I think the more intersting angle is the apparent negative reaction by Lynne Cheney to more widespread public knowledge of the fact that her daughter is gay.

Mary Cheney has been 'out of the closet' for some time now but it appears her mother at least would prefer that she were still consigned there.

think the more intersting angle is the apparent negative reaction by Lynne Cheney to more widespread public knowledge of the fact that her daughter is gay.

You are taking Sullivan's line. It's not a defensive reaction that it was "brought up," it's anger that it was used as for cheap political manipulation, as some sort of "ah-ha" to score points against the Bush-Cheney ticket with conservatives that may be anti-gay.

Don't fool yourself. I watch left-wing bloggers make this tee-hee assertion all day long. They cherish the irony.

I read Lynne Cheney's statement a few times and I can't find the slightest implication that she's ashamed of her daughter's sexual orientation. Where is it?

His comments show again the low opinion Dems hold of the average Republican voter: knuckle dragging racist homophobes who will immediately reject Bush knowing that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

That's what he thinks of millions of us. If he were aiming for a small niche voter, he wouldn't have made the comment.

(And Sullivan's argument that Kerry was just calling Bush out doesn't make sense, in that Kerry is as much against gay marriage as Bush.)

I believe what Kerry really meant was "Candidate families are open season. Please ask me again about Theresa's tax records!"

I agree I don't think Lynn or Dick are ashamed of their daughter, but there is a difference between loving your daughter, and having a politician bring it up in a debate as a political maneuver, when there really was no reason to-Lynn Cheney was not germaine to that question.

But what really bothered me about it, was Kerry's "if you asked Mary Cheney, she would tell you" Yikes-the man presumes to know what Mary Cheney thinks and feels on this issue-he isn't related to her, makes me wonder if he has ever discussed this with her. AT the very least he should have used a quote from her on the subject, not told the world what she would tell them.

Just chalks another point into the Kerry is arrogant, patronizing and presumptuous catagory.

I saw an interview with Carol Mosely Braun last night, and she was defending the mention of Mary Cheney and heavily implying that Kerry supports gay marriage. Considering that she did not recall in what major she received her degree, CMB may actually believe that Kerry supports gay marriage.

Kerry would support gay marriage if it polled well, especially with minorities, but of course it doesn't so Kerry does not support it. The ironic thing would be if this kerfuffle caused many to believe that Kerry actually supports gay marriage. Kerry opposed DOMA when he was not running, so he sees it as damaging to be associated with support of gay marriage.

The only thing that history will say about Bush and the FMA is that he supported something that he knew would never pass just so that he could rile up his base and put dems in Congress on the record opposing it for all of the down ticket races.

It's interesting that you support gay marriage, because this is one of the few issues we disagree on. Let me be clear: what anyone wants to do in their own bedroom is their business, but formal state recognition of such sexual relationships is another matter. My argument against gay marriage is essentially two points:

1) Gay marriage opens the door legally for courts to eventually find a constitutional right to polygamous or polyandrous marriages, or even person-to-nonperson marriages (sure, it sounds farfetched now, but who would have believed in the 1950s that we'd be discussing gay marriage).

2) Marriage is essentially about sex. Sex is the primary differentiator between your relationships with friends and with your significant other; it's the one thing you can do with the one but not the others. And there is an important difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex: heterosexual sex can produce a child, while homosexual sex cannot. The purpose of marriage in society has always been to confine sex to formalized, monogamous relationships so that the children produced by that sex have a stable upbringing. I would argue that thus heterosexual sexual relationships need this institution for a reason (the fact that heterosexual urges tend to produce children) that does not apply to homosexual relationships. In this sense, sex (and thus marriage) between a man and a woman is special and I believe it should be treated as such.

Its just one more data point demonstrating that Kerry is a jerk. Candidates families should be off limits, assming they haven't broken any laws.

Would it not have been a "cheap and tawdry political trick" to for Bush to have pointed out that Edwards' wife is overweight and that obesity is a major problem for the health of a large number of Americans when questioned about the government's role in health care last night? A large number of Americans are obese and my God, we can see her coming from a mile away.

I hope Mrs. Cheney rips her a new one.

"The only thing that history will say about Bush and the FMA is that he supported something that he knew would never pass just so that he could rile up his base and put dems in Congress on the record opposing it for all of the down ticket races. "

I agree with this, I think this is one of those issues for both parties that goes into the "pandering" catagory, I just think Bush has done a better job of articulating his pander to his base than Kerry on the issue, but that is because his base is more divided on the issue than Bush's.

Sorry, first sentence should have read:

Would it not have been a "cheap and tawdry political trick" for Bush...

Kerry made a fatal flaw that really hasn't been discussed that much - Lynne Cheney's statement 'speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom' sums up what I would assume is what many mothers across America feel today.

Kerry took a cheap shot at someone's kid, it has nothing to do about being 'shamed' as Elizabeth Edwards states today (showing her condescending, rich lawyer's wife attitude) and the fact that Cahill states that Mary Cheney is 'fair game' infuriates moms and dads, because we all know it was politically motivated - to drive the religious right away from Bush. There is no other reason to bring her up in that answer. And I don't think the religious right is not going to stay home 11/2 because Mary Cheney is gay.

Sorry to keep posting, but I wanted to say something about this:

"Would it not have been a "cheap and tawdry political trick" to for Bush to have pointed out that Edwards' wife is overweight and that obesity is a major problem for the health of a large number of Americans when questioned about the government's role in health care last night?"

Great point, and Bush's minions could have defended the decision by stating that Elizabeth has discussed her weight issues in public and on record, so she made it fair game.

I just think it is cheap to try to score political points by dragging somebody into the debate that isn't in a position to respond, and putting your words into her mouth. Kerry didn't even quote Mary, he just said he knew what she thought.

polygamous or polyandrous

Polygamy and polyandry are not fundamental social constructs. Intimate monogamy is widely considered one of the building blocks of human relationships.

Marriage is essentially about sex. reproduction, etc.

Marriage is also about love that is exponentially enhanced by physical intimacy - the establishment of a fundamental partnership that people build families around.

If you accept the fact that genetics determine sexuality (as I do in a good percentage of homosexuals), it would be unconstitutional to deny them equal recognition under the law.

That being said, science hasn't convinced enough people yet, and I accept that reasonable people can disagree on this issue.

The fact that Elizabeth Edwards thinks she knows more about what a parent of gay children should think/say/feel than the parent themselves says it all, doesn't it?

(blank) ambulance chasers....

I guess Kerry forgot his advice from his mother--integrity, integrity integrity--guess it didn't mean much to him or it was just another of his made-up stories

Whether gay-rights advocates like it or not, this is an issue that still engenders very legitimate debate.

This is some incisive analysis, Bill. I often hear supporters of the more militant gay agenda say things like "I can't believe, that in 2004,...."

I expect the debate to continue indefinitely; a person who has come to logical and/or religiously-influenced conclusions are not going to change their mind on the issue merely because an amount of time has passed. It's a social fundamental that the Founders never could have anticipated.

Hindsight says that marriage should have remained a church sacrament and states should have developed a "civil union," legally equal statuses with different implications. It would eliminate a good portion of the emotionally charged debate today, because the joining of individuals by the state would have always had a clearly defined secular foundation.

Of course, there are always those who think that no two people of the same sex have the right in any context to be together romantically - but I think the majority of the polarization is, at its core, a matter of semantics.

Polygamy and polyandry are not fundamental social constructs. Intimate monogamy is widely considered one of the building blocks of human relationships
Ahhh, but that is a conceit of societies. Courts have generally found individual rights trump those unless a VERY good reason exists to rule otherwise.

If you accept the fact that genetics determine sexuality
Sorry Bill, that doesn't hold up scientifically. No "gay gene" has ever been found. Sexual attraction is far more a result of environment than genetics; this is obvious in studies of any situation in which people are confined, prisons and early sea vessels being the classic examples. In theory, you could cause someone to be sexually attracted only to grapefruit if you maniupulated them and controlled their environment in such a way to make that happen.

Marriage is also about love that is exponentially enhanced by physical intimacy - the establishment of a fundamental partnership that people build families around.
Yes, that's what I meant by "sex." The difference is, homosexual sex does not carry the risk of creating children (I have gay friends; this is actually a big selling point in the gay community). Heterosexual sex does, and deserves special protections for that reason.

Everyone seems to be missing the point here. That is WHY did John Kerry bring up Mary Cheney in the first place? He did so becuase he calculated that to link Bush to Cheney's gay daughter would cause political damage. What I find so fascinating about some of the gay rights orginizations is thier acceptance of this fact. It would seem to me that using Cheney's gay daughter against him does nothing more than perpetrate the ugly stereotypes and bigotry they ostensibly are trying to stamp out. Furthermore, it is crystal clear that the Mary Cheney comment was a preplaned dig, tested and perfected by the Kerry Edwards campaign in advance of the debate. Remember, John Edwards also explicitly brought up Mary Cheney during the veep debate. All I can say to those folks working for gay rights that are making excuses for this crass political garbage is: Shame! Shame!!

The difference is, homosexual sex does not carry the risk of creating children (I have gay friends; this is actually a big selling point in the gay community). Heterosexual sex does, and deserves special protections for that reason.

It does carry the "risk" of adopting children, and many married couples are childless by design.

A further point about genetics:

This may be unique to the under-30 crowd, but I would say more than half of my female hetero friends have confided to me that they had at least one "bi-curious" experience culminating in sex. It's almost a badge of honor. It's hard to argue there's a genetic switch that points to "gay" or "straight" when so many people sraddle that line (to mix a metaphor)over the course of their lives.

It does carry the "risk" of adopting children, and many married couples are childless by design.
Of course, but adoption is a DECISION. It is not an often unwanted result of gratifying sexual desires that requires a couple to make serious moral decisions that will affect three lives forever.

Sully's also wrong on the "when Kerry cites Bush's wife and daughter":

Frankly any candidate bringing up the family of the other, other than to just say "nice family" is out of line.

Can you imagine if Bush in the course of thedebate, say in re Kerry's Catholicism, had brought up Kerry's first marriage, presuming to speak for Kerry's first wife in doing so:

e.g. "if you asked the first Mrs. Kerry about her ex-husbands faith she'd say such and such . . ."

How dare Kerry presume to know what Mary Cheney thinks or doesn't think about any topic, whether it's homsexuality or taxes or what brand of frozen waffle is best.

Oops, did I just mention waffles?

It's almost a badge of honor. It's hard to argue there's a genetic switch that points to "gay" or "straight" when so many people sraddle that line (to mix a metaphor)over the course of their lives.

A. It's likely a host of genetic switches, that appear in different combinations, and have different impacts.

B. At least one very well-designed study has strongly indicated that Females tend to be more naturally inclined to be bisexual, which would frame more of their behavior as a choice, while men are more strictly gay or straight.

That doesn't mean that all lesbians have lifestyles that reflect personal will over biological determinism, though probably more of them do when compared to men.

There is no hard and fast rule that all gay behavior is biologically determined, but the fact remains that if even only a small minority of people are hard-wired to be gay, because of any host of genetic switches, they probably have the right to establish socially approved relationships that give them equal status.

There are no mutually exclusive arguments that undermine biological determinism. There is also no smoking gun (yet) that concretely outlines genetic cause. That being said, I predict that science will settle the argument within about 25 years, if not sooner.

In this context, my judgment about the importance and purpose of marriage is certainly up for debate, as I mentioned.

B. At least one very well-designed study has strongly indicated that Females tend to be more naturally inclined to be bisexual, which would frame more of their behavior as a choice, while men are more strictly gay or straight.

While I don't know which study you're quoting, I would imagine that the study ignores the fact female bisexuality is, in nearly every society, much more accepted behavior, and in all cases much less dangerous behavior with regard to sexual diseases.

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence that sexual preference has zero or next-to-zero genetic component. For instance, pedophiles are overwhelmingly likely to have been victims of pedophilia themselves, without regard to their genetic proximity to other pedophiles.

Sadly, many reasonable people are being persuaded by groups who strongly advocate the genetic idea because they have a very large stake in forcing society to accept that proposition. It reminds me a bit of the Tobacco Institute studies; there are some older people who still believe cigarettes are good for you.

Kerry's comment was way out of line, and was in fact homophobic.

I think he was trying to scare off religious conservatives from voting for Bush...but he will rue the day when he made that remark.

I know many religious conservatives and that remark only galvanized them more to vote for Bush and against this pretender of a human being, Kerry.

A couple of things:

1. Comparing the Edwards comment and the Kerry comment is not really a fair thing. In the VP debate the question involving gay marriage was framed from the perspective of his family:

"I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: 'Freedom means freedom for everybody.' You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions."

In that context Edwards mentioned Cheney's daughter....a bit strange but it was part of the discussion from the beginning. And the mention of his daughter was not merely niceties.

2. The Kerry comment was just meant to use a candidates family against him. That is what it was. Just imagine if GWB would have used Edwards dead son to make a point about health care. That is the comparison. This was just a cheap shot...plain and simple.

I need to start going to the same parties TallDave goes to.

My opinion on sexual preferences, which I touched on only briefly in the post on my site, goes like this: People get turned on by lots of different things. Some people like girls. Some people like boys. Some people like feet. Some like hair. Some like the absence thereof. Some like things that society embraces as sexy; some like things that society explicitly rejects. And so on ad infinitum. Why? Nobody knows. Socialization? Probably. Brain chemistry during development? Maybe. Hell, it might be related to something in the water for all we know.

I think that homosexuality is about as closely linked to your genes as whether you prefer broccoli or cauliflower.

that should read "was merely niceties"

Loyd,
I would have to argue that its not the same thing as bringing up Edward's dead son. If Bush or Cheney were to bring that up, it would only garner sympathy for Edwards (as well as hostility to who said it) and would really serve no larger purpose than to bring it up. I think this is actually a tactic to get BC supporters to rethink their allegiance. This of course assumes that there are a lot of bigots on the right, and that they would actually vote for Kerry, or at least not for Bush. I doubt this is the case, so it seems like a dumb idea, but I can't think of another reason.

If driving religious coneservatives from the polls on Nov 2 is the goal of the comment, I do not think it is going to work. But I do think it is a backdoor way to try to suppress the religiously opposed to stay home (I don't think Kerry thinks he will be getting their vote), but I also think this kind of comment may backfire and turn some bubble women voters against him. Moms tend to be fiesty defenders of their children, and I can't imagine any of them being happy about their child becoming a political chess piece in a debate.

As for the gay/choice issue. There isn't a single study out there that has found a 100% genetic determination for homosexuality. There is always some environmental component involved. I figure there are probably multiple genes involved, and environmental triggers of some kind cause those genes to fire. So, when it comes to the matter of genes or environment, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. My husband does work with a lesbian who was sexually abused, she says the born that way argument is *BS* but she had a pretty significant environmental factor that affected her life in this regard.

female bisexuality is, in nearly every society, much more accepted behavior,

Yes, this possibility was mentioned. The results of the study were quite remarkable however. I can't find a link.

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence that sexual preference has zero or next-to-zero genetic component. For instance, pedophiles are overwhelmingly likely to have been victims of pedophilia themselves, without regard to their genetic proximity to other pedophiles./i>

Most behavioral research is not "evidence," my friend, even if all-caps makes it seem evidentiary. And the pedophilia example outlines a potentially causal relationship in a completely different sexual predisposition, the same type of flawed logic that you criticize by citing a factor in my study that may not account for environment. Apples to oranges.

Aside from the pc social stigma of the attempt, declaring Pedophilia akin to homosexuality is not an accurate analogy, especially when one considers that many gay people wind up being gay without ever being exposed to gay relatives or behavior.

Your assertions are hyperbolic and your analogy suffers from very poor scientific design.

Sadly, many reasonable people are being persuaded by groups who strongly advocate the genetic idea

To be honest, your accurate condemnation against people that try to "force the idea" is weakened by the fact that your statements also "force the idea that homosexuality can't have gentic roots, when there are not "mountains" of rock-solid evidence either way.

I believe that a certain percentage of homosexuals are compelled towards their sexuality because of genetic determinism, but I'm very careful not to assert it as fact yet - just my opinion based on the general direction of science.

That being said, I also have a very strong belief that you will be proven wrong within a generation.

they probably have the right to establish socially approved relationships that give them equal status.

I don't oppose civil unions. But heterosexual sex carries more responsibilities than homosexual sex (including creating 99% of new human life), and I think the institution of marriage should treat heterosexual relationships as special for that reason.

So, when it comes to the matter of genes or environment, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I'll agree with that - I'm not asserting that homosexuality is monofactorial - I am asserting that it's probably often not some matter of choice.

Like no child tax credit? Oh wait...

And the pedophilia example outlines a potentially causal relationship in a completely different sexual predisposition
Which sexual predisposition we're talking about is not the issue, the point is pedophilia clearly DOES create a predisposition without regard to genetics. I only use it because it's the strongest example of such.

Aside from the pc social stigma of the attempt, declaring Pedophilia akin to homosexuality is not an accurate analogy,
Again, I am simply pointing to a sexual preference created by environment. Stigma is irrelevant to my argument, and no association of stigma was intended. As I said, I have gay friends (and family). I don't think their being gay should stigmatize them or anyone else in any way.

