ABC's This Week omitted key portion of Edwards's account of Mary Cheney remarks
SUMMARY: In airing an interview with former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), ABC's This Week omitted a key segment in which Edwards provided context for remarks he made in the 2004 vice-presidential debate. During the debate, Edwards commended Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, for their response to their daughter Mary Cheney's coming out as a lesbian.
The May 21 edition of ABC's This Week failed to air a key portion of an interview that host George Stephanopoulos had conducted with former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). During the interview, Edwards related his account of a controversial incident in the 2004 vice-presidential debate in which he commended Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, for their response to their daughter Mary Cheney's coming out as a lesbian.
After Stephanopoulos asked Edwards for his "reaction" to Mary Cheney's recent criticism of Edwards's remarks in the debate, This Week showed Edwards saying, "I think that what I said then was appropriate. And I do believe that it was in a very partisan political environment. We were in the middle of a very hot campaign, very close campaign." However, as indicated by a summary of the interview on the ABC News website, Edwards provided additional context for his 2004 remarks that This Week omitted:
Edwards told "This Week": "What happened ... is that the vice president had mentioned in several public appearances the fact that he had a gay daughter, had talked about some differences in policy that he had with the president. He was asked a question in the debate where that was referenced by the moderator, [PBS journalist] Gwen Ifill. He responded. I said that actually the fact that they had a gay daughter and embraced her is something that should be applauded for. He said thank you."
Edwards correctly noted that Ifill, in her question, mentioned that Cheney "used [his] family's experience as a context" for formulating his position on same-sex unions:
IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President. 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?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
From the interview summary on the ABC News website:
The former senator, pitching his "college for everyone" program in rural North Carolina, also responded to recent criticism by Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. In "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life," Cheney, the 37-year-old second daughter of the vice president and second lady, labeled Edwards as "complete and total slime" for congratulating Cheney and his wife during their 2004 vice presidential debate for "embrac[ing]" their daughter's sexual orientation.
Edwards did not back down, telling Stephanopoulous [sic], ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, "I think what I said then was appropriate. And I do believe that it was in a very partisan political environment. We were in the middle of a very hot campaign, very close campaign."
Mary Cheney, a close political adviser to her father, told ABC News "Primetime" anchor Diane Sawyer in May that she seriously contemplated quitting the 2004 campaign over Bush's opposition to gay marriage.
"I struggled with my decision to stay," she said.
Edwards told "This Week": "What happened ... is that the vice president had mentioned in several public appearances the fact that he had a gay daughter, had talked about some differences in policy that he had with the president. He was asked a question in the debate where that was referenced by the moderator, Gwen Ifill. He responded. I said that actually the fact that they had a gay daughter and embraced her is something that should be applauded for. He said thank you."
From the May 21 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you've been back in the news in the last couple of weeks because Mary Cheney has been on a book tour. And she keeps bringing up the moment in the vice-presidential debate, which she called bringing sleazy politics to a whole new level, when you talked about her in the vice-presidential debate.
EDWARDS [video clip from 2004 debate]: Let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing.
MARY CHENEY [video clip]: I mouthed a phrase towards Senator Edwards that is not appropriate for prime-time television.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your reaction to that?
EDWARDS: I think that what I said then was appropriate. And I do believe that it was in a very partisan political environment. We were in the middle of a very hot campaign, very close campaign. He said "thank you" and then --
STEPHANOPOULOS: She said he was acting.
EDWARDS: Well, he didn't act -- he didn't seem like he was acting, although you never know with -- with the vice president.
From the October 5, 2004, vice-presidential debate:
IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President. 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?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq. Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us. Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.
IFILL: New question, but same subject. As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it. Are you trying to have it both ways?
EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along. We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on. We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
Anyone who believes that the Cheneys were genuinely offended by this is an idiot. They used it to score political points with the Troglodyte GOP base. To the Religious-Right TheoNazis, having a gay son or daughter is a matter of SHAME, therefore, if someone mentions it, in ANY context, it is an insult. The Cheneys had to manufacture their phony outrage so that the trailer-park Troglodytes would think they had something in common with these billionaires.
It's very simple, really.
Can anybody explain to me what it was about what John Edwards said that Mary Cheney found so offensive? I can't even think of an irrational reason.
It seems the least she could have done for us is manufacture a quote.
The Democrats often appear as if they are reading "Talking Points" from a think tank memo. The most obvious example was the overuse of "gravitas".
Edwards' comment about Cheney's daughter seemed quite out of place. It was as if there was a memo that said that the Republican base is not aware Cheney has a lesbian daughter, bring it up whereever you can, they will be peeved.
