple hours.

Does it really matter?

Is there an "acceptable" level of oppression that we are supposed to tolerate?

If she were simply trying to be a private individual, I'd be inclined to agree, but Mary Cheney is a political activist working in the public sphere, and so opens herself up to this kind of scrutiny.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that certain conclusions from that scrutiny aren't unfair. Especially considering that she was willing to become pregnant even though she had to know that it would invite attacks from the reactionary homophobic right and that it would cause criticism of the Bush Administration.

Does it really matter?

Is there an "acceptable" level of oppression that we are supposed to tolerate?
When the only alternatives appear to be "join a fanatical movement and try to base your entire existence off of loyalty to it" or "get on with your own life in the best way you know how"; I'd say that, yes, there reaches a point when the sane people (ie Mary) set off on a different course from the deranged (ie GSM).

I'm not talking about some one-sided purge that hands the world on a plate to the other radical extreme, I'm talking about excising a malignant tumor to save the healthy surrounding tissue.

Mmmm, smells like closet fascism.

It isn't a matter of shooting everyone who ever disagreed with me. But people have a sovereign right to defend themselves.

The execution of Ms. Cheney ain't defending yourself, not by a long shot.

If you just want to live your life unoppressed, treated like a human being, and someone who thinks that you're subhuman picks a fight with you, and they're relentless-- you *know* that they're going to keep coming for you as long as they're alive-- then I say you're justified in letting them reap what they sow. If they want you dead and won't accept a comprimise, you have to kill then, and that doesn't make you 'as bad as them'-- and it sure as hell doesn't make you worse-- if they're the ones who started it by coming after you when you just wanted to live your life.

If you get a gun and shoot someone who tries to knife you because you like to get it on with somebody of the same sex, go for it. I'm very much in favor of self-defense.

But that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about having a political execution of a young woman because you think her party affiliation makes her a traitor to the revolution. That sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?

But for argument's sake, what alternative would you propose? Should the citizens who are oppressed in an unjust state just shut up and deal with it, because trying to overthrow their oppressors might be 'too disruptive?' And what, it necessarily follows that they couldn't work towards a middle-ground in the aftermath? Suppose there was a popular uprising in Iran to overthrow the oppressive theocratic regime-- is that to be condemned because the only possible alternative would be the 'other extreme,' some wanton godless democracy?

Here's what I suggest. Instead of a violent revolution followed by a series of executions, how about we get more young, liberal-minded voters to participate in the political process so we can get folks elected who will fight for equality. We can at the same time fight the battle for legalizing same-sex marriages in the court systems of various states, and protest anti-homosexual laws. I'm working on the getting folks to vote part.

It's funny, for someone who's accusing me of not aknowledging more than two extreme options, you sure are leaving out a fair amount of ground between "kill all the bigots" and "submit to oppression".

Personally I don't think egalitarians taking over would be so quick to throw their principles by the wayside and become 'freedom facists.'

I very much agree that most wouldn't. Unfortunately, given what you've said here, it seems there's at least one person who would.

As for the methods of achieving change; if you categorically rule out using the weapon of the enemy to overthrow the enemy, then you can never hope to survive, let alone to win. If you won't even entertain the notion of using force to upend a regime that stands on force, that abuses force, that only understands force, then you deny yourself any opportunity to ever effect change. Because while you're idealistically pussyfooting around, they'll be busy exterminating you as only they know how to do. So to say that using a gun to oust a facist who relies on guns to maintain authority invalidates your cause... well again, what alternative do you propose? A frikken hunger strike? Because yeah, he'll feel *real* bad as you waste away. Might even bring in a violin player and have them shot.

If your enemy was using guns against you, I'd say fire right back at him. But he's not. What he's using is political power. So turn the political participation on him and see how he likes it if you're so interested in overthrowing him.

When the only alternatives appear to be "join a fanatical movement and try to base your entire existence off of loyalty to it" or "get on with your own life in the best way you know how"; I'd say that, yes, there reaches a point when the sane people (ie Mary) set off on a different course from the deranged (ie GSM).

But those aren't the only alternatives, and you fucking well know it. You act as though they are so you can play Mister "All you people are idiots and I'm the only one here who seems to recognize that fact." It's a pathetic act, and it has been for a long time.

"join a fanatical movement and try to base your entire existence off of loyalty to it"

I don't think that that's what he said.

He said that she shouldn't be willing to collaborate with the homophobes in the Republican Party, and he has a point.

What is this thread really about?

