Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Daughter Of A Veep
Michael Signorile really lets Mary Cheney have it in New York Press:

Excuse me for being blunt, but my rights are at stake at the moment, as our born-again president has told his theocratic mentors that hed sell usyou, me and millions of other homosdown the river. So lets get to the point: What the hell happened to you? Are you just another spoiled rich bratthe lesbian Paris Hiltonworried about getting a chunk of those 30 million Halliburton bucks should Dads heart conk out? I mean, this is one of those moments of truth, Mary, one in which the fundamentalist forces of darkness either march into the White Houseenshrining antigay discrimination into the U.S. Constitutionor are beaten back. And so far, youve been working for the enemy, darling.

I guess it turns out that the brand of "compassionate conservatism" Mary Cheney was working to sell was "we feel for you, but we sure aren't going to extend you all our rights."

Posted by aalkon at January 24, 2004 8:51 AM

Comments

Two quick specifics: Patti Davis has of late been making the noises of a grown woman, grateful for the many personal and material blessings in her life, including her bloodline. And Signorile can't even imagine that those gays who voted for Bush might still be glad they did.

Signorile is truly the Prince of Piss. Throughout the piece he maintains the voice of narcissistic teenage petulence that marks the worst of Boomer leftist politicking... All his impulses have the righteousness of the emancipation of slaves, and his every discomfort is a lash from the whip of the oppressive Man.

In what is presumably a sincere attempt at persuasive writing, Signorile addresses Ms. Cheney as "Darling." Why do these rhetors reduce everything to the most infantile and personal level imaginable?

Perhaps without principles, your feelings are all you have.

Posted by: Crid at January 24, 2004 9:37 PM

You know, Crid, it wasn't so long ago that we held a discussion on gay marriage on this very blog, and your same stale argument has reared its weary head again. You keep invoking this overworked beast, Crid, it's going to die before its time.

Each and every time righteous indignation against our society's discrimination against homosexuals asserts itself you call it "teenage petulance." Your unimaginative argument would be better served if you at least found a new catch phrase. Throw some make up on the old gal and maybe she won't look so bad.

Excuse us for wanting our unions validated by the very society that requires us to pay the same taxes and observe the same laws as straight people. If we're expected to support the government and live under their rule (tyranny, in our case), then we deserve the same rights to form the same mutually beneficial domestic base that heterosexuals do, and to be given the same benefits as straight people.

And before you tell me to go "kiss a girl," that means being allowed to have someone that I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE who will have me. So, heterosexual unions are out where I am concerned. Even if I could, I already made a promise to someone, and I will keep it. Law or not.

Why should I pay the same taxes and observe the same laws to a state that discriminates against me?

In sum, you will have to do better -- much better -- than simply demean and insult Signorile to make an effective argument. Your argumentum ad hominem is simply the oldest of logical fallacies in the books, made even more banal by your inability to come up with at least some fresh phraseology. It has done nothing to refute his questions to Mary Cheney, for which I would like answers myself.

Call his arguments "teenage petulance" if you care to, since you obviously are in love with the phrase, but he's also correct. Cheney did sell us up the river by insisting that these things should be left to the states, and is now supporting Federal Laws (to the tune of 1.5 BILLION of our tax dollars, yours too) to ban our unions. (I did NOT pay taxes for this.) Not only is Cheney (and his protege Bush) refusing to acknowledge our unions, but they are actively working against us. In other words, they are not simply passively ignoring us; they are fighting us, and using MY MONEY to do it.

Perhaps if Bush and Cheney were trying to make illegal something that YOU yourself believe in, something you want for yourself that you believe makes you a better person -- that isn't even hurting anyone. On the contrary, makes you a better contributor to society -- you could understand where we're coming from.

But until that day, I guess you'll just cheer on the administration and be glad that it isn't you they're fucking with.

Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2004 5:21 AM

I don't know much about you as a person, Crid, but what makes me laugh about your writing is the contradiction of style and content in declarations such as:

"Signorile is truly the Prince of Piss. Throughout the piece he maintains the voice of narcissistic teenage petulence that marks the worst of Boomer leftist politicking..."