Most behavioral research is not "evidence," my friend, even if all-caps makes it SEEM evidentiary.
Well, sex IS a behavior. It's hard to argue about a behavior wthout resorting to behavioral research. And yes, there are mountains of it pointing toward environment as the vastly predominent factor in all sexual preferences, not just homo- vs. hetero-. Pick up virtually any text on human sexuality and you will see what I mean.

I believe that a certain percentage of homosexuals are compelled towards their sexuality because of genetic determinism, but I'm very careful not to assert it as fact yet - just my opinion based on the general direction of science.
As with tobacco in the early 20th Century, the "direction of science" on this issue is being pushed in a certain direction by parties with a strong stake in the outcome. There will never be enough evidence to dissuade them, because they don't care if they're right.

I in no means have ANY scientific knowledge on this subject whatsoever but i do have two questions/problems with the genetic idea.

1. For homosexuality to be a genetic predisposition wouldn't have to be also that ALL sexual orientations are genetic. This would include all manner of things including pedophiles. I am not trying to compare gays with pedophiles. This is merely a scientific question. I just don't see how you can seperate those things.

2. Even if it were a genetic thing. Wouldn't the fact that homosexuality is non-procreative have caused it to not last in the gene pool very long because of natural selection?

All that said, if a gene is found that makes one irrevocably gay, I will cheerfully admit I was wrong. But the evidence says the genetic component at most provides a very small leaning compared to environmental components which exercise an influence so much greater as to render the genetic component meaningless.

There was another very interesting aspect to Kerry's comment that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.

I don't recall ever hearing a liberal use the word "lesbian", it is almost always "gay". Kerry used it and all of his surrogates have been using it as well. I think the term is supposed to be more derogatory (conjures up a more "butch" image than the word "gay) and I think they are doing it purposely.

Anyone else notice this, and what are your thoughts?

Oh, if anyone is interested, Tammy Bruce (gay conservative) had some interesting insights on gay culture in "The Death of Right and Wrong." Very good unapologetic writing.

1) It's way late to expect any kind of consistency from Sullivan on this subject.

2) Carol Mosley Braun is not exactly a Mensa candidate

3) Politicized science is propaganda. It's ludicrous to suggest that psychology has no role in sexuality. When feminists & professional homosexuals throw out Freud, they doom themselves to intellectual mediocrity

4) Isn't it interesting that all the gay-baiting that's been done in this campaign is coming from the Democrats?

For homosexuality to be a genetic predisposition wouldn't have to be also that ALL sexual orientations are genetic

Most certainly no. People that feel the need to dress up in Batman costumes and get freaky are not compelled to do so by genetics. The fundamental compulsion to having sex with someone of the same or opposite sex, in men at least, is a much more fundamental state of being.

I can't fathom relations with a man - and this isn't because society has told me that it's "bad" - it's a hardwired reaction. I would assume that you feel the same way.

For heterosexuals to assume that homesexuals have just made some sort of aberrant choice or have unique childhood factors is contrary to many indications, and seems pretty arrogant, if you ask me.

As mentioned in previous comments, it's probably a variety of different factors, in different combinations in different cases, but there is also probably a genetic component to some of it.

Bill:

I believe that a certain percentage of homosexuals are compelled towards their sexuality because of genetic determinism, but I'm very careful not to assert it as fact yet - just my opinion based on the general direction of science.

However, previously, you stated:

If you accept the fact that genetics determine sexuality

and

That being said, science hasn't convinced enough people yet

I'm not saying this to drag the discussion into a debate over contradiction, but I know that this threw me for a loop. It sounded like you started from an assumption that facts support genetic predetermination of homosexuality - and it's only a matter of convincing people of those facts. Your last statement was far more even-handed.

I remain unconvinced that genetic predetermination taking place during the fetal cycle is a sound argument for equal rights. I'm not saying that it's impossible to make a coherent and non-contradictory argument, but without accepting the idea of inherent human value as a baseline absolute, I don't see how it can be solid.

VP Cheney is waying in, too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

I can't fathom relations with a man - and this isn't because society has told me that it's "bad" - it's a hardwired reaction. I would assume that you feel the same way.

Bill - spend 10 years on a desert isle with only men, and you'll be AMAZED what you can fathom.

Again I must preface my comments with: I am not a scientist!

but

It seems to make sense to me that Heterosexuality could be genetic because it involves the seemingly natural need to reproduce as a species. I could believe this is genetic (again...not a scientist). However to believe that homosexuality (a non-reproductive activity) is genetic would seem to have to open the door to saying all of the other sexual deviations (for lack of a better word) were genetic as well. It doesn't make sense to me that one could be genteic and another one not.

As a "religious conservative" (aka: practicing Catholic and Republican) I thought Kerry's comment was grossly offensive and he should be ashamed to have brought it up.

He has no right to drag a person's private life into a campaign, especially after Bush had just previously mentioned the need for tolerance. Kerry did it for the obvious reason to try to pin the president for hypocrisy, but all he did was drag an innocent 3rd party through the mud.

Imagine if Bush had answered the question about rising healthcare costs by saying: "Well, obesity is a large problem in this country. Just ask John Edwards' wife." And imagine if after the debate, a Republican campaign official called her "fair game." The outrage would doom Bush's re-election.

This is outrageous not for the fact that it has anything to do with homosexuality. It is outrageous because it is about bringing in a 3rd party's personal life into the campaign to make a political point. Just because Mary Cheney is openly gay doesn't make her anymore of a target than John Edwards' wife because she's known to be overweight.

It's no wonder that people are talking about this incident. When I saw it last night, I threw my coaster at the TV screen.

Not nitpicking, Bill. Words mean things. May have been small, but it was critical in my understanding of your position within this wildly expanded comments thread.

I thought you made a very astute point in the original post.

And damn, you type fast.

Sciszor - (This was revised and reposted out of order)

1. I made assertions that lay down a groundwork for my "belief"

2. I do believe that science will convice people, but I can't state this as fact, therefore I am much less strident in my belief in marriage rights. (as I think is clear from the rest of my statements and my post)

2. If you accept the fact that genetics determine sexuality

I was unclear. What I meant is:

"If." "If you." If this is your belief. The meaning is to say, if you accept it as fact - meaning, if that's your belief. that this is fact. It's a conditional, a theoretical, something that would lead to teh belief in constitutional equality.

You can poach my comments all day long, but doing so is non-contextual.

My position is very clear - I believe that a certain percentage of gay behavior is compelled by genetics. I cannot state this as fact because science has not proven this. I think science will. This is my opinion.

I was calling into question the commenter's unequivocal citation of "MOUNDS of evidence" to the contrary, which is bs.

If you'd like me to use deconstruction philosophy on your arguments ...

The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. First, I thought Kerry's statement was rather unacceptable. Now after reading what Edwards' wife said I am speechless.

It is obvious that there is no bound of decency they are not willing to cross. It is clear they are trying to paint the Cheneys as hypocrites as well as the subtle message to Bush supporters that Bush/Cheney don't believe their publicly stated position on gay marriage.

If handled correctly, this episode could prove the end of the Kedwards campaign.

And you know, there is one person I don't recall hearing from: MARY CHENEY.

What if she decided to give an interview in which she described how offended she was that Kerry used her sexuality for political gain and that she holds Elizabeth Edwards' statements beneath contempt and her mother and father have always shown loved her just like they loved her sister, despite any disagreements they may have?

The Cheneys are a savvy political family. They aren't going to be baited into doing something outlandish, but there is no doubt they are reasonably pissed off at this stage and will come up with a brutal response, a response administered by a velvet glove covering a steel fist.

>>>>>I was calling into question the commenter's unequivocal citation of "MOUNDS of evidence" to the contrary, which is bs.
LOL Actually, it was MOUNTAINS, and it's not BS.

I can see why you're confused, though. You've created an artifical separation between homosexual behavior and other sexual behaviors (for which there really are mountains of evidence that they are caused by environmental factors, and not genetics). Looking at the the issue through that contrived prism, I can see how you could come to that conclusion.

I give up. I'm trying to work and engage in this debate, forgive me if I'm not letter perfect.

The certainty of your argument aout the analogous nature of homosexual behavior to every other form of sexual behavior is arrogant and simplistic. Also, ridiculous. 2-Dimensional thinking.

So is your failure to accept or admit the fact that there is a plethora of what you describe as "evidence" that points both ways. Highly selective argumentation is for auto-pacifists and moonbats.

What makes your argument hypocritical is the fact that you don't even realize that the concrete nature of your assertions stem from a "contrived prism" that is even more "contrived" than mine - because you make aggressive conclusions that are not based on ... airtight evidence.

You can't follow a multifactorial argument. You are out of your depth on this.

And what's really artificial is your assumption that homosexuality must fit your neat construct because it bolsters your argument - your feeling on the matter. I left you wiggle room to meet me in the middle, but each successive comment dug you deeper into irresponsibly factual assertions and 2-D "if-then" constructs on a topic that is absolutely debatable.

I'm done with this argument.

Bill,

If it's genetic, would it be a genetic disorder?

If it's genetic, would it be a genetic disorder?

Excellent point, something that opens up a whole new discussion/can of worms. My argument is "no," because even genetic disorders are arbitrary labels that define something that is harmful/negative. Down Syndrome is a mutation with negative consequnces. Red hair is not.

But people that interpret the Bible very strictly might argue differently.

Minor point before my main one: up to this point the science is inconclusive either way. A genetic connection has neither been proven nor disproven.

Isn't it interesting that the center-right can debate this issue and not be hateful about it? We can disagree on:

1. Marriage vs. civil union
2. The appropriateness of a constitutional amendment
3. Nature vs. nurture

Yet, at the end of the day we can get along. Why? Because, we understand that those with whom we debate are reasonable.

Edwards' and Kerry's actions infuriates me not ideologically but as a parent. As someone who believes in "family values" it is this instinct that drives me more that any particulars of public policy. When the threat to families moves from the theoretical to the actual it can only hope to motivate people like myself and people to my right.

It may not be the Religious Right being targeted. There appears to be a personal vendetta against Mary Cheney. See www.dearmary.com.

TallDave, stop antagonizing your brother. I am going to turn this car around.

stop antagonizing your brother

LOL

I guess that goes both ways too.

Does anybody else just get a bit of a giggle when people mention that the science on this issue "goes both ways." Just an observation.

If it's genetic, would it be a genetic disorder?

Excellent point, something that opens up a whole new discussion/can of worms. My argument is "no," because even genetic disorders are arbitrary labels that define something that is harmful/negative. Down Syndrome is a mutation with negative consequnces. Red hair is not.

But people that interpret the Bible very strictly might argue differently.

I interpret the Bible strictly. Since "genetic disorder" is the language of DSM-IV and not the Bible it proves to be an unanswerable question from a Biblical standpoint. Or to put it in terms of classical argumentation, this is a category error. I avoid that kind of language altogether.

Well from the technical aspect, a gay society would not last very long. Only now do we have the technology today to have artificial insemination and things as such. But the way life used to work, was the species who procreated survived. If it is a gay gene ( I won't get into this discussion as I have no scientific basis on this subject) then it technically would be a disorder in the sense of Gay animals / people can't and won't create offspring.

The certainty of your argument aout the analogous nature of homosexual behavior to every other form of sexual behavior is arrogant and simplistic. Also, ridiculous. 2-Dimensional thinking
You can't follow a multifactorial argument. You are out of your depth on this.
Well, it's a bit sad to see you reduced to such ad hominem characterizations. Other than that, it's been an interesting discussion between two center-right opinions.

Let's try to calm down and look at this rationally: On what basis do you assert homosexuality to be "special" and so unlike all other sexual behaviors that it defies comparison to them? Frankly, I don't undertand how you can rationally make such an argument. I don't even know any gay people who would try to assert such a thing. It certainly seems like a contrived prism to me.

And what's really artificial is your assumption that homosexuality must fit your neat construct because it bolsters your argument - your feeling on the matter.
I think it has to fit into the totality of the known facts about human sexuality, not "my neat construct", rather than sit out on its own because it is indefinably "special" somehow. My feelings are irrelevant. As I said, if they find a gene that makes people overwhelmingly likely to be gay, I will cheerfully admit I was totally wrong. But there is far too much evidence to the contrary to for that to be likely.

I'm done with you.
Well, if you choose not to continue the debate, I will simply thank you for expressing your views and wish you well.

Het Steve-O...no fair stealing my well thought out points!!!! :)

TallDave, stop antagonizing your brother. I am going to turn this car around.

Well, maybe we should just agree to disagree. I've always been a bit too contentious at times (I'll blame my Scottish genetics as a concession to the host's argument).

I would guess that comments about Alexandra Kerry's Cannes wardrobe are fair game.

Imagine the raction to the phrase "dressed like a two-bit hooker."

Let me add one more argument of a conciliatory nature:

They did recently discover a purely genetic basis for monogamy vs. promiscuity. They found when they inserted a certain gene into mice's brains, it made them behave promiscuously, whereas before they had been monogamous. This was on the Yahoo AP Science feed a couple months back.

No word yet on whether it will be named the "Clinton gene."

Well, it's a bit sad to see you reduced to such ad hominem characterizations.

Once again, you may be right, but you are also projecting, and I'm not sure that you're aware of it. Sorry, but I'm not keen on debating anymore.

I think that your "if-then," "b&w" constructs are "indisputable," and not because I think they're correct.

Comparing child abuse to homosexuality is not only "off" because some might find it offensive, but also "off" in the way that I've previously mentioned - many homosexuals grow up without some gay, reinforcing influence that you cite as evidence for your nurture argument.

Insisiting on equating all sexual behavior is like equating all violence, or all affection. There are vast differences in intensity, context, compulsive nature and intent.

2-D.

While there are certain obvious (and offensive) connections between Kerry's inclusion of Mary Cheney's orientation, and Edwards discussion of the same, I was struck with this thought: Was not Edwards not being equally pandering when he used Christopher Reeves' death last week as a promise that, under a Kerry administration, he'd have been able to walk ?

A hypothetical also came to mind [to mix one definition of "choice" with another]:

Suppose one of the Kerry daughters had had an abortion (perhaps even a partial-birth abortion). Would Bush's inclusion of this information in an answer to a question about abortion been offensive, or seen as "part of the game"?

Methinks it would have been very offensive and derided as such immediately.

"Most certainly no. People that feel the need to dress up in Batman costumes and get freaky are not compelled to do so by genetics. The fundamental compulsion to having sex with someone of the same or opposite sex, in men at least, is a much more fundamental state of being"

How do you know this, what scientific evidence are you basing it on?

I agree with TallDave, there is a lot to sexual behavior that is behavior. What are you using to base your opinion that homosexuality is separated from all other sexual behavior?

Oh, and I think the reason conservatives generally get along at the end of the day on these issues is that what unites conservatives isn't the social issues, so we are willing to let those slide more, while with liberals, the social issues are often the core of their party-just look at abortion-the GOP welcomes its pro choice candidates, but did a single pro life person give a speech at the DNC-I don't recall one at all during primetime.

Back to that big tent-the DNC does't have one.

This was a premeditated attack by the Kerry/Edwards campaign. They had already lined up the gay advocates, such as Sullivan, before making the statement in the VP debates. Since that caused no furor, Kerry walked a little further out there on that limb. And because the philosophy of the religeous right is an anathema to the left, they probably predict voter suppression from these comments. It's the numbers, Stupid, Kerry never does anything without the polling..., and of course he can always count on MSM spin.

Genetic disposition for a non-procreative condition is eliminated in one generation. That said there is more to biology than genetics.

Kerry's comment was just Kerry making stupid, stupid (I mean really stupid) comment. Any person in their right mind knows this because:
1) There is absoloutely nothing positiive that copuld have come from his statement.
2) The only people who are defending it are left wing hardcore's who are the same people who defend Sen. Kennendy with his blunder off of a bridge.
I even bet his trainers smacked their forehead when he said that.
John Kerry tha Master Debater, screwed up.

Maybe Kedwards were trying to goad Bush/Cheney with the lezbo stuff to try and elicit an angry reply during the debates, (a.k.a. a stunt). When campaigns stunt or say "the only poll that counts is the poll on election day" you know they're done.

To 'misunderestimate' Kerry is to fail to recognize the depravity of his calculations. He is not stupid. His assumptions are stupid, however. The religeous right does not HATE gay people. They are not trying to hurt anyone, it's against their religeon. And they will have an outpouring of love to the Cheney family, all of them.

Comparing child abuse to homosexuality is not only "off" because some might find it offensive, but also "off" in the way that I've previously mentioned - many homosexuals grow up without some gay, reinforcing influence that you cite as evidence for your nurture argument.

Well, I generally try to divorce feelings or societal considerations from scientific arguments. I think it's unfair to say I'm "comparing" child abuse to homosexuality; I'm simply saying they are both sexual behaviors; their morality is not relevant to their cause.

As to how they grew up -- who can say? Tammy Bruce says every gay person she knows had some sort of same-sex trauma, fow which statment she has been roundly excoriated. But it doesn't have to be trauma, or how they grew up. Men in prisons or at sea have routinely become gay in much higher proportions than society at large, most likely because all they have around them is men. Shepherds have historically engaged in bestiality in much higher proportions than society at large; they're around sheep all day (Jared Diamond has a very funny story about such an incident in his Pulitzer-Prize-winning "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" - excellent book).

