Alan Keyes made a mistake trying to explain his views on homosexuality in the course of an interview. That's really quite impossible and it was foolish of him to try. Too many of the people who hear the interview don't have the background necessary to grasp what he is saying, and don't have the inclination to try to understand before condemning.
The caption of the article says that Keyes called Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist sinner". He didn't. He said that homosexuals are selfish hedonists. The word "sinner" occurs nowhere in the transcript. Nor should it have, because Keyes was not making a Christian argument against homosexuality, he was making an essentialist argument against it. It is a mistake to think that the only moral resistance to sexual libertinism is Christianity.
And it wasn't Keyes who brought Cheney's daughter into it, it was the interviewer. Keyes said that homosexuals are selfish hedonists and the interviewer saw a gotcha moment so he brought up Cheney's daughter. Democrats just love it when they discover Republican gays because they think the Republicans are in a war against the gays. They don't distinguish between disapproval and hatred.
This is quite explicit in their rhetoric. Anyone who disapproves of homosexuality in any way is accused of hatred. They assume that people who have friends and relatives that are gay can't disapprove of homosexuality without rejecting their friend or relative.
But this is silly. I disapprove of gluttony, smoking, alcoholism, divorce, and hedonism. I don't hate fat people, smokers, alcoholics, divorced people or hedonists. But some people seem not to understand moral judgment. When we say something is immoral, they have to translate mentally to something they understand --hatred and spite-- because they don't understand morality.
I suppose that overall, it's good that these people don't disapprove of homosexuality or they would be going around hating gays the way they do Republicans. Gay-bashing would be reality instead of rhetoric.
Here are some comments on the thread:
By his definition, a large majority of heterosexual married couples that engage in sex are hedonists. When a oouple uses birth contol before sex, they are not attempting to procreate, so therefore federal legislation should be introduced to outlaw such acts.It is reasonable to draw from his remarks the conclusion that using birth control is selfish hedonism, but since we only got the barest sketch of his argument from that interview you'd have to ask him for a response before drawing that conclusion. And even if it is true, this thing about federal legislation is just odd. Nowhere in his remarks did Alan Keyes suggest that we need laws against selfish hedonism.
The idea that the law should force people to "do the right thing" is mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle these days: seatbelts, helmets, baby seats, smoking, over-eating, handicap parking spaces, barely-tipsy driving, welfare, Medicaid. The only major exception is the war on drugs, which unfortunately has support on both sides. Republicans are far more often content to say that something is wrong, sinful, harmful --but we aren't going to force you to do the right thing.
So then, if homosexuals can't procreate, how would Mr. Keyes account for the fact that my partner is the father of four children? Mr. Keyes needs to go back to school and learn some facts. And perhaps he should take an IQ test while he's at it. Seems like a moron to me.Yes, Keys literally said "It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate". However, only a moron would fail to realize that he was referring to the homosexual act, not to the biological equipment of the homosexuals in question.
This creature Keyes is beneath contempt.Dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with you. It is because the left does this that they wrongly assume the right does it.
What strange logic (marriage only exists as an institution because you CAN procreate). Does that mean someone who is accepted to medical school can legally be called a doctor? Can we extend that to anyone intelligent that they might someday possibly become a doctor and it is just incidental that they haven't yet?Talk about strange logic. I don't even begin to see the analogy here...