The nice words from Edwards came across as being very insincere.
Look at it from an alternative view, someone saying insincere nice things about a Democrat. Suppose in a debate, someone "compliments" in this way:
"Senator Clinton, we want to praise you for being so pro-family. After the revelations of your husband's sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, you stood by him as a good wife should. You did not go on your own as an independent woman, but realized how important it is for you to stay subordinate to your husband in his time of need. We think you're great!"
Few if any supporters would take those words as anything but insincere political posturing, much like what Edwards did.
Infidelity is not comparable to homosexuality. Your implication is that Democrats really disapprove of gay people, but are "insincere" about it, which is completely absurd.
As I already said, it's very important to note someone like Mary Cheney. People who believe that homosexuality is merely some personal whim are hard pressed to explain people who come from conservative backgrounds, or get disowned, disinherited, mocked, etc. yet do not change "their ways". That's an extremely important point to be made when trying to get gay people to be more widely accepted by society...an agenda that favors people like Mary Cheney against the will of her own father.
If what Sen. Edwards said was the "insincere political posturing" that you claim, why did Vice President Cheney respond the way he did? Here, read it again:
... let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
Are you claiming that Cheney was so dense that he couldn't recognize political posturing, or was too much of a gentleman to attack it?
I watched the debate, and I rather doubt that you did. Edwards' comments were kind, respectable, and completely in character. Cheney accepted them gratefully. For you to suggest otherwise is foolishness of a high order.
I did watch and listen to the debate.
Cheney's response reminded me of the old advice, "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
Cheney thanked Edwards for the "kind words about my family". The moderator said something like, "Is that all????" Cheney said that's all.
He knew what was going on and remained restrained. I cannot think of a colder thank you.
Both Cheney and Edwards have spinmeisters who did their work, as expected.
"Cheney's response reminded me of the old advice, "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all.""
Cheney is the master of restraint. Anyone who tells a Senator to go F himself is clearly a true gentleman.
It's good advice though. If people actually abided by it there would be no right-wing talk radio.
Far from it!
I think the glare of the TV lights and the focus on the debate had these thoughts going through his mind..
Must hold back, must not flinch, must say something nice.
To me he looked extremely uncomfortable, like complimenting a hostess about a horrible meal.
And again, Edwards didn't say anything mean or rude about Mary at all, nor did he bring her up aprapos of nothing. If Cheney really had to fight that urge so badly, that says more about his opinion of homosexuality than anything else.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense either. Gwen Iffil (SP?) was the one who brought up Mary Cheney's homosexuality. The VP referred to it in the remarks he made just before Edwards spoke. Edwards was simply referring to what other people had already brought up. And this insincere vs. sincere stuff is totally subjective. I thought he came off as sincere. And, sincere or not, his remarks were totally supportive of the Vice President and his daughter which is why Cheney thanked him.
Sorry, MissouriShowMe, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
Just because others have "brought something up" does not mean that the electorate mass knows about it.
Can you think of a forum that had more people looking and listening to the VP candidates than their only nationally televised debate?
Edwards took the opening about family and politely (and what some think is sincerely) told the audience that Cheney has a gay daughter.
My belief, fully debatable, is that Edwards thought that some appreciable number of Cheney's supporters were bigoted about homosexuality and would lessen their support for him when confronted with the fact that Cheney accepts his daughter's sexuality.
You may think that Edwards is just a nice guy complimenting his political opponent. Fine.
In no way did I mean to suggest that Democrats/liberals falsely support homosexuality. To me, the support is genuine, but that still does not stop them from "outing" people associated with their political oppoonents for perceived political advantage.
First off, you can’t out someone who is already publicly out like Mary was at the time of this debate. Mary openly lived and socialized with her partner and no secret was ever made of the fact she was gay. The question the moderator asked was not simply a “family” question she was specifically referring to the homosexuality issue…whatever the hidden motives anyone wants to read into it, Edward’s response was appropriate in the context of the moderators questioning. And frankly the only reason Mary and the right are so pissed about this is because they ran their campaign by playing up to peoples bigotry and they weren’t happy about falling victim to their own hypocrisy.
"Edwards took the opening about family and politely (and what some think is sincerely) told the audience that Cheney has a gay daughter (...) but that still does not stop them from "outing" people associated with their political oppoonents for perceived political advantage."
Here's what Ifill said;"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."
