Alan Keys calls Cheaney's daughter a Sinner

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

I do not advocate tolerance of religious beliefs which preach hate and which preach for people to act upon that hate. However nothing in Keyes statement either shows hate or advocates performing actions upon that hate. He simply does not believe in gay marriage.

This was not about gay marriage, it was about a person being a homosexual. You don't see the word "marriage" in ANY of the quotes. You're wrong.

However you haven't answered about your religious intolerance of religion simply because they disagree with you. It seems that you only belief in tolerance for those with whom share certain core beliefs with you and that it they don't share those core beliefs then they must be haters and bigots. However, by taking this stance you label yourself a bigot by announcing your intolerance for people for simply disagreeing with you.

I tolerate all religious expressions as long as they don't preach hate and discrimination. The comments against homosexuals violates that statement. I do not tolerate any religious expressions that preach hate and discrimination against others.

You still haven't answered my question: so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Lvubun1
So what he is saying in no uncertain terms is, the only purpose of marriage is to procreate. So if a couple who is in their 60s and uncapable of having kids shouldn't get married even though they are in love and if they do they are "selfish hedonist"?

Again, I can't say for certain what Keyes believes, but it seems to me that his belief is that the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, and that we as a society should promote marriages which can procreate (those between a man and a woman). And yeah, I suspect Keyes would label them as "selfish hedonists", if he's consistent.

Does he hate or being discriminating against gays, while he has never said "hate" cause thats a tad to un-pc and invoking religion is a little bit safer, personally I couldn't think of a thing somebody could say to me worse then "your a sinner and your going to hell" which is what Keyes is saying in the nicest way possible. Either way, I too don't think he is really trying to win, more like a self-promotion run.

He certainly didn't say anything about going to hell, but I get your point. Still, I don't see how Keyes is discriminating. I may hate all white people, but if I don't fire someone on the basis of their race or refuse to sell them my house on that basis or take some other adverse action, I'm not discriminating.

Also, ditto on the self-promotion run. Keyes is just doing the political equivalent of a trade to preserve cap space.

[Lvubun1]

Where did I say I hate Alan Keys? I think he is a kook and not fit for office, any office, I wouldn't put him in charge of a bake sale. Not only cause of this but of other countless reasons he has shown in the past. And no I don't hate religions that say anyone will go to hell, I just don't like people invoking their religion and their beliefs to further their arguement especially if they are a politician, remember that seperation between church and state thing. And lastly who the hell is Alan Keyes to tell somebody they are a sinner, thats the problem here.

[Lvubun1]

If this isn't proof he isn't trying to win I don't know what is. Nothing will cause a fire storm more then the word "reparations".

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/12004f.asp

Keyes' Reparations Reversal Shocks Conservatives

By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
September 1, 2004

(AgapePress) - Some conservative blacks say they are confused over Republican
Senate candidate Alan Keyes' decision to support reparation payments to the
descendants of black slaves.

Keyes, a two-time presidential hopeful from Maryland who is now challenging
Democrat Barack Obama in a race for an Illinois Senate seat, has dismayed a
number of supporters with his recent comments on slavery reparations. During a
press conference in Chicago, the Republican candidate revealed notions on the
issue that came as a surprise to many fellow conservatives.

Prompted by a question from the press, Keyes put the topic in the context of
ancient history, suggesting the U.S. should do as the Roman Empire did for
cities that had been devastated by conquest. "[F]or a certain length of time --
a generation or two -- they exempted the damaged city from taxation," the
politician noted.

Keyes went on to propose that one possible plan for reparations might be to
exempt African-Americans of slave heritage from paying federal income tax since
slavery resulted from "an egregious failure on the part of the federal
establishment." The former ambassador and one-time presidential candidate said
this plan would help African-Americans gain "a competitive edge in the labor
market," and "compensate for all those years of slavery when [blacks'] labor was
being exploited."

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

This was not about gay marriage, it was about a person being a homosexual. You don't see the word "marriage" in ANY of the quotes. You're wrong.