Bill

We see your side's "cheap political manipulation" - promotion of a constitutional gay marriage ammendment, and Kerry raised it in mentioning the fact that the VP's daughter is gay during a televised debate and by so doing highlighting the fact that said VP while not supporting the principle of his administrations policy nevertheless supports the policy.

In other words Kerry quite rightly exposed the hypocracy inherent in the administrations use of divisive social issues for political gain.

What are you using to base your opinion that homosexuality is separated from all other sexual behavior?

1. The fact that homosexuality is a recurrent, chronic aspect of humanity, whereas batman costumes didn't exist in ancient Rome, for example. Sexual tendencuies that are based on novelty or taboo seem inherently different to fundamental desires based on the sex of the eye's apple.

2. The fact that homosexuality has traditionally carried penalties and stigmas that include things like ... death. Occam's razor.

3. Various studies - for example, are you aware that there is a very statistically significant correlation between being the second or later born child and being gay? Or that while women can be more easily turned on by other women, men almost uniformly gravitate towards their stated sexual preference in blinded studies designed to test unconscious compulsion?

4. How about clearly effeminate male children that assume the identity without any obvious feminizing influence, and with familiy members that are all quite the opposite.

I could keep going ...

I can't state that being gay is genetically predetermined in any cases for a fact, but the circumstantial evidence is at least as strong as the evidence that supports a strictly behavioral theory.

And to be frank, anyone that's met a child that's clearly gay and out of place in a "normal" family would find any argument to the contrary counterintuitive.

The only thing resembling scientific consensus is that it's a whole host of factors, some behavioral, some genetic.

postit - what flavor is the koolaide today? grape?
Kerry was "using a divisive social issue for political gain" when he said it.

We see your side's "cheap political manipulation" - promotion of a constitutional gay marriage ammendment

Though I think he's wrong, I actually think that Bush believes in the amendment. And that aside, there are two levels to this - the moral level and the practical political level. Kerry's clumsy opportunism during the debate offended both.

TallDave -

Read the book.

On your defense of the comparison - fair enough.

The rest, I say 2-D. The fact that men and women can engage in situationally gay behavior is not mutually exclusive of the idea that a certain percentage of the population has an overriding natural compulsion.

This is a very liberal vs. conservative argument, by the way - indicative of a conservative tendency towards personal responsibility and self-determination, and a liberal argument about predestination and victimhood.

But a binary treatment doesn't do it justice. Many factors, and in some cases, some stronger than others.

Kathy -

postit - what flavor is the koolaide today? grape?

Postit drinks orange.

Genetic disposition for a non-procreative condition is eliminated in one generation.

This is incorrect. There are recessive and dominant genes.

Next?

No seriously, I'm bowing out of this thread. feel free to keep it up.

No hard feelings, TallDave.

I didn't say Kerry was stupid. I know he is smart, You don't go through Harvard if you're in idiot. That doesn't mean he can't make mistakes which come off as dumb. I will say this though. It is hard to believe that he was coached to say it, (unless they were trying to sabotage him). He was just trying to answer a question, trying to sound nice and sincere and give his Politician Answer. Instead he made an ass of himself.

Though the thread is long enough that few will scroll to read it, I thought I'd respond to the post, rather than the issue of gay marriage.

I do not have children myself, but many of my friends do. I cannot think of one of them that would enjoy having someone discuss their daughter's sex life on national television, even if that daughter was an adult.

Moreover, Mary Cheney did not seek this attention. She was put in the national spotlight by the media in 2000. At the time, she was quoted as saying she did not want to be a distraction. She did not take a high profile role in the 2000 campaign, preferring to accompany her father for personal support.

Nevertheless, it has been the media trope (including from Sullivan) that Mary's low-profile is a reflection of Dick and Lynne Cheney's attitudes. It's a trope that is quite demeaning to Mary Cheney. But apparently some people, like Kerry and many members of the media, think it's okay to treat Mary Cheney as a political prop against her will, just because she happens to be a candidate's daughter. And that last part is unquestionably an accident of birth, not a choice.

John Kerry just pasted a big ol' sign on his back that reads:

"Ask me about Teraaiza's tax records and my Form 180. Please."

Great discussion on the larger issues.

But to the original post - I just don't see why it is such a "distasteful and petty" comment. He was just putting a face on what he was saying. Since it was discussed in the VP debate, it seem to be a fair reference - it was part of the larger dialogue of the debates.

They simply don't know enough genetics to explain something as complicated as sexual attraction. It's possible that male & female homosexualities have entirely different genetic components.

Dr Laura, whom I usually like, cited a sloppy, meaningless 'study' purporting to show a link between pedophilia & homosexuality (fyi, by a woman researcher who claims Kinsey died from excessive masturbation).

If it were true that homosexual pedophiles molest at higher rates than their heterosexual counterparts, it would be impt to know, but it's not possible in the current climate of politicized research. (It would also suggest that pedophilia has a different etiology in homosexuals than in heterosexuals.)

BTW, did u see that Sully cited an ABC News poll as 'slanted towards Republicans'? That will come as news to Mark Halperin! Check out Lowell Ponte's Front Page piece on Halperin's red-diaper credentials - it's much worse than you thought

Mary has been out since at least the 2000 and 2002 elections specifically telling people that her being gay was going to be a positive thing for voting for the Bush-Cheney Administration. Mary is over 21 years old. All the other daughters get talked about.

Even over a month ago, Cheney brought her up as being gay in a speach he gave as an example.

In a public discussion by public officials who are supposed to represent their constituents, yet at the same time protect the minority voice, private motivations are very important. It is similar to a public official holding voting stock in a company wanting to do business with the government.
Although I think it was appropriate due to the context of this campaign, what has been said previously, and the question asked; however, unless Mary herself said "yes that is true", how does Kerry and her Dad know for a fact that Mary's sexual relations with women are by choice or not? Maybe she is really a closet bisexual and only tells people she is gay.

In that case, maybe it would be valuable to issue a statement saying that "although being 100% straight or gay is not a choice, there is an underrepresented bisexual community in our country that suffers strong prejudice from people who are not, and the use of Mary Cheney as an example of a 100% gay person without her confirmation that she is shows the lack of respect for this seemingly substantial number of citizens."

Bill, those are interesting arguments, but (leaving aside considerations of stigma or morality), nothing separates 1 and 2 from pedophilia (accepted in ancient Greece), incest (accepted among ancient royalty), bestiality (accepted in ancient shepherds), etc.

3. Yes, but that's actually an argument AGAINST genetics. A second- or third-born child is not genetically "marked" as second or third -- but DOES experience a very different environment in terms of not being the dominant child.

4. It's hard to argue against anecdotal evidence without knowing the details of an individual case, but people (even children, maybe especially children) are highly complex. Children rebel, or indulge in behaviors just because of the effect it has on their "normal" family, sometimes only at an unconscious level.

I can't state that being gay is genetically predetermined in any cases for a fact, but the circumstantial evidence is at least as strong as the evidence that supports a strictly behavioral theory.

I'm not familiar with much concrete evidence pointing to genetics, but I've seen a lot pointing to environment.

I'm also a VERY big believer in self-determination. I believe you can modify most any of your own desires (even those stronger than sex) if you really want to, rather than be prisoner to them. Can you decide to stop eating for a couple weeks? It's hard as hell, but Gandhi did it. Given that, what is and isn't a choice? It's a blurry line, I suppose, drawn somewhere between unconscious desire and counscious choice.

It seems to me that the right answer about whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral was President Bush's I don't know.

I think the evidence, cutting through all of the hype, is ambiguous. One argument against genetic origin is the obvious one that if it is indeed genetic, and most homosexuals do not reproduce, then the gene would become more rare and, perhaps, eventually die out.

However, be that as it may, my suspicion is that some homosexuality may be genetically determined, but much of it is environmentally determined or a matter of behavioral choice.

If that is true, then what is society's interest? The social stigma of the past discouraged behavioral or environmental homosexuality -- probably a good thing -- but also led to laws that punished the (I think fairly rare) genetic homosexuals -- which I think almost everyone would agree is a bad thing.

Hence all of our ambiguity on homosexuality. Can one distinguish between 'genetic' and 'behavioral' homosexuality? While I think most people are prepared to accept 'genetic' homosexuals and not mistreat them, I think many people, myself included, remain uncomfortable with accepting or even -- through gay marraige and the like -- encouraging 'behavioral' homosexuality.

And the whole discussion of genetic vs. behavioral homosexuality ignores the whole 'chicken-hawking' phenomenon, whereby most people who become homosexual have their first experiences with significantly older, confirmed homosexuals and are brought into the 'lifestyle'. At least that's what my gay friends tell me. Are those young experimental homosexuals 'genetic' homosexuals finding themselves? Or, are they young men and women who in the hormonal and emotional roller coaster of adolesecne are confused about their sexuality? Hard questions.

The rest, I say 2-D. The fact that men and women can engage in situationally gay behavior is not mutually exclusive of the idea that a certain percentage of the population has an overriding natural compulsion.

Yes, that is the crux. I believe no such gene exists, you believe it does. Like you, I think sometime within our lives the question will be settled.

I'll tell you what, if they isolate a gene or combination of genes that results in a greater than 50% likelihood of being gay, I'll owe you a dinner and all the beer you can drink in a night. Since it's open-ended, you don't owe me anything if they don't.

Ok I lied, one last comment -

I'm also a VERY big believer in self-determination. I believe you can modify most any of your own desires (even those stronger than sex) if you really want to, rather than be prisoner to them.

But you shouldn't have to, especially as it relates to the fundamental human desire to seek love and exclusive intimacy from another person. This type of relationship is what makes life really worth living. Gay people deserve happiness too.

bestiality (accepted in ancient shepherds)

No, the ancient writings of Deudelaclys refer to stigmas around the practice of bestiality among shepards, specifically assigning them the moniker of "Ba-a-astripidis," or "goat humping loser who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse."

True story.

;)

Kerry in making his tasteless comment was simply trying to take advantage of prejudice against gays...he was trying to feed the beast. Kerry was hoping to cost Bush a few votes by playing to homophobia.

So that's Kerry for you: the candidate who wants people to hate gays...

Haha, funny story.

But you shouldn't have to, especially as it relates to the fundamental human desire to seek love and exclusive intimacy from another person. This type of relationship is what makes life really worth living. Gay people deserve happiness too.

Yes, I meant to add that -- I also don't agree anyone should HAVE to modify their behavior, homosexual or otherwise, for reasons of stigma or fmaily disapproval, etc. But if they decide to for their own reasons, I believe they could. Again, whether they do or don't is no reflection on them, and they should never HAVE to.

Rollins,

You must be kidding. First of all, while I think Edwards intentionally and calculatingly mentioned Cheney's daughter's sexaulity in the veep debate, at least her father was there and Edwards didn't try to "channel" her (no Edwards pun intended) by giving his opinion as to what he thought she would say.

And why did he call her a "lesbian" instead of saying she was gay? I think that is very telling, and my belief is that he was trying to conjure a more "butch" and therefore less acceptable image.

And lastly, since he then went into his rather bizarre comments about husbands coming to terms with being gay and the acceptance of their wives, why didn't he use Jim McGreevey as an example instead of the VP's daughter?

But when is that witty fellow Sean Gleeson going to write a humorous parody of the final debate? And will it handle the "Cheney's daughter is a lesbian" issue with the requisite sensitivity?

Can one distinguish between 'genetic' and 'behavioral' homosexuality? While I think most people are prepared to accept 'genetic' homosexuals and not mistreat them, I think many people, myself included, remain uncomfortable with accepting or even -- through gay marraige and the like -- encouraging 'behavioral' homosexuality.

I don't think people should or would be stigmatized for genetics OR behavioral homosexuality. We're pretty enlightened here in the 21st century. But I do think that is part of the basis on which certain groups disingenuously promote the genetic idea. AIDS funding, obviously, becomes a lot more palatable if people believe gays are fulfilling their unalterable genetic destiny as opposed to just having a good time.

I wonder how Kerry would have felt is Bush brought up the late Senetor Heinz and stated "maybe he should have introduced and voted for legislation for safer airplanes"? (before he boarded his fatal flight).

After reading the first 1/2, then skimming the latter 1/2, I think it's safe to say that both TallDave and Bill are right - there's probably a host of genetic combinations which would give the predisposition one way or another, and once the predisposition is in place, the individual has a choice to go with or against it, and can be successful or not depending on how strong the predisposition is as well.

One thing I will say, is that as it has been mentioned, homosexuality, from a 100% purely biological standpoint is a genetic dead end. As this (fiction) author put it (here: http://tinyurl.com/6o77m ), we're born, we procreate, then we die, because genetics has no further use for us. Even on the single-cell level, a cell that does not reproduce dies, leaving its genetic legacy unpassed. There's those that note homosexual behavior in the animal world; while the behavior is there, when a 'practitioner' isable to become the alphas (in the case of herd/pack/gaggle/whatever grouping-animals), they revert to heterosexual behavior (I lost the link, but debated this a couple years ago... if there's new evidence that shows I'm wrong, hey, I'm wrong :) if not, well... buy me a beer and we can debate it >:) )

As to Kerry mentioning Ms. Cheney, I actually think it was just carelessness and move-mouth-without-thinking stupidity rather tha part of an agenda.
-------
Homosexual "Marriage"? As far as I am concerned, it is all nomenclature. "Marriage" is a religious name, "Civil Union" is a political name. When the laws were written, they were called "marriage" laws because noone needed a distinction between a Marriage recognized by a religion and a Civil Union recognized by a government: whether vows were taken in front of a religious figure or a justice of the peace, the laws call it marriage.

Now, a religion may refuse to recognize a Civil Union: the Roman Cathoic Church, for example, does not recognize what is sometimes called "civil marriage" as well as civil union. Nor, of course, does it recognize a "marriage" solemnized by another reigion. And I think they have the right to descibe marriage as they wish, albeit I may disagree.

But the State really cannot, since it has established the civil union to allow for extending statutory benefits without a religious component. Heck, there is even "common-law" in some places, which involves no vows at all!

The State should allow gender-neutral civil unions (mostly, a simple law saying "references using the word marriage prior to the passage of this law should be read as civil-union"). This would allow homosexuals to have statutory recognition, and put "marriage" back to religion, where it belongs.
----
Is homosexuality innate or socialized? Well, several species indulge in it; though that is not a very good answer it is a pointer.

Bill - "2. The fact that homosexuality has traditionally carried penalties and stigmas that include things like ... death."

Well, with the partial exemption of Sparta, I know of no society that approved of it - but not until Leviticus, and only among the religions springing from the Judaic, was it much more than disapproved of and its practioners sometimes shunned. Leviticus named it an "abomination" (worse than a mere "sin", like murder), and opened the door to expansion of punishment. But that book uses the same term for eating pork or lobster.

Amusing note (well, I think so): remember Robin Hood, Prince John, and King Richard? In the real world, there was a very real concern that Richard would not have an heir because he only bedded with men...

Anyone comparing someone bringing up Mary Cheney being a lesbian to say, Elizabeth Edwards being fat or someone dying in a plane crash is exposing the fact that they see it as somehow shameful. I don't believe that and don't believe Kerry sees it that way, either. Where's the outrage at Alan Keyes calling her a selfish hedonist, or the horrific stuff you hear out of Rick Santorum? Huh?

I agree that the reference seemed forced; I don't think Kerry needed to mention her - with Edwards, it was a bit more natural. But who is using this as a political football here? I absolutely agree with Elizabeth Edwards -- it's obvious Lynne Cheney feels a certain shame about getting upset at someone who mentions a FACT. And of course, since he's a Democrat, well, all the better. Gimme a break, people.

Where's the outrage at Alan Keyes calling her a selfish hedonist, or the horrific stuff you hear out of Rick Santorum?

All over the "rightie" blogosphere. Open your eyes and do your due diligence before you comment.

John Kerry's statement about Mary Cheney was despicable!

Great discussion! not that I can add anything of value (but that won't stop me). I believe the sanctity of marriage is society's reward to men and women for putting up with each other, this being ultimately for the propagation of the species. On one (immature) level, staying with your own sex is "easy." Hetero is hard. Men and women are so different. It is a great leap in maturity to live in harmony with your opposite.

Childless couples serve their purposes too, by modeling the hetero relationship for others, especially the young. If you witness a few good marriages you're more inclined to try it yourself. Even second or third marriages that work are an inspiration these days.

Andrew's side will probably win the legal argument, but I'll be happy to not be around much longer. I believe that polygamy will not be far behind (due to Islamic political influence), followed by wholesale devaluation of women's place in the world.

Lynn and Dick Chenny are mad because this man used their daughter to score cheap politcal points. John Kerry knows plenty of gay Democrates, but didn't mention one. He mentioned Mary Chenny to drive a wedge between Bush and his supporters. This is disgusting! Andrew Sullivan has lost his credibility because he is blinded be his desire for Gay marriage.

Dave you ignorant slut.