Normally I might feel the need to defend my point about your delusions, but, I think what comes next says it all:

Exaggerate much? You really think your struggle compares to people who were systematically imprisoned, disenfranchised and murdered? Just because a few dozen states don't want you to get married and the pastor down the street can be really cruel sometimes?
It may not be a complex when the presecution's real, but it certainly is a complex when you feel the need to pretend that the Fourth Reich is lurking around every corner just so you can justify this silly sense of outrage.

First off, let's help you lose those rose coloured glasses of yours. "Systematically imprisoned;" there are still anti-sodomy laws in parts of the US that can and do get abused by authorities to *selectively* harass gay people. There are plenty of jurisdictions where campaigns to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes and anti-discrimination legislation mean that's still legal to discriminate against them, and 'no big deal' to assault them for being gay. That *is* "systematic disinfranchisement," to a tee. And gay people are still murdered, and their killers get off (or get lghter sentences, at any rate) because they argue that "they fag hit on me" and they panicked, and that they were temporarily insane or some bullshit. And that's just here in the "civilised" Western world. In other parts of the world, governments execute people for being gay, and you don't see them getting invaded to "liberate them" from their "oppressive regime." Do you know what 'tacit approval' is? Have you ever even heard the phrase "silence lands consent?" Your upright, virtuous country where fags should feel lucky because they 'have it so good' stands by and lets it happen, because really, that part doesn't bother its leaders all that much. Just homos hanging from the gallows, no big deal.

And you think that if gay people were easier to identify, and the fag-bashers on this side of the pond got their golden opportunity, that they wouldn't escalate things? You think they'd be-- what-- content with 'just' a marriage ban? If they had their way, the oppression *would* be even more 'systematic.' You think that because they aren't confident that they'd all get away with murder (like some of them have), that they don't all think about it? You think that splitting hairs over how much of their hatred they've had the leeway to implement negates their intention?

And you think that just because you happen to like penii more than I you have a monopoly on paranoia? It doesn't matter what your sexuality, race or religion happens to be, there is someone out there who would happily beat you to a pulp for having it. So I guess that means we all "need" unity, right? Then the Black Homosexuals can finally carry out their holy war on the White Anarcha-Feminists, I only hope that they don't run out of walls to throw people against.


Oh I'm sorry, I forgot how hard done by the white hetero male is. In my selflish furor I didn't notice that they don't get their way 100% of the time and what a hardship that is for them. It slipped my mind the awful injustices they've suffered at the hands of those in power during... what... was there an imaginary ten minutes somewhere that a gay black feminist president was menacing them with a whip? Those with privilege always feel *so* wronged, so maligned and bereaved, whenever they're told they have to either share the pedastal or get down on the ground with everyone else. Losing your favoured position is *such* a hardship. No wonder proponents of change are so vigourously undermined, because to create equality where inequality has reigned means someone-- generally those *with* the resources to oppose it-- has to give something up. It's why there isn't even perfect solidarity doesn't exist among gay people, because our minority cuts across all kinds of other minorities with grievances of their own.

I'm sure I'll get flak for 'co-opting' a 'real, legitimate' minority group but as King put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."

:D I hope that one day all the world will be gay. and subsequently one day this planet will be free of humans again. Oh what a bright future that would be... no more fussing about anybody's "rights" and shit...

I don't think that that's what he said.

He said that she shouldn't be willing to collaborate with the homophobes in the Republican Party, and he has a point.

Here's my point. She shouldn't be quiet in her opposition to the anti-homosexual sentiments and actions on the part of so many Republicans.

If she wants to collaborate with the Republican Party, I say go for it. They could certainly use more diversity within their ranks. Every openly gay member of the party helps move it a little farther away from homophobia, and I'd say that's a good thing.

Revolution and political executions like TGSM wants, those are not such good things.