I tolerate all religious expressions as long as they don't preach hate and discrimination. The comments against homosexuals violates that statement. I do not tolerate any religious expressions that preach hate and discrimination against others.

So you advocate intolerance against any religion that refuses to believe as you do that homosexuality is not a sin? Is that correct?

You still haven't answered my question: so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

What do you call: "I do not advocate tolerance of religious beliefs which preach hate and which preach for people to act upon that hate. However nothing in Keyes statement either shows hate or advocates performing actions upon that hate. He simply does not believe in gay marriage."

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Lvubun1
And no I don't hate religions that say anyone will go to hell, I just don't like people invoking their religion and their beliefs to further their arguement especially if they are a politician, remember that seperation between church and state thing.

You mean 1st amendment? It sounds like you would be in favor of a law limiting establishment of Keyes' religion, and that you dont' want him to express his views.

And lastly who the hell is Alan Keyes to tell somebody they are a sinner, thats the problem here.

Anybody who thinks there is such a thing as sin has a duty to inform others of what they think that sin is. To do otherwise would be to allow them to destroy themselves, which is downright inhumane.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Lvubun1
Where did I say I hate Alan Keys? I think he is a kook and not fit for office, any office, I wouldn't put him in charge of a bake sale. Not only cause of this but of other countless reasons he has shown in the past. And no I don't hate religions that say anyone will go to hell, I just don't like people invoking their religion and their beliefs to further their arguement especially if they are a politician, remember that seperation between church and state thing. And lastly who the hell is Alan Keyes to tell somebody they are a sinner, thats the problem here.

How does it feel to be accused of hate when you didn't say it? Sort of like how you accused Keyes of hate.

Is he a kook, well I can agree with you on that one.

And politicians should have the right to have religious views. Seperation of Church and State means that the government will have no official religion, as England did. It does not preclude politicians from having and expressing their personal religious beliefs.

As for telling someone that they are a sinner, it's part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Anybody has the right to tell anybody else that they are a sinner. Heck you can even call Keyes one for what he said.

[kg_veteran]

I tolerate all religious expressions as long as they don't preach hate and discrimination. The comments against homosexuals violates that statement. I do not tolerate any religious expressions that preach hate and discrimination against others.

Point me to a religion that says you're supposed to hate homosexuals or discriminate against them. You can't. You WILL find religions (in fact, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for starters) that condemn homosexuality. That doesn't mean those religions preach hate and discrimination. It means they disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle.

I'm with UL. You are a religious bigot, by your own definition of the word.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

do they propose to treat the homosexuals differently than the heterosexuals? do they have less standing?

What do you call: "I do not advocate tolerance of religious beliefs which preach hate and which preach for people to act upon that hate. However nothing in Keyes statement either shows hate or advocates performing actions upon that hate. He simply does not believe in gay marriage."

again, the quotes are NOT about gay marriage. It was a statement about being homosexual.

so they are not demeaned by the contemptuous phrase "selfish hedonists"? By having others look at homosexuals in that manner is he not spreading that disdane?

you didn't answer the discrimination.

[Mavdog]

from the Trib:
----------------------------------------
Keyes takes jabs at his own party

By Jennifer Skalka and Ofelia Casillas. Tribune national correspondent Jill Zuckman contributed to this report
Tribune staff reporters

September 1, 2004

NEW YORK -- Madison Square Garden, home of many prizefights and hockey brawls, seems a fitting venue for Alan Keyes to be meeting his fellow Republicans.

The candidate for U.S. Senate has miffed many members of the Illinois delegation by spending more time on national talk shows than schmoozing with them.

He has been prickly with the media, chastising reporters for asking "inappropriate" questions.

As the Republican National Convention focused on unity Tuesday, Keyes lashed out at Vice President Dick Cheney's gay daughter.

And it was only the second day of the convention.

Keyes' first comments about Mary Cheney came during an interview Monday night on Sirius OutQ, a New York-based satellite station that provides 24-hour gay and lesbian programming.

After the candidate told the hosts that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," he was asked whether Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

On Tuesday, Keyes defended his remarks, adding that if his daughter were a lesbian, he would tell her she was committing a sin and should pray.