That's not an opening about "family" that's an opening about Cheney's family. Now, anyone should be able to pick up from those two sentences that Cheney's family matters involve homosexuality. If that's "outing" to anyone in the Republican base, then they must not be very bright.
don't understand what the problem is, because we don't have a built in predjudice against gays (or anyone else for that matter). I have several friends who are conservative, and they thought the remarks were the worst thing they had ever witnessed in an election. Short answer--I don't get it either!
It's ironic that the reaction to the comments are actually what should be offensive. All Kerry and Edwards both did was acknowledge that she was a lesbian. It's an important point to make, since a person coming from such a conservative background suggests that it's more nature than nurture. But while both of their comments made no criticism or condemnation of either Mary or homosexuality in general, it was the mere mention of her orientation that was so wrong. As if "homosexual" was the most horrible insult one could put onto another person.
That says a lot more about Republican views of gay people than Kerry's or Edwards'.
Don't you think it odd, that considering how enlightened Democrats are on the issue of homosexuality, that the Kerry-Edwards ticket thought marriage should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman? (Hillary has said this also).
Don't you think it odd, that Democrats oppose this Iraq war, but Kerry said in the campaign that he would have done the same thing Bush did?
Don't you think it odd, that Edwards said in the above article: "the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq. Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."
This was said by a man who is worth $60 million and is one of the two people who made up the richest ticket for the Presidency in history?
It was written recently on a conservative blog, that the best thing Republicans have going for them in November is that they are running against Democrats. That is so true.
It's also interesting that the comment that the best things Republicans have going for them is that they're running against Democrats is the conclusion to a series of points showing that Democrats are in fact too similar to Republicans in some areas.
Gay rights is still a tough issue. Bill Clinton found that out, and most people remember that and want to avoid the same criticisms, right now. But it is the Democrats who support the community, even if gay marriage is untenable currently, and the Republicans who fight against it. When popular opinion sways to the breaking point, it will be Democrats crossing that platform boundary.
As for the war, wasn't that based on the "intelligence at the time"? Since it's come out that so much of the intelligence was filtered, I haven't heard him make any such comments, have you? Or would you dare to call that a "flip-flop"?
You are correct. I should have just stuck with my first point on the gay marriage issue and left off the other two but sometimes we write before we think things through (okay I will only speak for myself). I appreciate everyones response to my post, Lostlogic, Therick, Rusty.
Just political cowardice.
No, that's not odd. Note that he said "We don't just value wealth, which they do", which is not a condemnation of the wealthy, just the priorities displayed. In other words "We value wealth, but other things too, unlike Republicans". I fail to see the hypocrisy that you imply.
You can be rich and still support higher taxes for the rich and relief for the poor. Why is that difficult to comprehend?
Hi Bruce. I agree with you about the hypocrisy of trying to have it both ways on the gay marriage issue. It is something I personally have a hard time understanding. The only explanation seems they do not want to alienate the large base of voters that are anti gay…so they try having it both ways. You lost me on the Edwards money thing though. How is what he said in any way negated by the fact that he made a great living? Seems to me it is even more impressive because he would be someone who benefits from what he described would happen but he speaks out against it. I am not sure if what you say about the best thing the republicans have going for them is the dems…I’ll reserve my judgment on that one for now; but doesn’t it speak volumes that even conservatives now realize how little the Republicans have to offer the American people…sad it took so long for them to wake up.
The "One man and one woman" quote was unfortunate because Kerry/Edwards were sticking their finger in the breeze and trying to determine what the voters wanted them to do--which is actually (partially) what leaders in a democracy should do. They were forced into this position by the repub "machine" and it was a load of crap that Rove made this a campaign issue in the first place, especially when there are so many other issues which were much more pressing and important at that time. The fact is--Bush would have most certainly lost if these issues were brought to the front of the debate.
I have many objections for the other things you mentioned, but the topic is Mary Cheney/Lesbian/Edwards quote. Please don't get me started about the rich vs. poor debate. It makes my blood boil, and I haven't taken my blood pressure medecine yet today.
In response to "don't you think it's odd":
(1) No, it's not that odd. Not all Democrats are in favor of recognizing gay marriage. In fact, many Democrats oppose it. Kerry and Edwards are among those who are not in favor of it. That's not the same thing as being "against homosexuals" generally.
(2) Again, not odd. Not all Democrats oppose the war.
(3) As someone else pointed out, it's not that odd for a wealthy person to be in favor of a more equitable system unless you believe that the only value anyone has is money.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind you are for gay rights but you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman…maybe I am missing something here…could you explain how that isn’t an odd position to hold. While I agree with your position that not all those who vote democrat are for gay rights in fact many are against homosexuality usually for personal and religious reasons. However Kerry and Edwards and even Hillary claim to be for gay rights so what gives? Their positions as far as I can see are inconsistent and they are simply compromising their position in a failed attempt to win more votes.
