Okay, so I'm a selfish hedonist for supporting Alan Keyes for U.S. Senate

Vanity | Sept 2, 2004 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Okay, so I'm a Selfish Hedonist for supporting Alan Keyes for U.S. Senate

Nothing (well almost nothing) would please me more than seeing Alan Keyes win a seat in the U.S. Senate!

Why?

• He's a God-fearing man
• He's an unabashed conservative
• He defends America and traditional American values
• He would be a pro-life vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-family vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-gun vote in the Senate (he's one of the few who is unafraid to express and stand for the true meaning and intent of the second amendment)
• He is a true advocate of the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence
• He would be a pro-tax cut vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-defense vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-sovereignty vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-limited government vote in the Senate
• He would be a pro-self-government vote in the Senate
• He would be a Senate vote opposing liberal activist judges
• He would be a vote in the Senate for an eventual repeal of the 16th amendment
• He would be a vote in the Senate for an eventual repeal of the 17th amendment
• He's a far, far better man than his opponent on every issue near and dear to my heart

And despite his remarks on reparations or affirmative action, I would be extremely happy and take great pleasure in seeing Alan Keyes defeat Barack Obama. I believe whole heartedly that unlike Obama, Senator Keyes would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America to the utmost of his ability and would dedicate himself to working with all of us in securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and if that makes me a selfish hedonist, then so be it.



I challenge anyone here to put up a detailed list of the reasons why you believe Barack Obama would be better for America in the Senate than Alan Keyes.

[BibChr]

Grammar aside, nopardons is simply dead wrong about lesbianism not being mentioned in the Bible.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
(Romans 1:26, 27)

Great big honking fact, fyi.

Dan

[unspun]

Well, I think this excellent article by Jill Stanek signals a dying horse of Alan Keyes "lashing out against" poor widdle Mary Cheney:
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=19266
I think over 200 showed up for the Naperville parade yesterday and it seemed to almost overwhelm some of the viewers.
Now, provided Dr. K. will be the better political angel of his nature, let's stay on our AK for Senate horse and ride hard, long and tall....

Here are more pictures of the well-fed FReepers at TRG's house, during last Saturday's picnic! Not a bad turnout, for one section of Illinois, during a travelin' weekend:
http://www.unspun.info/il/fr-picnic-1.jpg
http://www.unspun.info/il/fr-picnic-2.jpg

[TheRightGuy]

[chicagolady]

TRG, did you forget about the rest of the folks in the picture??

[TheRightGuy]

TRG, did you forget about the rest of the folks in the picture??

Thanks!! My engine is missing a bit, not hitting on all cylinders. My carbuerator won't carb, my generator won't gen, my battery won't bat, and the pistons don't work either.

[supercat]

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

If I remember the context, it sounds more like homosexuality there was a punishment rather than a sin itself.

In Old Testament times, I would expect that lesbianism--in at least some forms--would have been considered harmless provided that the women also made themselves available to their husbands. Indeed, if a man happened to have two wives, I can imagine he might appreciate one wife 'warming up' the other for him. By contrast, especially given the lack of modern hygene facilities, a man who engaged in sexual relations with other men and also had relations with women could cause what would then have been nasty infections. Although the nature of diseases has changed, the above biological distinction still largely applies.

As for the more general moral issues surrounding sexuality, I would suggest focusing on a few main points. When broken down to the essense, I think these points are hard to rebut; not all people will believe them, but I suspect most will.

1. The societal norm used to be that people would get married, form a household, and have children, in that order. Things didn't always work out perfectly, but the stability of families was far superior to what exists today.
2. Children develop best when raised by a married man and woman; the male and female roles in child rearing are different, and a child who does not have both a mother figure and a father figure will be at a disadvantage. To be sure, this isn't a perfect world and sometimes children can't be raised by a mother and father, but that does not imply that any child should be deliberately put into a situation which is inferior to other possibilities (blood counts for a lot, IMHO, so placement with a gay relative may be preferable to placement with a pair of married strangers, but that should not by any means be taken as a general endorsement of gay adoption)
3. If the net birth rate for any particular group averages less than one per person (two per couple), that group will be doomed to extinction unless trends change.

Not everyone should have children. Indeed, some important functions are probably best performed by childless people, and some people have good reasons for not having children. But deciding not to have children for selfish and hedonistic reasons is, well, selfish and hedonistic.

[k2blader]

Righty-o.

BIG honking fact.

[k2blader]

Great pics, unspun!

Thanks for sharing!

[PhatHead]

And despite his remarks on reparations...

Am I the only one who thought hius reparations proposal was brilliant? No taxes for descendants of slaves. Think about it for a minute.

• It's a tax cut. All tax cuts are good.
• People on welfare will get nothing.
• The more you work the more you benefit - a reward for hard work, achievement and entrepreneurialism.

Put it together, and what do you have? A proposal for reparations that liberals cannot support.

Brilliant.

[supercat]

Alan Keyes needs to learn a simple but important principle of campaigning: voters don't vote for candidates who make them uncomfortable.

This does not mean that a candidate should avoid any topic that might cause discomfort (though he should spread his efforts more widely among topics other than abortion, abortion, and abortion). When discussing topics that may cause discomfort, however, a candidate should try to give voters an "out".

For example, on the abortion issue, Keyes should make clear that it would be useless to condemn those who have had abortions in the past. Not that their past actions should be condoned, by any stretch, but because such condemnation serves no useful purpose. What needs to be confronted is the belief that wrongdoing can be justified by numbers--that if enough people do something wrong, it somehow becomes "less wrong". Attonement for past wrongdoing comes not from allowing (or even encouraging) others to follow in the same footsteps, but rather from ensuring that others do not repeat one's mistakes.

Another point I'd like to see raised is the middle class birth rate in the U.S. If something is not done to change current trends, the middle class will cease to exist within very few generations.

[BibChr]

Actually, the essence is that lesbianism is "against nature," and homosexuality is a "likewise." Both are immoral.

This answered the original inaccurate (to be kind) statement that the Bible said nothing about lesbianism. It does. Lesbianism, like homosexuality, is always immoral.

Dan

[supercat]

This answered the original inaccurate (to be kind) statement that the Bible said nothing about lesbianism. It does. Lesbianism, like homosexuality, is always immoral.

It is certainly unnatural for women to have relations with other women to the exclusion of men. The quoted text suggests that the people were largely exclusively homosexual.

It seems quite plausible that the difference in how the OT and NT treat lesbians is related to the fact that polygyny was acceptable in the OT but not the NT. After all, if polygyny is allowed, then two women can be joined together in a family unit (along with the common husband) and it would seem reasonable for them to share with each other what the husband would share with both.

Absent polygyny, however, this justification goes away. A man who is married to two women might reasonably share a bed with both, but if a man is married to one woman there's no basis for another woman to enter the marriage bed. When polygyny was legal, for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman would not have been considered adultery, but the definition of adultery was effectively extended when polygyny ended.

That female-female relations are effectively disallowed by New Testament constructs does not imply that they would always have been forbidden under the Old.

[BibChr]

No, all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Always has been.

Dan

[oldtimer]

Been there with you the whole time.

I like being on the same team with you.

Sent Keyes money and have been defending him...am a happy camper.

Thank you sir.

[supercat]

No, all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Always has been.

Yes, but when polygyny was allowed, female-female interactions would have been possible within the context of heterosexual marriage.

[BibChr]

Not in the Bible. Homosexuality, either sex, is mentioned only negatively, only as immoral.

What is your issue with this particular deceased equine?

Dan