Thus far, the Republican hopeful's week has been defined by friction with his state party chairwoman and the Illinois delegation, who feel they are playing second fiddle to Keyes' media campaign. Some have also expressed concerns about Keyes' beliefs, calling them too far right for Illinois.

Keyes is challenging Democrat Barack Obama, who wowed his party's national convention with his keynote address last month.

Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka said the remarks about Cheney's daughter should not distract from key election issues.

"It's a pity that we have gotten away from the substance of the campaign and instead have gotten into personalities and things that are personal and name-calling," Topinka said. "Since this is amongst Republicans, it really needs to stop and get on course."

When informed of Keyes' comments about Mary Cheney, Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt offered a terse reply Tuesday.

"It was inappropriate," he said.

Similar response to remark

Campaigning in North Middleton Township, Pa., with President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke to reporters about Republican chances to hold the Senate and said, "I think it's clear we lose Illinois."

Informed about Keyes' comments from the radio program, McCain said, "I don't think that's appropriate, but it's not the first inappropriate remark Mr. Keyes has made. He made a remark the other day that people who perform abortions are the same as terrorists. That's a very unique take on that issue and one that's very seldom espoused."

For the last two days, Keyes has frequented Radio Row, a hallway in Madison Square Garden occupied by talk-show hosts. Keyes, who had a radio show in the 1990s, appeared comfortable there, stopping for interviews when asked.

Two hosts with Sirius OutQ spoke with Keyes for four minutes Monday night in a nearby hallway. Their conversation centered on his opposition to same-sex marriage. Keyes said family is defined by having children.

"If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism," the senate candidate told hosts Michelangelo Signorile and Corey Johnson.

It was at this point that the hosts asked Keyes their question about Mary Cheney, getting a response.

An interviewer then said: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."

Replied Keyes: "Dick Cheney may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."

When asked Tuesday evening to explain his statements about Mary Cheney, Keyes did not back down.

"I have said that if you are actively engaging in homosexual relations, those relations are about selfish hedonism," he said. "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

Rick Garcia, director of Equality Illinois, a non-partisan gay-rights group, said Keyes' views are not representative of the state's Republicans nor Democrats.

"Selfish hedonism? Has anyone seen Dr. Keyes look at a microphone or a television camera? That's hedonism," Garcia said. "The mainstream of the Illinois Republican Party is not behind Dr. Keyes."

Trying to build bridges

Keyes attempted to build bridges Tuesday with the Illinois delegation. But a breakfast gathering ended messily for him as he chastised reporters for not giving his candidacy a fair shake and left early.

Topinka had welcomed Keyes to a Times Square hotel for his first delegate breakfast. She said there was room under the Republican Party's tent for different beliefs, but added that a far-right candidate would not win in Illinois.

"Without social moderates this party cannot win," Topinka told a few reporters before she and Keyes shook hands for the cameras. "It has to be center-right, it can't be right-right."

When Topinka and Keyes greeted each other, the exchange was brief and awkward. It ended strangely, as Topinka ducked out, dashing behind a ficus plant.

"There you go," she said to Keyes. "You're on."

Reporters surrounded Keyes on his way out. When asked why he had not addressed the delegates, he promised it would not be the last time he would see them this week but that he had to tend to a schedule packed with media interviews. Pressed for a reason why he had not spent more time with his state party, Keyes responded angrily.

"The proper question would be: `What are you doing at this convention?' And that is a fact," he said.

Though her views differ with Keyes' on several social issues, Topinka said Tuesday morning that she would support him, saying, "He is on the ticket. We will support the ticket."

[chumdawg]

I'll chime in here. I view the remarks as definitely being about gay marriage in particular, as apposed to homosexuality in general. However...

We definitely are talking about discriminatory "action" here. Keyes is advocating a policy that would take away from gays a right (the right to marry) that heterosexuals have. At least in the case of marriage rights, I don't see how this could be viewed as anything but discriminatory.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that "discrimination" is a concept that is terribly abused these days. We discriminate in all kinds of ways, often for good purposes. We discriminate against youths when we deny them the right to use alcohol. We discriminate against pot smokers when we make marijuana illegal. We discriminate against hedonists when we make prostitution illegal. We discriminate against felons who have done their time when we make them identify themselves as such on job applications.