Yes, I'm not sure I understand "pro-gay" but "anti-gay marriage" either very well. Some argue that it devalues the institution, but marriage is really just a legal matter anyway. A piece of paper has no bearing on the quality or health of interpersonal relationships - it's just an official bond for purposes of inheritance and other matters (in my opinion). Churches have used it to dictate sexual behavior, some cultures use it to define the "property" of a man (essentially), and infidelity has been a factor for all time. So it's not something sacrosanct that gays are going to come along and ruin. They won't damage its meaning or value any more than Elizabeth Taylor did single-handedly. That doesn't mean it doesn't have any worth, marriage is a wonderful thing (some tell me), but if it's possible to destroy the institution then men and women have made quite an effort to do that already through human nature itself.
It's just a political position, as you said. The people aren't ready for it, so they're not going to push it.
Marriage as a state sanctioned institution is really a legal matter. Speaking personally, I have “lived in sin” so to speak and later married my fellow sinner and the marriage certificate didn’t change our relationship personally but rather had legal ramifications that necessitated our ending our sinful ways. I am for gay marriage. I just don’t see what there is to be against unless you are anti-gay. And if it is for religious reasons then I think you follow the tenets of your faith and nobody is forcing religious institutions to marry same sex partners. I guess I don’t understand why they don’t see it as they would a divorced person getting remarried…the state sanctions it but not the church. But you don’t hear a big outcry to pass an amendment banning divorcees from remarrying now do ya? So what is the difference? They are both sinners in the eyes of the church. The institution of marriage is what you personally make of it not what your neighbor’s marriage is like. I can understand the politicians not pushing for gay marriage for political reasons of it just won’t fly right now. But I do not understand when they proactively come out and say marriage should be defined as man and woman…that is where they lose me.
The problem is "pro-gay rights" is far too general a term. Being "pro-gay rights" doesn't mean being pro-every-single-possible gay right. There are degrees of "pro-ness," for lack of a better term. Some people approve of roughly equal legal rights for gay couples, but not civil unions or marriage. Some people go farther and favor civil unions. Others go even farther and favor full marital rights. I guess Kerry and Edwards didn't go quite that far.
That doesn't mean I don't think they were being wishy-washy on the issue, because I do think that. It's just that I don't think it's completely illogical to be "pro-gay rights" in general but not "pro-gay marriage," because "pro-gay rights" is so general.
Hi Rusty. I do understand your point but this is where I have the problem: To me being pro-gay rights means you don’t think they are any different from their straight counterparts except their same sex partner. So why should the rights for one be any different then the rights for the other? I think if one says they have no problem with gays but do not think they should be allowed to marry or have “couple rights” given to them then in my opinion that person is not being honest about where they stand on homosexuality. Can you explain to me how one justifies this contradiction in their positions…I am not being sarcastic I really have never heard anyone explain it and I am curious how one would rationalize this position as being pro-gay rights. I agree pro-gay rights is very general but I don’t see what needs to be specific about it…you either are or you are not for recognizing equal rights for gays. To come out and say marriage should be defined as man and woman means you do not believe they should be treated equally under the law.
Personally, I agree with you - it should be all-or-nothing. If you're pro-gay rights, you should be for the whole enchilada. I didn't mean to sound like I was defending the wishy-washy Kerry-Edwards-Hillary position.
I know people, though, who are generally pro-gay rights but stop short of marriage because they sincerely believe that it is somehow logically absurd for "marriage" to be anything but one-man-one-woman. My sister thinks this, but she also thinks they should have full legal rights. Just don't call it "marriage." With these folks it really seems to be about the word, which has religious connotations for them. That position doesn't make sense to me because I don't share their religious viewpoint. I suspect Kerry and Edwards are like my sister, supportive of full legal rights but not of the use of the term "marriage."
but when we are talking about the legal contract of marriage not the spiritual one you enter into with your faith then I feel the situation changes. For example Kerry has consistantly said he is pro-choice politically but against abortion personally because of his religion...a position I also hold. But like me Kerry says his personal/religious beliefs should not be imposed on others because that would violate their rights. So how come he feels it is ok to impose his religious beliefs about marriage on others?
Hey welcome back!! :-) You've been missed!!
I THINK I know where Rusty is coming from--though I don't want to PUT words in his mouth.