Now if those two sentences don't sound pissy and petulant, I don't know what does! I'm going to start calling you Crid Signorile from now on.

Posted by: Lena at January 25, 2004 11:55 AM

>Call his arguments "teenage petulance" if you care to...

When discussing the left, it's a leitmotif. Hours later on Jarvis' site:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#006006

>If we're expected to support the government and live under their rule (tyranny, in our case)...

Take a short boat ride to Cuba and see what tyranny against gays is really like. Voters know gays in much of the USA have it pretty good, so your Montgomery-era rhetoric rings false to their ear. In Alabama in the fifties, they didn't need rhetorical overkill. Across the globe, gay men and women yearn to be "fucked with" in the Bush/Cheney/American manner.

>then we deserve the same rights to form the same mutually beneficial domestic base that heterosexuals do, and to be given the same benefits as straight people.

You have PRECISELY the same rights. Voters know that too. You're asking for a profound change while using rhetoric that it's no change at all. Again a sour note.

I think teenagers are petulent as a way of concentrating. Those years are famous for distraction, and I think the narcissism and snottiness of those times is necessary to keep one focused on figuring out who's who and what's what. It's the only way to maintain enthusiasm.

But here on Planet Maturia we are free to respond calmly, as we do to our teens: What's in it for us? You gonna take out the trash if you get a bigger allowance? Promise?

And young Mr. Signorile, must you be so rude? Do you imagine it makes you more persuasive?

Posted by: Crid at January 25, 2004 12:13 PM

>I don't know much about you as a person...

Only way to know me.

Posted by: Crid at January 25, 2004 12:31 PM

And you Crid Signorile, much you be so rude?

Posted by: Lena at January 25, 2004 1:43 PM

Yes, I much! Listen, these hissyfits of ours are good clean sport. I'll cop to posturing. But for the denizen's of Alkon's zone to look to analysis from Signorile for inspiration is essentially identical to a God-fearing ninny in Spartanburg, SC who wants to hear what that nice young Christian man Pat Robertson has to say about it before she makes up her mind. Signorile would rather mock and give offense with passion than persuade through reason and compassion. This is childish. In this case he mocks the imagined death of his target's father. Is that cute? Does it make his leadership easier to follow?

Lefties, and now gays in particular, think that when they say "Cheney" or "Halliburton," they've invoked the name of a holocaust-grade horror about which discussion and factual rebuttal are no longer necessary. This is not the case. Cheney is somewhat conservative for my taste, and his wife is worse is all respects. But liberals could score many more points with those of us in the middle if they shed these presumptions.

And to make jokes about Cheney's death, as an NYC media friend did about Bush in a recent email, is to demonstrate conclusively that you're not up to debate in the public arena. You're a child (if not a monster), and your views will be measured accordingly. As will those of the ninny in Spartanburg.

Posted by: Crid at January 25, 2004 4:52 PM

My, my, my, Crid. Someone obviously touched a nerve. (I'm betting it was Lena, pointing out -- accurately -- that you're being as adolescent and petulant as you accuse Signorile of being.)You're nastier than ever. But your lack of originality is at least unchanged, if that serves as any consolation.

You're dragging out the same arguments, and they're no more effective than they were the first time. You obviously recognize this, because replying to my post, you quote only half-arguments, omitting the parts that actually address the objections you raise. Which are, incidentally, the same objections you raised the last time.

For instance: >>If we're expected to support the government and live under their rule (tyranny, in our case)...

Take a short boat ride to Cuba and see what tyranny against gays is really like. Voters know gays in much of the USA have it pretty good, so your Montgomery-era rhetoric rings false to their ear. In Alabama in the fifties, they didn't need rhetorical overkill. Across the globe, gay men and women yearn to be "fucked with" in the Bush/Cheney/American manner.>then we deserve the same rights to form the same mutually beneficial domestic base that heterosexuals do, and to be given the same benefits as straight people.

