From searching for the mysterious “G-spot” to mocking her Korean mother, there are few politically incorrect subjects Margaret Cho hasn’t explored. In addition to having two highly successful concert films, a controversial sitcom on ABC and three sold-out national tours under her belt, Cho is also a major activist for gay rights, devoted to lifting the ban on same-sex marriage. The Daily recently spoke with Cho, who will perform her comedy routine Thursday night at Stephens Auditorium as part of an ongoing series on the Bill of Rights.

Andrew Mabe: In your comedy routines, you hit on so many edgy topics. Is there anything too taboo for you to talk about openly?

Margaret Cho: I don’t think so. I think that topics that are taboo should be talked about. I just don’t find polite conversation to be interesting. And I don’t think that people would want to see a performer talk about the safe things. There are many people out there that provide mediocre entertainment; you don’t have to come to me for that. At least what I’m doing is bringing up ideas like equality and what it means to be an American. There are so many things happening, politically, that are crazy, that it’s important to discuss. So, if it’s not taboo, why would you want to talk about it? I mean, everyone else is talking about the weather.

AM: Well, if this interview gets too boring, just let me know. I don’t have to be polite.

MC:(Laughing) You can be totally rude — it’s fine. I like it.

AM: What is your view of the Midwest, specifically regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and how they’re responded to here?

MC: There’s no difference in people that are thinkers in any area of the country. There is a major fallacy when we’re talking about this idea of “Southern voters” or “Bible Belt voters” or people in the Midwest. Just because people live in the middle of the country doesn’t mean that they’re any less cosmopolitan, because of the way that the media is and information passes so quickly on the Internet. In the circles that I travel, certainly, there is very little difference. It’s this weird bias that exists in the minds of people that are living in New York or Los Angeles that there is a lesser mind in the Midwest, and that’s not the case at all. In fact, there’s so much diversity that’s happening everywhere.

AM: Since we’re talking about diversity in the Midwest, I might mention that Iowa State University recently hosted the nation’s largest and longest-running student conference focusing on LGBT issues.

MC: Right. That’s just proof of the kind of acceptance of diversity happening. There’s this forgotten notion that the country really is united on certain things. It doesn’t matter where you live. Your heart is going to be in the same place. We’re all fighting for the same ideals. In one way or another, everybody wants equality and everybody wants happiness. What we’re fighting for is happiness on their terms. For different groups of people, that has different meanings. That’s a really wonderful thing to illustrate how far we’ve come, not just in the LGBT community but in terms of education and inclusion.

AM: The Iowa State Daily came under fire the day after the conference for printing a large, front-page photo of two men kissing during a dance that took place during the conference. What is your initial response to this?

MC:Well, it’s sort of like, why was there a controversy? We see images of love between heterosexual couples and we can’t get away from it. We live in such a voyeuristic culture, so it surprises me that there would be negative feedback about something like that. But then again, people’s biases are going to show no matter what. Homosexuality, for whatever reason, threatens some people, and there’s really no reason for it, unless you somehow are repressing something within yourself that wants that. Usually that’s the case. If somebody fights against something, they’re usually struggling with it within.

I’m currently in the state of Texas, where the governor here is embroiled in a big scandal. He’s this very right-wing governor, but at the same time, his wife is talking about divorcing him because he had an affair with a man. So the state is in this deep, deep state of, ‘Oh my God, this is such a strange thing!’ But to me, I think it’s a very common idea. If you’re staunchly against something as innocuous and something that doesn’t affect you, like a photograph of people of the same sex enjoying a moment together, which is just an expression of love, I would rather see that on the front page of a paper than a picture of somebody killing somebody else, which is what we’ve had so much of in the last couple of years. Ever since 9/11, we’ve never seen more depictions of death in the media. They’ve been so highly concentrated on that than on depictions of love.

AM:To shed some further light on the controversy I mentioned, you should know that the majority of the complaints regarding the photo were from the LGBT community. Also, the Daily editorial [staff] has since issued a lengthy apology, saying the photo “reinforced existing stereotypes about a minority group.” Does that change your opinion about the portrayal at all?

MC:No. Again, why do we have to protect ourselves from those images? I understand that, but at the same time, we should be able to express ourselves no matter what. So physical intimacy should be somehow curtailed because there is this bias that exists within people’s minds that really shouldn’t? Whether it’s coming from the gay or the straight community, the bias is, ‘We don’t want to be portrayed in a certain manner.’ But then again, you’re not showing an orgy. You’re not showing this huge dick-flailing concert. What you’re showing is an expression of love, and what people read into that is in their minds, not in the representation — not in the photo itself. Why are we not able to have that public display of affection? There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that. There is that kind of Puritanical thinking where we have to be careful about what the mainstream — supposedly the straight community — thinks of the gay and lesbian community. But then again, we’re not promoting or condoning anything that’s wrong. It’s all within the eye of the beholder. We shouldn’t have to adhere to even self-imposed rules about how we need to appear.

AM:How would you describe your own sexuality?

MC: Well, I’m married. To a man. To be a very outspoken queer advocate doesn’t even make me think of it being about sexuality. It also speaks to the fact that I don’t really care. That has nothing to do with my political inclinations. If I was gay, I would be fighting for the gay community. If I was straight, I would be fighting for the gay community. It’s all-inclusive to me.

AM: Would you prefer to call yourself a lover of people rather than bisexual?

MC: (Laughing) And also a hater of people! Some people are very homosexual or very heterosexual. I’m fortunate to be able to sort of walk on both sides of that.

AM: You said you’re a hater of people as well. Who do you hate?

MC: I just hate ignorance. I hate this kind of Judeo-Christian value that’s not really Christian. I hate these ideas of theocracy that attempts to impose morality on other people. I identify myself as a Christian and very deeply religious. But I don’t always agree with what’s laid down in the Bible, except for a few things that are very important, like loving everybody and being completely open to everybody. The perversion of bigotry is far worse than any kind of perceived perversion in homosexuality. I hate that kind of thinking, but I would forgive that kind of person.

I embrace the idea that Christ loved everybody, that Christ was completely embracing his enemies and his persecution.

I just saw “The Passion of the Christ” and he seemed so bi to me! (Laughing) Like, he’s super bisexual! The Jesus is totally hot and he’s completely, like so in love with everybody. That kind of acceptance is what Christianity is to me.

My husband is a religious scholar and is completely entrenched in the history of religion, so I learn a lot from him about all the religions of the world, and how we really are all the same in our quest for the right way of living and how to please God.

Religion has always been something that I’ve been in love with, and also something that I’ve been struggling with. I think that we’re all the sons of God; that Jesus is really an illumination and interpretation of who we all are. We all have this kind of Christ within us.

There are multiple crucifixions and resurrections in all of our lives that happen in different ways. And there isn’t just one god. There are many gods, but at the same time, it’s such a universal idea that God exists, so that there is really just one god. It’s too hard to explain with words, but yet it’s also a very simple idea.

I’ve studied all these different world religions, and everything comes down to — yeah, there is a God, and we have to be nice to each other. He just wants us to be nice. Or she. Or whatever.

AM: What is your definition of marriage?

MC: Marriage is a document that exists in the eyes of the government that gives certain privileges to people that are married. It should be between two individuals, and that relationship should not be hindered by the identifications of gender. As long as they’re two consenting adults that are trying to build a family, then they should have these rights available to them.

People who say that if you allow same-sex marriage, then people are going to have polygamy and bigamy and marrying their dogs. That’s, like, such a stupid argument, because no, we’re not saying that. We’re just making freedom and equal rights available for all Americans.