But those aren't the only alternatives, and you fucking well know it. You act as though they are so you can play Mister "All you people are idiots and I'm the only one here who seems to recognize that fact." It's a pathetic act, and it has been for a long time.
GSM very clearly stated that anyone who happens to be gay and non-militant is a traitor, in which case I'd have to say "better a traitor than a fascist."
I don't think that that's what he said.
Oh, I'm sorry, the vitriolic speech about throwing everyone who doesn't march to his drum beat against the wall when the revolution comes must have thrown me off a bit.
First off, let's help you lose those rose coloured glasses of yours. "Systematically imprisoned;" there are still anti-sodomy laws in parts of the US that can and do get abused by authorities to *selectively* harass gay people. There are plenty of jurisdictions where campaigns to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes and anti-discrimination legislation mean that's still legal to discriminate against them, and 'no big deal' to assault them for being gay. That *is* "systematic disinfranchisement," to a tee. And gay people are still murdered, and their killers get off (or get lghter sentences, at any rate) because they argue that "they fag hit on me" and they panicked, and that they were temporarily insane or some bullshit. And that's just here in the "civilised" Western world. In other parts of the world, governments execute people for being gay, and you don't see them getting invaded to "liberate them" from their "oppressive regime." Do you know what 'tacit approval' is? Have you ever even heard the phrase "silence lands consent?" Your upright, virtuous country where fags should feel lucky because they 'have it so good' stands by and lets it happen, because really, that part doesn't bother its leaders all that much. Just homos hanging from the gallows, no big deal.
Yeah, and they're hanging from the gallows with Christians, Jews, Kurds, a few dozen African tribes and every other ethnic group imaginable. If you want the US to start liberating foriegn people's from oppressive government, its going to need to take on most of the world.
And you still have yet to point out the Gay Gulags, just seperate incidents where prejudice took hold and screwed someone over. Well, guess what, that happens to everyone else too. Rich, poor, black, mexican, woman or man, you can find a time when someone used an assinine excuse or plea to get away with murder against them.
I'm starting to get tired of your "with us or against us" rhetoric, so I won't even bother replying to that.
And you think that if gay people were easier to identify, and the fag-bashers on this side of the pond got their golden opportunity, that they wouldn't escalate things? You think they'd be-- what-- content with 'just' a marriage ban? If they had their way, the oppression *would* be even more 'systematic.' You think that because they aren't confident that they'd all get away with murder (like some of them have), that they don't all think about it? You think that splitting hairs over how much of their hatred they've had the leeway to implement negates their intention?
"Intention"? Have you any idea how paranoid you're starting to sound? Sure, if the entirety of the UK were to become brainwashed in the Phelpsian Monsters, they'd turn the government on you, but, like it or not, you don't live in Nazi Germany (which, FYI, used the same language about "intention" and traitor's to their "kind"), you live in a liberalised, western democracy. I know, its not as exciting as fighting against the SS, but at least you have protection before the law, the right to vote, and the benefit of a largely stagnant populace.
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot how hard done by the white hetero male is. In my selflish furor I didn't notice that they don't get their way 100% of the time and what a hardship that is for them. It slipped my mind the awful injustices they've suffered at the hands of those in power during... what... was there an imaginary ten minutes somewhere that a gay black feminist president was menacing them with a whip? Those with privilege always feel *so* wronged, so maligned and bereaved, whenever they're told they have to either share the pedastal or get down on the ground with everyone else. Losing your favoured position is *such* a hardship. No wonder proponents of change are so vigourously undermined, because to create equality where inequality has reigned means someone-- generally those *with* the resources to oppose it-- has to give something up. It's why there isn't even perfect solidarity doesn't exist among gay people, because our minority cuts across all kinds of other minorities with grievances of their own.
Were I a white-bread heterosexual, do you think I'd have mourned the lack of sitcoms celebrating my sexuality?
And if we want to look at things on the global scale (as you seem to favor), then, yes, there are several countries where whites are an oppressed minorty, but does that make me start ranting about the need for an international white power movement? No, it doesn't.
I'm sure I'll get flak for 'co-opting' a 'real, legitimate' minority group but as King put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
No, but you'll get flak for 'co-opting' the language of 'a real, legitimate' struggle against racism for your silly-ass delusions.

We all seem to be getting far from my original point, so let me restate it once again:
"Mary Cheney is an individual, and she owes you (in this case, GSM) nothing. She happens to feel that the Republicans better represent her total interests than the Democrats, and so she campaigns for them even though she doesn't agree with their every whim. This does not make her a traitor or evil, this makes her human. Get over it."

Yeah, and they're hanging from the gallows with Christians, Jews, Kurds, a few dozen African tribes and every other ethnic group imaginable. If you want the US to start liberating foriegn people's from oppressive government, its going to need to take on most of the world.
[. . .]
Were I a white-bread heterosexual, do you think I'd have mourned the lack of sitcoms celebrating my sexuality?
And if we want to look at things on the global scale (as you seem to favor), then, yes, there are several countries where whites are an oppressed minorty, but does that make me start ranting about the need for an international white power movement? No, it doesn't.


