A question on debate #3

[johnb]

After going over Senator Kerry's comments during the debate I'm confused.....I'm not sure why he is so fixated with Dick Cheney's daughter, but he and Edwards do seem so fascinated by her lately. I was wondering if some strange incidents involving lesbians in Vietnam had been "seared" into his memory.

[dhyatt]

After going over Senator Kerry's comments during the debate I'm confused.....I'm not sure why he is so fixated with Dick Cheney's daughter, but he and Edwards do seem so fascinated by her lately. I was wondering if some strange incidents involving lesbians in Vietnam had been "seared" into his memory.

I realize your question is rhetorical but it does have an answer; The Kerry campaign wants the religious right to know that Cheney's daughter is gay. In a blatantly hypocritical (nothing new there), crass and obnoxious campaign tactic, they are hoping it might scare a few homophobes away from the ballot box altogether. I believe this backfired on them big time...

[Mark]

I agree that it is an unnecessary tactic buy I disagree that its intent is to inform, or press the point upon, the religious right. It seems to be designed to put, Bush, Cheney or the administration (depending on to whom it is directed) into the delicate situation of having to explain their position on homosexuality generally, or at least to acknowledge the difference between Cheney and Bush. Everyone knows she is a lesbian, the religious right included. The Kerry camp is hoping that acknowledging it forces the opposition into having to make statements about it, not for the purpose of driving away Bush's base (where would they go?) but for highlighting the position to moderates, undecideds, and other social liberals on the fence.

Now, whether the tactic works or not is a different story, but that's what I think it's meant to do.

[hollyL]

Kerry didn't say anything negative or derogatory about her being a lesbian but using the other sides family in an example to debunk the other is a cheap shot really.

Since she is in fact a lesbian, I'd say the right would be wise to leave it alone and/or choose their words wisely in criticism of this one...otherwise their criticism of his statements might appear like they are offended by his words "she is a lesbian". He right can look good here if they play it right.

[Anonymous]

I have been more insulted by the Kerry Campaign's constant use of Ronald Reagan's name in their speeches than I have been with the mention of Cheney's daughter's sexuality.

I guess if you tell people you are a conservative enough they might actually believe it?...............NOT!

[SteveG]

Kerry didn't say anything negative or derogatory about her being a lesbian but using the other sides family in an example to debunk the other is a cheap shot really.

Since she is in fact a lesbian, I'd say the right would be wise to leave it alone and/or choose their words wisely in criticism of this one...otherwise their criticism of his statements might appear like they are offended by his words "she is a lesbian". He right can look good here if they play it right.

I don't like mention of an opponent's family in a political campaign, but I think Kerry's strategy is clear: to get George Bush to say something dumb that will (a) offend homosexuals and create visible, embarassing political friction between the vice president and himself, or (b) disappoint the anti-homosexual religious right enough to reduce their turnout on election day.

[hollyL]

I don't like mention of an opponent's family in a political campaign, but I think Kerry's strategy is clear: to get George Bush to say something dumb that will (a) offend homosexuals and create visible, embarassing political friction between the vice president and himself, or (b) disappoint the anti-homosexual religious right enough to reduce their turnout on election day.

Yep...I'd say those are all good guesses!

[johnb]

This is hilarious.

The position that individuals are free to engage in homosexual behavior with other consenting adults and that that behavior is a private concern is now considered a "homophobic" stance.

Wow. The left really has devolved.

Bush has nothing to apologize for or be embarassed about on the matter and neither does Cheney. The daughter is an adult and it's her life. If the Donkeys intend for that to be some sort of "message" it is, but not the one they think it is.

Kerry, like Bush, claims to be against homosexual "marriage". What's the difference? Bush has made no statement or taken any position which would criminalize or otherwise penalize homosexual conduct. Not calling a duck a horse is not being "anti-duck".

Kerry, however, is doing on this issue what he is doing on many issues....claiming to be in one place for the election while in reality being somewhere entirely different.

[Mark]

The position that individuals are free to engage in homosexual behavior with other consenting adults and that that behavior is a private concern is now considered a "homophobic" stance.

Wow. The left really has devolved.

