Contemporary Homophobia Test!

[ProThaiExpat]

Anyone in Thailand interested in the last presidential debate should know of Kerry's comment that Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian.

Ask your friends, Thai and Farang, what they think of the remark. Was it "below the belt", an innapropriate to raise her sexuality as an invasion of privacy, or was it a proper subject for the debate as she is the daughter of the V.P. candidate.

Andrew Sullivan in his blog raises the following point very convincingly.

For those who think it is wrong are homophobic because a heterosexual wife and children are mentioned all the time in an affirming way, so what is wrong with mentioniing an adult daughter, member of the Cheney campaign and her "out" lady lover as a lesbian? A double standard?

The hue and cry raised by the Bush campaign and his religious right that the remark was "below the belt" and Mrs. Cheney's remark that Kerry is not a "good man" for having mentioned her daughters sexuality, suggests she is homophobic as well and ashamed of her daughter (in public for political reasons, catering to the religios right) as one assumes she loves her daughter and approves of her in private.

My bet is that Thais think nothing of the comment, ie. not inapprotiate or "below the belt", but homophobes will think it a "dirty trick", especially bigoted farang, clearly showing the level of homophobia in the U.S. as opposed to the tolerant attitude toward gays in Thailand.

Try it out and let us know what you think!!

[IamMaiC]

I think it was innapropriate because why just single her out. The President's answer was I don't know and he left it at that, who does know if a person is born this way or chooses to be gay.

I don't think it was a low blow but I don't understand with all the millions of gays in the US he chooses her.

I'm Voting for George Bush anyway.

[ProThaiExpat]

Simply ask any of the gay people you know if it is a choice or if they were born that way. Surely, they would know and then you could learn the answer to the question.

However, few who support this administration, want to admit that gays are born that way, because then they would have to admit that gays were entitled to the same civil rights as their hetero-sexual fellow citizens or be labled a bigot!

[IamMaiC]

Simply ask any of the gay people you know if it is a choice or if they were born that way.  Surely, they would know and then you could learn the answer to the question.

However, few who support this administration, want to admit that gays are born that way, because then they would have to admit that gays  were entitled to the same civil rights as their hetero-sexual fellow citizens or be labled a bigot!

You should not have rights solely on your sexuality but as a human being!!! Plus Marriage is between a Man and a Woman Dictionary definition

Main Entry: mar·riage

Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

I don't think same sex marriage should be aloud anyway I've seen news reports and some same sex people think they are being descriminated against because they are not allow to marry and have the same benefits as married people. Is this the sole reason to marry I am Married and didn't get married because solely of the benefits of being married. I Love My Wife That's why I married her.

What of the people that just wake up one morning and say hey i'm gay is that not a choice? Who knows if it is a choice or people are born this way. Actuallly I don't care how they are. My opinion it's not right but that argument has been talked about before.

[PeaceBlondie]

IamMaiC wrote, "What of the people that just wake up one morning and say hey i'm gay is that not a choice. Who knows if it is a choice or people are born this way."

Sorry, but perhaps you're confusing the conscious decision of "coming out of the closet" with the realization that "Hey, I'm basically gay, I'm not straight."

C'mon, IamMaiC - did you just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I'm straight"? Was that not a choice? No, it wasn't a choice, just a realization of your basic identify, such as "Hey, I'm not a giraffe."

[IamMaiC]

IamMaiC wrote, "What of the people that just wake up one morning and say hey i'm gay is that not a choice. Who knows if it is a choice or people are born this way."

Sorry, but perhaps you're confusing the conscious decision of "coming out of the closet" with the realization that "Hey, I'm basically gay, I'm not straight."

C'mon, IamMaiC - did you just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I'm straight"?  Was that not a choice?  No, it wasn't a choice, just a realization of your basic identify, such as "Hey, I'm not a giraffe."

But when your born you don't know what your opinions or feelings are so can it really be at birth that a gay person realizes They are Gay!

[Ijustwannateach]

Cheney raised the issue of his daughter as a way of showing he is "not homophobic" despite his support of the anti-gay-marriage amendment. Fair's fair- if he wants to make political capital out of her identity in fair weather, he'd better take it also in foul. Better altogether would have been to leave her out of things- but he started!

"Steven"

[IamMaiC]

The Law on the Books as of now is that same sex marriage is not aloud, The mayor of San francisco succeded in breaking the law for a short time and aloud many same sex marriages to take place. Now they should walk into his office and place the cuffs on him but that won't happen.

[Ijustwannateach]

MaiC, does the law serve the people or do people serve the law? The point of a changeable, amendable body of law is so that law may be changed when it serves the interests of the people. In some Western states, it was (and is still) a law that no one should kick the heads of rattlesnakes (because they used to protrude through knotholes in the boardwalks of frontier towns, and it made a terrible mess when people kicked them). This law is no longer timely. I, and many others, believe that the law restricting marriage to man and woman only is no longer timely, and it would serve the people (except for certain self-righteous ones) to amend it.