So you're comfortable enough that you have the luxury of complacency. You have things good enough in your own little corner of the world that you can afford not to think about anyone else, anywhere else. How nice for you. Do you concern yourself with anyone but yourself? Do you never read about someone who could very easily have been you being hanged, or emprisoned, or had their livelihood confiscated simply for who they are and thought "Where's the justice? Where's the anger over that? Where's the uprising or revolution or whatever it takes to right the abuses?" Or are you so sold on individualism that you can't even identify with others anymore, can't bring yourself to give a damn about the wrongs done against people who could be you, and vice-versa, but for some accident of circumstance that saw you get off a bit easier? Because where you see fanatical "us versus them" and persocution complexes, I see legitimate hatred levelled at me, and at every other gay person under the sun. It's there, and it's real, and whether it's barely contained under the veneer of laws that keep me marginally safe at home, or permeating the highest office of government half a world away with hints of trying to worm its way to the top of the pyramid here, if you pretend it isn't there all it will do is spread. If you try to ignore it, it will spawn out of control until it becomes *impossible* to ignore because you're surrounded by it, because you didn't attack it when it still had flanks.

Am I militant? Hell yes. Is it wrong to think in terms of "us versus them" and to be resolved to defend yourself with as much zeal as is invested by those who would happily oppress and/or kill you? I say it's naive-- it's suicidal-- not to! Because while you're resting on your laurels, feeling safe and secure just because you haven't been beaten yet yourself, and telling yourself "oh no, we're all one big happy human family, there are no sides, there is no conflict, we should all just try to get along," they are out there, they have banded together to pool their resources to attack you. They are happily massed, and consider themselves a 'side,' and see you as a blight to be eradicated, and if you don't recognise that you've been made a target and choose to resist your attackers, then you'll be sitting there passive, complacent and stupid when they come for you. So you can preach about my awful defensiveness, my guarded posture, but when 30+ million people vote for the US president based on "moral issues"-- namely fighting back the fags-- over economic concerns and war, that *says* something. It says that the most powerful politician in the most powerful country in the world stayed in office on the backs of gay people. It's a signal and a warning. It says "be ready, because tomorrow if they have their way, things will get a little worse for you. And a little worse the next day. And a little worse the day after that. And someday they may very well be coming for you to arrest you or kill you." And it would be naive, it would be stupid, not to mentally brace yourself for that, and to be prepared to fight for your survival. Because there are people who want us dead, and are *waiting* for their opportunity. And if you think it isn't true then you are blinded by your complacency. You're fucking insensate with your own private comfort.

Here's my point. She shouldn't be quiet in her opposition to the anti-homosexual sentiments and actions on the part of so many Republicans.

Agreed.

If she wants to collaborate with the Republican Party, I say go for it. They could certainly use more diversity within their ranks. Every openly gay member of the party helps move it a little farther away from homophobia, and I'd say that's a good thing.

No, it doesn't.

Every openly gay member of the Republican Party sends a clear message that gay people don't really care - that it's okay if you attack them and deny them their rights, because they're pathetic and passive and won't do a thing about it. It says, firstly, that you can do it without fear of reprisal from them, secondly, that what you're doing isn't really wrong (because if it were, they would object more strongly), and thirdly, that quite possibly those gays really realize, on some deep level, that they really are disgusting and depraved, and in fact are grateful for your efforts to emancipate them.

That's why what Mary Cheney is doing is wrong. I already said that I think it's unfair to criticize her too harshly for it - her moral failure here is more not being saintly than actually being evil - but it's clear why she incites such anger on the part of gay rights campaigners, and it's somewhat deserved.

Revolution and political executions like TGSM wants, those are not such good things.

Political executions, no. Revolutions, yes. They have repeatedly been crucial elements of the struggle for freedom, when more reform-oriented attempts repeatedly fail.

No, I simply believe that there are some things that should be deal-breakers.

There are some subjects where you are going to have to compromise. I accept that, and I agree that it's a normal part of politics that we all have to deal with. But there are some subjects that should be automatic deal breakers.

If a candidate agrees with me perfectly on every issue, except for the tiny detail that he advocates re-instituting black slavery, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is perfectly aligned with me except for the fact that she believes all atheists should be deported from the country, that's a deal breaker. If a candidate is terrific except for their belief that women should never have gotten the vote, that's a deal breaker. You don't support candidates who view you, or your fellow citizens, as inherently sub-human.

