Q and A with Keyes on gay comment 'controversy'

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes caused a storm of controversy at his party’s national convention in New York Wednesday by reiterating comments that Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary engages in selfish hedonism if she’s a practicing lesbian. The following is a transcript of Keyes fielding questions from Illinois reporters Wednesday morning:

A. “The question that was asked of me was my position on gay marriage. I think the challenge is not the challenge of homosexuality, but the challenge of maintaining a proper understanding of marriage. The heart of marriage is the commitment to procreation and child-rearing. If we accept the idea that it is possible for two people who are (words unclear) cannot procreate to marry, then we have removed procreation from the essential meaning of marriage. That of course would destroy the underlying moral culture that is required to sustain the family. And in order to understand that, you then have to look at the nature of that homosexual relationship. And it’s just objectively the case, that in a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means that it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. The word ‘pleasure’ in Greek is ‘hedonay.’ And we get the word hedonism from that word. So if you say that homosexuality is predicated on selfish hedonism, you mean of course that it is the pursuit of pleasure through the use of the organs intended for procreation in order to satisfy selfish and self-centered purposes. That, by the way, is an objective fact. I was then asked by a reporter in a polemical way, and here’s what I was talking about yesterday, it’s perfectly easy to understand what I just said and it answers the question about my position on gay marriage. Then as a warrior for the other side, I was asked the question as well, does this mean you’re saying that the Cheney’s daughter, who is lesbian, is a selfish hedonist. And I said that I had clearly stated my views, and that the objective facts could lead to a conclusion. And that means as insofar as individuals are in fact engaging in homosexual relations and they correspond to the archetype of homosexuality, then we should look it right in the eye to give self-centered, selfish, self-oriented pursuit of pleasure, and that is different. The heterosexual relationship, and this is acknowledged in the homosexual literature and everything else, the heterosexual relationship is haunted by the possibility of the child and that possibility means what? That possibility means that you have to commit yourself somewhere in your head to the possibility of a lifelong commitment that involves not only selfish pleasure but sometimes sacrifice and burdensome grief. These are the things that we must discuss if we are to have a rational discussion of how we preserve the institution of marriage. Trying to turn this issue into an issue of personality, is again as I have often said about the media, an effort to engage in polemics.”

Note: (Keyes moves to another room to allow people to exit the delegation breakfast and resumes speaking.)

A. “I think that the great error here would be to try to turn this into a question of personalities. But as I said to someone the other day, if my own daughter were a homosexual or a lesbian, I would love my daughter but I would tell my daughter that she was in sin, OK? And I would love her and pray for her and try to open her heart to the truth of God’s intention for her life. And that’s what I would do.”

Q. Many Republican leaders here today said that they think you need to stop talking about divisive social issues and start talking about real issues like jobs and the economy and health care. (Adds another reporter) Judy Baar Topinka called that statement about hedonism “idiotic.”

A. “And I am sad, and I think one of the reasons that perhaps we are facing a situation in Illinois where the key elements of the Republican Party’s platform are not properly understood is that there has not been before a leader and a leadership willing to stand before the people and in a common-sense way talk about these issues. The people of Missouri just rejected gay marriage by an overwhelming majority. And we all know, don’t we, that that has happened in every state where the issue has been put to the people. Why is this common sense judgment of the American people well-founded? It is well-founded because of the very arguments I have just made. We cannot as a society embrace an understanding of marriage that misleads people into believing that it is about selfish pleasures people, when marriage is in fact about the commitment...”

A. “You know what I find interesting? I’m making a statement, I’m getting to the main point of the statement, and someone tries to walk over that main point to make sure the public doesn’t hear it. That is a tactic that is worthy of polemics. It’s not worthy of the media. I am not going anywhere. I will give you plenty of time to ask your questions but you should give me the courtesy of letting me finish my answer. I will offer a common sense understanding of what justifies the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people in America. And that opinion is we should not embrace the idea of gay marriage because it is inconsistent with the culture of self-sacrifice and the responsibility to the future, not to ourselves, that is at the end of the day at the heart of married life. I think people make sense about that. I think the people in Missouri are right. I think the overwhelming majority of people in Illinois are right. I think that a minority of judges and others trying dictatorially to impose their view on our society are wrong and I will lend all of my intelligence and ability to justify the common sense of the people.”

