Alan Keys calls Cheaney's daughter a Sinner

[Lvubun1]

NEW YORK - Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes (news - web
sites) labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice
President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s lesbian daughter is a
sinner.

The former talk show host who has made two unsuccessful runs for the
White House made the comments Monday night in an interview with Sirius
OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at
gays and lesbians.

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if
that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

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

Liz Cheney, Mary's sister, refused to comment Wednesday during an
interview on CNN.

"I guess I'm surprised, frankly, that you would even repeat the quote,
and I'm not going to dignify it with a comment," she told the
interviewer.

The Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), a gay and lesbian
organization, denounced Keyes' remark.

"In a political career defined by failures, this is a new low for Alan
Keyes," executive director Patrick Guerriero said in a statement
Wednesday. "Attacking politician's children is beyond the pale, even
for an extremist like Alan Keyes."

In the days before the Republican National Convention, Dick Cheney
spoke at some length about the fact that Mary is a lesbian and his
view of gay relationships. His tacit support for states' rights on the
issue of same-sex marriage and less-than-ringing endorsement of
President Bush (news - web sites)'s push for a constitutional
amendment to ban gay unions drew criticism from several conservative
groups.


Keys is a kook, I would hope even Ill. Republicans give a serious look at Barrack Obama, why would you want this guy representing your state?

[LRB]

Lots of people have religious beliefs that living in a homosexual relationship is a sin. I don't see how keyes expressing his beliefs is any better or worse than you expressing yours Lvubun. If he was saying tha all gays should be lined up and shot or it should be legal to beat a homosexual or anything remotely close then I thing that it would be a bigger deal.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Lots of people have religious beliefs that living in a homosexual relationship is a sin. I don't see how keyes expressing his beliefs is any better or worse than you expressing yours Lvubun. If he was saying tha all gays should be lined up and shot or it should be legal to beat a homosexual or anything remotely close then I thing that it would be a bigger deal.

Luvbun isn't asking to be Senator.
I expect much more tolerance and acceptance from someone who would want to be my elected representitive.
For an intelligent person, Alan Keyes is not very smart.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Luvbun isn't asking to be Senator.
I expect much more tolerance and acceptance from someone who would want to be my elected representitive.
For an intelligent person, Alan Keyes is not very smart.

So you expect tolerance, but don't want to give it. Hmmm.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

So you expect tolerance, but don't want to give it. Hmmm.

We should tolerate discrimination? We should tolerate an elected representitive who disparages homosexuals?
I don't think so....toleration of those types isn't toleration, it is facilitating. BIG difference.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

We should tolerate discrimination? We should tolerate an elected representitive who disparages homosexuals?
I don't think so....toleration of those types isn't toleration, it is facilitating. BIG difference.

Mavdog, would you call anyone a selfish hedonist?
Would it be ok for a politician to call anyone a selfish hedonist?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

We should tolerate discrimination? We should tolerate an elected representitive who disparages homosexuals?
I don't think so....toleration of those types isn't toleration, it is facilitating. BIG difference.

Keyes is not discriminating and more than you and arguably less. And yes, we should tolerate different peoples religious views so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. We hav no right not to be called a sinner or to have someone say that they view our activities as being sinful. So you instead preach intolerance of those who don't tolerate your views. So, so long as they believe according to the Gospel of Mavdog everything is OK. Otherwise they're just a bunch of sinners.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Mavdog, would you call anyone a selfish hedonist?

sure, if they exibited the characteristics. Someone being a homosexual itself does not indicate they are selfish, and hedonism IMHO entails a great amount of promiscuity, again not something that homosexuality itself indicates.

Would it be ok for a politician to call anyone a selfish hedonist?

sure, if the person who they call a "selfish hedonist" actually behaved in that way. Simply being a homosexual sure doesn't comply,

[LRB]

From www.webster.com, hedoism is defined as "1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life"

So why does someone have sex with someone of the same sex? Well if consensual, it is highly likely to achieve happiness or pleasure. Now not every one may agree on this, but it is not beyond the scope of reason to view it this way. You're still being intolerant Mavdog to others who don't believe as you do. That's OK if that's what you want to do, but don't whine about being called out on it.