Who was suggesting that stance was homophobic? Would that everyone held at least this- it would erase most of the bigotry we see today- though it is not a complete or sufficient acceptance. It's clear that Bush thinks it's all he has to believe... though he might not truly hold even this.

He "doesn't know" if homosexuality is a choice, which is a thinly veiled way of saying, "I'll tolerate them if I have to, but I think they can, and should, change." It's the type of attitude that leads to events like the one up at Crossroads Fellowship earlier this year on "repartive therapy." A love the sinner but hate the sin type of thing. The problem is, what happens when the sinner identifies the sin as an integral feature of their identity? For many, though I think most, gay people, being gay is as central and immutable for them as my being white is for me.

And that was the point Kerry was ultimately making. And that is why the Cheneys' responsive is so hackneyed and wrong. Mary Cheney self identifies as being gay. It is impossible, by definition, to be exploiting a feature of someone who self identies with that feature. It's not just that it's a fact, which it is. People were suggesting that, since it's a fact, wouldn't it be right for Bush to note that Elizabeth Edwards is overweight when talking about obesity and healthcare concerns in the U.S.? Hardly, as it is unlikely that that is how she characterizes herself. Now, you can reject Kerry's statement because you think families should be out of campaigns totally. That's fine, though I'd argue that Mary had been brought up a sufficient number of times previously, including on national tv, that it isn't so unreasonable to make her a minor figure in it.


Bush has made no statement or taken any position which would criminalize or otherwise penalize homosexual conduct.

Really? That's news to me, because last I checked in some places part of homosexual conduct includes getting married and Bush has expressed support for making that illegal - for desiring that homosexuals getting married be a criminal offense against the state, or at least preventing them from every doing so under penalty of prosecution. Lovely, how tolerant. And that's part of the problem, it's just tolerant. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush actually hates homosexuals, and I don't think he really cares what happens between homosexuals privately.

But he cares deeply that homosexuality never be considered normal behavior, or even that homosexuality be afforded respect in the public arena - which is directly related to why I called that first statement of yours incomplete. It focuses solely on the private, it tolerates only what cannot be generally seen. Well, sorry, so much of heterosexual relationships and marriage is not only tolerated but encouraged in the public that the insistance on "toleration" of the private sexual activity of homosexuals is to deny that those relationships have content outside of that - and they do, they have value and place in the public as well. The view contrary to this, like you wrote above, that the President holds, does not fully account for the range of homosexual activity and, while certainly being better than outright bigotry, perpetuates injustice against gays.

[johnb]

Mark,

Shoddy "logic" but expected.

Two homosexuals are merely denied a marriage license. If they run around calling themselves "married" or even engage in a "marriage" ceremony they're not going to jail. The cops will not show up and arrest them or even cite them. Does not happen. Period.

What the far left is advocating is a total deconstruction of language and society by demanding marriage be something other than what it has always been in Western society. Words have meanings contrary to the now dead Derrida, I wonder if his disciples now question the meaning of death or if he is even "dead" since it is probably just a social construct...anyway. If you wish to call your bicycle a car you can, you just have no right to compel the rest of society to join you in your delusion. That the rest of us don't join you doesn't mean we support crimminalizing your abuse of language and reason. You would merely be lumped in with other crackpots and kooks.

Again, I have yet to see or hear Bush advocating the arrest or persecution of individuals because of their homosexuality. The only people I see fixated on this topic is the hard left, who seem greatly agitated that the rest of us aren't prefacing every statement we make with paeans to homosexuals, homosexual conduct, and such. Most of us don't care and don't see any need to discuss or bother with the topic. Which is why so many of us find the Kerry/Edwards stunt repugnant.

[Mark]

John, you're raising the bar. First you claimed that Bush didn't want to make any conduct illegal. Now you're saying that he doesn't want to throw people in jail.

Throwing people in jail isn't the only outcome of illegal activity. Homosexuals aren't just "run[ning] around calling themselves "married" in Massachusetts, at least, for now, they are married. If a constitutional amendment passes restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, that union will cease to be legal. That's not hard to comprehend, is it? Is that not the essence of what it means to "criminalize or penalize" conduct, for conduct once legal to cease to be so?

