Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The lesbian daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney hit out at President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment proscribing gay marriage.
Mary Cheney, 37, told Fox News Sunday that the idea, which was backed strongly by Bush's Republican Party during his 2004 re-election campaign and continues to be promoted by many conservatives today, was "a bad piece of legislation".
"I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is, it is writing discrimination into the constitution.
"It is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
"I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy," she added.
Cheney, who worked on her father's campaign staff in 2004, said she very nearly quit the reelection effort over the issue.
In the wake of controversial moves to make same-sex marriage legal in California and other states, conservatives pushed strongly to have the constitution amended to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
The effort failed in mid-2004, but a number of individual states passed their own initiatives to restrict marriage to traditional male-female couples.
Cheney, who has just published a book, "It's My Turn", covering in part her experience during the campaign, said she was troubled by the stance of the party she was backing.
"President Bush obviously feels very strongly about this issue ... Quite honestly, it was an issue I had some trouble with, as I talk about in the book. I came very close to quitting my job on the re-election campaign over this very issue."
But she said she was also "very angry" when Bush and Dick Cheney's opponents in the campaign, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, challenged the Bush stance by publicly pointing out that Mary Cheney was a lesbian.
"It was a cheap and blatant political ploy" when Edwards used her as an example in debating the issue with her father, Mary Cheney said.
Speaking separately on Fox News Sunday, Bush's wife Laura noted the issue of gay marriage still sparked debate across the country.
"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously," she said.
"But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity."
Thoughts are not a condition... Cause is a matter only of thought...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Many religious fanatics continue to say it is simply a choice.
Like I said, I am not an orthodox atheist...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Your explanation fails to explain the "attraction" but jumps straight to the conduct.
No explanation is needed, the axiomatic state of mammalian reproductive biology and nature needs none, nor does it require human permission.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
...the right to privacy, and is protected by the Constitution.
For starters, the word “privacy” is not in the Constitution. Secondly, a public display or declaration betrays any privacy, as does public money...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The point is that you do not know, because if you do, you know something the world of science doesn't. The answer will not be found in a fundamentalist congregation.
The “world of science” cannot even cure the common cold.
What does the religionist have to do with anything that pertains to me? I am not an ecumenical atheist, as I have told you. The religious smear tactic is an illogical ad hominem...
The answer is found, and it is all rooted in aberrant human thought.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I saw a sincere, intelligent human being, accepted and loved by her family, in a loving monogamous relationship.
ILLOGICAL.Monogamy denotes a biological procreation she is incapable of with another woman.
You are just as deluded as she is...
But, go ahead bashing the godists all you like, this is one atheist that ain't buying your fantasy religion...
You are one of the sheeple...
Radio is the focus of only one of the five senses. A listener has to really tune in to the subject matter and focus on the content of the ideas - - one reason, among others, why so-called "liberal" talk radio has been and is a failure in the free market.
Television is a combination of sensory focus and it is far easier to distract and misdirect viewer attention from essential topics presented.
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato’s cave allegory and the pagan Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms or fantastical images of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or ‘feeling’ is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, just like Pavlov’s salivating dogs.
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to ‘symbolism over substance’ (like Rush Limbaugh always says about them).
The print media somewhat also uses the visual aspects of that phenomenon. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers. One should also notice the emphasis on interactive talk radio, something both "public radio" and television is careful to avoid; unlike most commercial talk radio programming.
...and you sure don't have a clue when it concerns psychology. Go on salivating... “It was a scientist on television, it has to be true...” LOL!
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes?
And some of those seminar posters have been here before under different names and/or have multiple profiles (they are really easy to spot).
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Federal Marriage Amendment NOW!
I also want a federal criminal statute in addition to it...
What would the criminal statute prohibit?
I agree with you that there probably is a biological predisposition to homosexuality -- in most cases. But I'm always baffled be people framing it as either "born that way" or "choice." It could be neither one. Has everyone forgotten Sigmund Freud? People can have things happen to them early on that condition their brains a certain way. For instance, a woman who grows up with an abusive father may subsequently be attracted to abusive men. She is not "choosing" to feel this way but was not born this way, either. Rather, her brain was conditioned at an early age.