I don't think Keyes is a "kook" for voicing his opinions on these subjects. It would be a shame to believe that our culture is static, with no room for it to evolve. If enough people agree with Keyes (or whoever else brings the issue to the fore), we will all just have to be happy with it. And if enough people disagree, then we'll have to be happy with that too.

Having said all that, I will add that on some level I agree with Keyes on this issue. But I don't think it's worth fighting over. If gays can presently live together their whole lives and do as they wish in the privacy of their own home--which is fine with me, by the way--then little is lost in allowing gay couples to enjoy the same legal benefits that married couples have always had.

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

again, the quotes are NOT about gay marriage. It was a statement about being homosexual.

so they are not demeaned by the contemptuous phrase "selfish hedonists"? By having others look at homosexuals in that manner is he not spreading that disdane?

you didn't answer the discrimination.

The quote that KG posted was about gay marriage. You posted another article, with no link for fact checking, that appears that he's talking about homosexual relaitons. By relations, I mean sexual releations. So if we strickly define homosexuals as people who have sex with members of their same sex, then your "article" appears to say that Keyes is talking about that limited version of homosexuals. However, this article isn't very reliable because you've precluded links so that it can be fact checked.

Now, lets just assume that Keyes was talking about homosexuals. You're still making a huge leap that he carrying out any act of hate. Simply referring to actions as being selfish and hedonistic does not meet my definition of unjust discrimination. After all as chumdawg points out, we all discriminate. Our society couldn't function without discrimination. What is generally refered to in the media as discrimination, is in fact a small subset of discrimination which is unjust discrimination. Unless you want to argue that homosexuals are having sex without pleasure and are not the principal recipiants of the benefits of that sex, which knowing you you may want to, there isn't a lot to really be offended about this. It could be aruged that most sexual activity contains a good part of selfish hedonism. I could see where it could also be viewed otherwise. However, just because someone has an opinion different from yours doesn't make it unjust discrimination for having that opinion. However if you want to act intolerantly towards that person for having a contrary opinion, then that would meet the popular definition of unjust discrimination.

BTW I did answer your question on discrimination. However I answered it with a narrow definition of discrimination because as I've stated above, not all discrimination is the same and some discrimination is necessary for society to function properly. You however haven't answered the question about being a racial bigot.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

again, the quotes are NOT about gay marriage. It was a statement about being homosexual.

so they are not demeaned by the contemptuous phrase "selfish hedonists"? By having others look at homosexuals in that manner is he not spreading that disdane?

you didn't answer the discrimination.

Mavdog, maybe you should learn a bit about christianity before you make false claims about it. In no way, shape or form does the religion of christianity (or 99% of other religions, at that) promote mistreatment, discrimination or hatred towards homosexuals. The bible simply states that homosexuality is a sin. And I have no idea why everybody is getting so pissed off because a gay person got called "a sinner". That's what they're doing, ain't it? Where has freedom of speech gone?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

The quote that KG posted was about gay marriage. You posted another article, with no link for fact checking, that appears that he's talking about homosexual relaitons. By relations, I mean sexual releations. So if we strickly define homosexuals as people who have sex with members of their same sex, then your "article" appears to say that Keyes is talking about that limited version of homosexuals. However, this article isn't very reliable because you've precluded links so that it can be fact checked.

what a load of crap. "fact checked" my ass.
There's no link on kg's post, hence in your mind it's "not very reliable".
there's no link on luvbun's original post, so this whole discussion is based on something that is "not very reliable."
ridiculous.

Now, lets just assume that Keyes was talking about homosexuals.

"assume"??? What world are you on?

BTW I did answer your question on discrimination. However I answered it with a narrow definition of discrimination because as I've stated above, not all discrimination is the same and some discrimination is necessary for society to function properly. You however haven't answered the question about being a racial bigot.

