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)