[kg_veteran]

From the Drudge Report, here's a more complete quote from Keyes:

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

Keyes wasn't very savvy to make this type of comment if he's actually trying to WIN the Illinois Senatorial race (something I really wonder about), but viewing his quote in context, you at least understand his rationale.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Keyes is not discriminating and more than you and arguably less.

no, he is discriminating against a whole group of people based upon their sexual orientation, and placing all of them in a negative light based on nothing but that sexual orientation.

I am not "discriminating" against Keyes, I am calling him the bigot that he apparently is and saying that we should not facilitate hate by being "tolerant" of his very clear discrimination.

And yes, we should tolerate different peoples religious views so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. We hav no right not to be called a sinner or to have someone say that they view our activities as being sinful. So you instead preach intolerance of those who don't tolerate your views. So, so long as they believe according to the Gospel of Mavdog everything is OK. Otherwise they're just a bunch of sinners.

Again, one should not "tolerate" discrimination and hate. Any individual is free to express their hate, we just don't have to remain quiet lest we facilitate their discrimination and hate.

As far as "sinners" I certainly don't ever use that phrase. I certainly am vocal in objecting to those who preach hate and discrimination. How about you, or do you share his view of hate and discrimination?

[Usually Lurkin]

who would you call a selfish hedonist?
And why would it be ok to disparage them?

If you merely have your own opinion upon which to base application of the term "selfish hedonism", why can't Keyes be allowed the same basis?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

no, he is discriminating against a whole group of people based upon their sexual orientation, and placing all of them in a negative light based on nothing but that sexual orientation.

I am not "discriminating" against Keyes, I am calling him the bigot that he apparently is and saying that we should not facilitate hate by being "tolerant" of his very clear discrimination.

Again, one should not "tolerate" discrimination and hate. Any individual is free to express their hate, we just don't have to remain quiet lest we facilitate their discrimination and hate.

As far as "sinners" I certainly don't ever use that phrase. I certainly am vocal in objecting to those who preach hate and discrimination. How about you, or do you share his view of hate and discrimination?

But Mavdog you are discriminating against a whole group of people based upon their religious beliefs and placing them in a negative light based on nothing but that religious belief. So does this mean that you don't tolerate yourself? Or is it your opinion that any religion which doesn't conform to your personal views is OK to discriminate against. It sounds like you're only against selective discrimination.

Furthermore it could be strongly argued that Keyes is only speaking out about people who act on their homosexual inclinations and not just the people who have them. That is an important distinction. And just calling someone a sinner does not mean that you hate them. There is such a concept as love the sinner and hate the sin.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
From the Drudge Report, here's a more complete quote from Keyes:

Keyes wasn't very savvy to make this type of comment if he's actually trying to WIN the Illinois Senatorial race (something I really wonder about), but viewing his quote in context, you at least understand his rationale.

KG I definitely agree that IMO it was not a savy move to state it the way Keyes did even with the additional context added.

[kg_veteran]

I'm a bit confused, Mavdog. How has Keyes discriminated against homosexuals? What makes you think that he hates homosexuals? Those are two assumptions I don't think you're entitled to make based upon his comments.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
From www.webster.com, hedoism is defined as "1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life"

So why does someone have sex with someone of the same sex? Well if consensual, it is highly likely to achieve happiness or pleasure. Now not every one may agree on this, but it is not beyond the scope of reason to view it this way. You're still being intolerant Mavdog to others who don't believe as you do. That's OK if that's what you want to do, but don't whine about being called out on it.

guess you missed "the sole or chief good in life."

From your insistence that we should tolerate those who hate and discriminate, you would certainly have said that the South Africans were justified in apartheid, right? After all, using your rationale we should just "tolerate" their discrimination of black africans....ridiculous.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

guess you missed "the sole or chief good in life."

From your insistence that we should tolerate those who hate and discriminate, you would certainly have said that the South Africans were justified in apartheid, right? After all, using your rationale we should just "tolerate" their discrimination of black africans....ridiculous.

One more time. Hate and discriminate. Where is that coming from?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm a bit confused, Mavdog. How has Keyes discriminated against homosexuals? What makes you think that he hates homosexuals? Those are two assumptions I don't think you're entitled to make based upon his comments.