LMAO! "some discrimination is necessary for society to function".
too funny.
As far as your accusation of my "being a racial bigot", that's absurd. It's like me asking you when did you stop assaulting women?

[FishForLunch]

Screw Alan Keyes who the hell is he to decide who is a sinner.

[LRB]

Posted by Mavdog:

As far as your accusation of my "being a racial bigot", that's absurd.

Right, that was a typo. I mean to say religious bigot. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

"assume"??? What world are you on?

Earth. Are you familiar with it?

what a load of crap. "fact checked" my ass.
There's no link on kg's post, hence in your mind it's "not very reliable".
there's no link on luvbun's original post, so this whole discussion is based on something that is "not very reliable."
ridiculous.

Well if you want to call KG out on fact checking be my guest. However doing so completely invalidates your post since you have the exact same quote posted by KG in the article you posted. BTW since you're questioning KG's post, that really makes me worry about the veracity and reliability of your own post since his is just a subset of the article that you posted.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Screw Alan Keyes who the hell is he to decide who is a sinner.

he's not deciding, and I doubt very seriously that he would claim to decide.
You, however, have obviously decided to decide that his claims and beliefs are very wrong. Just because you might not use the word "sin" does not mean you are not practicing exactly what you are accusing.


Mavdog - you said you would use the term "selfish hedonist" where (in your humble opinion) you think it should apply.
If this term means hatred and discrimination, as you suggest, then you hate and discriminate against people based on your opinion.
So either stop with the hypocritical accusations, or back off some of your earlier statements.

[sike]

my guess is that Alan Keyes would also say a heterosexual having continual sex outside the bounds of marriage is living a life of "selfish hedonism" as well. There is no hate inherently in these words…just a moral stance(albeit not a politically savvy move). I am so tired of people using the word discriminate and hate synonymously. To discriminate is to differentiate between two or more things/ideas nothing more…hate is not at all implied in discrimination. There is discrimination in his statement, but for someone to infer hatred in his words means that person is inappropriately bringing his exisiting presuppositional standard to the table and arguing in the realm unreasonable. Until the person admits and changes their argument/attack to address the fact or idea of the statement, it is foolish to discuss this.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Mavdog - you said you would use the term "selfish hedonist" where (in your humble opinion) you think it should apply.
If this term means hatred and discrimination, as you suggest, then you hate and discriminate against people based on your opinion.
So either stop with the hypocritical accusations, or back off some of your earlier statements.

If it did apply, how does that then make it "hatred and discrimination"? Being an accurate assessment those teo would be invalidated.

IMHO it is inaccurate to describe homosexuals as "hedonist" merely due to the fact that they are homosexuals.
IMHO it is inaccurate to label homosexuals as "selfish" merely due to the fact that they are homosexuals.

[kg_veteran]

IMHO it is inaccurate to describe homosexuals as "hedonist" merely due to the fact that they are homosexuals.
IMHO it is inaccurate to label homosexuals as "selfish" merely due to the fact that they are homosexuals.

And there we have it. You have your opinion, and Alan Keyes has his.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: sike
my guess is that Alan Keyes would also say a heterosexual having continual sex outside the bounds of marriage is living a life of "selfish hedonism" as well. There is no hate inherently in these words…just a moral stance(albeit not a politically savvy move). I am so tired of people using the word discriminate and hate synonymously. To discriminate is to differentiate between two or more things/ideas nothing more…hate is not at all implied in discrimination. There is discrimination in his statement, but for someone to infer hatred in his words means that person is inappropriately bringing his exisiting presuppositional standard to the table and arguing in the realm unreasonable. Until the person admits and changes their argument/attack to address the fact or idea of the statement, it is foolish to discuss this.

frankly knowing Alan Keyes (from his writings) I should not have used the word "hate" relative to his comments. He really doesn't hate homosexuals. I'm not so sure he likes than very much, but no he does not hate them. mea culpa.

[sike]

mavdog: frankly knowing Alan Keyes (from his writings) I should not have used the word "hate" relative to his comments. He really doesn't hate homosexuals. I'm not so sure he likes than very much, but no he does not hate them. mea culpa.

good to hear.