My OPINION on Homosexuality is SIMPLE:
Live and let live. Love whomever you want. We should be tolerant and not harass anyone for their sexual preference.
HOWEVER...I'm NOT so sure about sanctioning Gay Marriage. To me THAT recognizes and acknowledges Homosexuality as being simply a NORMAL Alternative lifestyle. It isn't.
That said, it may be my old traditional way of looking at things that keeps me from fully ACCEPTING Gay Marriage. Perhaps I'll eventually be on board, BUT for the present...I'm not behind it.
Howdy jeter. We have discussed this issue before so I do understand your position…I even admire your sincere desire to be fair to everyone gay or straight. But I don’t think I am out of line by saying you do not, for want of a better word, think being gay is normal. You do have a bias (not necessarily meant in a bad way) in that you do not see a gay couple as being no different from a straight couple. Me, I don’t really see the difference other then the obvious. I think both are normal and natural. No different then being attracted to a certain type…such as tall, dark, and handsome (-; In the case of the gay person part of the type they are attracted to is the same sex. I also do not believe it is a choice so having said that how can it be anything but natural? I don’t see someone who has your views in the same light that I would a homophobe…It seems from all our discussions that you do not hate or fear gay people you simply have your views of what is normal and what is abnormal…but I will say this for ya…you obviously have come a long way in trying to understand the issue and I think before too long we will have you in our camp (-: You are no bigot by any stretch of the imagination…just struggling to understand something that is out of your normal frame of reference. Let me ask you this do you thing being gay, even though you have come to the conclusion it is not a choice, could really be abnormal if one has no choice...or is it just out of the norm for you and your personal frame of reference?
" Let me ask you this do you thing being gay, even though you have come to the conclusion it is not a choice, could really be abnormal if one has no choice...or is it just out of the norm for you and your personal frame of reference?"...by lostlogic
=====
Hey lostlogic, sorry I'm getting back to you so late (I read your post just as I was about to leave work and didn't have time to answer) I guess I'd ask that you READ my post to brabantio--scroll down to: [- jeter2 / Wednesday May 24, 2006 10:47:36 PM EST] I THINK it can best explain my position on Normal vs Abnormal.
I admit I grew up with VERY traditional [some MIGHT say old fashioned] ideas, BUT I'm willing to listen to other opinions on this particular subject. Don't know IF I'd change my mind...BUT it's NOT closed.
** Now on a more personal note...I really hope YOU don't vanish for such a long stretch again!! Your posts ADD a lot to this forum and... well...I think you're a pretty swell person too :-)**
Sorry for responding so late…hopefully you are still reading this thread. I did read your post and his responses back…they were very interesting and I wish the discussion in the public arena could be as insightful and honest as both of your posts have been. Just a few random thoughts about what you wrote. Is the only reason you feel a homosexual relationship shouldn’t be sanctioned by marriage because it is not the norm? I can agree with you that it is not normal—in the statistical sense. But I have to argue with you on the natural thing. If, as we both agree, it is not a choice but rather it is the way they were born then isn’t that the very definition of natural—they are the way nature intended them to be. While I understand the point you were trying to make about the pedophile I don’t think they are the same issue…if one subscribes to the idea of the pedophile is born with those urges we can certainly conclude that this is a harmful trait—the urge to rape a child…and in that realization we penalize the pedophile who would act upon these urges. Obviously ,we, as human beings do have a choice in whether we act upon our urges or not---when the urge would harm yourself or another then we should not act on the urge that is how we become a civilized society. But what is harmful about homosexuality? What is wrong with sanction homosexuality as a no harm no foul natural abnormality? What is the negative consequence to society by condoning homosexuality in your opinion?
Excellent point. Why the different stances on abortion and gay marriage? Probably boils down to representing his constituents (or hoped-for constituents), the majority of whom favor keeping abortion legal but oppose gay marriage.
BTW, in case I wasn't clear, I am pro-gay marriage. I disagree with Jeter that being gay is nothing more than an abnormal "alternative lifestyle," because I don't believe people choose their sexual orientation.
Living openly Gay is an alternative lifestyle. And it is abnormal. BTW I believe sexual orientation is NOT chosen. So we AGREE on that. HOWEVER that doesn't make it natural or normal. And neither will sanctioning Gay marriage.
**Sorry if I misread your opinion.**
If it's not chosen, then how can it be unnatural or out of the norm? I'm greatly confused by that. Is the contention that outside influences force a new orientation against the will of the natural one? Doesn't the fact that there are so many disinherited, disowned or conservative-raised homosexuals sort of belie that idea just a little bit?
