blatham wrote:bill said
Quote:Blatham, how does that explain 40% of Kerry's supporters feeling it was inappropriate?
Hint: Take your focus off the word "Lesbian" and put it on the word "Daughter".
Let's say that Party A seeks electoral advantage by saying nasty things about blacks and Jews knowing their voter base has a lot of racist sentiment and this will get them out to the polls because the other party, Party B, thinks blacks and Jews are OK. Then, in debate, the candidate from Party B mentions that a leader of Party A has a Jewish daughter.
Where does the moral ugliness reside?
For starters: That provides no explanation whatsoever for why 40% of Kerry's supporters feel the answer was inappropriate. (I know it's a hard question... that's why I chose it. :wink: )
bill...It's not a tough question, it's an irrelevant question. Unless you believe that any and all moral 'truths' are established only by majority opinion. Or unless your only concern is electoral strategy (Kerry might get less votes, so it was a foolish act). But this is a moral issue, and it is moral language which Lynne Cheney uses, and it is moral language that the Christian Right uses in its descriptions of homosexuality, and it is moral language and concepts which this administration is using or alluding to. That the administration pushes this issue towards cultural divide and exclusion is acknowledged by anyone with an IQ over 40. You know it is so. Popular opinion is not relevant. How many Arkansians, forty years ago, thought that an interracial couple holding hands in public was 'inappropriate'? Campaigns at the time which sought to divide using race (blacks are worth less, not entirely human, ought not to have equal rights in all ways) How many Germans in 1932 thought the same of Jews living next door?
Foxy answered you correctly in that Party A's daughter's religion is none of Party B's business so Party B will get the backlash of public resentment he attempted to shine on Party A. You cannot condemn racism (in your silly slanted example) by attempting to use it to your advantage... and pointing its hateful attention at your opponent's daughter... without a sizeable percentage of the public recognizing it for what it is. Sleazy.
Again, opinion/backlash tells us nothing of relevance to the moral issue. Previous periods saw campaigners who were forwarding civil rights or sufferage, etc, gain a backlash against their position. Is to 'to your advantage' and therefore 'sleazy', for another example, while Joe McCarthy is seeking power through the means he used, to point out publicly that his daughter belongs to the Communist Party?
It is using a perceived negative about your opponent's daughter for the benefit of an audience that sees it as a negative. That, my friend, is an attack on your opponent's daughter.
No, it is not. If you don't like Japanese people or Muslims or Christians, and think them perverse or inferior and campaign using these notions, but I don't share your derogatory opinion whatsoever, and I point out that your daughter is Muslim, then I'm not pointing at your daughter, I'm pointing right at you and revealing your hypocrisy.
You're bright enough to rise above the partisan position here, bill. Even if one might make a claim that Kerry's words resulted in some discomfort for Mary (unknown), acknowledge that there is NO comparison between this 'pain' and that which this administration's permitted and supported demonization of gays has produced for so many. Where does the real sleaze sit, bill.
Result: most of the people polled will think it inappropriate. Thanks for adding another example to illustrate its wrongness. :wink:
I think there is a misconception going on around here about homophobia, too. Homophobia is not a hate crime. It is not a crime at all. It may well be an example of ignorance in your opinion but that doesn't give you the right to tell someone else how they should
feel. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say it can be a naturally occurring phobia. No one taught me to be homophobic as a kid, but I still was. When I encountered homosexuals, they just gave me the heebie-jeebies. Then, when I was in my early 20's, a homosexual hit on me in the break room at work
I bristled a little and said not interested as politely as possible. Dude kept staring throughout my break and frankly, it really disturbed me. Later on I learned he was taking over my boss's job.
(Bear with me, this isn't a bad story and I'll try to keep it short.)
Turns out he was very, very good at his job
and as usual, admiration followed respect and we became friends. One day over drinks we endeavored to figure out what makes men homophobic (his idea). Well, the only answer I'd ever really had is that it's gross. Needless to say, that wasn't too helpful
or was it? He implored me to tell him why it was gross. Now this
is getting gross again I'm thinking
maybe he's trying to come on to me again, no, he never stopped doing that
so that's not it
hmmmm
I say "I don't know
When I picture 2 men getting it on it just makes me queasy, I don't
know why." Without hesitation, he says "ew, ick that is gross
why do you picture them getting it on? Do you picture Alice getting it on when she talks about her man?"
(Just as gross.) I says "No
". And so ended the mystery of why this man was homophobic, anyway.
Anyway; back to the point. Before leaving the throng of the ignorant homophobes; I was already a decent guy. There was no hate
just a profound lack of understanding. That is not the crime some of you would make it out to be. If I were still uncomfortable around homosexuals, I wouldn't necessarily be violating anybody's rights to avoid them. I would certainly be well within
my rights to
feel uncomfortable around them, wouldn't I? And that's not to mention that the "good book" says a man shouldn't lay down with another man
and we are guaranteed freedom of religion, right? Now until my ignorance begins to infringe on your constitutional rights, it is
my freedom we're talking about.
Now, I don't know about you foreigners, but as far as my countrymen are concerned, I'd wager my meager fortune that most of your families contain more ignorant homophobes, that are otherwise decent people, than they do homosexuals.
So, those of you who like to pretend that you would never associate with such rogues, and you know who you are, stop the pretentious BS. There is no shortage of people who think marriage should be a union between a man and a woman (John Kerry, for instance
). That doesn't automatically make them bigots. You guys think Dick and Lynn Cheney are disingenuous for their reactions? Check yourselves. Pretend it
was George Bush saying "of course John Kerry wants to allow homosexual marriage, his daughter's a lesbian!"
At least half of you guys would crucify him for it, call him all kinds of bigots and demand an apology for the hateful speech and distasteful way he selfishly used Kerry's daughter with no remorse and on and on
and perhaps 40% of the Republicans would agree with the majority of the country that the comment was inappropriate and we'd be having pretty much this same conversation only the teams would trade some players.
Go ahead and pretend it isn't so. It's so.
Bad example. Kerry's pointing to Mary does not forward hatred, in fact it promotes understanding and inclusion, but Bush in that same position would be forwarding hatred because the intent would be to communicate "Look, his daughter is a homo and that's dirty and unnatural and disgusting and against God's will, and his connection to her dirties him as well." Kerry's act does not dirty Mary, it gives her licence, and all those like her, to be who she is, without prejudice.