You have PRECISELY the same rights. Voters know that too. You're asking for a profound change while using rhetoric that it's no change at all. Again a sour note.>And before you tell me to go "kiss a girl," that means being allowed to have someone that I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE who will have me. So, heterosexual unions are out where I am concerned. Even if I could, I already made a promise to someone, and I will keep it. Law or not.>But here on Planet Maturia we are free to respond calmly, as we do to our teens: What's in it for us? You gonna take out the trash if you get a bigger allowance? Promise?>then we deserve the same rights to form the same mutually beneficial domestic base that heterosexuals do, and to be given the same benefits as straight people.>Lefties, and now gays in particular, think that when they say "Cheney" or "Halliburton," they've invoked the name of a holocaust-grade horror about which discussion and factual rebuttal are no longer necessary. This is not the case.<<

More ad hominem, Crid? Since you've already run the gamut of your arguments against gay marriage, I suppose that's all you have left. Perhaps you should depart planet Infantilia and go and visit Maturia sometime.

So, because Signorile is making tasteless jokes about Cheney's death, or imagines him to be some monster out of Nazi Germany, you suppose that ALL gays are doing this? Just FYI, I do not wish harm on Cheney, and I'm sorry about his heart. So, no, not ALL gays do this.

And for the record, petty comparisons to the Holocaust are a brazen insult to those who endured the nightmares of Nazi concentration camps. And since Signorile isn't the one who made reference to the Holocaust, I will thank you not to mention it again in such a belittling manner. You have no idea what you're discussing when you mention the Holocaust, and to use it as a punch line is disgusting.

That aside, I think Signorile is a bit extreme, but I also understand where he's coming from. Obviously, it's important to Signorile and Cheney's betrayal -- insisting that gay marriage should be handled at the state level, then working to enact laws to INVALIDATE our relationships -- probably does not sit well with him. Maybe he just doesn't like being lied to. Especially about something so important.

Since Cheney is now supporting laws to make gay marriage illegal, the question you should be asking is "What threat is gay marriage to Cheney?"

Even if gay marriage served no useful purpose (and I'm sure I don't see what benefit heterosexual marriage serves, apart from those benefits I mentioned that apply to my own relationship with Don), the question remains, "Why is Cheney fignting it? Where is the harm? What compelling interest does the country have in rendering gay marriage illegal?"

And while you're at it, you can answer how straight marriage is supposed to serve society, since you insist (again) that gay marriage should be of benefit to society before it can be validated under the law.

Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2004 8:09 PM

Signorile would rather mock and give offense with passion than persuade through reason and compassion. This is childish.

Its also rather Crid-ish. I think that Signorile and you have a lot more in common stylistically than you'd like to admit. There have been many times, dear friend, when I've tried to read your posts but just get tired of all the chest pounding and name-calling. It's too bad, because sometimes you seem pretty sharp.

Posted by: Lena at January 26, 2004 10:08 AM

Patrick - PLEASE pull your citation style together. You're all over the place with these huge blocks of text which are already in the stack. They're no fun to read (over)... Each one's like an afternoon with Kelly Osbourne. Trust me: Concision kills. Quote only what you must to make your point and your persuasion will soar.

>More ad hominem(...)?

I did get a couple of quick specifics in there. But in Signorile's case, I feel free to go personal pretty quickly because he's not the sort of thinker who could tell the difference. That was a big point in my thread: By reducing everything to the most personal and childish level ASAP, his persuasion (and authority) is quickly diminished. Nobody gives me credit when I make fun of Robertson so readily... I say he and Mike are peas in a pod.

>...you suppose that ALL gays are doing this?

Well, in the example at hand, you're the one who brought us the word "tyranny." I said holocaust, not THE Holocaust. And you really need to review that passage anyway. But actually I'm going to cede the point.

Years ago, there was a rule of thumb on usenet groups and local BBS's which may not survive the Blog era, though it oughta. The rule was: Upon first mention of Hitler or Nazism, a thread is to be considered closed. And the person to mention it loses.

The rule became popular because many who argued were young people living in coddled enough environments to have personal computers back when they weren't cheap. So every discomfort was the work of the Antichrist. The rule was a reminder that evil comes in gradations. Many political groups, particularly those with shaky foundations, can't deal with that. See also, PETA.

The record reflects that your word choice was overheated, which brought us to this moment. If you're really under tyranny, you should run like hell. You won't, for reasons cited above. Or as PJ O'Rourke put it a few years ago: "I'd rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than King, Queen and Jack of all you Europeans."