Please explain.
Jeter can speak for himself if he gets back to the thread but what I think he means is this: A normal person is born with ten fingers and ten toes but occasionally someone will be born with eight fingers or twelve fingers or something like that. They were born that way, yes, but it isn't considered normal it is considered a birth defect. Obviously, there is nothing the person born with that defect can do about it. Its certainly not their fault. I think that's what he means but I could be wrong.
Perfect explanation of normal vs abnormal. And THATS exactly what I meant.
In fact you beat me to the punch...
If you read my post to brabantio I ACTUALLY used a physical deformity as an example.
Keeping my answer as SIMPLE as possible:
The Homosexual relationship is NOT normal because men and women have (how not to say THIS too graphically) sex organs that MESH together rather PERFECTLY and they are ABLE to procreate the species. Yes I'm aware that sex does NOT always have to be about REPRODUCTION, but let's be honest here... it does enable THIS very important function to continue. Without procreation, mankind would come to a halt.
I'm more than willing to have YOU explain to me how Homosexuality is Normal.
Keeping in mind that NOT every "urge" we humans experience can be necessarily described or categorized as "Normal". And JUST because a few people MIGHT indulge in a certain behavior does NOT make it normal.
Again I have no problem with homosexuality, live and let live as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't mean homosexuality is SIMPLY a *normal* alternate lifestyle. Sanctioning Gay Marriage is an ATTEMPT by some to normalize something that is abnormal.
We have friends whose eldest son was born with a deformed hand (almost webbed). Would you object to me saying his hand is abnormal (as compared to what we acknowledge as a normal human hand). Probably not. Then WHY do you and others have such a difficult time admitting someones sexuality is abnormal?
Well this quickly becomes a game of percentages, doesn't it? At what threshold does the normal become abnormal? The usual statistic I hear for percentages of gay or bisexual people is 10% of the population. That's also about the amount of people who are left-handed. While most people are right-handed, it is not seen as particularly unusual, like being born with webbed hands is. So at that percentage, if they are correct, is it really not "normal"? And if it's not, so what? As long as you acknowledge that gay people are born that way, what difference does it make what the percentages are as far as their rights go? The obvious direction this goes is that they are denied equal standing due to the way they were born, which is difficult to defend. So as for your challenge to defend homosexuality as "normal", it's as normal as being left-handed, much more so than having webbed hands.
What really stands out like a flashing neon light about your post is that while you originally said "that doesn't make it natural or normal", the word "natural" is suspiciously absent from your explanation. There's a huge, monstrous difference between "natural" and "normal". "Normal" is just a percentages game, as I noted, but "natural" (which was the real thrust of my query, if you re-read it) simply means produced by nature. You seem to be claiming that while people do not choose their orientation, neither are they born that way, and that's where my confusion comes from. By definition the way you are born is your natural state, and if you're born homosexual, it is by definition natural (like while webbed hands are not normal, they are probably natural). Now I'm open to the argument that there are prenatal factors that cause certain birth defects, like alcohol or chemicals in water or power lines, which would not necessarily qualify as "natural". However, if there is some activity or common factor that causes 10% of the population to be born a certain way I'm quite sure someone would have figured it out by now.
I've read articles about evidence of homosexual activity among animal populations. Is that "unnatural"? This is what makes your argument about complimentary reproductive organs useless - it's not about the body, it's about the mind. As far as a gay person is concerned, that's how they were born, it feels normal to them, it feels natural to them. It's only the pressure from society that represses that behavior. That's the bottom line, even if it can be defined as "abnormal", as long as you understand they were born that way then that label shouldn't make a bit of difference regarding their rights.
What we consider "normal" "abnormal "natural" "unnatural" is OFTEN defined by society.
Some definitions:
Normal: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical
Abnormal: Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.
Natural: Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature ; Expected and accepted ; based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
Unnatural: Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
I am going to use pedophilia as an EXAMPLE....BEFORE I begin let me state FOR THE RECORD (before posters with a case of the screaming meemies attack in outrage) I am in NO WAY equating Homosexuals to Pedophiles. Is THAT clear? Good. What I am ATTEMPTING to do is talk about normal, natural behavior vs abnormal unnatural behavior.
Pedophiles are attracted to and desire sex with children. AND in some cases may even profess a [perverted] love for the child. We as a society do NOT consider this normal or natural. Pedophiles can be either male or female and can be attracted to either male or female children. Now using your logic-- because these are feelings they appear to be born with, would YOU consider their feelings normal and natural?