Q. You made the argument persuasively about gay marriage and the institutional problems that are going on. Why get into sexual organs and pleasure and that, you get into an inflammatory area where on the day Cheney is being renominated, you’re essentially trashing his daughter?

A. “That’s not true. You are again doing what I think media people like to do. Pretending you didn’t create the situation. You have intervened in order to try to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize. The people asking me the question did so, and if that’s inappropriate, blame the media, don’t blame me. I think that’s clearly what happened in this case. Second, you cannot understand this issue if you are not able to look at and discuss the nature of the homosexual relationship. To pretend that we’re supposed to talk about this and not talk about the nature of that relationship is again an effort to prejudice the discussion in order to make people feel ashamed of their common sense. And I won’t cooperate.”

Q. If your position is consistent then, heterosexual couples who don’t want to procreate and just do have intercourse for pleasure but use birth control to prevent pregnancy, are they being selfish also?

A. “The interesting thing is that I phrase my statement quite carefully. When I said that you cannot include in the definition of marriage those who in principle cannot procreate, the ‘in principle’ is very important because it means that try as you might, we cannot imagine that Jack and Jim are going to procreate, that Mary and Jill are going to procreate. That means that the two of them cannot become one flesh in a new person. OK? And that being the case, you cannot change in principle the understanding of marriage. The incidental fact that some people who are heterosexuals do not wish to procreate, that others, through incidental fact of others through their own health, might not be able to procreate, this does not change what in principle marriage is about. But if you admit those who can’t in principle not procreate, then you have changed the understanding of marriage in principle. The common sense of our people knows this. In other words, people respond to this question in a common sense way and they know what they believe, but I can provide them with a reasonable and rational justification for what they believe.”

Q. The original question that I asked earlier was do you believe Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist?

A. “In order for me to answer that question, I would have to know with personal certainty what is going on in the private life of the Cheney’s daughter. Because I have said that homosexual relationships involve, and I think it’s quite clear logically, self-oriented, self-oriented, selfish pursuit of pleasure, that is hedonism, through the use of organs intended for procreation. Do I know whether or not the daughter of the Cheneys is engaging in such acts? It is not for me to know. Do I look to somebody like God that I can look into people’s lives and their hearts? I don’t know. I only know the arguments I have made. That is why it is reasonable when you try to personalize it for me to say, I have made the argument, it is for others to draw the conclusion in any particular case because I don’t have the particular knowledge.”

A. “I said insofar as she is a practicing homosexual, if that is what she is, then of course. It involves the principle of homosexuality.”

Q. Dr. Keyes, a slightly different question. If a woman over the age of 50, past menopause, is incapable of having children, wants to get married for the first time, is it moral and is it legal for her to do so?

A. “The thing that I find interesting, is that in a courtroom, my attorney would look at you and say, asked and answered. The question has been asked, and in that description I gave to you I answered that question. You are asking me to repeat what you should already understand. Because the whole discussion I just gave in the difference between changing the definition of marriage in principle and not changing it in principle answers that question.”

Q. You criticized the vice president’s daughter in public. I’m wondering how you’d feel if someone said such things about your daughter?

A. “I have just explained what I would say to my daughter. If my daughter is committing a sin, and someone else looks at her and says that is a sin, I’m not going to argue with them, because the objective facts, if they bear that out, are the objective facts. It’s like saying, well, if my daughter were to, I don’t know, lie to somebody would I feel badly if somebody pointed it out? If my daughter were to, I don’t know, steal from the corner drugstore, would I feel badly if someone pointed it out?”

A. “No, no no, ma’am, you asked me a question about my views and I am stating an answer. Because I will state it frankly: I believe, and it is a requirement and fact of my faith that I believe, that homosexuality, the actions involved in it, are sinful actions. And for anybody to insist that I take some other view is to try to dictate my religious conscience, to tyrannically establish in this society a dictatorship of one view with respect to religious matters, and that is an issue over which, if I may say so, I will fight you as everyone has had to fight anyone who wishes to establish such a dictatorship in America. I know in Canada they’re doing this now. They’re passing laws forbidding people to say certain things about homosexuality, even from the pulpit. But we’re not going to tolerate that in America. Those of us of Christian faith and belief and those of us of other religious beliefs that do not accept the notion that homosexuality is acceptable will not be subject to this hearing.”

Q. There is not a lot of talk at the convention about gay marriage, although it’s been an important issue. Do you think that this is the type of topic that should be addressed by the convention speakers?

