Skip to comments.Mary Cheney Considered Quitting 2004 Campaign Over Gay Marriage Issue
Posted on 05/08/2006 4:06:47 PM PDT by skandalon
click here to read article
LOL -you make the point succinctly -there are no stereotypical black activities e.g. Ice Hockey - JUST as there are no stereotypical homosexual physical traits e.g. pink skin color...
-- The ONLY thing differentiating a disordered heterosexual (homosexual) from a normal heterosexual is the sexual activity thought about and or chosen to engage in...
A very telling remark from Mary Cheney in this interview which I think pretty well sums up the convoluted homosexual mindset:
"I think he's a very good man," Cheney said of Bush. "On these issues, he hasn't caught up."
You're saying they CHOOSE to live miserable lives?
Some people are born to be nagged.
Some are made to be nagged.
Some people have nagging thrust upon them.
The ONLY thing differentiating a disordered heterosexual (homosexual) from a normal heterosexual is the sexual activity thought about and or chosen to engage in...
So, if we ban Judy Garland retrospectives and Cher albums we eliminate homosexuality?
Many people are miserable because of bad choices. There are many examples...drug or alcohol addicts to name just a couple.
It's Gay TV...24 Hours a day. Where the hell is Ward Cleaver when we need him?
<< .... the country has been moving toward socialism for 20 years or more. >>
Given that socialists took over congress in the late 1920s and all the while stacking the bureaucracy with their apparatchicks whose fifth generations own it still, held it for more than 70 years.
And given that Frank Roosevelt was socialist to the marrow of his bones, his administration was systemically socialist, he liberally larded every feral-gummint department and court with Soviet agents, communists and activists, his every policy was un-and-anti-Constitutional -- and "Socialist" was his middle name!
I've always thought that to be a specious argument. Many people can be said to have chosen misery in a variety of ways. Women stay with abusers, for example. Just one example is a martyr complex. People's behavior is often a complex web.
But I suppose I recoil from this line of argument most because it implies that man is just an animal who is a slave to his or her sexual impulses and that sexual activity (not desire) is out of human control.
I sure deplore the activities by schools that promote children making these lifestyle choices without much information on the downside.
I love the Cheney family.
Listen cowboy, I don't know if it is innate or not, or environmental, or a mixture of the two, or whether it varies by the individual (my guess), but the suggestion that going gay is like picking a brand of toothpaste (I assume that is what you meant by claiming there are no gay people), simply defies all anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence is that folks resist going gay, until they realize that further resistance is futile, and destructive to the self (psychologically).
Welcome to the liberal mentality where we corrupt the kids at an early age so they do what the liberals want them to do.
You're right. They likely hate her; that's why they hug her in public and defend her and why she says her parents are great!
Those are the actions of adults who despise each other, for sure!!!
An excellent point; I see quite a few of them on FR lately. :-)
I certainly do, too.
But I don't think they CHOOSE this lifestyle.
Everybody knows loving parents kick their gay kids out of the house. :-)
And refuse to help with their college tuition, that they could otherwise afford. It's tough love, praise the Lord!
What a stupid statement you make. They may or may not love her - you have no way of knowing it. For example, scores of true crime cases have revealed what a difference there is between public and private actions, that the images people leave can be highly misleading.
I emphatically state that ALL human beings can choose to or choose not to engage in any number of activities during their lifetime including homosexual activities.
You are the one stating that choosing to engage in disordered homosexual activity would entail living a miserable life -I myself would term it self-destructive - a slow suicide...
I know it. You seem to be the only one on this board who doesn't.
For example, scores of true crime cases have revealed what a difference there is between public and private actions, that the images people leave can be highly misleading.
Yeah, well, that's how criminals are.
You think the Cheney's have criminal personalities?
Mary and Dick were hunting and fishing and camping buddies. Is suspect they have a fast friendship that goes beyond love. And Dick just isn't into Bible thumping. He's a live and let live guy about these matters. I don't think he invests or expends much psychological energy regarding adult sexual activities.
But that standard, we do not KNOW George & Laura loves Jen and Barbara.
I think your reasoning could use some fine tuning.
It's more than tough love; it's the utlimate political hypocrisy: calling one man's daughter a hedonist while neglecting to menion yours is one, too.
whoops--loves should be love
I am my own grammar cop.
Maybe he didn't know what his own had gone the way of the devil, when he commented about Mary. Didn't the Mary bashing come first? I am not sure daddy was paying much attention to his daughter.
And politicians, others also, not just the criminals element. Read some psychology, biographies, follow the news and you'll find plenty of other examples. Since you make little sense and just want to argue, I've no further interest to respond to you.
Ditto your post Peach, sad but true.
It was not known at the time by the public; but he surely knew.
Or you could be right -- maybe he didn't.
I am not sure that there was much communication there. He might not have.
And gets away with it because she is the daughter of a republican!!! Imagine if she were from a liberal family!!!
That is good -an "I don't know" is better that a faithful claim that it is innate...
simply defies all anecdotal evidence
The anecdotal evidence of a separate human like species that procreates homosexually is supported by NO science...
I wonder if he still "lives" there.......LOL.
Just curious: and you certainly don't have to answer, but do you have children or grandchildren?
You think the Cheney's have personalities akin to criminals and you think I don't make any sense?
You may realize this but I should point it out for those may not... when somebody says:
There are no "gay" people,
It's important to keep the statement in context. He continued his statement with:
there are people (always heterosexual) who feel predisposed cause unknown to engage in homosexual activity and or people (always heterosexual) who actually choose to engage in homosexual activity.
what he probably means is there is no gay gene. There is no genetic test or procedure (experimental or otherwise) that can determine one's sexual orientation.
Some people experience same-sex attraction. From what ex-gays have stated, their same-sex attraction isn't a choice because they are confused about their sexuality, but their behavior is always a choice. An ex-gay on this forum stated:
overcoming homosexuality has less to do with how a man relates to women and much more to do with how a man relates to other men.That's an important point to understand.
When somebody claims to be gay and we believe them, but we stop short of believe the ex-gay, what we're doing is using a double standard. The only available evidence is the claim of the gay or ex-gay, so people should ask themselves why they believe one but not the other.
I am not taking any tangents...
Well, doesn't that work out well for you.
Do I need to read this thread, or can I pretty much assume the usual junk is on here, and go on to something else?
Move along. ;-)
When somebody claims to be ex-gay and we believe them, but we stop short of believe the gay, what we're doing is using a double standard.
The only available evidence is the claim of the gay or ex-gay, so people should ask themselves why they believe one but not the other.
Is this your idea of moral equivalence? Homosexuality is morally equivalent to killing someone or being a dictator?
But what is it to be Mary Cheney inside her parents' Republican party a party that opposes civil rights legislation protecting gays?
Clearly this statement is designed to elicit a particular reaction from the reader. It leaves the impression that those who practice homosexuality are "without protection" because of Republicans. This is not the case. I don't want the way a person chooses to have sex to be considered a trait alongside race or religion, and given special protection because of it.
But the Republican Party does not believe that homosexuals are undeserving of equal rights, or should not be protected under the law. Clearly this is not the case since homosexuals are in virtually every walk of life, earning lots of money and advancing in jobs.
Of course there's the Queer By Choice folks, who claim to make up 8% of the homosexual population.