I believe its been established that THIS behavior is NOT learned...therefore the pedophile is "born" with these feelings. And though NOT proven [beyond a reasonable doubt] many experts believe pedophilia is NOT curable. It has THAT in common with homosexuality.
Now BEFORE anyone chimes in--yeah BUT adult homosexuals are engaging in CONSENSUAL sex...let me say--I realize that, BUT it does not change the definitions of normal-abnormal-natural-unnatural.
Sex and love between a male and female is the norm, or if you will: normal and natural. This has been accepted by society in general for hundreds of thousands of years (with few exceptions)
So any deviation would be abnormal or unnatural.
Homosexuality, when practiced by consenting adults should be, and usually is accepted/tolerated. HOWEVER that does not give it "normal" or "natural" status. IMO.
Pedophilia is NOT accepted or tolerated. It is abnormal, unnatural and of course criminal behavior. Homosexuality is NOT criminal--But BOTH deviate from the norm...don't they?
My point is (and has been) that I don't believe that abnormal, unnatural behavior should be sanctioned as normal or natural. I believe THAT'S what Gay Marriage would do.
This is my opinion. You hold a different one. Perhaps (as I wrote to lostlogic) I'll eventually see Gay Marriage as acceptable. HOWEVER as far as I'm concerned Homosexuality is an abnormal and unnatural behavior. That viewpoint won't change.
Alright, so you seem to be using "natural" and "normal" as synonyms, which is a bit deceptive. The thrust of my question was whether you believe people are born gay or not, which would be "natural" by my definition (#1.Present in or produced by nature, dictionary.com).
The difference between the two situations that you noted is much more important than you admit. Just because two things are abnormal does not mean that neither should be sanctioned. The difference between an act that mentally scars and/or physically harms children can't be used to justify any policy regarding adult, consentual relationships. "They're both abnormal" simply does not fly here.
The policies regarding deviant or abnormal behavior should be made with the goal of accomodating both individual rights and societal needs. For the pedophile you can acknowledge that it's not their fault, that they were born that way, but still there must be some correction for the well-being of others in the community. For homosexuality, there is no reason not to try to bring that behavior within the realm of accepted society. To deny that sanction is to punish them for things you admit are not their fault, for being who they were born as, and discriminating behavior of any sort is unhealthy for society as well.
From a societal viewpoint, there's no reason not to sanction behavior that benefits the people who are doing so, and harms nobody, whether that behavior is abormal or unnatural or anything else. If that's your only rationale for your view, I think that view is entirely baseless.
If there are just as many left-handed people as gay people, and you dont consider that quality to be considered unnatural or abnormal, that lends itself to the conclusion that the difference between the two deviations is an unconscious judgment of one as somehow wrong. That's not something I'm eager to think about you, but if you really believe that everything gay people do is perfectly fine and acceptable, and that they are born that way, then how is that behavior any more controversial or unsanctionable than the deviation of signing your name southpaw?
Wherein lay the difference between your opinion of these two groups?
what is your point? If a person is Rich,he can't be a Democrat.I bet that Cheney has more wealth than Edwards.
First of all, as a liberal, I really didn't understand all the hooplah over Edwards candid but supportive comments during the debate. Conservative talk shows vilified Edwards and Mary was outraged... over commending the Cheney's support for a daughter everyone knew was gay? Huh?... One of the issues at the time was that Edwards outed her (at least according to the drug-addled gas bag Limbaugh). Oh, by the way, let me "out" Elton John. I know nobody knew he was gay...
... besides this whole thing simply being a way to charge the right-wing whacko conservative base (like the stupid gay marriage issue) it shows that we live in a sound bite world. No one's patient enough to get the WHOLE story. Liberals at least seem, by and large, willing to wade through the murky waters of politics seeking the truth.
< To the Religious-Right TheoNazis, having a gay son or daughter is a matter of SHAME, therefore, if someone mentions it, in ANY context, it is an insult. The Cheneys had to manufacture their phony outrage so that the trailer-park Troglodytes would think they had something in common with these billionaires. >
< Liberals don't understand what the problem is, because we don't have a built in predjudice against gays (or anyone else for that matter). >
Very good points. I think when Edwards said it it was in the context of the question that was aked to Cheney and Edwards did get to retort on it. However when Kerry brought it up after that in another debate, the last one I belive, thats when it felt like a smear tactic. Cheney wasnt there so it felt it was brought up for the sake of mentioning it again, in case people didnt hear it the first time. And I cringed when I hear Kerry say it becasue I just knew what the Repugs were going to say.
