Kerry's gay ploy backfires

[Flatrater]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-208345c.html

Kerry's gay ploy backfires



The third Bush-Kerry debate may not change the outcome of the presidential election in November. But it may well be remembered as a milestone in the struggle for gay equality and acceptance. Give the credit for that to John Kerry. Toward the end of the debate, moderator Bob Schieffer asked both candidates if they believed homosexuality was a choice. President Bush said he didn't know. Kerry said that it is inborn, and cited an authority on the subject. "I think if you talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she'll say she is being who she was, she's being who she was born as," he said. Why Cheney's daughter? Kerry knows lots of famous people who believe - as he says Mary Cheney believes - that they were born gay. He could have cited Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank or New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey. Both are public men who could offer personal testimony about the inborn nature of homosexuality. But that wasn't the point Kerry wanted to make. He was crying Mary to send a message to presumably homophobic Christian voters: Just in case you hadn't heard, the vice president harbors a practicing lesbian in the bosom of his family. Despite Kerry's angel-faced sanctimony, this was a piece of premeditated gay-baiting (John Edwards used the same gambit in his debate with Cheney) whose transparent purpose was to keep some of the GOP's evangelical voters from turning out on Nov. 2. This was a miscalculation. Since the debate, the Christian right has been rallying to the side of Mary Cheney. Well-known political preachers like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson have gone out of their way to defend her right to privacy. Conservative radio talk shows and Web sites have been flooded with denunciations of Kerry and support for Mary. This reaction doesn't mean that the evangelical community has changed its doctrine, or its mind, on the sinful nature of homosexuality. It does reveal, however, that most born-again Protestants are not nearly as extreme - or as politically one-dimensional - as Kerry evidently imagined them to be. Why this should come as a surprise to the Democratic candidate is a mystery. Kerry knows from his own experience that many practicing Catholics habitually vote for pro-choice candidates, even if they have been specifically warned by their priests that doing so would be a sin. In Massachusetts and around the country, Catholic liberals vote as liberals, not as Catholics. The same is true of Jews. Israel is at war, and Bush is the strongest ally it has ever had in the White House. Ariel Sharon has done everything to communicate this short of singing "God Bless America" at the Republican convention. And still the majority of American Jewish Zionists will vote for Kerry. Why? Because they are liberal Democrats first, and politics trumps religion. The same is true for evangelical conservatives. Would they prefer for Mary Cheney to be a happily married mother of five? Sure. Do they think she is a sinner? Probably. Will that keep them from voting for Bush and her father? Heck, no. Politically, Kerry won't benefit from playing the Mary card. But that doesn't mean he hasn't accomplished something of value. Many conservative Christians are for the first time publicly embracing an avowed homosexual. This puts them in touch with their real priorities and values - including that cardinal Kerry virtue, nuance. Mary Cheney may be gay, but it turns out there are worse things. At least she isn't a Democrat.

[2strokebloke]

I'm not quite sure this article makes any point. It's saying that Kerry chose to cite Mary cheney as being gay, instead of other public figures - in the hope that it might show that even republicans can be gay - but that his doing this resulted in nobody giving damn, except for a few republican writers who thought they could whip something out that'd sound important but really wasn't at all. Yawn.

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

This reaction doesn't mean that the evangelical community has changed its doctrine, or its mind, on the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Sinful? I would tend to think the millions of homosexuals would disagree with that statement. Besides by what account? A book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women. The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people. I just find it amazing that any parent regardless of religous belief or up bringing would want to commit their son or daughter to such hatred, ridicle and outright discrimination by not allowing them to seek out the same happiness and benifits that the heterosexuals have each and every day. I'm not religous for the fact that there is too much hypocritical bullshit preached, but I do believe its been said that only god judges us, then why is it so many people judging people and their lifestyles. Hypocrites .

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Kerry knows from his own experience that many practicing Catholics habitually vote for pro-choice candidates, even if they have been specifically warned by their priests that doing so would be a sin.

What the f**k. I thought there is such a thing as seperation of church and state, what the f**k are these priests/minister/ etc trying to do, destroy the very foundation that the system is based on.

Man these people really piss me off.

TS really pissed off now.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I'm not quite sure this article makes any point. It's saying that Kerry chose to cite Mary cheney as being gay, instead of other public figures - in the hope that it might show that even republicans can be gay - but that his doing this resulted in nobody giving damn, except for a few republican writers who thought they could whip something out that'd sound important but really wasn't at all. Yawn.

Of all the famous gay people to use he chooses to use Cheney's daughter. Why? Was Kerry and Ewards trying to turn people off? Was he trying to gain votes from our over zealous bible thumpers?