Regarding cultural factors, in the book "My Genes Made Me Do It," Neil and Briar Whitehead refer to a 1952 study by Ford and Beach that examined homosexuality in 79 cultures and found that the behavior varied from culture to culture, with it being rare or absent in 29 out of 79 cultures. And in the 1994 University of Chicago study "Sex in America," the authors concluded that culture played a much more important part in contributing to sexual behavior than is generally believed. So there may well be an element of learning in sexual behavior, as there is in other behaviors.
I guess I need an understanding of what you are saying. Are you suggesting that homosexuality is nothing more than free thought? If so, what background do you have to reach that conclusion?
Like I said, I am not an orthodox atheist...
Again, what is the basis for your determination of homosexuality? You have mentioned the term "atheist" a few times. Are you an atheist? And if so, I'm still interested in how you formed your opinions on the subject at hand.
Your explanation fails to explain the "attraction" but jumps straight to the conduct.
No explanation is needed, the axiomatic state of mammalian reproductive biology and nature needs none, nor does it require human permission.
But you certainly must admit there is some kind of attraction, do you not? And if so, I'm merely trying to establish what the cause of that attraction is. You can dance around it all you want with the "thought" theory, but you cannot begin to answer how those "thoughts" came to become attractions so powerful as to turn someone away from normal heterosexuality, especially those from strong Christian anti-homosexual families.
...the right to privacy, and is protected by the Constitution.
For starters, the word “privacy” is not in the Constitution. Secondly, a public display or declaration betrays any privacy, as does public money...
Individual privacy is a pervasive concept within the Bill of Rights. You only have to look to the third and fourth Amendments and end with the ninth which leaves others not mentioned in the first eight to the people. And of course the USSC confirms a basic right to privacy of the people.
As for public displays, if homosexuality is legal, as it currently is, then two homosexuals holding hands in public where two heterosexuals can do the same would of course be legal also.
The “world of science” cannot even cure the common cold.
LOL. Well, I can't argue that one with you. But to be sure, science and medicine have certainly proved that certain genes not in all persons cause certain rare illnesses. Science wants to know if a particular gene also causes homosexuality. I don't think they have conclusively established that it has. But at least my mind is not shut to the possibility of something that neither you nor I could possibly know the answer to.
What does the religionist have to do with anything that pertains to me? I am not an ecumenical atheist, as I have told you. The religious smear tactic is an illogical ad hominem...
My apologies. No smear was intended. But clearly you understand that religious fundamentalists are the primary source for the "it's a choice, not a physical condition" philosophy. For them, the reason is obvious. If it is a condition preceding birth, such as a gene or other physical cause, then that means that God created the homosexual. And since God can do no wrong, homosexuality cannot by definition be bad. That's their reason, and yours seems to fit into that model. But again you keep referring to "atheist" by saying you are not various definitions of "atheist" but never saying exactly what you are.
The answer is found, and it is all rooted in aberrant human thought.
Now if you could just reference that or give me a link to that conclusion, I would appreciate it.
I saw a sincere, intelligent human being, accepted and loved by her family, in a loving monogamous relationship.
ILLOGICAL.Monogamy denotes a biological procreation she is incapable of with another woman.
Well the dictionary defines monogamy as a condition or practice of having a single mate for a period of time. That would certainly seem to fit Mary Cheney. Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
But, go ahead bashing the godists all you like, this is one atheist that ain't buying your fantasy religion...
Well, I don't recall bashing anyone. I do disagree with certain Christian philosophy as we have discussed, but I am quite willing to defend any statement I make. And I am not sure exactly what a godist is, nor a fantasy religion. The only thing I have done here on this thread is to challenge the conclusion of some that homosexuality is simply a choice made, and that no one is born homosexual. I would be quite willing to back up my challenge with links to medical and scientific studies, but strangely enough no takers. Yet none, you included seem disposed to explain your conclusion.
ILLOGICAL... mating requires male and female with mammals and denotes procreation.