"I agree that the reference seemed forced"

So why did he force it? Is it really important to john Kerry that the world have a better understanding of how Mary Cheney feels (something about which he has no personal knowledge)? I think you'd agree that this was not his motivation, so why did he bring it up?

"it's obvious Lynne Cheney feels a certain shame about getting upset at someone who mentions a FACT."

Another mind-reader! Amazing. Kerry can tell how much money people make by looking at them, he knows what Mary Cheney thinks about her sexuality, and now you know what her mother is thinking.

Just last week Howard Wolfson was bringing up the old "Bush tried to destroy McCain in the primaries" refrain, and when pressed for details said that "Bush supporters were telling people that the McCains adopted a black baby". McCain himself has made this charge (although he doesn't claim Bush was responsible) and has said that there is "a special place in Hell for people like that."

The baby they adopted is indeed Bengali and very dark-skinned, so here we have a FACT that undrestandably upset many people. Is it "obvious" that John and Cindy McCain "feel a certain amount of shame" about their daughter's ethnicity?

I don't remember seeing Alan Keyes or Rick Santorum in the debate last night, and I don't believe either are related to any of the candidates in the current presidential campaign. This may explain why they are not mentioned in this thread.

To use Mary Cheney's sexual orientation as a chance to score points in a political race is cheap and dispicable.

It shows the character that John Kerry has..NONE.

Lysander: It's possible for genes to have different effects on males & females, & it's possible for traits that have some disadvantages to be passed on if there's a net advantage to the species.

Given the extremely low rate of homosexuality, it's possible that any gene contributing to it could have other unrelated advantages that would make it genetically viable. Example: if a gene that helped produce healthier babies in females also caused a small incidence of male homosexuality, the gene would be passed on.

This is yet another example of the Dems feeble attempts to replicate some of my past successes. They can't play to people's prejudices like I can because they don't understand those prejudices like I do. Thinking outside the box for a moment, my evil genius tells me there's something more to this. The fact that the Cheney household has driven one of it's members to a choice that is not reflective of family values raises serious questions. What is it about Lynne and Dick that would fail to encourage their daughter towards a healthy, happy hetero relationship? I've seen editorials testifying to the manly gravitas of our two candidates, but I'm not so sure. And it seems a legitimate issue that overcompensation for inadequacies could influence decisions that effect not only the country but the entire world. Having a daughter who chose to be gay could be seen as an indicator of a complex that could lead to deleterious outcomes. Kerry actually did Cheney a favor by arguing that homosexuality is not a choice influenced by the environment of upbringing. Although Lynne's disgust belies her belief otherwise; her shame isn't for her daughter but for herself. People here are absolutely correct to be outraged by this cheap stunt. Nobody is perfect and all families are more or less dysfunctional. When you go to the voting booth, ask yourself this: if John Kerry can't play dirty pool well in the campaign, how will he be able to play dirty pool against our enemies?

I think it cheap and tawdry for Senator Kerry to mention Mary Chenney's sexual preference at all. If that is OK by Kerry, then it would be OK for President Bush to state that gravy and heavy cream sauces are the preferred beverages in the Edwards household?

I am a conservative from Wyoming. It is common knowlege here that Mr. Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. It may suprise (although I think it scares) liberals that the conservative position is TOLERANCE!! I do not think the conservative christians are as homophobic as the left would believe. This one will backfire, but hopefully those moderates will finally see which is the truly tolerant, compasionate party

Someone with Nexis should look for the transcript from a Today show interview of Lynne Cheney in 2000 where she denied Mary was openly gay. She was and is ashamed of her

It's self-evident that Kerry can play dirty pool, ask any SBVT. It would be great if Kerry thought Bush/Cheney were just a nuisance and ignore them like terrorism, but no, he attacks them, and below the belt at that.
Careful though, this could do to gay causes what Clinton's indescretions did for feminism. If gay activists don't denounce this, where is their credibility for outrage when a Republican says something they don't like?

Senator Kerry, ok, disscuss your opinions re sexuality, but it is NON OF YOUR BUSINESS to
bring ANY individual by name into the discussion without prior approval. You have reconfirmed your several basic, apparently uncurable, character flaws. Not fit for command - not fit as CEO. Go back to the Senate and work on your intellectual and every other kind of integrity.
Jim Shillady

Now they've played the "L" card. Is it fair game to mention Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's plastic surgery, emotional problems and drinking. Or Mrs. Edwards orca-like bulbousness? (Tip: Liz, never wear a black and white suit).

There is no science that demonstrates homosexuality is genetic, exactly zero. Just as there is no science that embryonic stem cells are an effective cure for anything. This is the same kind of junk science that Edwards made a fortune on. Unproven theories are just that, unproven.

Sooo not the point. The point is that she doesn't deserve to be used as a political football in a transparent and clumsy attempt to embarrass her
father and his administration.



Oh please. Kerry has never used Laura Bush or her daughters to score political points. It boggles the mind as to how he could. Too bad Mary
Cheney wasn't extended the same courtesy.

Extremist Andrew should take his marriage goggles off and rethink this issue, pronto.

BTW, Sullivan contracted AIDS thanks to high-risk sex fueled by gay Internet hook-up boards. What if Bush/Cheney consistently invoked his name every time the AIDS issue came up, as their way of pleading for personal responsibility? Would Andrew be as charitable in his analysis? Give me a break.

For thought, I would like to propose the following...What is the true value of being married or even being offered legal partnership status. Some that I can think of are joint tax returns, visitation issues in hospitals, joint ownership of certain investment vehicles, health insurance coverage, and the ability to adopt children (although I now this is changing). Whereas I agree fully that people should have the right to do what they would like to sexually so long as these acts are consenual, I would guess it would be easier and just as effective to legislate changes in the law that provide equalit of shared benefits by the proviers as opposed to challenging the legality of marraige between a man and a woman. Sometimes, we can be provided equal access without destroying some foundations of the country. Just some thoughts.

*Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact.*

Sooo not the point. The point is that she doesn't deserve to be used as a political football in a transparent and clumsy attempt to embarrass her
father and his administration.

*No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow."*

Oh please. Kerry has never used Laura Bush or her daughters to score political points. It boggles the mind as to how he could. Too bad Mary
Cheney wasn't extended the same courtesy.

Extremist Andrew should take his marriage goggles off and rethink this issue, pronto.

BTW, Sullivan contracted AIDS thanks to high-risk sex fueled by gay Internet hook-up boards. What if Bush/Cheney consistently invoked his name every time the AIDS issue came up, as their way of pleading for personal responsibility? Would Andrew be as charitable in his analysis? Give me a break.

Andrew Sullivan, and many others, are being very myopic on this. I really can't stand Kerry, and I do like Bush (though not on everything). But I really watched the debate trying to put myself in the shoes of the undecided voter - to get a gut feel for how well each of them would be perceived. I had a visceral negative reaction to the Mary Cheney reference. It was so obviously a pre-meditated and calculated comment. It fit nowhere in the context. This is somewhat confirmed by Mary Beth Cahill's spin that bringing Mary Cheney into this is "fair game." Seems Kerry hit the target he intended!

As bad as Kerry's pandering was, Mrs. Edward's remarks were truly disgusting. I actually had a moderately positive impression of Elizabeth Edwards before now. No more! What the hell was that! Every time I have seen Lynne or Dick Cheney interviewed about Mary, they have talked lovingly and with pride about their daughter. They have not, in word, tone or expression, displayed any embarrassment. It is clear that Lynne Cheney was offended by Kerry's willingness to USE her daughter for his political ends. What parent would NOT have a problem with that? First Kerry presumes to know what Mary Cheney thinks, then Mrs. Edwards presumes to know what Lynne Cheney feels. "Low blow" is too mild.

What would have happened during the debate on healt care, Bush had stated:

"The are a lot of children who are losing health care because of tril lawyers like my opponent and his running mate. Alexandra Kerry was a bedwetter until the age of 11 and might have received the proper medical care if it wasn't for the trial lawyers"?

What would Mrs. Kerry be saying? Would she be ashamed of her daughter? Or Bush for bring it up?

You see people, the children of the candidates are off limits. Even if Alexandra Kerry admitted she was a bed wetter, the subject is still off limits. To use the children as political pawns is abusive and unethical - but since when has a Democrat been ethical?

An apology is due.

The real point it seems to me is that both Edwards and now Kerry have shown no respect for the PRIVACY of this individual. The Democrats bash Bush over the Patriot Act and invasions of privacy, for example, yet they will crassly exploit Cheney's daughter and invade her privacy if it serves their political ends. This clearly demonstrates the incredible hypocrisy of the Democrats and their underlying "ends justifies any means" philosophy.

The comment thread is voluminous, so forgive me if I duplicate.

The notion that homosexuality as genetics dies out in one generation ignores the possibility of occasional heterosexual activity leading to off-spring which would presumably transmit the gene in some cases.

"Alexandra Kerry admitted she was a bed wetter"

Wow...did she get that from Daddy?

The statement was ridiculous, gratitious, and exploitive.

Imagine, if you will, Kerry was asked a question about institutional racism or affirmative action, and he responded:

"If you were to talk to George W. Bush's sister-in-law, Jeb's wife... who is a Mexican... she would tell you that she's being who she was..."

It's immaterial, and no one's buying that Kerry said it out of some need to reach out and show American what a "strong family" the Cheneys are, or whatever his excuse was.

The candidates' children are NOT "fair game," I suggest Mary Beth Cahill should've checked with Alexandra Kerry about who is and isn't "fair game" in all of this.

I think there is a genetic *predisposition* to homosexuality, but that's not proven. What is pretty conclusively proven by identical twin studies I've read of is that there is NOT a 100% genetic compulsion to homosexuality.

Here's the first useful link I found in a Google on the topic, maybe others can find better:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

If a gay man has an identical twin brother, the twin is 48% likely to be straight despite being genetically identical to his gay brother. A fraternal twin brother is 78% likely to be straight.

If homosexuality is absolutely genetically determined, the identical twin of a gay man would always be gay.

Still that is a high correlation between identical genes and the same sexual orientation, so I think it most likely there's some genetic predisposition that's triggered by environmental factors. However it's *possible* that environmental determination of sexuality accounts for the high correlation, with no genetic component. Identical twins have much more similar environemental influences than fraternal twins. They look the same to Mom and Dad. Whatever personality attributes are genetically determined are the same in both, so their experiences of people reacting to that behavior will be similar. It's only as they live separate lives (e.g. going out separately, different friends) that their environmental influences diverge.

However none of this would influence my opinion of gay marriage. Whether one's desires are genetically influenced or not, that's not the same as having a choice.

I favor gay marriage as a matter of policy, but preserving the democratic rule of law is much more important than having my way on gay marriage. When/if a majority of people agree with me, we can elect legislators to enact it into law. I am extremely po'd at despotic judges who feel entitled to substitute their own policy preferences for what is actually written in the constitution, even if I agree with those policy preferences.

I don't want to a constitutional amendment against gay marriage passed, but I can see some value in the proposal as a brush-back pitch for the anti-democratic types among gay marriage advocates. If they learn that using undemocratic tactics is counterproductive for their goal, this issue can be resolved the American way through elections.

First, as has been said, trying to hurt the father politically by using the kid against him is reprehensible.

Second, for Bill:

The reason there's a constitutional amendment out there is because the Courts have demonstrated they will impose their answer on everyone by fiat. You're at least willing to debate the issue; the Courts aren't.

I don't have a problem with an FMA which denied the Courts jurisdiction over the issue and left it's resolution to the various state legislatures - even though I believe the conduct (along with so much other conduct that our society today thinks is 'just fine') violates God's laws and is destructive.

If God was interested in obedience, and only obedience, he would've been thrilled with the Pharisees. He wasn't - He's interested in the heart.

So I have no interest in society compelling people to observe God's law where there's no harm to others.

This from the wire:

"Some prominent politicians who have struggled with the issue said Thursday that Kerry's comments were well within bounds. ""I think what John Kerry said was very kind,"" said Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., whose daughter is a lesbian."

Okay, fine. Why didn't Kery reference Gephardt's daughter instead of Cheney's daughter? Only one reason - to create a political backlash against Bush - but it certainly backfired against Kerry. Shameful cheap shot.

Why didn't he bring up a democrat like Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton?

Hmmm...folks... Kerry's Mary moment won’t have any impact on bC's "armies of compassion." And the outrage reflects more on the accusers than the accused. Every word out of Kerry's mouth is poison to the true believers so how can he depress bC’s support by merely asserting a fact. He didn’t spin it into a diatribe about how b has used the issue as red meat for his supporters. He just left it as a declaration of the right for Mary to be loved and respected for who she is. And he suggested that God may have had a hand in it. I suspect that you understand that but you need as many weapons as you can get. Ultimately, your outraged rhetoric is not to protect the Marys of the world. pretty sad.

Kerry's campaign official, Mrs. Cahill, called Cheney's daughter "fair game". I'm sure that's how the Chechen rebels felt about the children at Berslan, too.

All these comparisons to Elizabeth Edwards miss the point. Being gay is not a problem. Being obese is (physical health, mental health, cost to government).

youngblood kaufman,

What are doing at home? Shouldn't you be out breaking into RNC offices and stealing computers and stealing Bush/Cheney signs from people's front yards?

Yoyo,

I'm surprised John Edwards is not suing KFC or McDonalds for making his wife into a blimp.

The Cheney's have never said anything that would indicate embarrassment on thier part regarding thier daughter's homosexuality. Kerry's reach to include her in his answer to the question in the debate was uncalled for. What if, in answer to the question in the debate about abortion, Bush had speculated about one of the Kerry daughters having terminated a pregnancy (I haven't heard anything like that; just for speculation). The libs in the press would have torn him to bits. Mary Cheney is not really a public figure. Some things, or people, are just off limits. Mrs. Edwards was way out of line.

Bill, I am delighted to learn that you support gay marriage. One good book addressing, among other things, homosexuality and the marriage issue is Richard Posner's "Overcoming Law."

As he shows, the evidence is compelling that homosexuality is either genetically determined, and/or determined so early in utero or early childhood, as to eliminate the notion that people "choose" to be gay. And TallDave, Posner addresses homosexuality in prison and such, and denominates this opportunistic homosexuality, as distinct from the preferential variety.

My 21-yr-marriage ended when my ex finally could no longer continue denying what had been obvious to all of us for more than a decade. He is gay, and no amount of therapy, prayer sessions, or anything else was going to change the fact that he was powerfully attracted to men and far less so to women, if at all. Had we not been raised in a faith and culture which caused him to shrink in horror from the erotic attraction to the same sex that he had experienced since pre-pubescence, my family and I would have been spared a great deal of pain. He would not have married me as an attempt to be "normal."

My ex is gay, and always was, even tho he ardently wished not to be. He is gay, and did not choose it. Period. Full stop. He resisted his sexual orientation mightily for many years, which was something of a mindf*ck for him.

Anyway, I am pleased that so many of the bloggers who are way cool on forign policy and the revolting machinations of Kerry & Co., are enlightened in the area of homosexuality. Kudos!

--Mona--

First, Bill from INDC (and anyone else) -- gimme a break with your "due diligence" comment. i'm talking about outrage from the likes of the Cheneys about Keyes and Santorum. I've never heard them bring that up. Yes, there's outrage in the blogosphere. Great. Not the point - the point is you can be consistent and denounce Keyes and Kerry, or do neither - again, speaking about the Cheneys here. You attack the SCLM for "going after" Gopers for certain statements while Dems are given a pass, but now we've got a Dem being attacked for essentially saying something innocuous. (Bush didn't get a lot of hell for his "Don't kill me" comment from 2000 when he should have; lots of statements disappear into the ether.)

Kerry said something that seemed heartfelt but relatively innocuous -- even though, yes, it seems to be a forced way of bringing it up. (I actually felt like Edwards bringing it up was more sleazy, coming across like the "trial lawyer.") Kerry, to me, probably seems like he has no issue with gay people, and it's not as if she's in the closet. She's out there. For all to see.

I don't get this idea that he's "dragging" the kid into it unless there are people who feel a certain shame about it, namely, her parents. Why is it ok for them to talk about it openly but then Kerry can't mention it? (Never mind the awkwardness -- I think we all agree on that point.) And as far as "mind-reading," most of us here are making judgements on the mindset of a lot of people based on comments made. Seriously now. And based on previous statements made pointed out by some above, Lynne Cheney seems to feel some sort of stigma about her daughter. Some people don't feel this at all - I certainly don't, and I don't think Kerry meant offense, honestly.

That doesn't mean it wasn't clumsy. Agreed on that.

I no longer have links to it, but an extensive study of identical twins separated at birth tested them for corelations in some 200 traits, including homosexuality. The correlation for homosexuality, i.e., where one was gay so was the other, was astronomically higher than chance, I believe about 50%. (As I recall, no trait correlated at 100%, but I could be wrong about that.)

I don't have time to do it now or I'd google and link; but I believe it was conducted by the University of Minnesota. In any event, a great deal of evidence from this study strongly suggested genetic influence in many, many areas. If someone else wished to google this and link, have at it.

--Mona--

oops, gensec already DID post about the twins studies and he has links. Sorry, but his wasn't posted when I logged in and began reading.

--Mona--

Dave: Alan Keyes is a joke who has zero chance of winning in his Illinois senate race. If I were the Cheneys, I might have publicly rebuked him, but perhaps not, given that he is a non-entity.