It was perhaps the only smear Kerry used in his whole campaign compared to the billion Bush used.
But it's not a "smear", that's the whole point. Let's say worst-case scenario is that Kerry was waiting for an opportunity to bring that up in order to show people how hypocritical Republicans are, and how they support things that are against their own best interests in order to appease the religious right. Isn't that sort of a valid point to bring up?
Personally I didn't cringe, although I knew the right-wing was going to jump all over it. There are many important and honest things that Republicans react to in exactly the same way, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be said.
In an earlier part of these threads, I tried to make the point that while Edwards spoke politely, kindly, etc., it was during a DEBATE!! Some Media Matters readers seem to think that while Edwards was aware of time limits and his run for VP, he would take a few moments and say some kind words about his opponent's gay daughter and how his opponent was reacting to this. Just a nice guy putting politics aside for a bit.
I was and remain suspicious that it instead was an attempt by Edwards to cause some Cheney supporters to waver in that support. For this to be logical, EDWARDS WOULD HAVE TO THINK THAT AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHENEY'S SUPPORTERS THINK AS YOU POSTED.
It does not matter what liberals/Democrats think or what Edwards thinks they think, or even what the bulk of conservatives think. It is what Edwards apparently thinks of modern-day conservatives that is offensive.
"It is what Edwards apparently thinks of modern-day conservatives that is offensive."
And from the right-wing reaction, it's obvious that if your theory is correct that Edwards was right on the money! Since you have yet to explain what was so wrong with what Edwards said, outside of mentioning the homosexuality at all, what was all the right-wing outrage over?
OK, we're in a debate, limited time, opponent seeking the very same high level job.
This time, your opponent kindly, politely says something like: "I want to commend you for the way you are handling discussion of your [choose one]
alcoholic father autistic child mother with Alzheimer's
You still [act as if you] love them, and that is good. You are a wonderful family man [even though I just said you let vets starve so your billionaire buddies could get tax cuts]. I am proud of you."
Maybe it was the way Edwards tried to talk down to him that was so irritating.
And now you're comparing homosexuality to chemical and mental problems. It's not patronizing because it's not pitying and it's not mean because it's not criticizing. Nobody is talking about it like it's a cause for sympathy.
You're just attributing whatever you can to Edwards to make it seem wrong, and it's not flying.
...but this goes to show what I was saying earlier; people who have a problem with homosexuality are offended by the mere mention of it. They're the ones who think there's something wrong with it, and therefore look at what Edwards said as critizing (as if it was adultery) or patronizing (as if it were a disease). If Edwards himself doesn't have any issues with homosexuality, then there's no problem with what he said - it's just matter-of-fact commentary, without judgment. It's the reaction that's offensive, not the comments themselves. And thank you for unintentionally proving my earlier point so well.
You mean to say that with limited time during a televised debate, one of the participants pauses to make " just matter-of-fact commentary, without judgment".
Nope---Both participants had runthroughs with sparring partners and coaches. They trained to hit their opponent, to get him offstride.
"Matter-of-fact commentary", like a thought that just popped into the mind??
Not believable!
""Matter-of-fact commentary", like a thought that just popped into the mind??"
It's been brought to your attention that Edwards did not ambush anyone with the comment, Ifill specifically brought up Cheney's family, so you are just being dishonest trying this tack again. Surely you admit something would "pop into your mind" if someone asked a question related to it, I hope! Bearing that in mind, it was just commentary, as a response to the question posed - you have yet to show what was wrong with what he said. And if both people were so well rehearsed and prepared, then why did Cheney not have a prepared response? Why waste a potential 90 seconds on a 5-second answer thanking Edwards for his comments?
Not believable! LOL!
You now are accusing me of lying.
Sounds like the end of my civilized discussions with you.
Bye
Intellectual dishonesty is a form of lying. You know better than what you're saying, but you still suggest Edwards brought the subject up out of thin air. That's dishonest. You certainly acted as if you read the article, which would have informed you, and I find it hard to believe you hadn't read my previous post on the matter. If that was unfair, I apologize, but I honestly doubt it was.
Maybe you think "lying" is too strong a term for trying to make a point you yourself know to be bogus. I don't.
I think this point has been made, but I think the assigning of motive to his comments was more of a factor than the actual comment itself. And that can be dangerous, to assign motive which is for the most part pure speculation.
You conservatives are so sensitive! Don't you know Edwards was just.. joking..?! Get some thicker skin!
Whether or not it was planned, whatever. I do not know. Nobody does. However, it is known that some far-right groups withdrew their support because Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.