Nemesis strikes carpetbagger Keyes

Why does a non issue like this bring you pleasure??

Would that people's sexual orientation were always a non-issue. However, given that Mr. Keyes has gone out of his way to MAKE it an issue, himself, the irony/karma is indeed rather thick.

Sorry to hear a family is broken apart over something like this. Lets hope they can come to some sort of reconciliation instead of using it to rub in each others faces and political differences.

When it's Alan Keyes's daughter, it's not a non-issue.

Why?

Because Keyes made homosexuality (in particular, homosexual marriage) an issue during his campaign for senate. At one memorable point, he stated in an interview:

KEYES: And they are adopting the paradigm of family life. But the essence of that family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable. SIGNORILE: So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it? KEYES: Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is.

Keyes, in other words, believes that homosexuality is an issue. Indeed, he believes that a politician's daughter's homosexuality is an issue. It is, then, an unfortunate consequence of that belief that his own daughter's homosexuality might become an issue too.

Joe, anyone who knows who Keyes is and has been alive and awake during all the caterwauling of the right about homosexuality knows why this story about Keyes and his poor daughter just

REEKS

with irony.

If they act like they don't understand, they are not being honest.

snood: I've often said that Americans, on average, are irony-impaired.

Pronouncing it a "non-issue" is rhetorical irony.

Americans take humor very seriously.

If an issue--such as the fact that gays exist and deserve equal treatment under the law--can be joked about in any way, this means the isssue is valid.

During the campaign Keyes ignored his daughter's needs and dreams. Now that the campaign is over, his daughter is asserting herself. I don't think she set out to damage daddy--I think daddy had plunked himself in her way.

I'm curious as to how he ignored her needs and dreams. Did he do this simply by having a set of values that differs from hers and being willing to speak out about what he believes is right or wrong? Is that all it takes to claim that a parent is ignoring her "needs and dreams"?

How would you characterize putting her out of the house and refusing to finance her education?

I would call that telling a grown child that they are on their own due to the choices they have made. Or do you think parents have an obligation to support their grown children? Personally, if a grown child of mine (over 18) chooses to live in my home, then they also have to live by my rules. Maybe she was not willing to do so. I don't know.

But he did not destroy her dreams. Lot's of people in this world make a success of themselves without mommy and daddy's help. Is she saying she is incapable of doing so?

By his values, she is sub-human. Because of his political ambitions, she is inconvenient.

You're dancing around this like a rat on hot coals. Theyn didn't kick her out and stop paying her way because she was 18, or to teach her responsibility, or any of that hooey you just spouted. They did it because she's gay, and they're small, small people.

I guess we will have to disagree. I don't think I am dancing around anything. I never said they kicked her out because she was 18. If that is what you got out of my post, then maybe I did not communicate my thoughts as well as I would have liked.

Yes, they kicked her out because she's gay. I agree that is the reason. They have an adult daughter who was living with them and enjoying the benefits of living with them. She chose (sorry, I don't mean to argue this point, it is my belief that it is a choice, so let's not go down that road on this thread) a lifestyle that morally they disagree with. So they made her take her lifestyle out of their home. I see nothing wrong with that. She was of legal age and they had every right to kick her out for whatever reason.

My sister lived in another state several years ago. Now, I love my sister very much. She was coming into town for a week and wanted to stay with me. She was bringing her boyfriend with her. My home was open to her to stay with me if she wanted. But she would be subject to my rules. I don't believe in sex outside of marriage, thus her boyfriend and her would have to sleep seperately while under my roof. My house, my rules. She could choose to stay with me or not. She chose not to because of that. Her lifestyle was not one I could morally support. Did I love her any less? Nope. But I would not support an immoral lifestyle. The same will go for my children. My oldest is now 18. I no longer have an obligation to support him. I love him dearly and will support him no matter what he does. But he knows what is and is not allowed under my roof. His right to do what he wants, when he wants begins when he steps outside my front door. I don't see this as being harsh.

This young lady's dreams were not destroyed by her parents kicking her out. She is free to follow her dreams all she wants to. She will just be forced to do so without sponging off mom and dad. They made the decision that her immoral (in their opinion) lifestyle would not be tolerated in their house. She was an adult so what is the problem?

There's no problem; but that doesn't mean Keyes and his wife aren't giant pricks.

Cycloptichorn

That may well be Cy. But I would not agree that it is for this reason. By what right should they be required to support an adult child in any way when said child has chosen to lead what they consider an immoral life? Why does choosing not to support her for this reason make them "giant pricks" in your book? Would you say the same if they kicked her out because they had found out she had killed someone? And before you go off complaining that the two scenarios are not comparable, keep in mind that in both cases they are both immoral acts in the eyes of her parents.

You and I may very well have done something differently. But you and I probably do not know the whole story either. But the bottom line is still simply that she had no right to EXPECT her parents to support her in any way once she became an adult. They had no obligation to do so. To me, it sounds as though she is nothing more than a spoiled brat who now is realizing that mommy and daddy are not going to support her regardless of the choices she makes. Too bad.

I think I will go cry for her now. I just can't help myself. Boo Hoo Hoo.

link


I feel sorry for that whole family.