Keyes places homosexuals in a big catchall basket rather than as the multicultural group they are. There are the same if not more heterosexuals who could be termed "hedonist" for their conduct as people. To place a whole group in the same negative light is in this case discrimination as they may or may not be actually guilty of the charge.

Keyes labels homosexuals as "hedonist" for the sole fact that they are sexually attracted to the same sex. That in itself doesn't denote an individual is "hedonist", as the pursuit of pleasure isn't necessarily their preoccupation in life. This is a negative word that connotes contempt and hence hate.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

guess you missed "the sole or chief good in life."

From your insistence that we should tolerate those who hate and discriminate, you would certainly have said that the South Africans were justified in apartheid, right? After all, using your rationale we should just "tolerate" their discrimination of black africans....ridiculous.

The actions of White South Africa are quite different from Keyes statement of his belief? Where does it speak of Keyes advocating opression of anyone? Where does it speak of keyes avocationg anyone be physically harmed. Where does it speak of Keyes asking anyone be denied a say in self government?

Please answer KG's question.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog



Keyes labels homosexuals as "hedonist" for the sole fact that they are sexually attracted to the same sex.

Major assumption there. What proof do you have that Keyes in not talking about homosexuals who practice homosexual sex versus people who feel attracted to the same sex but don't have sex with members of the same sex?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Major assumption there. What proof do you have that Keyes in not talking about homosexuals who practice homosexual sex versus people who feel attracted to the same sex but don't have sex with members of the same sex?

I really can't say. That's a pretty ridiculous point.

Maybe he is talking about people who are attracted to the same sex but have thoughts of being attracted to a different sex while they are having sex with a member of the same sex. Or, Keyes could be talking about those who could be attracted to a different sex but have sex with members of a different sex while thinking about having sex with a member of the same sex. or Keyes could be talking about those who do not have sex with someone of a different sex but have desires to have no sex with members of the same sex while they think about not having sex with someone of a different sex. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I really can't say. That's a pretty ridiculous point.

Maybe he is talking about people who are attracted to the same sex but have thoughts of being attracted to a different sex while they are having sex with a member of the same sex. Or, Keyes could be talking about those who could be attracted to a different sex but have sex with members of a different sex while thinking about having sex with a member of the same sex. or Keyes could be talking about those who do not have sex with someone of a different sex but have desires to have no sex with members of the same sex while they think about not having sex with someone of a different sex. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Actually if you were a little more mentally astute today you might have percieved the relevance of this. Since you're apparently having an off day, I'll spell it out for you.

Keyes believes in the family, mother, father, and children. Now my perception of his opion is that any sex outside of the marriage covenant between man and wife is hedonistic. It so happens that all homosexual sex would fall into this category. Since it is a gay and lesbian radio station interviewing him the comments are directed to gays because of the question. So just having desires to have sex outside of the marriage covenant does not make one hedonistic.

Also although they may not be hedonistic in your opinion or in a number of other peoples opinions, does not necessarily invalidate Keyes opinion. Whether someone is hedoistic is a very subjective call.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Keyes places homosexuals in a big catchall basket rather than as the multicultural group they are. There are the same if not more heterosexuals who could be termed "hedonist" for their conduct as people. To place a whole group in the same negative light is in this case discrimination as they may or may not be actually guilty of the charge.

It's not discrimination because he's not DOING anything to homosexuals. Discrimination involves taking adverse action.

Mavdog, homosexuals are the ones defining themselves by their sexual attractions. They place themselves in a "big catchall basket" when they do that.

Keyes labels homosexuals as "hedonist" for the sole fact that they are sexually attracted to the same sex. That in itself doesn't denote an individual is "hedonist", as the pursuit of pleasure isn't necessarily their preoccupation in life. This is a negative word that connotes contempt and hence hate.

Wrong. Keyes is saying that sexual relationships are for two purposes: procreation and pleasure. If you can't procreate, well, you do the math...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
It's not discrimination because he's not DOING anything to homosexuals. Discrimination involves taking adverse action.

Mavdog, homosexuals are the ones defining themselves by their sexual attractions. They place themselves in a "big catchall basket" when they do that.