> ...the question remains, "Why is Cheney fignting it...

That's not a bad question to ask! (The answer probably involves presumptions about Cheney's voter base and other dynamic quantities.) But the question was lost when reading Signorile's piece, because his violent anger was too loud for it to be heard. See the problem?

>...you can answer how straight marriage is supposed to serve society...

First, I'm not the one petitioning society (and perhaps civilization) for a variance. You are. Marriage has many problems, but they seem mostly to be caused by living in an age of wealth and safety and fulfillment. These may prove to be momentary blessings. Therefore I'm not eager to dick with the trans-national fundamentals of comity.

Second, we covered it last time, and you pretended not to get it then, either.

We'll investigate your fascination with the tax code another day. If you want to warm up, read the stores about Carlin in the current news cycle (eg Drudge & Jarvis).

Lena -

>...many times, dear friend, when I've...

An endearment every bit as insincere as Signorile's. It's not even intentional... It's reflexive! Can I call it petulant?

Posted by: Crid at January 26, 2004 6:47 PM

Crid, clarify something for me. I pretended not to get... what? What are you talking about?

Posted by: Patrick at January 26, 2004 8:11 PM

Hey Crid -- I really did mean "dear friend." I think you're interesting, if somewhat misguided. Just turn down the sound and fury a bit, okay? And stay sexy.

Posted by: Lena at January 27, 2004 6:52 AM

How ironic! That's what I want from Signorile (and Robertson) as well. Without the sexy part.

Posted by: Crid at January 27, 2004 11:52 AM

Unfortunately, sound and fury are what sells. But we can get away with less screaming on a blog.

Posted by: Lena at January 27, 2004 12:27 PM

I will take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer your question, Patrick." Fine.

Posted by: Patrick at January 27, 2004 8:23 PM

But just to set the record straight, this is a free country. It's not up to me to prove that allowing gay marriage is of some benefit to society (and I've already proven that it is, anyway, with the benefits that married couples have under a mutual domestic base, I am freer to become a more productive member of society), but it's up to the state to prove that they have a compelling interest in not allowing me to marry someone of my own gender.

And incidentally, just to set the record straight -- so to speak -- I do NOT have the right to marry a woman as a homosexual. Divorce court records will show that homosexuality is grounds for a spouse to seek -- and gain -- a divorce. So you can tell me to "kiss a girl" all you care to, if I want to get married. The state shows that they would not agree with this "sagacious" counsel.

Posted by: Patrick at January 28, 2004 8:55 AM

Patrick,

I guess it depends on the state. Didn't Amy have a post a while ago about a New England state that found that the wife's lesbian affair didn't count as an affair because it wasn't 'sex'. So the husband couldn't claim that she had cheated. I guess in that state you could be married to a woman and still have Don on the side.

I know that's not what you want, but I'm just thinking the rules probably vary by state. Our local paper just ran a question in their ethics column from a bisexual woman whose roommate is a gay man. He does not have health insurance and she does. She asked if it was unethical to marry him for him to receive benefits that he can't get with his partner because they aren't married.

The ethicist said marriage for love is a fairly recent invention, so the fact that they are not a couple in that sense does not preclude them getting married for other benefits. Of course, they aren't the same as being the beneficiary, etc., for your real partner, not just some person whom you can marry to get society's perks.

Posted by: Peggy C at January 28, 2004 1:07 PM

Peggy C writes: "I guess it depends on the state. Didn't Amy have a post a while ago about a New England state that found that the wife's lesbian affair didn't count as an affair because it wasn't 'sex'. So the husband couldn't claim that she had cheated. I guess in that state you could be married to a woman and still have Don on the side."

I don't know if that might apply in the case of two men. If they're so idiotic as to think a lesbian affair isn't cheating on one's husband, they might have a double standard where two men are concerned. After all, penetration can occur with two men.

Posted by: Patrick at January 29, 2004 8:06 AM

Penetration can occur with two women as well. Use your imagination like a dyke!

Posted by: Lena at January 29, 2004 11:13 AM