As a gay American, if Mary Cheney had any integrity at all she would consider it a deal breaker when somebody pushes laws and amendments that deny fundamental civil rights to gay citizens. That's a no-fucking-brainer.

Unfortunately, both parties partake in what I personally would consider deal-breakers. Obviously I can't speak for Ms. Cheney, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps she feels the same way.

When both sides have deal breakers major planks in their political platform, one must choose what he or she considers the lesser evil. Mary Cheney is no more of a hypocrite than any activist for the Republican party who supports gay rights and gay marriage. For that matter, she is no more of a hypocrite than any activist for the Democratic party who opposes gay rights and gay marriage. And frankly, I like to believe that there are a lot of hypocrites like Mary Cheney who support gay rights, including gay marriage, because the thought that the Republican party is entirely comprised of homophobes is frightening, depressing, and untrue. The leaders of the party may be entirely homophobic, but in what may be naive optimism, I like to believe that these leaders are supported because of other reasons (agreement on economic, fiscal, and foreign policy, for example?) than just their homophobia. Wouldn't Mary be as much of a hypocrite is she campaigned for the Democratic party, simply because she was a lesbian and supported thier stance on gay right, even though she disagreed with all other their economic and foreign policies, and possibly disagreed also on other "moral" issues?

But the reason she doesn't is because she knows that HER rights are safe. She knows that she's rich and from a powerful family. She's gonna be fine. So she is prepared to overlook the tiny minor detail that her father's administration is fighting to ensure that gay people are not full citizens. That's pathetic.

Maybe I'm being naive, and that's why Mary campaigns for the Republicans and not the Democrats. Because she only cares about her rights. Not because the two-party system leaves her with limited options, and she'd rather engage in the political system while helping the lesser evil than have no influence in how her country is governed.

Among politicians, that's a survival trait. :p
very true.

Not that I've seen. I have yet to see him speak out against such legislation, while being a part of an administration that actively pushes for it. When asked about it, he usually gets uppity and says he doesn't want to talk about it.

He may personally oppose such legislation, but when it comes to politics, all he has done is support it.
Not gonna lie, I dont really keep up with everything Dick says and does. So pardon me if I'm wrong. But in the VP candidate debates, when asked about Bush's proposed constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage Cheney did not defend it, and in fact agreed with what Edwards said. It seems from this, then, that Cheney did not support it, he has just failed to actively and publicly oppose it.



Highly unlikely. A person with the kind of money Mary Cheney has and the kind of political pull that her family has won't be affected by any of that. Her partner may not be married to her, but they aren't going to have to worry about being denied access to each other if one is in the hospital or being denied inheritance. Nobody is going to try to go up against Mary Cheney and the Cheney family on that.

It's a sad fact, but those with money and influence are always insulated from such situations - and thus often think they are unimportant.

Again, maybe it's naivety, but I really don't think Mary Cheney finds the civil rights that are denied to gay Americans unimportant. Perhaps less important than the aggregate of other political issues, but not unimportant.


Tell that to the gay people living in those states which have passed marriage bans so restrictive that they preclude sharing things like health insurance benefits even when the company one of the partner works offers it for domestic partners.
Depressing, yes. But this is done on the state level, not by the federal government and therefore not as a result of the initiatives of the Bush administration.

Just one more point. That child is not a gift from God. It's a commodity that Cheney and her partner were able to pay a medical center to help them produce.

Depressing, yes. But this is done on the state level, not by the federal government and therefore not as a result of the initiatives of the Bush administration.

Not completely. The federal government has, on multiple occasions, refused to add sexual orientation into the list of things which cannot be discriminated against. You can't be discriminated against for employment, for example, based on your race or gender or age, but you can be for your sexual orientation, because Congress refuses to add it. And I don't believe I mentioned Bush anywhere in my post that dealt with that matter--this is a long term problem that predates him. He's certainly been no help in the matter, and he's openly encouraged discrimination through his support for the so-called marriage amendment, but he's certainly not the origin of the problem.

No, it doesn't.

Every openly gay member of the Republican Party sends a clear message that gay people don't really care - that it's okay if you attack them and deny them their rights, because they're pathetic and passive and won't do a thing about it. It says, firstly, that you can do it without fear of reprisal from them, secondly, that what you're doing isn't really wrong (because if it were, they would object more strongly), and thirdly, that quite possibly those gays really realize, on some deep level, that they really are disgusting and depraved, and in fact are grateful for your efforts to emancipate them.

It only sends that message to those who are alreadly looking for it because it justifies their views, whether those views be anti-gay or anti-Republican.