A: “The party has spent a good deal of time and effort and gathered people from all over the country at the grassroots to write a platform that reflects the mainstream view of the Republican Party. And in that platform, the view that I have just stated about gay marriage is the platform view. Now I realize that there may be some on the other side, maybe even some in the press who will blame me because I will make an objective and persuasive argument because I make a persuasive argument in support of the Republican platform. But that’s my job and I intend to do that job well.”

I think we need to review the rules of engagement:

The questioner is responsible for the content of the question; and

The candidate is responsible for the content of his answer.

If my daughter were to, I don’t know, steal from the corner drugstore, would I feel badly if someone pointed it out?”

Q. So you’re comparing homosexuality to lying and stealing?

Do you have to be stoopid to be a reporter, or does being a reporter make you stoopid?

I agree with Dr. Keyes on a lot of issues, but this isn't one of them. First of all, politically speaking, he just killed himself with the "selfish hedonist" comment. His campaign is over. That doesn't mean I don't still like and agree with him. That is the reality of the situation though.

I don't think homosexual marriage is right either. I think it cheapens the institution of marriage. Just as if we started calling everyone who did a good deed a "hero", it would start to cheapen that word's meaning, if we allow the homos to get married, then why not people who practice beastiality? Inscest? etc? THAT is why I'm opposed to homosexual marriage.

Not because of the reason Dr. Keyes explains, and indeed, is the reason many use. Marriage is not simply an act to procreate and raise children. That's not even a good reason TO get married. You get married because you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Part of that expression of love is the act of sexual intercourse. Since I don't believe that God approves of sex between same sex people, I can't approve of homosexual marraige. It's just that simple.

I don't think Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist"; that is, I don't think she's any worse in her sin than I am, in the eyes of God. The difference is though, I don't condone my sin, and celebrate it.

Further rules of engagement:

There are three standards by which the content of an answer will be judged:

1. The validity of the argument

2. The accuracy of the premises

3. The effectiveness of the answer on the audience.

1 and 2 are covered well. 3 was not.

Thank you Dr. Keyes. Never let up no matter how they try to spin it.

I don't know. Keyes can spin pretty good himself. I was amazed at how he spun his entry into the Illinois senatorial race, given his earlier condemnation of Hillary for doing exactly the same thing. Then of course, there's his complete turnaround on the Department of Agriculture, his pained explanation of why reparations were a good thing, and his less than credible acceptance of affirmative action, while distancing himself from quotas or diversity goals.

Dr. Keyes may still be a conservative, but he certainly is a politician.

You get married because you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your life with them.

If that is the reason, then the institution is wholly superfluous. It isn't necessary to be married to accomplish these things, and it is not clear that society benefits from it. What say you?

"The heart of marriage is the commitment to procreation and child-rearing. If we accept the idea that it is possible for two people who are (words unclear) cannot procreate to marry, then we have removed procreation from the essential meaning of marriage. That of course would destroy the underlying moral culture that is required to sustain the family."

I know of at least 3 heterosexual couples that have been married for over 20 years, and they never intended to have children (and haven't). Am I to now consider them hedonists and a threat to marriage?

Just where I bet he was coming from. He says "A is B." Reporter says, "Mary Cheney is A. Does that mean she's B?" He answers, "If she's A then yes, of course, that makes her B." Media goes off.

I am seeing this more and more as the media's clue. They can't handle a point, so they deflect it to a form they find easier to reject, and easier to get people to reject. Like Chris Matthews focusing solely on, "Do you really think John Kerry would arm soldiers with spit wads?"

I really loathe the msm.

What's disheartening is to find FReepers who should know better playing right along. "Oh, that Keyes! I can't back him anymore! Leave Mary Cheney alone!"

Suckers.

Dan

I agree with your list.

Notice how he handled the question differently in this interview by refusing to judge Cheney's daughter.

As to your third standard ("The effectiveness of the answer"), it's important to remember that effectiveness can only be measured in relationship to purpose.

If the purpose of Keyes's earlier attempt to humiliate Cheney's daughter was merely to educate people about his views on homosexuality, then his personalizing the issue was ineffective because it was distracting. However, if the purpose of Keyes's earlier attempt to humiliate Cheney's daughter was actually to place himself at the center of a news event, then his personalizing the issue was very effective.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.