[jon@af]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Sinful? I would tend to think the millions of homosexuals would disagree with that statement. Besides by what account? A book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women. The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people. I just find it amazing that any parent regardless of religous belief or up bringing would want to commit their son or daughter to such hatred, ridicle and outright discrimination by not allowing them to seek out the same happiness and benifits that the heterosexuals have each and every day. I'm not religous for the fact that there is too much hypocritical bullshit preached, but I do believe its been said that only god judges us, then why is it so many people judging people and their lifestyles. Hypocrites .

Great post

[Rbraczyk]

Ahhh, here we find a site of OPINIONS. Probably ones that are pro bush. Hmm, correlation?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by twospirits

What the f**k. I thought there is such a thing as seperation of church and state, what the f**k are these priests/minister/ etc trying to do, destroy the very foundation that the system is based on.

Man these people really piss me off.

TS really pissed off now.

TS may be pissed off, but he also has a basic misunderstanding. Its not a seperation of church and state - its the State may not establish a religion. The priests and ministers have to live in this country too. You say they are destroying the foundation, they say the gay and lesbians are doing the same. You've picked a side - I say the truth lies someplace in between.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[twospirits]

Okay granted, you have a point Yogs and I stand corrected in the part I said "they are trying to destroy the very foundation the system is based on." Wrong choice of words. I was a bit overheated and it got the best of me over the previous sinful = gay comment. As for picking sides my friend, the only side I've picked is the side that totally bash my first cousins brains in just because hes gay, the side that seen my step sisters daughter discriminated from getting an apartment for being a lesbian. The countless number of patients in the hospital where I work in throughout the years that were brought in because of some gay bias crime. One of them I remember so vividly because they caught the guy who did it was from the church I go too. Mr. Nice guy Mr Religous. His excuse, the bible says it wrong. So therefore, I'm sorry Yogs if I seemed to pick the wrong side.

TS out (not as mad as before)

[Rbraczyk]

Why does the catholic community not want these people to be happy. I'll make a thread on it later.

[whttrshpunk]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Sinful? I would tend to think the millions of homosexuals would disagree with that statement. Besides by what account? A book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women. The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people.

A few problems with this statement.
1. Of course millions of homosexuals would disagree. Some people think drugs are bad, hashers and crack heads disagree. So who's right? Who knows? Certainly not you.That's why everyone gets an opinion. No one asked you to agree or to like it.
2."A bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women". I'm sorry but you'll have to give some specific examples before I can give that statement any credit at all.
3."The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people". I don't remember reading anything in my Bible that encouraged me to be a racist or a bigot, and for all my time spent subscribing to the teachings of the Bible I can't recall being accused of racism or bigotry once(except maybe for my chosen screen name/counterstrike handle). You're generalizing and assuming with no factual basis whatsoever. I'm glad you have strong opinions but you owe it to yourself to base them on something.

As for "Mr.Religious", I certainly don't doubt your story. But don't blame the bible for someones actions that clearly violate the teachings therein. First, many people attack other people for being black/white/asian/gay whatever, it's not like every gay person that has ever been attacked was attacked by a christian, or even attacked for being gay. Not to mention that I myself was jumped on the street once because I didn't smoke weed. That's right, a hash based hate crime. So do I assume that all pot smokers are out to get all non-smokers? Well that would be a little crazy, wouldn't it?

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

A few problems with this statement.
1. Of course millions of homosexuals would disagree. Some people think drugs are bad, hashers and crack heads disagree. So who's right? Who knows? Certainly not you.That's why everyone gets an opinion. No one asked you to agree or to like it.
2."A bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women". I'm sorry but you'll have to give some specific examples before I can give that statement any credit at all.
3."The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people". I don't remember reading anything in my Bible that encouraged me to be a racist or a bigot, and for all my time spent subscribing to the teachings of the Bible I can't recall being accused of racism or bigotry once(except maybe for my chosen screen name/counterstrike handle). You're generalizing and assuming with no factual basis whatsoever. I'm glad you have strong opinions but you owe it to yourself to base them on something.

As for "Mr.Religious", I certainly don't doubt your story. But don't blame the bible for someones actions that clearly violate the teachings therein. First, many people attack other people for being black/white/asian/gay whatever, it's not like every gay person that has ever been attacked was attacked by a christian, or even attacked for being gay. Not to mention that I myself was jumped on the street once because I didn't smoke weed. That's right, a hash based hate crime. So do I assume that all pot smokers are out to get all non-smokers? Well that would be a little crazy, wouldn't it?

This saves me the trouble.
Good post.

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

A few problems with this statement.
1. Of course millions of homosexuals would disagree. Some people think drugs are bad, hashers and crack heads disagree. So who's right? Who knows? Certainly not you.That's why everyone gets an opinion. No one asked you to agree or to like it.

Likewise and true about opinions, but putting drugs, hashers and crack heads (DHC) into the mix really does not make sense. Those things (DHC) are something one chooses to do, being homosexual is not. But since you are bringing it into the mix, I will say that a druggie/crackhead would be able to visit his/her spouse in a hospital while a homosexual spouse can be turned away.