Are all heterosexuals the same? no...they are "defined by their sexual attractions" as well.

The adverse action is when he uses a perjorative phrase such as "a selfish hedonist".

Wrong. Keyes is saying that sexual relationships are for two purposes: procreation and pleasure. If you can't procreate, well, you do the math...

so a heterosexual who has had a vasectomy or hysterectomy respectfully and continue to have sex are "selfish hedonist" as well?

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't expect Keyes answer to be yes.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Are all heterosexuals the same? no...they are "defined by their sexual attractions" as well.

The adverse action is when he uses a perjorative phrase such as "a selfish hedonist".

so a heterosexual who has had a vasectomy or hysterectomy respectfully and continue to have sex are "selfish hedonist" as well?

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't expect Keyes answer to be yes.

Wow you sure read in a lot to Keyes quotes. Keyes was referring to selfish hedonist as the basis upon which same sex marriage would be founded.

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

It still looks to me like you don't tolerate well religious beliefs that aren't "politically correct" according to you.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Are all heterosexuals the same? no...they are "defined by their sexual attractions" as well.

No, they really aren't. You don't hear about heterosexual or 'straight' activists. You hear about homosexual or 'gay' activists. Heterosexuals may define themselves by political viewpoints (conservative, moderate, liberal), religious beliefs (Christian, Muslim), race (African-American, white, Hispanic), or any number of other factors. But homosexuals are the only ones who define themselves based upon their sexual attractions.

The adverse action is when he uses a perjorative phrase such as "a selfish hedonist".

Sorry, man, but that's just stupid. You don't discriminate against someone because you disapprove of their lifestyle. Again, discrimination involves taking action.

so a heterosexual who has had a vasectomy or hysterectomy respectfully and continue to have sex are "selfish hedonist" as well?

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't expect Keyes answer to be yes.

Now you're asking me to read Keyes' mind. Wait, you've already attempted to do that yourself.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

It still looks to me like you don't tolerate well religious beliefs that aren't "politically correct" according to you.

PC? no, I don't tolerate religious beliefs that degrade and insult people when they don't merit such.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

No, they really aren't. You don't hear about heterosexual or 'straight' activists. You hear about homosexual or 'gay' activists. Heterosexuals may define themselves by political viewpoints (conservative, moderate, liberal), religious beliefs (Christian, Muslim), race (African-American, white, Hispanic), or any number of other factors. But homosexuals are the only ones who define themselves based upon their sexual attractions.

Homosexuals do define themselves otherways than the fact they are homosexuals, it is in the area of equal rights in which they band together as a single issue group of homosexuals.

The adverse action is when he uses a perjorative phrase such as "a selfish hedonist".

Sorry, man, but that's just stupid. You don't discriminate against someone because you disapprove of their lifestyle. Again, discrimination involves taking action.[/quote]

His verbal denunciations aren't "taking action"? surely they are.

so a heterosexual who has had a vasectomy or hysterectomy respectfully and continue to have sex are "selfish hedonist" as well?

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't expect Keyes answer to be yes.

Now you're asking me to read Keyes' mind. Wait, you've already attempted to do that yourself.[/quote]

I only am reading his comments. You wished to place an explanation of Keyes' remarks in the context that any sex out of the goal of procreation is "hedonist". I merely asked if that would be applicable to heterosexuals as well. The assumption is that Keyes would not make the same statement about heterosexuals, hence showing that he is truly bigoted against homosexuals.

[kg_veteran]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

PC? no, I don't tolerate religious beliefs that degrade and insult people when they don't merit such.

In other words, you only tolerate beliefs that you find tolerable, right?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
In other words, you only tolerate beliefs that you find tolerable, right?

so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Homosexuals do define themselves otherways than the fact they are homosexuals, it is in the area of equal rights in which they band together as a single issue group of homosexuals.

Sure, they define themselves other ways, but you're not listening. You will never hear Alan Keyes referred to as the heterosexual conservative Republican Senatorial candidate. He's just a conservative Republican. You will never hear Joe Lieberman referred to as a moderate heterosexual Democrat.

His verbal denunciations aren't "taking action"? surely they are.