But the fact is, I, as a very gay-friendly supporter of their marriage rights, was pleased to see conservative bloggers in some of my usual haunts harshly criticizing Keyes for that grotesque comment. So, by your lights, at least these have license to opine on Kerry's remarks re: Mary Cheney.

Kerry is in a tight race for POTUS; Keyes can be ignored, Kerry cannot be.

He's an non-entity in the sense that he's a joke, yes. But what he said was far worse by any standards than what Kerry said - who didn't attack Mary Cheney's character. It's selective fury by the Cheneys. If the bloggers attacked Keyes, good -- as they should, and feel free to discuss Kerry's comments too. But for the Cheneys to go nuts on Kerry (and not Edwards, and especially not Keyes, who said far more insulting things) and to remain silent on the idea of an amendment to the constitution shows very little political fortitude; Dick Cheney no longer has anything to lose in this world -- his approval rating is already lower than the other 3 -- and a rebuke by him might have the "Nixon goes to China" or "Sister Souljah" effect. For him to remain largely silent in the face of Keyes while slamming Kerry is wrong to me and comes across as a low form of opportunism in the Al D'Amato variety.

Again - Kerry's comment seems pointless (just as it would him saying, "It's hard to afford college. The president, for example, has two daughters in college." I might react to a statement like that with "HUH?" but no more. Which is how I see this.)

Here is what Kerry said during the debate:

"We're all God's children, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Very inappropriate. Now let's change the name and the label:

"We're all God's children and I think if you were to talk to John Edward's wife, who is over weight, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Hmmm...still inappropriate.

Let's try another one:

"We're all God's children and I think if you were to talk to Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife, who is black, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Hmmm...that may be true, but it would still be inappropriate.

Try this: (plug any name and label outside of the political circle)

"We're all God's children and I think if you were to talk to _______________, who is __________, he/she would tell you that he's/she's being who he/she was. He's/She's being who he/she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

It still come out inappropriate and in some cases outright cruel.

Kerry should quit defending his remark, admit he made a mistake in judgment and apologize. In addition Kerry should quit trying to spin the blame back to the Cheney's. However, we know he won't apologize - just like he won't apologize to the Vietnam Vet's - it would be an admittance of guilt and you have to have a conscience to admit guilt.

gensec's position is rather 'elegant'. I like it, and I believe I'll adopt that position formally because it answers the concerns of:

1) Some are gay with no discernable or rational 'behavioral' influence.

2) Some choose homosexual behavior as a matter of taste (or experiential preference) - 'I had fun when I tried this, I didn't when I tried that, I must be that-particular-preference'.

3) Some are just horny and will do anything handy when they're in the mood. (Prisoners, etc)

As to the remark by Kerry - despicable. You don't treat your opponent's family that way. It's just bad form. Not polite. Not kosher.

Dave from 10:05 here - different Dave than the one a couple comments above me.

the point is you can be consistent and denounce Keyes and Kerry, or do neither - again, speaking about the Cheneys here.

Are you daft? This is their daughter. There is no obligation for the VP to denounce a Senate candidate from Illinois. Don't be ridiculous.

Let's make real quick of Elizabeth Edwards and her awful swipe at Lynne Cheney.

Imagine if in the debates a moderator had asked the candidates a question about appropriate federal responses to the nation's obesity epidemic and Bush (or Cheney) had gratuitously tossed into his answer the fact that Elizabeth Edwards is pretty fat herself.

No one would yelp louder and faster about that than Elizabeth Edwards and the Dems. And they would be right to.

Is there an obligation to denounce Kerry, then, for what is an essentially innocent if unartful comment? C'mon, seriously. They should be more insulted by someone making a statement regarding tolerance than a bigot? The personal pique I don't understand.

I also don't understand the comparison to a fat person...is being gay an affliction?

It was a cheap shot and very revealing of character. I do not blame Democrats for this; I blame Kerry and Edwards. Their's was a cold calculation that they could wound the President and VP, and split off a sliver of religious conservative vote. This was a major miscalculation. I doubt they had any "positive" political effect and they may very well have, judging from feedback, lost a sliver of Democratic voters. Not only "not a good man" but also not a very clever one either.

Thank you SPF. That's the point I have been trying to make. Is John Edwards "ashamed" of his wife being over weight? I don't believe that for a moment and his wife was out of line for saying that about Mrs. Cheney. Nice people the Dems have chosen to potentialy run and represent our country. NOT!! No example to emmulate.

"First Dave"

I find it hard to believe that anyone who can operate a computer, access the net, find this blog & manage to post a comment really believes Kerry's comment was "essentially innocent".

I also don't understand the comparison to a fat person...is being gay an affliction?

Individuals are trying to make an analogy that illustrates inappropriate comments about a family member ... and failing. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

Don't dismiss the argument becuase some use inappropriate metaphors.

If you think Kerry's comment was "innocent" in intent then you are naive or disingenuous. Kerry was gay-baiting under the political calcualtion that some members of Bush's evangelical base would be turned off by that piece of info that may have been new to them.

And the only thing more upsetting about people that would hold such a thing against Cheney is someone that attempt such a nasty political ploy.

Give me a break. Don't play/be stupid.

To "the first dave",

I also don't understand the comparison to a fat person...is being gay an affliction?

I can' tell you if it's an "affliction", however, in the context that Kery presented his statement, it was not an "affliction". Instead it was an inappropriate "label". Being called fat is also an inappropraite "label". It was wrong in it's context and inexcusable as it was planned in advance to sway voters.

When it was Bill Clinton the Democrat refrain was "his sex life is none of our business - it's personal." But now that Kerry is in trouble they sing a different tune. Not only are personal lives fair game but the personal lives of children as well. OK. Let's have another go at Chelsea Clinton, shall we?

Switching the debate a bit to the supposed rationale behind the comment. If you're going to impute a "cold, manipulative" political motive to kerry's comment, the motive has to make sense. Firstly, most individuals KNOW Mary Cheney is a homosexual. The VP has himself mentioned it on several campaign stops in a desperate attempt to soften the GOP Platform's line on gay rights. I don't think many watching the debate heard of Cheney's daughter's sexuality from Kerry for the first time. So what exactly would Kerry accomplish in making the comment? Would an evangelical Christian listening to a man they probably already loathe all of a sudden come to the conclusion, simply because Cheney has a gay daughter, that they'd rather stay home than vote for his ticket? That makes very little sense to me. Therefore, the most likely explanation is that
1) Kerry was trying to humanize the story using an example of a person who, thought it defies logic, has chosen to not only support but MANAGE the campaign of a man whose #1 supports the FMA.
2) Kerry wanted to point out the contradiction between BC's private and public behavior. We have a premium on consistency in this election and Cheney's private and public support of his daughter does not JIVE with the administration's position on the FMA. If the man had true political balls, if he was truly proud of his daughter, he would stand up for her basic human rights.

The fact of the matter is is that this is a self-limiting spin and in a week no one will remember any of it. The FMA is an issue that both sides wish to habitually avoid. Bush has already shored up his base by simply supporting the amendment (how much more can his base expect him to do?) And Kerry knows that, in general, this won't bring swing voters to his side.

In fact, I think it is MORE plausible that the evangelical base was turned off by the comment since the majority of them tend to view the word "homosexual" as pejorative. If anything, they viewed Kerry as slinging some unmentionable insult at the Cheney family.

Bill,

Individuals are trying to make an analogy that illustrates inappropriate comments about a family member ... and failing. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

No one said that. The point being made is that Kerry used a "label" and that was inappropriate.

Everyone here is well informed. I do believe, however, Kerry was trying to reach out to the average person who doesn't keep up with the news and doesn't know Mary Cheney is gay. Imagine the shock. "Cheney's daughter is gay? But the President is anti-gay. That doesn't make sense. Maybe I should vote for this Kerry guy".

I guarantee the mention of Mary cheney was planned prior to the debate as it was no secret that "gay marriage" was going to be brought up in the debate. To believe otherwise is to be naive.

If Kerry was trying to scare off religious conservatives from voting for Bush, he has failed miserably.

I know several religious conservatives, and they are even more angry at Kerry for making that remark.

I do indeed believe Kerry and Edwards keep bringing up this point for one reason only: they mistakenly assume that a large number of Bush's base is homophobic and that this somehow will drive them away from Bush. Of course that is ludicrous, and Kerry will only experience huge backlash from this. This will not be forgotten by many, especially by parents who don't appreciate this kind of craven tactic.

One more way that this will backfire on Kerry: for many of those who didn't know about Mary Cheney, this will confirm the fact that Republicans are not anti-gay. For many social moderates on this issue, this will be a reassuring fact...it reinforces the idea that one can be against gay marriage without being anti-gay or homophobic, and indeed, even having tremendous respect and love for gay people.

Jeff,

I agree with that as a possible political motive behinds Kerry's comment. And if that's true, I think the issue is indeed, as Mary Beth Cahill said, "fair game." Cheney's daughter is his one of his top advisors. Her silence is just as loathsome as Kerry's comment, if not more so...a perfect example of a sin of omission. This election has, at its core, issues of philosophical coherence. Bush has labeled Kerry as a flip-flopper. Well I can think of no more deletarious an example of flip-flopping than one of privately supporting and condoning your daughter's "marriage" to a woman of 10 years and publicly supporting a man who would deny her that right by amending the constitution. Talk about naked political calculus. Mary Cheney has remained essentially silent on the issue, even refusing to go on stage with her father during the convention, in order to avoid OFFENDING Bush's base. Pure cowardice.

But then again, Jeff, do you honestly believe the "average guy" is going to give a sh*t about philosophical coherence on issues of gay rights? If an individual was so concerned with consistency on gay rights that they would find offensive the fact that Cheney had a gay daughter and Bush supported the FMA, they were probably voting for Kerry anyway.

Let's look at the heart of the matter. What was the question asked?

"Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Did Kerry answer this question? NO! Instead he refered to Mary Cheney's lifestyle to answer the question. I don't recall the question asking for Mary Cheney's opinion. Kerry dodged this question. Shamful.

Darline,

In fact he did answer the question. He went on to talk about the difficulties of coming out,etc. He stated that he thought Mary Cheney would "agree" with him when he says that homosexuality is NOT a choice.
Bush gave a crisp, one line answer devoid of any empathy.

Jeff P -

No one said that. The point being made is that Kerry used a "label" and that was inappropriate.

Making comments about Ms. Edwards's weight or Heinz-Kerry's mental instablity as an analogy to Mary Cheney's homosexuality carries clearly negative connotations. Whether it was intended that way in every case is almost besides the point, because taht's how many people interpret the analogy. Bad.

Also, I've been deleting and banning some of the more offensive commenters.

The Rotary Clubs International have what they call the four-way test.
1. Is it the truth?
2. Is it fair to all concerned?
3. Will it build good will and better friendships?
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
And by the way, did I mention that my opponent's daughter is gay?
The question to the candidates had to do with choice vs. bilogical pre-disposition to homosexual behavior. Suppose it had been George Bush who said, "Kerry's daughter is gay and I don't know whether she chose that lifestyle or was born that way." Today a hundred editorial pages and dozens of columnists would condemn Bush as a heartless monster for crossing the line and invading the Kerry family privacy. But no matter what KTD does (Kerry the Demagogue) he gets a get out of jail free card from 12 out of every 13 reporters, assignment editors, and news producers who favor Kerry over Bush and make little if any effort to hide their bias.
American liberalism once stood for noble ideals of racial equality and international brotherhood. Now it stands for dogma and intellectual dishonesty. Suppoorting Kerry without regard to anything he does is the lasting shame of the American left.

Mark,

That's simply because if Bush were to say something along those lines he would be going against regnant opinion within the scientific community. And on a more logical level, the idea that one would CHOOSE to be a homosexual, purposefully making themselves the target of ridicule and predjudice, is patently ludicrous.
Bush referencing Mary's decision as a possible choice is fundamentally insulting. kerry, on the other hand, implicitly applauded Mary's decision to come out--a nod to her bravery.

Sean,
I appreciate you debate. However, I will go on record as stating that I oppose gay marriage. Not because I am homophobic, but because I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

I know many gay people and I have friends who are gay. However, marriage is not the answer. The problem comes down to benefits. Plain and simple. I have no problem supporting benefits for gay couples. However, forcing gay marriage upon those who oppose it is not right, especially when it is being decided by "activist" judges and not the legislators who are suppose to represent us.

The actions of "GLAD" in Massachusettes and now in Connecticut have actually hurt the gay movement. Acceptance needs to spread over time - not be shoved down peoples throats, which is what is being done by the courts.

People resent this and it only serves to isolate and anger the public. Bad idea. In my home state of Florida, there are 7 suits pending. I do object to the courts legislating. I am not against benefits for gay couples.

The sad thing is that come November, probably 1/3 of the states will have constitutional admendments against gay marriage.

If gay people want benefits, they need to quit shoving their agenda down the peoples throt through "activist" judges. This only causes more resistance. This is not Democracy working as intended - in fact this is not democracy at all.

I believe in benefits, but not through marriage. The gay community should realize thay have made their point but won't win the issue. Tolerance and acceptance are should be the main goals at this time. Again, don't shove an agenda down people's throats.

Sean- Why is Mary Cheney's silence "loathsome"? She doesn't say what YOU think she should say, therefore it's loathsome? But if she capitulated and said everything you said, would that finally be unloathsome to you, for her to say what you want to hear?

I personally have no feelings either way on the issue. Perhaps, unlike you, she sees beyond the selfish scope of her own wants, and realizes that without a constitutional amendment, SSM would clog the courts beyond belief. I strongly believe that the federal government MUST make a decision one way or the other- if it is not delegated to the federal gov't, it automatically is within the jurisdiction of the states. Ergo, the mess we have now between embattled states wondering if they must recognize another states' marriage license. Perhaps Mary DOES think of it as an erosion of her rights, but knows a federal decision must be made. As I'm sure some who believe guaranteeing SSM is an erosion of their rights, but something must be done to put the issue back to the people instead of judges.

As a die-hard Repub, I never thought I'd long for the days of the now-genuine and courteous Bill Clinton, instead of the bottom feeders heading the DNC now. And wasn't it good ol' Bill and his Dems who wanted to argue for personal privacy in these matters? No wonder your party has lost the presidency, House, AND Senate.

John Kerry and John Edwards should be ashamed of themselves. First, they tell the african American community their votes are being suppressed, then they they tell young americans there are seceret plans for a draft, and now the use Chaney's daughter's sexuality for their own political gain. Is there anything these guys won't say for their own political gain?

Malisa,

The ipse facto reasoning of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is, to me, a fundamentally dissatisfying explanation for ones opposition to gay marriage. It reeks of tautology. It's akin to saying, "I oppose gay marriage because I oppose gay marriage."
Listen, if you were to demonstrate to me how homosexual marriage "shoves" anything in your face that would, in some substantial way, change your life for the worse, maybe we could have a discussion. So far, from what I have seen, the conservative movement has failed to demonstrate how homosexual marriage would negatively influence heterosexual marriage.
But I do agree with you that court mandated homosexual marriage may not necessarily be the best way for homosexuals to achieve the ultimate end of equality in all aspects of American civic life.

Sean,
Good try. That really is the best rationale I have heard all day in defense of Kerry, it was his way of saluting her bravery. I like it.
The only problem is that neither candidate answered the question. Yes there is some scientific basis for innate predisposition to a gay lifestyle but as with heterosexuals, it is a matter of degree. It is not so compelling for all gay individuals that contrary options must be ruled out. The part is key when looking at sub teens and teens who are tentative about their identity anyway, they never really have a chance to sort out their world in a hostile-free environment. That pressure can come from both gays and straights. A study out today indicated that as many as one in 100 persons may be completely asexual.
Gay people have every right to be free from violence and arbitrary and invidious discrimination. But they also do not have a right to demand that everyone must endorse their choice, to the extent that it might be a choice, or condemn people who refrain from public witness to evaluating all gay relationships in the same way. The issue here is tolerance. Liberals were once tolerant people. Gays think some Catholics and Christian fundamentalists are intolerant of them but it is a two-way street. Some Gay activists can be very intolerant of anyone who dissents from the dogma that says there is no choice at all because biology determines everything. No one who is straight or gay should ever feel shame for treating others with kindness and respect. I just think Kerry was neither kind nor respectful in gratuitously bringing up the daughter of an opposing candidate. It was not classy or presidential and should not be defended. Kerry should quickly apologize and move on.
People call Bush stubborn and dogmatic and slow to admit mistakes and that is true. But it is also true that Kerry never admits mistakes or he would have apologized years ago for his 1971 slander of fellow veterans as war criminals and it would not be an issue today. I believe Kerry very much wants to be president and do a good job but I don't know still what his core values really are.

Bill,

I do appreciate your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have friends who are gay and they don't appreciate the label. Call me a straight white boy and again I don't appreciate the label.

I am a person, gay people are people, African-American people are people, in fact my 2 children are Asian-American's. Why do I have to list them as such? Aren't they just American's?

This country was created by many people of all race, creeds and "yes" sexual orientation. Why do we label people?

Kerry tried to dodge the question last night, USING Mary Cheney as his answer. I don't remember Kerry answering the question directly.