"Steven"

[IamMaiC]

MaiC, does the law serve the people or do people serve the law? The point of a changeable, amendable body of law is so that law may be changed when it serves the interests of the people. In some Western states, it was (and is still) a law that no one should kick the heads of rattlesnakes (because they used to protrude through knotholes in the boardwalks of frontier towns, and it made a terrible mess when people kicked them). This law is no longer timely. I, and many others, believe that the law restricting marriage to man and woman only is no longer timely, and it would serve the people (except for certain self-righteous ones) to amend it.

"Steven"

The Law as it Stands at this minute says it is not aloud until it is changed then all the Gay People can go crazy for all I care, But the Mayor of San Francisco broke the Law. Him for one should set an example and follow the Laws Don't you Think?? IJWT

[Ijustwannateach]

Sometimes laws change because of civil protest. In his role representing his city, a mayor may indeed challenge a state law- he risks penalties, even recall, for doing so, but it is his right.

Would you have taken this stand on giving the vote to women in those days when women campaigning and demonstrating for it were regarded as "hysterical anarchists?"

"Steven"

[Ijustwannateach]

IamMaiC wrote, "What of the people that just wake up one morning and say hey i'm gay is that not a choice. Who knows if it is a choice or people are born this way."

Sorry, but perhaps you're confusing the conscious decision of "coming out of the closet" with the realization that "Hey, I'm basically gay, I'm not straight."

C'mon, IamMaiC - did you just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I'm straight"?  Was that not a choice?  No, it wasn't a choice, just a realization of your basic identify, such as "Hey, I'm not a giraffe."

But when your born you don't know what your opinions or feelings are so can it really be at birth that a gay person realizes They are Gay!

I don't think most babies are straight, either! They certainly aren't self-conscious about their sexual nature or drooling over pictures of the opposite sex!!! I think most sexuality is buried until the hormones brings it out.

Some kids DO know fairly early about their attractions to the opposite sex- and some know about their attractions to the same sex. I wasn't one of them.

"Steven"

[IamMaiC]

Listen IJWT I don't want to get on anyone's bad side and I don't want anyone to think I'm homophobic which I'm not I look at a person not their sexuality But IMHO I think it's wrong but that is from my upbringing and belieif in Marriage between a Man and a Woman is what "should" Take place in the world.

I just think he should be punished for breaking the law and if he was I apologize for not knowing the facts of this.

[Ijustwannateach]

^I guess if you were a citizen of California you could choose not to vote for him again, but otherwise how is "punishing" him so important to you? Surely there are worse things to be punished in the world?

So, you admit that your feelings about the meaning of marriage derive solely from your own personal opinions, without legal or scientific or other justification? That's fair enough, we all have opinions about things we don't understand.

"Steven"

[PeaceBlondie]

Thanks, IamMaiC, for your honest comments. Perhaps we can agree that if the mayor of a city is not allowed to do certain things (such as marry straight people or gay people), he should realize that civil disobedience carries the threat of being punished under the law. Henry D. Thoreau said that civil disobedience was a duty of every citizen, to disobey unjust laws. The civil rights campaigns, especially the one led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., relied on civil disobedience to bring down the unjust laws.

As for gay marriage, I was already married to a woman, and it ended in divorce. Now I'm in a long-term relationship with a Thai man, and we joke that this week we went on our 'second honeymoon.' But we don't need a legal document to cement our personal relationship.

I don't know of any gay men, lesbians, or transsexuals who are asking for more than their share of 'equal rights.' But they are asking for their share. Would you agree that a 'fair share' is fair enough?

[ProThaiExpat]

We have strayed quite a ways from the original thread intent to test homophobia with a simple question eliciting the rationale behind an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the Kerry remark about Cheny's lebian daughter between Thais and farang.

IamMaiC does ask a legitimate question regarding the legality of Mayor Newsomes actions in issuing marriage licenses to gays based on his interpretation of the California Constitution that prohibits discrimination among citizens of California.

Newsome, as Mayor of San Francisco is entitled to his interpretation of the constitution until such time as the California Supreme Court Rules otherwise in a case that is presently being tried in the lower courts. His actions are in no way criminal and were fully within his powers as Mayor.

Also quite properly, the courts told him to stop until the issue is resolved by the courts.

It is interesting to note that it was the California Supreme Court that was the first court to rule that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional in 1947 when the vast majority of states had laws against it and it was not until 17 years later that the U.S. Supreme Court got around to declaring that those laws forbidding interracial marriage were contrary to the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constituttion. Also at that time 80% of Americans were against interracial marriage and of course the churches predicted the demise of the institution of marriage. Now who says so?

