Posted on 02/26/2005 1:27:31 PM PST by srm913
Republican disowns lesbian daughter
Gary Younge Saturday February 26, 2005
Guardian When the leading Republican and rightwing pundit Alan Keyes was asked what he thought of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the US vice-president, he called her "a selfish hedonist". If his own daughter came out as a lesbian, said Mr Keyes, he would say the same thing.
So when Mr Keyes' only daughter, Maya Marcel-Keyes, declared herself a "liberal queer" at a public rally he lived up to his word. Her parents turned her out of their house, broke off all communication and stopped paying her university tuition fees.
Ms Keyes told a rally supporting gay young people in Maryland: "We have to figure out what we can do to make sure that during those times when it seems like everything in the world is turning against them, like everyone in the world is rejecting them, that they know there are resources out there they can turn to; there are people out there who will say to them, 'I care'."
Ms Keyes joins a list of gay people with rightwing relatives, including Mary Cheney and Candace Gingrich, the sister of Republican congressman Newt Gingrich. But Mr Keyes, a darling of the religious right, has been more outspoken on the issue than most.
Ms Keyes says her parents were "not too pleased" when she came out. "Things just came to a head. Liberal queer plus conservative Republican just doesn't mesh well."
Her older brother has offered her somewhere to stay and she has been given a scholarship to continue at college.
"My daughter is an adult, and she is responsible for her own actions. What she chooses to do has nothing to do with my work or political activities," Mr Keyes said in a statement.
Ms Keyes says she loves her parents and "totally understands" their position.
Keyes is conservative and so is Dr. Laura and willyboyiswhere?
“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” And pointing toward his disciples he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life because of me will find it.
Read the Bible much?
If this is Keyes brand of Christianity, I don't want any part of it. What a disgraceful parent and role model.
That has got to be in the top 5 most asinine statements I've ever seen on FR.
Especially if you consider yourself a Christian, read up on what the Bible says about slander.
Know them by their fruits!
Christophobe? Heavens, no. But I do think that Christians and gays (and the two are not mutually exclusive either)
Homosexual Christians?!? Impossible, you're either one or the other, what about Christian prostitutes, Bank robbers? Murderers?
My friend you're sorely deceived! Moses, all the old testament prophets, John the Babtist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and everyone else right on down the line preached REPENTANCE!
Misdirection on your part. It's Alan Keyes who threw the baby out with the bathwater...HIS baby.
Baby?!? The young lady is an adult! Furthermore, she's a self professed "homosexual anarchist" with no respect for her Father (earthly or heavenly)
You've been deceived and indoctrinated with homosexual theology. You're ready to pounce on and upbraid any "true Christian" that stands for truth and upholds Gods immutable holy standards.
Homosexual Theologians teach that if the Levitical law against homosexuality still stands, then the dietary prohibitions on eating lobster, rare steak, rabbit, and so forth also still stands. Finally, they say, if the law against Homosexuality is reinstated, then the punishment of death by stoning is still valid.
Always look at the context of a verse in order to interpret it's meaning. In Leviticus 18, homosexuality is one of three sins mentioned, each given equal precedence as sinful. In order, God condemns child sacrifice (shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire), homosexuality (shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind), and bestiality (Neither shalt thou lie with any beast).
God then groups all three sins under the same warning: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. In other words, God said "I destroyed the other nations that used to be in this land because of these sins, and the same warning applies to you"!
IF we are to say that homosexuality was given equal billing with child sacrifice and bestiality, and IF we are to believe that homosexuality is now acceptable to God in this current age, then we must believe that child sacrifice and bestiality are also acceptable in our current age. You cannot have it both ways: either homosexuality, bestiality, and child sacrifice are forever sinful abominable acts in God's sight, or all three are acceptable "alternative lifestyles".
A conservative, common sense interpretation of Leviticus 18 demands that we understand that all three acts were and are sinful in God's sight, contrary to His Will for mankind.