When an openly gay person joins the party, it sends the message that they want to be in that party. Whether they want to be in that party because they agree with everything the party says, just that they agree with most things the party says, or because they want to reform the party is a message they can only send via their voting record or by talking to other folks about their goals.

That's why what Mary Cheney is doing is wrong. I already said that I think it's unfair to criticize her too harshly for it - her moral failure here is more not being saintly than actually being evil - but it's clear why she incites such anger on the part of gay rights campaigners, and it's somewhat deserved.

Agreed. Anger is somewhat deserved, execution is not.

Political executions, no. Revolutions, yes. They have repeatedly been crucial elements of the struggle for freedom, when more reform-oriented attempts repeatedly fail.

I'll agree that revolutions can be an effective last resort. What I won't agree to is that the current attitude in America towards homosexuals warrants that use of a last resort. Things are improving. Let's help them improve further by using peaceful means instead of using violence resulting in a backlash that will help homophobes justify their views and perpetuate the problem.

Buying the McDonalds because you think it's the lesser of two evils is one thing. Appearing in a commercial for them and saying "mmm, eat McDonalds!" while gagging on one shit pickle that they put in your burger is another. It makes you disingenuous, it makes you a liar. And when someone calls it-- says "but doesn't McDonalds have some real quality control issues where sometimes they use some pretty lousy pickles"-- and you jump in to denounce that as an "inappropriate" question, then you're a special breed of sell-out. If she feels the need to vote Republican because she "is" a Republican, fine. But sticking up for them when they get into office on the backs of gay people-- getting out the vote on the basis of fag-bashing amendments-- is dispicable.

To continue your analogy, you assume that BK does not have the quality issues McDonalds has. However, I imagine the choice is more like deciding whether to appear in a McDonalds commercial, even though their pickles are shit and you choke on them every time, or to appear in a Burger King commercial, even though their buns are moldy, their meat is gross, and their cheese is expired, or to sit out on the commercials even though these are the only real option people have. While appearing in the McD's commercial is disingenious, and failing to acknowledge their problem with quality control over their pickles does make you a sell-out, I don't think it makes one as terrible a person as you would like to believe. Given that the amendment failed to get any kind of widespread support, and that the amendment failed to pass as any kind of legislation, I don't think it is fair to say all republicans, or even Bush and Cheney, get into office ont he backs of gay people.

It only sends that message to those who are alreadly looking for it because it justifies their views, whether those views be anti-gay or anti-Republican.

When an openly gay person joins the party, it sends the message that they want to be in that party. Whether they want to be in that party because they agree with everything the party says, just that they agree with most things the party says, or because they want to reform the party is a message they can only send via their voting record or by talking to other folks about their goals.

I'm not suggesting that their support for Republicans necessarily translates into support for anti-gay Republican policies, merely that their support for Republicans, especially if they do not at the same time loudly and repeatedly campaign against anti-gay policies, necessarily means that they are content with putting that issue on the backseat... which is the point.

What I won't agree to is that the current attitude in America towards homosexuals warrants that use of a last resort.

Absolutely not; I agree.

The Cheney family has a patent on diluting language. Following the logic of the religious right it's "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." This child is not a gift from God but a purchase from a sperm bank. Unless Mary and her partner created this life while bumping uglies then it's not a "natural" child reproduction. Don't take this as me declaring that gay and lesbian couples should not have children, as I am in favor of any loving family who will give good care to a child. She also said that Wolf Blitzer's question to her father was out of line. How so? Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question? Mary Cheney wants it both ways and it doesn't gel. Lesbians cannot have babies naturally and after all, we all know what God intended right? The religious right is neither.

There hasn't been so much need for god when making a baby.

Not completely. The federal government has, on multiple occasions, refused to add sexual orientation into the list of things which cannot be discriminated against. You can't be discriminated against for employment, for example, based on your race or gender or age, but you can be for your sexual orientation, because Congress refuses to add it. And I don't believe I mentioned Bush anywhere in my post that dealt with that matter--this is a long term problem that predates him. He's certainly been no help in the matter, and he's openly encouraged discrimination through his support for the so-called marriage amendment, but he's certainly not the origin of the problem.

Then I misinterpretted what you said, my bad. And for the record, by no means do I disagree that this is a complete and total failure on the part of the government. But whathisface said "all politics is local" and in that vein what is really needed are grassroots efforts across the country to get people to cease being homophobic and support equal rights for gays. If that were to happen we might be able to elect candidates who weren't cruel at best and evil at worst in regards to gay rights.