P.S. I do appreciate the debate being civil.

Mary Cheney is in a committed 10 year relationship with a woman. I think the old saying goes that "if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck..." For all intents and purposes, she's involved in a marriage. Now I do not pretend to know Mary's position on court mandated marriage equality. But I would suspect, given the fact that EVEN her father privately it, that she would too be in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. The fact that she fails to speak out about it, given her role as a KEY GOP advisor, is something I find loathsome.

Malisa -

Bill,

I do appreciate your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have friends who are gay and they don't appreciate the label. Call me a straight white boy and again I don't appreciate the label.

Are you addressing me? Disagree with what? What label?

What if she was raised with good wholesome christian based values that like want to keep marriage as it was intended. Marriage is a religious term. And because, as they say, "seperation of church and state" lesbians and gays shouldn't be allowed under religion to be married and carry the religous term. Civil Union's are fine, and the FMA does not mention Civil Unions. But thereis that little problem of how far are we willing to let our morals slide. Gay Marriage WILL lead to polygimous arguments which will lead to incestuous arguments and so on. It opens a whole can of worms that will be very hard to put away.

There is a terrific Yiddish word -- "mensch". It refers to a man who just does the right thing. John Kerry is not a mensch. Schwein is more like it.

I hope to see the women's vote swing back to Bush now. Since this attempt to use a man's daughter as a stick with which to beat him is an attack on a family and a gross violation of decency, I expect women will react accordingly.

mark,

Several points. There is no substantial pressure on teens or pre-teens to "choose" a homosexual lifestyle, although I vehemently reject the notion that there is any true choice involved. In fact, in most adolescent cliques the idea of homosexuality is usually roundly mocked and derided (an example promoted by many adult males.) Homosexuals are NOT asking that a choice be endorsed. They are asking that rights be respected. The Supreme Court has roundly ruled, time and time again, that although it is not explicitly stated in the constitution, American citizens have a right to privacy, hence their decision to overturn Bower v. Georgia. I personally loathe abortion but I respect the constitutional right on which Roe v. Wade is predicated and thus am Pro-choice. Homosexuals deserve not only freedom from violence but more affirmative rights, Mark: marriage, non-discrimination,etc. In 1912 there was a movement afoot to make inter-racial marriage unconstitutional. The rationales give were eerily similar to the rationales provided by the Family Research Council for supporting the FMA.

Bush referred to Kerry as a "liberal" frequently in the last debate. He did it do sway people against Kerry, of course. Kerry referred to Cheney's daughter as gay, but was it to sway people to vote against Bush?

It is amazing how the moral discourse changes over time. I have a hard time believing we would be having the same debate in 1984 (if there was an internet and INDCJournal of course), if Mondale referred simiarly to Ron Reagan Jr. in a debate. It would have been seen as MUCH more inflammatory then. The fact that the primary defense of Kerry is that it is no big deal to be gay represents a tidal shift.

My belief is Kerry didn't need to mention Cheney's daughter to answer the question. But I'm not really offended by his decision to do so. Similarly, I'm not offended that Bush transitioned into his eduction plans when asked about job growth -- they both dodge the questions a lot.

Is there an obligation to denounce Kerry, then, for what is an essentially innocent if unartful comment?

If it was indeed just an innocently unartful comment, then the proper response would be to just let it go. On the other hand, if someone we might get as our president publicizes the homosexuality of an opponent's relative in the hopes that some will vote against the opponent because of the homosexual relative, that certainly does call for a denunciation. Denouncing that politician is based on his appeal to bigotry to gain votes, not on an assumption that having a lesbian daughter is something to hide.

So it comes down to whether the Kerry 's citation of Mary Cheney's homosexuality was just an "innocent if unartful comment" or whether Kerry was pandering to bigotry. I wondered about that question when Edwards unnecessarily cited Mary's homosexuality in his debate, and Cheney probably had the same suspicion too. Cheney wisely (in both political and ethical terms) gave Edwards the benefit of the doubt and thanked Edwards for the "compliment". However if both times a question involving homosexuality comes up, Kerry and Edwards each grab the opportunity to bring up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian (in the process of assuring voters that like their opponents they oppose gay marriage), the "innocent if unartful comment" excuse depends on a highly unlikely coincidence. Obviously Kerry-Edwards have a deliberate strategy of appealing to bigotry by making it more widely known that VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter.

I think the premise of the Kerry/Edwards strategy is mistaken, i.e. they have unrealistic caricatures of people supporting Bush/Cheney when they believe many will be peeled off on learning that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. But that miscalculation in no way mitigates the gutter level of Kerry's and Edwards' ethics. Clearly neither of them is a good man.

For him [Cheney] to remain largely silent in the face of Keyes while slamming Kerry is wrong to me (different post)

For an asterisk of no consequence like Keyes, being denounced by the Vice President of the United States for his even worse comments would just be a favor (as long as his name is spelled right). Leaving irrelevant twits in their obscurity is the proper response for people like Keyes who have no chance of winning. But when someone who has a real chance to be President of the United States seeks votes by appealing to bigotry, that requires a forceful rebuke.

And on Vietnam. Can we stop pretending that atrocities were not committed by both American troops, the ARVN, and the NVA. Listen, Lt. Col Caulley was convicted of massacring 300 civilians at My Lai. These are things that happen in war zones. What make it particularly loathsome in this instance is the fact that the war was essentially a policy doomed to failure from the start. Kerry was right. Our boys died for a mistake. Stop the jingoistic non-sense and lets admit our policy mistakes.

The fact that she fails to speak out about it, given her role as a KEY GOP advisor, is something I find loathsome.

Maybe she wants privacy - something the Constitution guarantees us.

The recent Lawrence case in the Supreme Court demonstrates that people are allowed to keep their sexual lives private, no matter what.

There is nothing wrong with being an out lesbian. We all should agree about that, but then Kerry just had to go out of his way to say these words about his opponent's daughter: "She would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Even you Democrats out there had to have cringed and squinted and put your hands to your foreheads as Kerry went into this thing.

Why in heaven's name should he even have to state such words whatsoever and shine a spotlight on Mary Cheney's sexuality specifically, if we all can simply agree that Mary Cheney should just be allowed to live her life like any other American, in peace and free from the undue personal scrutiny of millions of people?

In the framework of a debate, Kerry's stratagem evidently was to try to insinuate any negative popular connotations that might attach to the homosexuality in his running-mate's family, and shove them in Bush's face.

Instead of being the representative of a party that supposedly is in favor of putting negative connotations attached to homosexuality to rest, Kerry in fact raised those connotations in a sneaky way, because it was all about gaining votes for his side and taking them from Bush/Cheney's side.

All in the guise of pretending to be gay-supportive, Kerry's remark was in reality gay-abusive, pointedly using Mary Cheney's homosexuality to gain political mileage against her own father: it was crass, gratuitous pandering of the lowest level.

Steve,

Although the ceremonies are religious, marriage licenses are handed out and approved of by the state.

Bill,

"Making comments about Ms. Edwards's weight or Heinz-Kerry's mental instablity as an analogy to Mary Cheney's homosexuality carries clearly negative connotations."

"Whether it was intended that way in every case is almost besides the point, because taht's how many people interpret the analogy. Bad."

The point was that Kerry and Edwards have no right to bring up another person's lifestyle to answer a debate question. Again, I have nothing against gay people, however, I'm tired of being called a "homophobe" because I don't believe in gay marriage. Benefits? Yes. Marriage? No. I'm tired of being the poor white boy punching bag!!!

I understand that our society uses the term marriage, proabably due to the fact that our founding fathers were a bunch of Calvinistic Christians. Also due to the nature of our law system following England's style of "common law". This still does not keep people from trying to remove "In God we Trust" from our society. Marriage derrives from religion. Simple fact.

The point was that Kerry and Edwards have no right to bring up another person's lifestyle to answer a debate question.

I understand that but ...

A. It was not SOME commenters intent.

B. Even with the commenters that had the correct intent, it came off the wrong way to many of the people that needed convincing. There's a better way to phrase it.

Plus, the deleted comments were bad ...

Steve,

Many of the founding fathers were infact deists.
Washington himself venerated Ancient roman political (Cincinnatus) models above any sort of "city on a hill" theocracy.

Assuming that one isn't using the word lesbian in a pejorative way, let me ask this question: If Mary Cheney were a succcesful female surgeon earning 75% of the pay of her male colleagues, and knowing, as he did, that VP Cheney opposed the ERA in the 80s, would you all have found it objectionable if Kerry had brought up Mary Cheney's position as a surgeon in order to support his contention that females should have salary parity with men?

Gay people do have a problem in society. They are discriminated against probably everyday. I do understand.

However, using "activist" judges to dictate law is a bad presidance. It just serves to fire up "homophobia". By the time the elections are over, 1/3rd of the states will have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

The amendments are passing on an average of 70 to 30 percent. My advice - stop using the courts and start courting the legislators.

Or more specifically, if Kerry has said: I'm sure Mary Cheney, being a female surgeon, would want pay equal to that being earned by her male counterpart.

Discussion of sexual identity is no longer taboo. Kerry wasn't relaying some intimate story concerning some sexual exploit.

THE SWIFTVETS WARNED US. The human parasite named John Kerry did to Mary Chaney exactly what he did to his fellow vets. Kerry the predator will trample on anyone for his personal gain. "Integrity, Integrity, Integrity.." his mother reminded him. Her admonishments from her death bed shows she knew what her son's flaws were. Only God knows how many innocent lives this man has damaged or destroyed as a gloryhound and agitator; as a prosecutor and unrelenting political hack.

Jeff-

I don't think that advise unwise. Tactically, I don't know how much I agree with the idea of court ordered marriage.

Sean,

I hope we agree. I do believe in rights, however, it should not be granted by the courts. The Mass situation was a sham when you dig deep and that only angered people more. I do agree for rights, but not marriage.

P.S. Change takes time. Attitudes take time. Legislation takes time. Be patient people. Courts are not the answer to a true Democracy.

This is really funny . . . to listen to wing-nuts play the hurt puppies over the Mary C. comments. This from a partisan enterprise that has long consigned gay Repubs to the dirty-tricks' squads EVERY significant Repub org has. 20 years of assigning every shit job in that party to closeted queers and that pathetic loosers group, the Lobcabin Republicrats. Incredible.

This is really funny . . . to listen to wing-nuts play the hurt puppies over the Mary C. comments. This from a partisan enterprise that has long consigned gay Repubs to the dirty-tricks' squads EVERY significant Repub org has. 20 years of assigning every shit job in that party to closeted queers and that pathetic loosers group, the Lobcabin Republicrats. Incredible.

My point was not to get into a historical religion discussion about our founding fathers, but more to show you the importance religion has played in the development of our nation, even before Washington was a twinkle in his fathers eye.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the 10 Commandments issue - it is a historical document on which western law was built.

1) Kerry made it obvious that he had other gay friends; there was certainly no need to use, as an example, a woman he barely knew who was part of the "opposition" camp. It was clearly an attempt to drive a wedge between the religious right and the Bush campaign. (Because they are bigots who believe most/all conservative Christians are homophobes.) There is nothing wrong with mentioning Mary Cheney's lesbianism if it serves some good purpose, but it didn't, here: it was just throwing around the private lives of the VP's family.

2) I like the solution suggested here, wherein the legal status of all couples would be "civil union" under the law, and "marriage" would be up to churches, but separated from the civil/legal aspect.

3) There is apparently a high incidence of gay males whose uncles are gay, which suggests a genetic component.

4) As I understand it, among boy-girl twins there is a high incidence of lesbianism among the females, so some are speculating that early exposure to male hormones may play a role in female homosexuality.

5) I don't think Tammy Bruce's sample was representative; most gay people I've known were aware of their feelings and "differentness" before they had any homoerotic contact.

6) People are spitting mad at Elizabeth Edwards, and for good reason, so the temptation to make fat jokes is strong. That's just human nature (I believe I used strong language about her on my own blog).

I know that this may rankle a lot of people, but whether or not one is “born” gay is meaningless in the mind of many Americans who believe that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin, a transgression against…brace yourself….God, and His natural order. For those people, whether you agree with their theology or not, man is born with a myriad of temptations to engage in a vast array of “sins”. The fact that his urge to sin is a “natural” one (as in he is born with that urge) does not make it OK. Agree with me or not, that is pretty straight forward orthodox Christian theology.

While that viewpoint may be offensive to many Americans, the fact remains that there is no political support, not in a single legislature in America, to codify (legalize) gay marriage. For Andrew Sullivan he is so personally enraged by this fact, and that Bush opposes gay marriage, that he is willing to support a man for President that he knows in his heart is a danger to the national security of this country…regardless of what he now writes to justify his utterly emotion-based reversal.

Frustrated that they do not have the political support for their agenda, the gay movement has tried to position the issue as one of civil rights, and therefore, an issue for the courts to decide. And this viewpoint, however you may feel, and with religion left out of the equation, is simply not sustainable. To begin, everyone has the right to “marry” in the symbolic sense. I understand that gays would surely deem this an empty and meaningless right without the legal imprimatur of the legislature (or the courts). Yet it remains the fact that anyone could conduct a ceremony and call themselves married or blood brothers or a team or whatever they want to call themselves. Secondly, there is no constitutional right for straight couples to have their marriage treated as anything more than symbolic. Legal status is conferred to heterosexual marriage by statute. I know this is all pretty basic stuff, but it’s important to frame the issue correctly. So, no one has a constitutional right to have any legal status conferred on their marriage and anyone’s constitutional rights (gay or straight) would be violated if the government tried to prevent a symbolic marriage between two consenting adults.

Enter the courts. If you read the Massachusetts decision the majority readily acknowledges that the historical meaning of the word “marriage” unequivocally means a union between a man and a woman. So the court then goes on to analyze whether the legislative decision to confer legal privileges and responsibilities only to couples that meet the traditional meaning of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In other words, can the state confer rights and privileges to heterosexual marriages, but not to gay marriages. They conclude that it cannot absent a demonstrate by the State that they had a rational basis for doing so. Having concluded this, the MA court then conducted a rational basis test to see if the legislature had acted improperly. As we all know they concluded that the State was wrong in denying the same legal status to gay and hetero marriages and, presto!, gay marriage is now legal in MA.

This may seem sensible on its face, but upon closer analysis it is exposed for what it is; an exercise in intellectual legerdemain by a court determined to engineer a decision that fits its agenda. No reputable and honest legal scholar, unfettered by his or her own feelings, would conclude that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a legislature to decide that it will confer legal status to all people that chose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Such a legislative prerogative does not, under any legitimate analysis of how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied since its adoption, violate anyone’s rights to equal treatment under the law. The argument is ridiculous, and if you think that my criticism is harsh you should read the dissenting opinions in the MA.

If any legislature wants to legalize gay marriage it can, but no court should be permitted to circumvent the right of the people to elect representatives to make laws that reflect their values on bogus equal protection grounds. The bottom line is this; as a judicial matter, it does not matter one wit how anyone “feels” about gay marriage. If we are to be a nation of laws those feelings are to be expressed in one place and one place only….the ballot box.

The far, far better analogy is this.

What Kerry did with Mary would have been akin to Carter pointing out in the debate with Reagan that his son (Ron Jr.), disagreed with his father's politics. Again, kids are considered off limits in political debates. Or...at least used to be.

tried to read all 200 posts, left off somewhere near 187... so if anyone said the following, sorry for the recap:

I think this won't be dropped by plain-folks voters, for two reasons. Cheney's family is now more human: parents can't "create" a personality and lifestyle, they have a child and love that person come hell or high water. right now, that's the Cheneys. second, the "swing masses" won't forget the personal attack, and they won't like it. they may not be able to relate to the policy differences or tax-spending ideas of the two candidates, but this is something they can fully relate to.

most people aren't politically attuned and don't know about Mary's life, but they aren't ignorant of homosexuality. given reason #1 above, it's a non-issue. even Bible-believing Christians of every stripe on the spectrum know that you can't control others, so the idea of a reflexive rejection of BC based on the "gasp" over a gay daughter is not going to pan out.

finally, prompted by some remarks above about support of gay marriage and homosexual behavior, and following the extended discourse above on the nature of homosexuality and its social context, do we benefit by assuming that you have to accept in some way homosexuality to accept people who are homosexuals? there's a difference. most people live every day in awareness of the behavior of those around them, and it doesn't change their overall receptiveness and caring for people who pursue things others might find questionable or even wrong. does a lack of acceptance of the sexual behavior of others equal a lack of acceptance of the person in question?

I ask because I think it is reflexive for people in or supportive of openly gay life to dislike people they find are religious, particularly Christian, without considering how they have been received by this person; an assumption is made that such a person must be a bigot. I find that a troubling aspect.

Agreed...candidates kids are off limits. It's simple common courtesy and decency.

"I ask because I think it is reflexive for people in or supportive of openly gay life to dislike people they find are religious, particularly Christian, without considering how they have been received by this person; an assumption is made that such a person must be a bigot. I find that a troubling aspect."

Agreed absolutely!