Why are the religious right and GWB trying for a constitutional ammendment? Because their lawyers tell them that most judges, applying the constitutional provisions of most state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, would find it a denial of equal protection of the law to deny marriage rights to gays. The danger of the facist right is when GWB "labels" a judges considered opinion, as expressed in his decision, as the "act of an activist judge". The attmpt of the Republican Party through its majority in the legislature to remove a "check and balance" from the judiciary by denying them the right to decide the gay marriage issue is frightening. The only protection any minority has from the "tyranny of the majority" is an appeal to the courts, as women once did in voting, as interrracial couples once did, as the American Negro once did and now as gays are doing.

IamMaiC's point about the dictionary definition of "marriage" can be easily allowed by reserving to the religonists and all of the churches, that are so up in arms, and merely provide for a legal "union" between any two people in the place of the word "marriage" as it appears in the current laws of the states and the federal government and let marriage be reserved for a man and a woman administrered by the churches.

The law is supposedly secular, however the power of the pulpit and the influence of the churches in daily American life today would sadden our forefathers. It was this very form of religous persecution and influence of the church in government that caused them to flee England in the first place. The pendulum does swing in politics for the good of all, but what GWB, the Republican Party and their religous right captors are trying to do is stop the swing of the pendulum through a constitutional ammendment. Likewise, their attempt to curtail the judiciary from their right to decide the constitutionality of their laws is such a fundamental violation of the priciples of "the balance of powers" established by our forefathers that I wonder if the average voter has any appreciation of what is going on under this administration.

As long as politics has been around, leaders have created "external threats" as a means of unifying a people behind them, whether those threats were real or immaginary. The "War on Terror", is the drumbeat of a President who lost the populasr vote the first time and sees an "external threat" and his perceived "strength" in fighting it as his only chance at winning again.

By lies, innuendo and smear tactics, Carl Rove has painted Kerry, a legitimate war hero and a leader of men in combat, as incapable of leading the U.S. in the War on Terror while GWB, a "weekend warrior" is painted as the only choice to fight this war. Thus went Germany in the 30's, and thus goes the U.S. today under GWB.

Now can we get back on topic?

[Ice Treasure]

So does this mean that Iamaic failed the homophobia test in anyone elses eyes, or just mine. (IamaiC that means you don't like gay people).

Also An item/thing/action is "allowed", however you express your thoughts "aloud", when you speak, even if it is right wing rubbish. Have a look in your religious dictionary if you don't believe me.

Must have got up on the wrong side of the bed.

[ProThaiExpat]

Ice Treasure: I think your right. IammaiC's initial response to the question regarding the appropriatenss of Kerry's remark was a doctrinaire Republican response to the question, ie. avoid the obvious.

As Andrew Sullivan comments in his blog, when the Chenys felt that their daughters privacy was invaded, (singled out in IammaiC's jargon) what is private about a member of the Cheney election team that is openly lesbian with a female mate. The irong is that the Chenys ended up defending their gay daughter and thought they were doing good, when in fact they revealed their homophobia when they felt it was necessary to defend her sexuality.

Sullivan points out that wives and children of heterosexual candidates and their supporters are trotted out at the drop of a hat as an election tool but when it came to the Cheny's daughter, she wasn't even let onto the podium at the Republican convention. What more needs to be said. Hipocracy at its height. Power addicts will do anything to keep their franchise and Cheney is no exception. He will do anything required of him to get himself re-elected even if it means selling his daughter down the river with all the other gays and lesbians the religious right has decided will be sacrificed for the better good, to ###### with their civil rights, they shouldn't have any anyway because the bible says so.

Sure, lets let the only world power remaining be run by those guided by a 2000 year old document that is largely fable and contains hundreds of clearly arcane rules promulgated at the time for the protection of the then population.

[ProThaiExpat]

On whether being gay is a choice or your born that way, AndrewSullivan.com, a Republican and former Bush supporter and current Iraq war supporter, points out that "why would anyone choose to join a minority that is reviled by the right, denied civil rights by the government and not allowed to legally form a family unit or enjoy the benefits accorded thereto by the government?

[Ijustwannateach]

the chance to wear more fashionable clothes? Join the best gyms? Go to the coolest bars?

"Steven"

[Phuquing Hell]

the chance to wear more fashionable clothes? Join the best gyms? Go to the coolest bars?

"Steven"

Wear make-up as well is important, though I don't any more.

[nephron]

<snip original post>

I think it does have some relevancy as because of Cheney's having a gay daughter, he appears to have developed at least a little empathy for people who aren't straight.

Of course, to me, this is a positive point for him. One of few.

[nephron]

See, when Cheney's wife said that Kerry was a bad man for bringing up her daughter's sexuality- I interpreted that not that she was ashamed of of her daughter's sexuality but that she knew that bringing it up and making it public like that would make the daughter a target, and she'd hoped to protect her from that?

Maybe I'm just too idealistic.