So you're comfortable enough that you have the luxury of complacency. You have things good enough in your own little corner of the world that you can afford not to think about anyone else, anywhere else. How nice for you. Do you concern yourself with anyone but yourself?
Just because I don't want to be everyone's savior doesn't mean I don't care about anything. I care about those whom I know, but otherwise, its not my business.
Do you never read about someone who could very easily have been you being hanged, or emprisoned, or had their livelihood confiscated simply for who they are and thought "Where's the justice? Where's the anger over that? Where's the uprising or revolution or whatever it takes to right the abuses?"
Do you, in your search for justice, page through every newspaper of every continent, seeking out fresh bodies to mourn? There is something intensely perverted in that.
I, however, live my own life, share in the happiness and misery of those around me, and don't charge from one atrocity to the next like some sort of vulture.
Or are you so sold on individualism that you can't even identify with others anymore, can't bring yourself to give a damn about the wrongs done against people who could be you, and vice-versa, but for some accident of circumstance that saw you get off a bit easier?
I identify with others, but there is a wide difference between identifying with the people I actually know and spending my entire life tired and bitter from weeping about every single thing that goes wrong for someone who I'll never know.
Because where you see fanatical "us versus them" and persocution complexes, I see legitimate hatred levelled at me, and at every other gay person under the sun. It's there, and it's real, and whether it's barely contained under the veneer of laws that keep me marginally safe at home, or permeating the highest office of government half a world away with hints of trying to worm its way to the top of the pyramid here, if you pretend it isn't there all it will do is spread. If you try to ignore it, it will spawn out of control until it becomes *impossible* to ignore because you're surrounded by it, because you didn't attack it when it still had flanks.
Homophobia in the West has been on the retreat for decades, as is demonstrated by the way the world reacts to people like Fred Phelps. But, then, I'm sure that he's just another part of the shadow monsters' cunning plan.
Am I militant? Hell yes . . . they are out there . . . they have banded together to pool their resources to attack you . . . someday they may very well be coming for you . . . arrest you or kill you . . . prepared to fight . . . people who want us dead . . . *waiting* for their opportunity . . . You're fucking insensate with your own private comfort.
Two Questions:
1. When you don your tin-foil hat in the morning, do you cock it at a rogueish angle, or wear it straight?
2. Are you purposefully channeling Hitler here, or is the whole "light the ovens, there's no time to lose"-vibe I'm getting from your post fully your own work?

There hasn't been so much need for god when making a baby.

You don't call out to God while in the process of babymaking?! I thought that was common practice...

You don't call out to God while in the process of babymaking?! I thought that was common practice...

It's a bit out of place in the fertility clinic.

It's a bit out of place in the fertility clinic.

Ah, but he (she?) didn't specify this baby. While God had little to do, I think, with this baby's creation, I certainly hope his name will be involved in the making of all of my children. Given the number of siblings I have, I feel certain he was at least nominally involved in our creations as well.

Unfortunately, both parties partake in what I personally would consider deal-breakers. Obviously I can't speak for Ms. Cheney, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps she feels the same way.

And, if she does, she should be vocal about it, instead of throwing what looks like whole-hearted support behind those who disagree with her. You can think that someone is the best candidate out of two or three without acting like they are perfect.

The Log Cabin Republicans have actively fought against the planks in the party platform that would oppress homosexuals. They have actively worked to get policy changed. They have supported Republican candidates who do not push for such things. Mary Cheney could do the same, but chooses not to. Instead, she throws her support behind Republican candidates who pander to the far-right and push for legislation that would place her in a second-class citizen status.

Not gonna lie, I dont really keep up with everything Dick says and does. So pardon me if I'm wrong. But in the VP candidate debates, when asked about Bush's proposed constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage Cheney did not defend it, and in fact agreed with what Edwards said. It seems from this, then, that Cheney did not support it, he has just failed to actively and publicly oppose it.

IIRC, he went the, "It's states' rights," route, rather than actively bashing the amendment itself. On top of that, the main thing I remember from that debate is that he, as I said, got all uppity about even being asked the question and acted like any mention of his personal ties to the gay community (ie. his daughter) was completely inappropriate to bring up. At worst, he is actively pursuing policy that is anti-gay. At best, he's embarrassed by not doing so.

Again, maybe it's naivety, but I really don't think Mary Cheney finds the civil rights that are denied to gay Americans unimportant. Perhaps less important than the aggregate of other political issues, but not unimportant.

