What a bunch of unadulterated HORSE$HIT. Talk about having trouble with logic, if you couldn't twist yours, you'd have nothing to argue about.
If I suspected my child of being a murderer, yet I got up and pointed my finger at your child and called them a murderer without bothering to mention that mine might be, I'd be a Class A hypocrite.
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective
He was not required to involve ANYBODY personally; all he had to do was say, "I'm not going to talk about specific people."
That would have been the gracious thing to do.
That would have been the decent thing to do.
That would have been the honest thing to do.
That would have been the Christian thing to do.
Why can't you just admit that the good and proper thing to do was to NOT take the bait and just not respond to that question?
But he didn't do that; he jumped on another man's daughter, while committing the sin of omission, to make cheap political points. Shameful.
BTW, Maya Keyes was dragging all over Illinois with her father when he well knew she was a lesbian. She was appearing IN PUBLIC; she was a public figure. Why didn't he mention it then?
And yet he ONLY threw her out when she appeared at an anti-ingurual rally. As long as he needed her to complete the perfect family man picture, it was fine that she "may" be a lesbian.
I'll give you this though: your rationalizion of Keyes' actions should scare the ever living hell out of Bill Clinton, et al.; you've managed to out do them in the parsing category.
You are either too dumb or you are simply being dishonest. Try it again, but be honest this time.
You said this about Maya Keyes: She was appearing IN PUBLIC; she was a public figure.
Because you are continuing to completely miss the point, I will try to help you again. The obvious meaning, (in context) of what I said was, Maya Keyes was not a PUBLIC HOMOSEXUAL. Mary Cheney was a PUBLIC HOMOSEXUAL which is why the REPORTER named her. Maya had not CHOSEN to come OUT the way that Mary Cheney had; got it?
Now since you are being purposefully obtuse, I will give you another chance to be honest.
When Maya decided to come out as a PUBLIC HOMOSEXUAL, making her no longer private homosexual, Alan kicked her out. He did not say, "Now that my daughter has decided that she is going to remain unrepentant and instead she has gone public with her sexual sin, I Alan Keyes now say that homosexuality is no longer SIN, but it is now good and acceptable."
If you paid attention you would know that his own daughter said that he called her sin the same thing as Mary Cheney's, that is called not being a hypocrite. He applies his definition consistantly, not hypocritically. If they are public, he is free to be public. If they are private, he is under no obligation to make them public.
I know you can understand the difference, I made it real, real simple for you. But you will once again pretend you do not see the difference and you will once again harden your heart to the truth of the matter and spew some more mindless emotion.
Just like Bill Clinton, you will continue to deny the truth or feign ignorance and blame someone else for your inability to speak truthfully.
Howlin, did you read the posts that contain the quotes from Maya Keyes? She answered your main objections - approximately post number 435.
Until Maya "came out," she believes that her parents didn't believe that she is gay. So, the response to the reporter about Mary Cheney happened months before she acted in such a way as to make them believe her.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Ambassador was surprised and spoke more harshly after the question than he would have if he had it to do again. I hope that Ambassador Keyes has time to consult with PC script writers the next time he is blindsided by a reporter.
You actually said:
If I suspected my child of being a murderer, yet I got up and pointed my finger at your child and called them a murderer without bothering to mention that mine might be...
Please take a beginner's class in reasoning or logic.
If you were asked if a confessed murderer is a murder, there is nothing wrong with saying yes.
If you suspect your child of MURDER, which is a prosecutable CRIME, that is not in the same category of homosexuality, which is no longer a crime, by judicial decision in most states.
You once again freely mixed apples and oranges.
If your child is a murderer (or you have a compelling reason to believe they are), you are obligated by law to report this to the authorities. Even if you did not report them, you could still say that murder is wrong.
You could not say that someone else is a lawbreaker, guilty of harboring a fugitive, and you are not, if you were both guilty of harboring a fugitive. That would be hypocritical.
No one is under obligation to OUT their son or daughter of a sexual sin, especially when they might still repent and choose to keep it private.
Nice try, but your logic problem failed you again.