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

2."A bunch of men surpressing other peoples rights especially women". I'm sorry but you'll have to give some specific examples before I can give that statement any credit at all.

Insults to women in the Bible

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

3."The bible and other religious storybooks are just the very cause that theres hatred and bigotry among the races and people". I don't remember reading anything in my Bible that encouraged me to be a racist or a bigot, and for all my time spent subscribing to the teachings of the Bible I can't recall being accused of racism or bigotry once(except maybe for my chosen screen name/counterstrike handle). You're generalizing and assuming with no factual basis whatsoever. I'm glad you have strong opinions but you owe it to yourself to base them on something.

I never said you, so why are you being so defensive like if I did, Regardless it is a fact that the bible and any other religous book has been used to raise hatred and wars among so many people throughout the ages.
Bible verses regarded as hate literature
Bible Atrocities
Slavery and the Bible

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

As for "Mr.Religious", I certainly don't doubt your story. But don't blame the bible for someones actions that clearly violate the teachings therein. First, many people attack other people for being black/white/asian/gay whatever, it's not like every gay person that has ever been attacked was attacked by a christian, or even attacked for being gay. Not to mention that I myself was jumped on the street once because I didn't smoke weed. That's right, a hash based hate crime. So do I assume that all pot smokers are out to get all non-smokers? Well that would be a little crazy, wouldn't it?

Another example thats doesn't fit or make sense. You being jumped because you did or did not smoke weed would be considered just a crime, but if the person committing the crime says anything about your race when he jumped you, then it will be considered a hates crime. If they said anything about your gender (if you were gay) then its a gay hate crime etc etc.



As for examples of worldwide uses that the bible is used as a form of hate and a portal from which so many have been hurt, killed, all in the name of God, you can just glimpse at this massive list of the atrocities committed throughout the ages at the link below. The most shocking parts are from the middle to the end of the text.

BibleGod - A God of Love or a God of Atrocities and Murder?


TS out

[Rbraczyk]

Are you comparing crackheads to homosexuals?

You are a sick bastard.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Likewise and true about opinions, but putting drugs, hashers and crack heads (DHC) into the mix really does not make sense. Those things (DHC) are something one chooses to do, being homosexual is not. But since you are bringing it into the mix, I will say that a druggie/crackhead would be able to visit his/her spouse in a hospital while a homosexual spouse can be turned away.


Insults to women in the Bible

Link based on Interpritation. Here is an insult to women outside the Bible. Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, ect..... Anything that treats women as nothing more that a sexual object is an insult to women. There are many places in the Bible that talk about women being a gift and a treasure. Keep in mind the time the Bible was written. At that time women were for the most part treated as slaves. It is in many of the passages of the Bible that we see women treated as equal to man and also how man is suppose to care for his wife. If you are going to look at the overall treatment of woman in the Bible I believe you will come away with a greater respect for the role a woman plays in life in general. I know I have.

I never said you, so why are you being so defensive like if I did, Regardless it is a fact that the bible and any other religous book has been used to raise hatred and wars among so many people throughout the ages.

True enough. There will always be those who use any means possible to start wars and justify killing. Greed is a big one.

Bible verses regarded as hate literature
Bible Atrocities
Slavery and the Bible

1. Because the Bible says it's wrong for a man to sleep with another man then that is hate litrature? The Bible says it's wrong to steal so that is also hate litrature. Is it the put to death part you object to? If it is then that's understandable. Keep in mind that Jesus came and did away with the old laws that are often quoted as "bad". In the old testament there are things that now are seen as harsh. There was a purpose for the laws at that time that don't apply now.

As for examples of worldwide uses that the bible is used as a form of hate and a portal from which so many have been hurt, killed, all in the name of God, you can just glimpse at this massive list of the atrocities committed throughout the ages at the link below. The most shocking parts are from the middle to the end of the text.

BibleGod - A God of Love or a God of Atrocities and Murder?


TS out

As I said earlier. There are many who will use any means possible to justify whatever their minds can think up. This isn't limited to religion. When someone acts out in violence and hatred and claims they are following their god then I have no doubt that they are following their god. The question is who is really their god? Most certainly not the same one I know.


This is getting into the philosophy realm so maybe it should be continued in that forum.
DGB out.

[2strokebloke]

Lots of atrocities are carried out in the name of God (of pretty much any religion) because it's easy to convince religous people that something is worth doing if you say religion is behind it - the religous are gullible, and using their religion to manipulate them has been found easy to do by many people in history.
I'm surprised that the website TS linked to does not have any information on the worst of the modern day organizations used to exploit the religous "in the name of God" - the Lord's Resistance Army which has been operating in Africa (and mostly in Sudan) with the purpose of constructing a government based around the ten commandments - which is strange since they break nearly all ten of them in their effort to do this. Murdering childrens parents and enslaving the children for use in their army (in the name of God, mind you) is just taste of what they've been doing for decades.