(a) The "aggregate of other political issues" argument doesn't work. She could support particular policies proposed by a candidate without supporting the candidate without strings.

(b) I would guess that the reason she sees them as relatively unimportant is simply that the problems will never affect her. Mary Cheney, by her money and influence, is insulated from the issues that lower and middle-class homosexuals face. It isn't going to seem like that big of a deal when it never affects you, now is it?

Depressing, yes. But this is done on the state level, not by the federal government and therefore not as a result of the initiatives of the Bush administration.

How naive. Even at the state level, Bush's administration places a great deal of pressure on the Republican party. Taglines and such that come out of Bush's office are touted all the way down to the local level - and definitely at the state level. If a politician wants to move up in the Republican party, he better be agreeing with those who run it - and Bush's administration - Karl Rove specifically - is pretty high up on that list.

We had a thread about people like Mary Cheney a while back. I believe an agreement was reached to call these gay uncle Toms "pastor Teds". It needs to spread.

"pastor Teds"? I like that. :D

Every openly gay member of the Republican Party sends a clear message that gay people don't really care - that it's okay if you attack them and deny them their rights, because they're pathetic and passive and won't do a thing about it. It says, firstly, that you can do it without fear of reprisal from them, secondly, that what you're doing isn't really wrong (because if it were, they would object more strongly), and thirdly, that quite possibly those gays really realize, on some deep level, that they really are disgusting and depraved, and in fact are grateful for your efforts to emancipate them.

I would say any openly gay member of the Republican party who isn't trying to change things would fit that category. There certainly are openly gay members who have been outspoken in their opposition to party platform planks that are anti-gay and have actively worked against them.

In our country, children are taken from their birth parents at age 5 and sent to live in youth houses with educators and carers approved by the Empress.

At age 10 boys will usually begin to learn a trade and at 14 may apply to work for a noble family or at the palace.

At age 14 girls may apply to work as maids or join the sisterhood, they may also be adopted and prepared for marriage by a noble Family.

By using this system we ensure that every child has a good childhood and a place in life where they are loved and cared for.

In our country, children are taken from their birth parents at age 5 and sent to live in youth houses with educators and carers approved by the Empress.

At age 10 boys will usually begin to learn a trade and at 14 may apply to work for a noble family or at the palace.

At age 14 girls may apply to work as maids or join the sisterhood, they may also be adopted and prepared for marriage by a noble Family.

By using this system we ensure that every child has a good childhood and a place in life where they are loved and cared for.

This isn't the RP forum. Take it to II.

Gah! Belly button lint is a derogatory term. Please use the politically correct term: navel detritus, you prejudiced ogre!

your racist against ogres!

your racist against ogres!Aww! I want one too!

The Cheney family has a patent on diluting language. Following the logic of the religious right it's "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." This child is not a gift from God but a purchase from a sperm bank. Unless Mary and her partner created this life while bumping uglies then it's not a "natural" child reproduction. Don't take this as me declaring that gay and lesbian couples should not have children, as I am in favor of any loving family who will give good care to a child. She also said that Wolf Blitzer's question to her father was out of line. How so? Your party and the conservative wing decry your lifestyle and your right to have a baby, how is that not an appropriate question? Mary Cheney wants it both ways and it doesn't gel. Lesbians cannot have babies naturally and after all, we all know what God intended right? The religious right is neither.

A child is neither a gift of God nor a political issue - it's the result of a biological function which can be performed both in bed and in a laboratory. To say that a child who was a result of a laboratory insemination is not natural is to say that the children of all those "normal" couples who couldn't conceive "naturally" aren't natural.

If "God(s)" hadn't meant for us to interfere, he/she/they wouldn't have given us the ability to figure out how to interfere.

Not only is this a grave-digging operation, it's an in-character post in General! A DOUBLE NOOB WHAMMY! What does he win, Rob?

OP: "a child is a gift from God not a political issue"

No way. Everything is politics.

whoopss... *hides the shovel* ...sorry...

Not only is this a grave-digging operation, it's an in-character post in General! A DOUBLE NOOB WHAMMY! What does he win, Rob?

http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/fanart/images/screens/ss406-thumb.jpg

undead troll!

This isn't the RP forum. Take it to II.
Not only did he manage to post in the wrong forum, but he managed to dig up a several month old thread. That's so wrong it is almost impressive.

And wouldn't a child being a gift from God automatically make it a political issue?

I wish people would stop taking my name in vain.