The biology of nature defines monogamy and human permission is not required...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
You just shot yourself down with it above... Learn Latin and Greek... get a life...
Who is he that is not of woman born?
Is that one of those ad hominem smears you referred to in the last post?
. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms or fantastical images of the brain.
So is it fair to assume that you never watch television?
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or ‘feeling’ is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, just like Pavlov’s salivating dogs.
And this is relevant to the Mary Cheney interview how?
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to ‘symbolism over substance’ (like Rush Limbaugh always says about them).
This may come as a shock to you, but the right does pretty much the same thing. You ever watch Fox News? Generally, the only ones who don't recognize that both sides engage in similar tactics are the far right and left ends of the political spectrum. But your point is well taken, that folks need to be careful of what is being presented, and have the intelligence to challenge those concepts that do not appear reasonable or rational on their surface.
The print media somewhat also uses the visual aspects of that phenomenon. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers.
Once again I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with anything we are discussing, but hey, I'm game. Let's talk about this forum. It should of course be conservative as it was set up that way, but some folks here believe that anyone who challenges a poster to substantiate a claim is somehow a heretic and should be banned. Some ping lists demand that everyone kowtow to their philosophy, and anyone who strays by means of challenging it has no business on FR. And they feel they can make a statement without any substantiation, and it must be taken as gospel. Is that the sort of "sheeple" you are referring to?
...and you sure don't have a clue when it concerns psychology. Go on salivating... “It was a scientist on television, it has to be true...” LOL!
Well, again, I'm quite willing to link to all of my points. Are you?
It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Perhaps. But then why has homosexuality been around since the beginning of man? And why do animals which are clearly not sentient engage in homosexuality? Is it a choice with them?
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes?
You asked me that in a previous post and I answered you. Be specific as what special societal privileges you are referring to and perhaps I can better answer you.
BTW, you didn't respond to my answer on either abortion or Crowley.
Two points. First you are defining a mate as merely a sexual recipient. Most people consider a mate as much more than that, and nothing I have ever seen requires that two people who love each other must be capable of procreation. Therefore sex is secondary to the love. Second, even in heterosexual relationships, most couples do not engage in sex for the purpose of procreation, and in fact engage in sexual acts that could not possibly result in procreation. And yes, they are all mates.
Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
You just shot yourself down with it above... Learn Latin and Greek... get a life...
I believe I answered your point above. You might want to consider challenging it. I don't know what Latin or Greek or "get a life" have to do with our discussion.
Who is he that is not of woman born?
Source?
Interesting reference. My whole point is that studies are still ongoing and to the best of my knowlege still inconclusive. Most reasonable people understand that while some cultural influence may be present, it doesn't explain the Cheney, Terry, or Keyes children, all of whom were raised in strong Christian homes. I am reasonably sure it's not a choice, or why would the daughter of Dick Cheney choose to be a lesbian. But I certainly don't know what it is.
Tell that to the “birds and bees.” The “facts of life” are not something that should have to be to be explained to a rational adult. Anatomical function is axiomatic...
Male + female = baby. It happens no other way.
Well, I suspect you have pretty much blown the extent of your argument on the issue. Next time you decide to challenge someone, at least come prepared, and don't just ignore every question posed to you. It's called debating...oh, never mind. Have a nice day.
I refuse to acknowledge questions from a five year old mentality that would be best answered by watching animals mate on the Dicovery Channel. You want cartoons?
I refuse to acknowledge questions from a five year old mentality that would be best answered by watching animals mate on the Discovery Channel. You want cartoons?
I've heard her interviewed several times and she has had nothing but praise for GW and her Dad!!
These type of articles are nothing but another pitiful attempt to trash our President.
Indeed so. God bless President George W. Bush.
Personally, I've never watched animals mate on the Discovery Channel. Is it enjoyable? Hey, whatever floats your boat...
You may want to reconsider not taking questions from five year olds, you may be able to handle those....maybe.
As for cartoons, don't need any more. You and your profile provided ample entertainment for now. Take care.
You are a multiple profile poster...
What do you think RunningWolf???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.