Leviticus 20 is even more specific. The sins listed as forbidden are, in order, adultery (adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death), incest (man that lieth with his father's wife), non related incest (man lie with his daughter in law), homosexuality (man also lie with mankind), and intra-family fornication (man take a wife and her mother). All are given equal billing, all are equally evil in God's eyes. If homosexuality was only temporarily forbidden, then we can conclude that incest between parent and child is now acceptable. How foolish! None of these sins were temporarily forbidden, all were and are abominations in God's sight.
As to the Homosexual theologian charge that the dietary laws would have to be enforced if we enforce the Levitical code against homosexuality, this is mere smoke and mirrors.
First, the dietary laws are not even represented in these Bible texts. Second, the dietary laws were just that, dietary laws, they were not moral laws (which the above texts represent).
God Himself rescinded the dietary laws for the sake of the Gentiles (Acts 10.14-15). But He never rescinded the command against these sins, in particular, the sin of homosexuality.
Finally, the reason that homosexuality (like adultery and incest) is no longer a sin that you must be stoned for is that we live in the era of Grace. Christ paid the penalty for all sin on the Cross of Calvary, even the sin of the homosexual.
In this era we do not stone sinners, we preach the Gospel of Christ to them.("REPENT" "GO AND SIN NO MORE") The homosexual, like the adulterer, needs the salvation that Christ can bring. They do not need to be stoned, they need to be saved so that they can "go and sin no more".
You would disown a daughter who was gay? Now that's sad. And I'm shocked at you.
Oh, please. Did you even read the article? No one said anything about just funding a daughter's wayward ways. He has turned her out of the house and broken off all communication!
Exactly so, billbear, and well said.
Cutting off support is one thing. Cutting off all communication is quite another. Even for Keyes, this is shocking behavior.
My Mom still laughs about my reaction on being told a family member had come out: "This doesn't mean he's a Democrat, does it? No? Then no problem."
From your post: "Alan Keyes hasn't thrown away his daughter, but has stopped funding her education and housing."
Did you even read the article? It says he cut off all communication. It would be one thing if he stopped funding her education. But to cut off communication with a child because of she is gay is not Christian.
ROTFLOL!
I like your thinking!
Obviously, you couldn't read past the froth covering your monitor, and don't realize (or fail to acknowledge) that Keyes has never said his daughter should be locked up for being a lesbian.
If you listen to what some of these morons have to say you'd think that homosexuals are a threat to America on the level of the Islamo-Fascists and terrorists and should all be locked up as a threat t national security.
Well. That wasn't hysterical, then was it? You can't back that statement up without a considerable amount of spinning. I dare you to try.
I concur with Justice Scalia that while anti-sodomy laws may be, in this day and age, "uncommonly silly," the Constitution guarantees no "right to privacy" that would prevent consensual sexual activity from regulation if the populace desired such.
Evidence shows that in the 20th Century, Americans no longer felt this way, and the laws' lack of enforcement reflected that. While Georgia's anti-sodomy statute was upheld in 1986 's Bowers vs. Hardwick, by the time the homoactivists finally found a similar case to attempt to overturn Bowers (2003's Lawrence vs. Texas), Georgia's state legislature had already gotten rid of its own ban on gay sex. As Rick Santorum accurately predicted amid the howls of denial from the Gay-stapo, Lawrence was designed to advance the cause of same-sex marriage being recognized by the government. How was that accomplished? In part by abandoning the notion that the Supreme Court deals with the U.S. Constitution exclusively, and ought to consider other lands' opinion on it.
dwilli: I try to have an open mind.
FWIW, my mind is open as well. It's just not so wide open that my brains spill out of my skull.
I will hope that your post is an accurate reflection of how the Keyes actually feel about their daughter vs. the reporting in the news article at the top of this thread.
You may wish to read post #352 before you dare lecture me again.
From the transcript, the Keyes are still speaking with their daughter. It sounds like you think they are wrong to speak with her because she's gay.
Love your uncertainty principle -stick with Physics, your clairvoyant psychoanalytical abilities are severely lacking...
Liberal bias.
hmmm... Who is trying to change minds here????
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.