No, they aren't. I take action (discriminate), for example, when I deny someone a job because of their race. Saying that he doesn't approve of their lifestyle (which is basically all that Keyes did, albeit in an inartful manner) is NOT abridging any alleged rights of homosexuals.

I only am reading his comments. You wished to place an explanation of Keyes' remarks in the context that any sex out of the goal of procreation is "hedonist". I merely asked if that would be applicable to heterosexuals as well. The assumption is that Keyes would not make the same statement about heterosexuals, hence showing that he is truly bigoted against homosexuals.

See, you chose the word 'bigot'. I gave you context because I think it's pretty obvious what Keyes meant, even if he didn't say it well. But Keyes isn't a bigot just because he doesn't approve of homosexual marriage. He just has a different viewpoint than you do. A viewpoint which John Kerry and John Edwards share. I don't hear you calling them bigots.

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

PC? no, I don't tolerate religious beliefs that degrade and insult people when they don't merit such.

So you don't tolerate religious beliefs that you don't agree with, got you. So in your words, it's OK to discriminate and be intolerant of religious beliefs.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

No, I advocate the right of Alan Keyes to have his own viewpoint and beliefs on gay marriage, and on homosexuality in general. I don't concede, at all, that Alan Keyes hates gays, has discriminated against gays, or has committed any 'actions of hate'.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Mavdog

So you don't tolerate religious beliefs that you don't agree with, got you. So in your words, it's OK to discriminate and be intolerant of religious beliefs.

You "got" nothing.

Do you tolerate "religious beliefs" that advocate discrimination? Do you wish to tolerate "religious beliefs" that are expressions of hate?

[Lvubun1]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
From the Drudge Report, here's a more complete quote from Keyes:

Keyes wasn't very savvy to make this type of comment if he's actually trying to WIN the Illinois Senatorial race (something I really wonder about), but viewing his quote in context, you at least understand his rationale.

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"?

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.

[Sinn Fein]

Alan Keyes is a nut. He is sooo conservative religously, its his right but not many will agree with him. He's not much of a politician either, though I don't think he's that much worse then the intelligent, but very overatted imo, Osama.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

KGs question is answerable with 'yes' or 'no'.

I think Keyes would say that heterosexuals who are having sex for pleasure are selfish hedonists. He's nothing if not a stickler for his own definitions.

I also think he's being discriminatory when he advocates a ban on gay marriage.
He is being discriminatory in the sense of treating people different according to class.
He is not being discriminatory in his "hedonist" statement (along the lines of sexual preference) because he's said nothing about heterosexuals. If there's anything discriminatory in that statement, it's along the lines of motivations for sex.

He is not being discriminatory in the sense of treating people differently in an unfair manner according to class.
It's discriminatory (in this sense) not to hire someone according to race because it can be (reasonably) proven that race would have nothing to do with performance.
No one can prove that Keyes is wrong, either in his "selfish hedonist" statement, or in his stance on homosexual marriage.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

so you advocate tolerating actions of hate? you would tolerate discrimination against people?

You yourself said that you would call people "selfish hedonists". Since this term is your only basis for concluding that Keyes hates and discriminates, we must conclude that you would not only tolerate actions of hate and discrimination, but that (just like Keyes) you would by use of the term be a proponent of hate and discrimination.

Since you would also promote views of hate and discrimination (by terms you describe as applicaple according to your humble opinion), you can only be in disagreement with Keyes about the source of his opinion - what you assume are religious views.

You are intolerable of Keyes' opinion not because of the hate and discrimination that you assume are there (you also must espouse such views), but because of what you assume is his religion.

edit for conclusion:
if Keyes is a sexual bigot, then you, Mavdog are a religious bigot.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

You "got" nothing.

Do you tolerate "religious beliefs" that advocate discrimination? Do you wish to tolerate "religious beliefs" that are expressions of hate?

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.

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.

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Lvubun1

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
From the Drudge Report, here's a more complete quote from Keyes:

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"?

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.

Keyes never said that they were going to hell. Not all sinners go to hell or no one would ever go to heaven. Sounds like you might have a little hateraid in you though. I guess you hate all religions that say any one will go to hell or it's equivalent. Nice to know that you hate someone simply for having a belief different from you.