How is illustrating the definition of your own words shoddy logic? If anyone wants an example of poor logic and debate skills follow John's reasoning when he writes, "If they run around calling themselves "married" or even engage in a "marriage" ceremony they're not going to jail. The cops will not show up and arrest them or even cite them. Does not happen. Period."

Who is saying that the cops will arrest them? That's the same thing as saying, you can stand up and call yourself the President of the United States and the cops aren't going to arrest you. Massive insight there John. You know why, because saying you are isn't a crime. For homosexuals, saying your married isn't a crime, but "pretending" to reap the benefits in many places still is. If a couple said they were married in North Carolina and then attempted, and succeeded, in adding the other "spouse" to a family health insurance policy and then were found out... that would certainly be illegal, no? Similarly, if I, after declaring myself President, which isn't illegal, took action to then bomb enemy states in that capacity I would hope that would be illegal.

All that illustrate a very basic point that seems beyond you. No one really cares what you're calling it. The name actually is meaningless. To use the language of literary theory, the signifer has to be attached to some signified. You're essentially saying that all Bush wants to do is deny the name, I'm saying that by denying the name you're making illegal and rendering out all that is designated by the name. So, it's not enough to say, "I tolerate consenting adults so long as they don't flaunt it all over the place" because, the private consensual relationship isn't the only thing that is included in the set activities associated with the name. There is an explicit public relationship that is being denied.

Two other things in your post are illustrative of your thinking. First, your fixation that "the left" is simply trying to abuse language in the service of what is often called "the homosexual agenda." It seems that this charge of parsing language is better leveled at the detractors of gay marriage, and those that, like Bush, focus on the private, than anyone else. I'm concerned about the human nature of people, not what we call them. I'm concerned that gay people have every right to be who they are, when, where and how they choose... just like me. What if this was my position. "I'm not sure whether being black is a choice or not. I just don't know. I do know that we need to be civil and respect those blacks and that what consenting adults do in their own home shouldn't concern us too much. But, you know, I'm just not sure that black people should be officially recognized in their relationships like us white folk are, to say nothing of actually extending the privleges that we have to them. I mean, really, what they do in there is fine... they don't really exist out here."

I hope we all agree that constitutes a bunch of racist BS. Saying, it's fine that they are who they are, black, in the private realm but they can not partake in the full spectrum of public life qua blacks, is horrible.

The second point of error in your thinking is your admission that, "Most of us don't care and don't see any need to discuss or bother with the topic." You're blind to the injustice and you command it to continue. It doesn't bother you that human beings are being denied the same rights that you are. You don't care, in another case, that Jose Padilla was locked up for so long without access to our legal system. It doesn't effect you - read, it doesn't effect your wallet. And what doesn't effect a libertarians' wallet doesn't deserve the resources of society to correct. What if the most essential thing about you, John, a thing that posed no threat to the health, safety, or welfare of others, was the one thing deemed incompatible with access to full public rights and responsibilities? What if the speech of others only affirmed who you are in the context of the private sphere; if their speech denied your existence as a citizen?

I fear that you're sitting there still thinking that since Bush doesn't want to lock gays up, he must be totally for them. Irrespective of the extension of rights to homosexuals (especially those in relationships), anyone who cannot be convinced that being gay isn't a choice, and who only defends themselves by noting the need for tolerance of the activities of consenting adults but restricts those activities to ones that do not require the recognition of society is infringing on the fundamental human rights of homosexuals and is preaching contempt for liberal democratic society.

By the way, it is incorrect to say that Derrida held that words do not have meaning, so your deconstructive example doesn't really hold. Communication couldn't take place were this true. His insight came in showing that things do not exist prior to the establishment of a semiological relationship with a sign, or word. Moreover, that what a sign signified wasn't static, and in fact had no concrete relationship in any way to the signified object. This goes beyond saying "words change" and attempts to get at whether or not words can contain any information beyond themselves at all. You can't just call a bike a car, but you can try to ascertain what relationship, if any, the words "bike" and "car" have to, what insight they give in terms a guide to reading, or what they might suggest about absence in or alternative readings of, a larger literary work.