Let's put it this way from the perspective of a Bible believer: all human beings are sinners, rebels in the sight of God. Some have been pardoned--not because of any intrinsic merit but by a free act of God whose son, Christ, paid the ultimate price on our behalf. (And everyone could receive this pardon by repenting of his/her sin, acknowledging his/her inability to *earn* God's pardon.) This basic piece of theology has the following important implication for how a Christian ought to treat a non-believer. (1) She would recognize the non-believer for the sinner that he is, but only because she has already done so in her own case. (2) She is obligated to *love* the non-believer as herself, to do him or her good--just as God loved her in that *while she was yet a sinner*, God has made the decisive move to secure her pardon through the sacrifice of Christ. In short, she may hate the sin, but she must still love the sinner--just as God does.

Add premise that homosexuality is a blatant sin. Now the Christian is obliged to recognize sin for what it is. Sometimes--perhaps because of personal contact, etc.--he or she is moved to pray for the sinner, counsel or attemtp to persuade him/her, etc. Needless to say, when this happens, feelings would often be hurt. Christians, in their desire to speak the truth, have often failed to do so in love. We can only pray that we are clean in our motivations, that we do so for love of neighbor and not out of some base intent. The Christian is *not at liberty* to hate the sinner or to do him or her harm.

This also does not mean that individuals who consider themselves Christians have always lived up to this high standard. When we fail to, we stand condemned by our own standards!

Great post Loy;

Not trying to say you implied this, but one of the great mistakes that has been made by evangelicals in this country in my view, is the urge to tell non-believers their behavior is sinful. It's unecessary, the scriptures teach that man knows that he is a sinner, and that the Holy Spirit convicts man of his sin.

Christians are called to the job of sharing the message of the forgiveness of sins for those that accept the Gospel. Often times I think that many of us have tried to play the Holy Spirit's role instead.

"Kerry wanted to point out the contradiction between BC's private and public behavior. We have a premium on consistency in this election and Cheney's private and public support of his daughter does not JIVE with the administration's position on the FMA. If the man had true political balls, if he was truly proud of his daughter, he would stand up for her basic human rights."

Is it not possible to be gay, and still oppose gay marriage? What makes you think, or know, or believe, that Mary Cheney's position is in favor of gay marriage as a civil or human right?

Kerry's comment simply demonstates that being wealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have class. The man has zip, zero, nada, nil, simply no class.

Using the Veep's daughter as a political tool was very insensitive and unbecoming of a Presidential candidate. Of course, this insensitivity will come to nought because of the media bias in favor of Kerry.

In the second debate, Kerry could look at the audience and immediately tell that none of them made over $200,000 (except him, Bush and the moderator). Such a condenscending, arrogant and paternalizing comment did not even get a media commentary.

Kerry is his own worse enemy and is not ready for prime time!

Kerry's use of Mary Cheney's sexuality as a political gambit simply was not the action of a gentleman. If you cannot trust those who multiply marry heiresses to be gentlemen, what has the world come to?
A pox on him.

The VP's daughter is "fair game" but we need a "global test" to go after terrorists.

who knew

Please explain something to me. The President of the USA is having sex with an intern in the Oval office and we are admonished for trying to bring up a "personal" matter. Yet here is a woman that has done nothing but be a good daughter and be the offspring of a conservative VP and she has to be brought into the fray?

Kerry goes to the bathroom for political gain. He does nothing without an eye toward his own obsession with gaining power. To think otherwise is denial. He brought up Mary Cheney because he felt it would propel his candidacy and nothing else. That same mother that Kerry appeared to revere so much would become road kill if it meant another electoral college point.

The Cheneys only sin is that they are conservative and successful in their own right and did not marry or inherit their wealth. Mr. Cheney is a man of calm reserve and from what I see a wonderful DAD.

The Cheney's have been nothing but proud of their daughter, both of them. From what I see they have a wonderful family and are extremely generous and upstanding people but they are the target of more onslaughts from the democrats than Saddam Hussein. What a shame that this man may become President.

Bill, do you ever get tired of everyone posting the same thing over and over again? I know I do.

Don't think for a minute that a comment about Cheney's daughter is going to change anything. Do you seriously believe that Kerry's comments about Cheney's lesbian daughter are going to make a democrat say, "gee, I guess I will just disregard all of the bad things that Bush has done because Kerry made a comment about Cheney's daughter." Besides, when did you all become so sensitive the the feelings of gay people in America? It's anti-conservative to care about the feelings of the gay population, isn't it?

It's one thing if the Cheneys talk about their lesbian daughter, in public. But what is very wrong is for Kerry and Edwards to single out Mary Cheney, and bring her sexuality into their dirty campaign. Kerry and Edwards must apologize, in public, for their evil and malicious dirty trick. Mrs. Edwards comment was out of line, as well. She should not have commented at all! The Cheneys are very proud of their daughter. Cahill's "fair game" comment was insensitive. Vote for BUSH/CHENEY!

As a parent, if I were debating someone who brought up my child's sexual orientation--gay or straight--I would be upset. It just wasn't necessary. Kerry even calculated and used "Dick Cheney's daughter" and not her name to make sure everyone understood who he was speaking about-- used lesbian and not gay as an emphasis. Notice too Elizabeth Edwards used sexual preference instead of sexual orientation---another sly attempt to influence voters to stay home.
As for you who insist that Mary Cheney needs to be speaking out on her beliefs etc---a pox on you. She is an adult--she makes her own choices---based on what she feels is best for her.
The Cheney's have made their position on gay marriage public, it is not the same as the Presidents. This administration does allow people to have their own opinion. They are not activists for their opinion--but that is their choice.John Kerry believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he is not an activist for his belief either.

Most of you don't believe that a person can be born gay. The conservatives have suggested that being gay is a disease with a cure. Kerry was trying to make a point - in most cases, it's not a conscious choice - it's just who they are. So what if he used Cheney's daughter to drive home a point -- at least Kerry's philosophy does not equate gay people with lepers. So, my dear conservatives, quit acting like you care about gay issues.

Let me make a couple broad points in summation of my earlier points:

1) There is little or no purely genetic basis for sexual preferences of any kind: none in terms of physical genes identified, little in terms of correlative evidence (and they have been looking pretty hard for both). Where such correlative evidence is alleged to exist (gay uncles, second and third children more predisposed to be gay), they are generally so much better explained by environmental effects than genetic as to actually argue AGAINST a genetic basis for sexual preference. For instance, there is no genetic difference between a first-born and second-born child; you couldn't tell by examining their genes which was which. But there is obviously a large difference in their environments; growing up as a first-born is obviously a different experience than growing up as a yonger sibling.

2) Whatever minimal basis in genetics that might exist is so overwhelmed by the much stronger effects of environment on all sexual preferences as to make the genetic component essentially meaningless. These environmental effects have been heavily documented in regards to all sexual preferences, from preferring blondes to preferring your own sex. Sexual preference is clearly a continuum, not a black-and-white choice, and where we are on that continuum at any point in time is far more a result of our experiences in life than our genetics. I think if that weren't the case, we would already have much stronger correlations in genetic studies that do away with most environmental factors, such as those of separated twins.

Now, it's important to note that the genetic vs. environment debate DOES NOT AFFECT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE. We don't control our environment any more than our genetics, esp. early in life. I just hate to see these disingenuous arguments for a genetic basis made by groups who probably know better, but who have a large stake in pretending there is a genetic basis because it absolves them of any responsibility for self-determination.

You know, it's actually sort of amusing to see this discussion evolve when you consider that for centuries racists tried to say blacks and other minorities were genetically different from whites. Now a minority group is trying to argue they ARE genetically different.

Thankfully, we know today thanks to people like Jared Diamond that all human races are essentially genetically identical, and that essentially all visible differences between the races are the result of sexual selection, not genetic differences.

TallDave: It's not disingenuous to argue genetics so just back off. There have been MANY studies for this, and you know it, otherwise you would have just flat out denied genetics. Instead you said, "There is little or no purely genetic basis" and "Whatever minimal basis". Basically, you are saying that there IS a basis for the argument, but the instances of genetic pre-disposition are smaller than environmental influences.

My point remains the same. The conservatives have never cared about gay issues. They have treated the gay people like lepers. The conservative faux-concern about this is issue is shallow and meaningless.

"...for centuries racists tried to say blacks and other minorities were genetically different from whites. Now a minority group is trying to argue they ARE genetically different."

TallDave: Everyone is genetically different - brainiac. Genetic difference is what can make one person more likely to have a heart attack than another person. The racist argument you speak of was about "genetic inferiority." They suggested that genetically, blacks were flawed.

Conservatives have never wanted to admit to the genetic possibility of gayness, because it lessens the impact of their morality argument.

>>>There have been MANY studies for this, and you know it,
Quote me even one study showing a purely genetic correlation to homosexuality of any significance.

There's no more genetic basis for saying gays are different than there is to say blacks or Native Americans are different. It's an argument based either in ignorance or disingenuity, probably well-intended in the first case, cynically self-serving in the other.

A study by researchers at UCLA claims to have identified 54 genes that may trigger the differences between male and female brain development long before birth. The study challenges homosexuality as a lifestyle.

See the October, 2004 issues of "Molecular Brain Research"

There are more, but you can find them on your own.

TallDave: Everyone is genetically different - brainiac. Genetic difference is what can make one person more likely to have a heart attack than another person.
We are not talking about individuals, we're talking about groups.

The racist argument you speak of was about "genetic inferiority." They suggested that genetically, blacks were flawed.
Flawed necessarily denotes "different." The question of whether the difference is inferior or not is irrelevant to my argument, because science has proved they are NOT different in any significant way.

And "self-serving" can be most easily applied to any conservative who is now acting like they give a damn about gay issues.

A study by researchers at UCLA claims to have identified 54 genes that may trigger the differences between male and female brain development long before birth. The study challenges homosexuality as a lifestyle

That's not a combination of genes that determines sexual orientation; that's a combination of genes that determines sex.

There are not genetically-based physical differences in the brains of gays vs. straights.

Furthermore, my argument is NOT that homosexuality is a "lifestyle." My arguments is environmental factors are important than genetics. Lifestyle connotes choice as the cause, not environment.

And "self-serving" can be most easily applied to any conservative who is now acting like they give a damn about gay issues.

What is this mythical "gay issues" you keep saying conservatives don't care about or are against?

TallDave: you are talking to a scientist - there is a genetic difference between every human being. While races and genders may not differ in overall genetic makeup (99.999%) -- it's the .001% that makes us who we are. What do you think makes a woman and man different -- genetic makeup. The suspicion is that if one of the genes that defines gender is slightly off, then you may be genetically pre-disposed to being gay.

I don't deny environmental influence as a governing factor. I believe both genetics and environment are at play here.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because you don't have any basis for your statements. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Myth? Are you going to try to use denial now? Don't play games with me!

Anonymous Scientist, thou art an arsehole. You declare - because you say so! - what conservatives - all conservatives! - must believe so as to suit your own need to demonize them.

You want to call conservatives bigots? Look in the mirror!

You impute to read our minds; you have judged what you insist we must be thinking (regardless of the facts) and found us lacking; with that finding you have sentenced us.

You call yourself a scientist? Apply the scientific method, knave.

TallDave: you are talking to a scientist
Not a very good one, apparently. You seem to be starting from a conclusion and working toward finding proof for it.

- there is a genetic difference between every human being. While races and genders may not differ in overall genetic makeup (99.999%) -- it's the .001% that makes us who we are.
Thanks for the grade-school primer.

What do you think makes a woman and man different -- genetic makeup. The suspicion is that if one of the genes that defines gender is slightly off, then you may be genetically pre-disposed to being gay.
"Slightly off?" Now you make them sound flawed. But even accepting that premise, THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL OR OBSERVATIONAL BASIS FOR SUCH A CONCLUSION. If there were a genetic component that had a deterministic correlation - say, a greater than 20% chance a person with that gene or set of genes would develop that characteristic - for homosexuality it would have been observed before now. It hasn't. Why hasn't it been observed? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because you don't have any basis for your statements. You really don't know what you are talking about.

You mean you're giving up because you're wrong, and I think I've proven YOU don't know what you're talking about. But for a kicker, here's an easy link to the debunking of most studies purporting show a genetic basis for homosexuality:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/genetic.html

TallDave -

Frankly, you are wildly wrong in your interpretation of genetics, and your method of argumentation is aggressive and arrogant.

I'm coming very close to booting you.

Let me expand a bit on the absence of a correlative deterministic gene or set of genes, because it's important to understand what these correlations actually mean:

Even the studies that do purport to show a correlative effect don't show a correlation to homosexuality - only a correlation to predisposition. The difference is important. A 20% positive correlation for homosexuality vs. a 20% positive correlation for predisposition is basically the difference between saying "we predict 25% of the people with this gene will become homosexual vs 5% of the rest of the population that doesn't have this gene" and "we predict 6% of people with this gene will become gay versus 5% that don't have this gene." It's hard to argue the latter is at all deterministic given the small percentage and greater influence of environment.

If they were going to find the former, it would have been found by now. THERE IS NO SET OF GENES FOR WHICH IT CAN BE SAID "We predict you will probably be gay (more than 50% probability) based on your genetics." There isn't even any set of genes for which the incidence rises to 25% probability. Again, it's overwhelmingly likely we would have found evidence for it by now through observation. If they find one, I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong. But at this point, it would be like finding a second Sun-like star within our solar system.

"Slightly off" meaning what is normally seen in male or females gene sets. That doesn't imply flaw you a#$8le.

And, thanks for the debunking link TallDave. Really, informative debunking. Do you realize that almost every study in your debunking link was written in the early nineties and below? Some were written in the 60s! And, you pointed me to an article written by Dale O'Leary for chrissakes! You can also find him on catholicexchange.com -- gee, I wonder if he's slanted?

Where are your debunking links for the most recent science? You need the gradeschool primer because you don't seem to understand the basics of genetics.

Dave - why not slam the conservatives in the same way they slam liberals? It's my duty and right to slam conservatives. Conservatives invented this type of verbal warfare. Besides, I was talking to TallDave - not buttinski Dave!

Well, it's your site Bill. You can boot me if you want. But my assertions are correct.

If my arguments regarding how genetics are so wildly inaccurate, they ought to be easy to expose as such, rather than requiring I be booted to suppress my point of view.

Bill, apologies for the last post. I say, don't type angry.

>>>"Slightly off" meaning what is normally seen in male or females gene sets. That doesn't imply flaw you a#$8le.
Well, you can argue with Webster's over whether "not normal" is "flawed." I say it's bunk either way, they're neither flawed nor abnormal -- they just have different life experiences.

>>>Where are your debunking links for the most recent science?
Where's your most recent science?

TallDave -

Study links genes, male homosexuality
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Posted: 12:52 PM EDT (1652 GMT)

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Padua said the genetic components are linked to the X chromosome which is inherited only from the mother. But they are probably on other chromosomes and could partly explain male homosexuality.

"The key factor is that these genes both influence homosexuality in men, higher fecundity in females and are in the maternal and not the paternal line," Andrea Camperio-Ciani, who headed the research team, said in an interview.

More than a decade ago scientists in the United States reported that they had found evidence of a "gay gene" in men. But other researchers questioned the finding when they could not duplicate the results.

Camperio-Ciani and his team suggest there several genes could be involved, including those on the X chromosome.

In their research, which is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they found an increase in homosexuality in the maternal line of gay men they studied which suggests the X chromosome.

"We know that at least one of these genetic factors in on the X chromosome but that it not enough, there must be other genetic factors that are important but are elsewhere," Camperio-Ciani added.

The results are based on a study of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and about 4,600 of their relatives. The scientists compared the frequency of gay men on the maternal and paternal lines of the families.

Among homosexuals there were a greater number of gay men in the maternal line of the family, as well as greater fertility in the female relatives.

An early interest in sex before the age of 10 was also a predictor of homosexuality, according to the researchers.

"We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.

But he added that cultural and individual experience also play a part.

Will you kindly stop being such an arrogant prick now?

Yes, they leave wiggle room for cultural and environmental factors, but there ARE genes that are tied to homosexuality. This fact, along with the general course of research that points to genetic factors that influence the slightest behavior patterns, like, say, "tendency to procrastinate," basically makes it highly likely that people that are attracted to theuir same sex have a significant genetic predisposition.

In addition, so what if it's a combo of genes and experience? Given that homosexuality is a victimless identification, why do you show such scorn for the fact that a human being may have a fundamental sexual attraction for the same sex? Does this invalidate their rights or abilities to find love and partnership in society?

I know that you'll just say, "They can do what they want, I have no problem with it," but you've already outed your real feelings on the matter with your assertions that it's a "controllable" behavior. Why does it need to be controlled?

Frankly, this concept is morally troubling. In earlier comments, you basically declare that gay people should fundamentally deny the nature of their sexuality in order to fit into your moral construct of the way things should be. That they should abandon the opportunity for intimacy because they don't have any "natural" desire for the opposite sex.

I'm not some gay rights crusader, but your attitude offends me. Who the Hell do you think you are to casually assert that sexual identity is DEFINITELY some sort of choice? To argue that people that are clearly GAY, GAY, GAY should be marginalized as sexual deviants.

You are a stereotype of an arrogant conservative, and your argumentation is mindnumbingly selective and closed-minded. You make irresponsibly decisive assertions with condescending abandon. There are genes combined with upbringing, that make you so annoyingly obstinate.

Can't you control it?

I suggest you drop this and move on.

And the funny thing is, I don't even have any naturally strong feelings on this topic, but I get really annoyed when people use selective argumentation to reinforce an assertion that "feels right" - and are so damn smug about it.

You don't know. Your constructs are 2-Dimensional. You have no more evidence of your theories about behavioral determination of homosexuality than I have for theories about insulin sensitivity and longevity.

It's theoretical and 2-D at best.

Namecalling is beneath you, Bill.

I actually read that article a few hours ago. When they say "partly explain" they are talking about that difference between 5% and 6% I mentioned earlier. They mention environment because they recognize environment is still more important. It's not deterministic, no matter how it's spun by interested parties.

why do you show such scorn for the fact that a human being may have a fundamental sexual attraction for the same sex?
Bill, you seem to have me confused with someone else. As I said, I have gay friends and family and I not only cherish their companionship, I would defend their right to have sex with whomever they want.

I know that you'll just say, "They can do what they want, I have no problem with it," but you've already outed your real feelings on the matter with your assertions that it's a "controllable" behavior. Why does it need to beb controlled?
I never said it was a controllable behavior as opposed to other noncontrollable behaviors. I said I believe free will means that all behaviors are controllable, and I was very specific that that did NOT mean anyone should feel any OBLIGATION to control any behavior, gay or straight. I'm saying if they WANT TO, they should be free to do so without being told "It's genetic. You can't control it, so don't try. You're gay. You can't be straight. Ever." Or vice-versa: I believe a straight person should not be told "You're straight. You can't be gay. You don't have the right genes." I have no prejudice that says either of those orientations is superior. My argument is only in defense of freedom of self-determination, against the alleged (and false) tyranny of genetics.

For the record, I don't think that Kerry's remarks were appropriate either. I'm sure there was thinking in the Kerry camp that says, "point out the gay thing again to remind rural America." But, I think it's equally offensive for the conservatives to use this gaff as a political tool. Conservatives have typically made it clear that they don't support the gay community. Hell, they even suggested that Kerry himself is effeminate by calling him a "metrosexual".

Don't portend outrage on an issue that you've only shown scorn for in the past. Please, choose another issue to be outraged about.

LOL Don't get me started on insulin sensitivity Bill. I have an even longer rant on that.

But, if you don't know about this, you might find it interesting: google "cinnamon" and "diabetic" together. I've started taking cinnamon with my green tea every day in hopes of staving off such complications later in life.

I don't know what else to say. I see people every day that are products of the "tyranny of gentics." You're assertions are "wrong" because they are way too heavily weighted to one end of the spectrum. You leave so little room for gravitation towards moderation, or the allowance for the 5 zillion factors that you cannot know.

I know that genetic determinism exists personally, not about homosexuality, but based on quite a bit of research about the links between health, genetics and behavior. You simply do not assign enough value to this concept. You are screaming that the earth is flat, and it's wearing us all out.

Examples include depression, marfans syndrome, kindness, intelligence, passivity, schizophrenia, compulsion, patience. These are things that range from simple characteristic to degenerative condition that are based in genetics and influenced by environment. The relative degree of nature vs. nurture varies in various individuals and situations. This is very complex.

In addition to being wrong because you can't seem to acknowledge the complexity of the paradigm, your arguments are aggressive, dismissive and arrogant, and I'm tired of having you annoy me and other commenters with the way you make your presentation.

Namecalling is not beneath me. "Namecalling" is the use of a descriptive term that orders things in the universe and gives man a semblance of control and understanding as he struggles for survival and and searches for peace in this mortal coil.

And you, sir, are an arrogant jackass. Or at least come off that way.

And while this incessant argumentation may be just honest fun debate to you, life is too short to be annoyed by the way that you present your assertions, allow little room for compromise, manipulate science and belittle those that disagree with you.

I'm not oppressing you - I'm lowering my blood pressure and improving the quality of my site.

"I have gay friends and family"

I have real problems believing this TallDave, but I will stop short of calling you a liar. I'm sorry, but you don't speak like someone who truly believes that gay people and straight people are equal. But, maybe you are just misunderstood?

But I thought the problem is not that Kerry mentioned M. Cheney's sexual identity, but that he talked an opponent candidate's child beyond the usual and insipid praise. Surely he could have just leave the kids out of it and used some other example.

Actually, I didn't think as much of Kerry's remark when I first watched the debate (bad taste, sure, but what the heck...). It was the follow up that told me that KerryEdwards messed up big. What's this about an opponent's child being "fair game"? (Do they have any idea what "game" refers to? HintL it's a hunting term). And what's E. Edwards thinking when she suggested that the Cheneys are ashamed of their daughter. That's not exactly, shall we say, decent, any more.

I think that's what driving the "outrage" you are referred to, rather than any putative gay issues.

My previous post was addressed to anonymous scientist. Forgot to mention.

"Do they have any idea what "game" refers to? HintL it's a hunting term"

loy: I'm not trying to be smug here, but not everyone is aware of the etymology of the words they use. Language evolves -- we are constantly using catchprases today that may have had more meaningful connotation in the past. So if this was not a hypothetical question, the answer is probably "no, they probably don't know what 'game' refers to". Enough for the language lesson.

As I've said, "I don't think that Kerry's remarks were appropriate", but they were not nearly as offensive as some of the things I read on this page.

My point remains the same. The conservatives have never cared about gay issues. They have treated the gay people like lepers. The conservative faux-concern about this is issue is shallow and meaningless.

So we conservatives (in my case, make that religious conservative) do not "care about gay issues"--in some sense that must be true. But why should we be faulted for that? We don't fault you for not caring about the the pressing issue of how biblical standards are to be applied to the modern world... If by showing concern for gay issues, you meant taking on premises and assumptions that we have already denied, what exactly are we guilty of? Of disagreeing with you?

On the other hand, isn't it a bit sweeping to suggest that conservatives simply don't care about gay people--their hopes, aspirations, rights, well being? ("treated the gay people like lepers") All I can say is that surely one can still respect a person and do right by him or her, even if one disagrees with him or her in some of the fundamental issues of life and morality...I shall not try to convince you, but only pray that you meet conservatives who care--people whom I know exist--and that you would be willing to give them the credit where due.

loy: I'm not trying to be smug here, but not everyone is aware of the etymology of the words they use. Language evolves -- we are constantly using catchprases today that may have had more meaningful connotation in the past. So if this was not a hypothetical question, the answer is probably "no, they probably don't know what 'game' refers to".

I actually agree with you on this one, which is why I'm not as upset with them as I am a little shocked that they could misjudge the reactions of many people (especially conservatives) so badly--remember, I'm talking about the culminative effects of Kerry, Cahill and Mrs. Edwards. The problem is not what Cahill might have in her mind when she said "fair game", but how that sounds to people.

"Of disagreeing with you?"

loy: For the record, I'm not gay. I'm married. However, unlike TallDave, I actually do have many friends and family members who are gay. I don't think it's fair for the conservatives to make a big issue of something that they don't care about. I believe that Kerry, unlike most conservatives, actually does care about the gay population. He shouldn't have said what he said, but he's far more amenable to the gay population that the conservatives have ever been. So, it's offensive to me, my friends, and family that the conservatives are seizing on this opportunity. Most conservatives don't give a shit about Mary Cheney or her feelings -- they just want to make Kerry look bad. That's the bottom line. And, if you do care loy, then good for you, but that's not the popular stance of the conservatives.

I don't think it's fair for the conservatives to make a big issue of something that they don't care about.

Anonymous Scientist, as per usual, you miss the point with teh partisan paradigm. The main issue is the fact Kerry tried to use an oppo family member to score political points.

The secondary issue is that the attempt used gay baiting to try to influence the Bush base, or at least point out some sort of hypocrisy on the FMA.

Give it up. Stop defending a dumb move by issuing an attack against conservatives.

It just weakens your position. You'd be going apeshit if a conservative had made such comments, because they are less sympathetic to gay issues? Please. Wrong is wrong.

Bill: I don't think that I'm missing the point. It was definately gay baiting and definately hypocrisy. Honestly, I didn't expect the low blow from Kerry. Sadly, I expect this sort of attack from the conservatives, so I may not be surprised and may not go apeshit.

I expect that in the next election you will see more of these virulent attacks from the left. Playing a clean game does not seem to work in an election. It's an unfortunate slippery slope we are on right now.

BTW - Good stuff lately! Even though I rarely agree with you, I keep coming back for more INDC abuse.

I'd just like to add a couple points on the choice/inherent nature aspect of homosexuality.

There ARE neurological differences between gay and straight men. The one that always intrigued me most is the Corpus Callosum (the connection between the hemispheres) difference.

It is larger in gay men and women than in straight men.

Just to take this as a "for instance", why is this so?

One line of investigation would look for specific areas of the individual's genome. Get ready to wait though. That research is going to take some time.

A more fruitful line of inquiry would be to examine the hormonal bath that the developing fetus is exposed to by the mother. It's a little known fact but most of the male/female neurological differences are triggered by the mother. Not the fetus!

Also, per the line of argument that says homosexuality can't be a genetic disposition because it tends towards fewer children, it's a good idea to brush up on all the current research that identifies group genetic effects. Please explain the behaviour of the beehive if you don't believe me. There can't be any worker bees because they don't procreate, right? Of course not. That's hooey. Groups decide who is useful in fairly "creative" ways and there are group genetic effects.

Consider uncles and aunts without their own children who are extremely good at helping their relatives raise children (actually, they are their own to a degree, even our own children are only half ours genetically) and thereby succeed in keeping their own genetic line going. Explain to me how the fitness terrain conspires against those aunts and uncles.

Simply put, if you can help keep children whom you share genetic material with alive until they themselves breed, it is quite easy to imagine a place for you in evolution because, well, there is a place for you in evolution.

If you can understand that, you can understand how homosexuality doesn't have to be considered a negative by the fitness terrain.

I'd love to give you some footnotes and links here but I sold the relevant books for beer money in college. Google away.

Sorry if I repeated points made by others.

Bill,

I imagine after this post, you will censor me and give me the boot. So be it, you are not God.

One can argue the genetic of homosexuality on both sides of the aisle. I say "so what".

The fact that someone is gay and wants to do whatever in their private bedroom is none of my busniess. Lawrence affirmed that, and I agree to a point.

If genetic really play a role in the matter, than it can be classified as a disease, however, I believe there is more involved here then any one person can analyze.

I do object to being classified as a "bigot" and a "homophobe" just because I haven't been convinced either way.

These word are spewed too often and don't help the cause of tolerance and acceptance.

You are a strong supporter of gay rights, and I respect you for that, however, don't bash the rest of us just because the jury is still out.

You can present me study after study, and I can probably counter that study with someone else's study.

This is a very touchy issue and people here who quote studies are just cutting and pasting things. For every reaction - there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Peace my friend - I know where you stand - however - I'm not convinced yet - and that is my opinion and I have a right to my opinion.

By the way, why didn't Kerry bring up the fact that Democrat Dick Gephardt's daughter is a lesiban?

I think Kerry tried to play a card and it was "out of bounds".

Sincerely,

Jackson

I agree with Jackson, Bill, you need to be more tolerant. Your Bias is starting to show. You can guess where I stand.

Bill needs to be more "tolerant?"

And just what are the answers to the twins studies? I've watched the thread and seen zip rebuttal to that. Gays, at least males (female sexuality is more fluid), are hardwired for their preference. I mean, can any of you straight guys imagine getting a hard on looking at photos of male beefcake? You think these physiological reactions are "chosen"? That a gay man chooses not to have that reaction to Miss October?

I am very pleased to see Bill, who is in the blogosphere forefront of deriding MSM bias against U.S. foreign policy interests, cast a reasoned eye on the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality.

Go Bill!

wow, Bill... ever think of decaf? I've been reading this thread, from start to finish, and both yours and TallDave's postings were well-reasoned, logical arguments for your particular point of view. For every point you made, he countered, and vice versa. But it did seem he was getting the better of the argument, IMHO. So is that a reason for booting him, calling him names, and demeaning his arguments? Not exactly what I expect from this site, my friend.

bobwalker -

Getting the better of my arguments is not making statments that have little objective basis in fact, over and over.

Saying that there is "overwhelming evidence" that backs up his position, when there is no such thing, and patronizing me for "an artificial construct" because I refuse to draw a direct analogy between all forms of sexual expression is not getting the best of anyone.

It's like arguing with a kid that puts his fingers in his ears and keeps screaming about candy.

I disagreed with him, and gave him several opportunities to meet me in the middle, to compromise, but when someone keeps making unequivocal statments based on scientific "evidence," that does not exist - where does the argument go?

I then left the argument because it was a wasted effort, but returned to boot him and get angry, after he insulted another commenter's competence in his profession, a scientist, no less.

Let me try to make an analogy - If I kept asserting that specific gene mutation caused cancer, because 3 studies implied that this gene was present in a significant number of cancer patients, scientists would laugh at me. The argument is equivocal, and smart people know that you cannot make direct conclusions based on one factor that's not screened for other factors.

Declarative statements based on the available evidence are wrong. Period.

Another anlogy - if you would like that type of argumentation, I suggest you go watch Chris Matthews scream at his guests that Dick Cheney keeps drawing a connection between 9-11 and Al Qaeda, when Dick Cheney says no such thing. Dick Cheney says Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Do you understand that loudly asserting arrogant and inaccurate statements does not constitute winning an argument?

If I told Chris Matthews that he was "out of his depth" and that he was a "jackass," something tells me that you would cheer.

Frankly, none of this is what I expect from a reader of this site, my friend.

Perhaps we should both move on. I'll never forget you.

Jackson -

I do object to being classified as a "bigot" and a "homophobe" just because I haven't been convinced either way.

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that?

Telling people that they need to change to fit your assumptions is something that I consider bigoted. However, nowhere in my original post, or the comments, do I assert that someone who does not agree with the concept of "gay marriage" is bigoted. In fact, I assert the opposite:

there are huge swaths of people in this country that disagree with all of us, and that many of these people aren't deranged bigots, rather individuals that have drawn a different conclusion about the nature of homosexuality based on their experience and exposure to different lifestyles, and their judgment on its biological vs. behavioral roots. Whether gay-rights advocates like it or not, this is an issue that still engenders very legitimate debate.

I also allowed for the fact that we "do not know," and specifically criticized TallDave for asserting that he "does know." Your misinterpretation of my words points to your bias.

I'll await your apology.

interestingly, I think the Kerry/Mary snafu has the potential for positive social reassessment of gay relations, and that is from whence my original comment sprung. the comment string demonstrates a variety along the opinion spectrum, and I doubt that will change in the coming decades no matter what research and science claim to reveal. the matter is ultimately a social one -- of personal and family relationships and the choices we make about love, sex, marriage and child-rearing -- and it will continue to be considered in that light.

but through the Cheneys we've seen a family going about its business and illustrating the entirity of the scope while refusing to be torn apart or used as anyone's political poster child. that's an example we can all use and respect, and I think it's the angle of this story a significant number of people will reflect on, which is why this will backfire on those who try to use "conservatives" against themselves (i.e. people who must be bigots because they hold an ambivalent view of homosexuality as opposed to people who believe that less government = more liberty).

it's a sadly presumptuous attitude toward an opponent one fails to grasp. the issue garnered attention outside of the press, IMHO, because conservative and mainstream people see this as an attack on the family, not an issue of "those dirty demlibs" or "I'm not voting for those gay-supportin' Rebuplicans."

also about my original post: loy and jim turn my question back on the odd minority of religious or Christian people who botch relations with gay/gay support people.

that wasn't what I was asking about. I'd like to hear from people like Bill A and Mona and TallDave (or others who have relationships that speak to this) what they think of the party of the first part's reception as bigots -- when they have done nothing but be kind -- simply because they are perceived to have beliefs that are hostile.

I ask because this the flip side of families rejecting gay offspring, which I've seen and hope that the response to Mary Cheney will help change. though I think someone scoffed at the notion in previous comments, tolerance does work both ways. or, more to the point, doesn't.

if it was some kind of trick, it wasn't a very good one was it? Also, when did republicans become so sensitive. It's really annoying.

I'm afraid that if a genetic trait were proven to be responsible for homosexuality, then many people would oppose a test for homosexuality. Parents who would abort a child with a deformity or Down's syndrome would likely abort a child who would grow up to be homosexual.

One gay friend of mine is afraid that his younger partner's generation may be the last gay generation, for this reason.

Am I blind or has every one missed something here?

Why does George W Bush not support gay marriage?

Think MONEY!(you can't ever go wrong with this line of thinking)

Who would take a hit if gay marriage were instituted?

Give yourself a big fat star if you said Health Insurance.

That would create how many qualified dependents?

If you are homophobic or not what gives our polititians the right to deny equal access to health care to homosexuals??

Why is this obvious point being missed by everyone???

Who cares if her Mom's panties got in a knot at Kerry's probably ill delivered point? That ain't the subject.
For clarification the subject is "Why the heck does part of this society feel it has the God given right to deny equal consideration to persons who are homosexual?"
GMWWC

5046 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

2106 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem

7361 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

522 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps