QandO

idiot, no. asshole is the correct word.

Posted by: Mr. K at September 1, 2004 05:33 PM

Or perhaps both. But suffice it to say, politically, he's an idiot.

Posted by: McQ at September 1, 2004 05:41 PM

Don't worry: as an Illinois resident, I have been watching it closely. Obama will defninitely kick Keyes' butt. The Illinois Republican party long ago collapsed amid corruption of New Jersey proportions.

If they had managed to convince Mike Ditka to run, I would have voted for him. When asked by reporters what he thought of the Illinois Republicans, he replied, "They're pathetic. Why else do you think they're asking ME to run?" Could you imagine 6 years of those quotables? Priceless...

Posted by: pdq332 at September 1, 2004 05:45 PM

I am also an Illionois resident. I am amazed that Keyes seems to think that the most important issues are abortion and homosexuality. And on the other side we have the socialists/democrats. It is truly a pre 9/11 world here.

Posted by: Frank Castle at September 1, 2004 06:00 PM

I disagree. I think Obama would be far, far worse than Alan Keyes. However, I have been quite disappointed with Mr. Keyes with the attack on Cheney's daughter. It was divisive and tasteless.

Posted by: DeoDuce at September 1, 2004 08:03 PM

It is incumbent upon IL residents to vote against Keyes, who deserves to have his ass handed to him on a dish and for his political career to come to a very ignominious end. The guy is a total crackpot.

Hell, as a Republican, I'd vote against Keyes if I lived out there, just to punish him for screwing us so badly. The IL Republican party has a long uphill climb back to respectability ahead.

Posted by: Alex Nunez at September 1, 2004 08:07 PM

As a more-or-less sane resident of Illinois, I am voting for neither. Keyes almost had me and my vote - until he opened his mouth.

I vote for a move in residence.

Posted by: Deb at September 1, 2004 08:58 PM

I think Keyes very intelligent. I applaud Keyes for saying what he believes. I applaud Keyes for calling homosexuallity exactly what it is. So, apparently by most here Keyes cannot have an opinion against homosexuallity and express it publically. What kind of stupidity is that? I would vote for Keyes in a heartbeat

Posted by: gu at September 1, 2004 10:18 PM

Being called a hedonist is an insult? Wow, tell Hollywood, bar the door Katy...

Posted by: andy at September 1, 2004 10:29 PM

Keyes has every right in the world to have an opinion as do I. In my opinion, based on what Keyes said, he's an idiot.

Posted by: McQ at September 1, 2004 10:32 PM

I disagree with Keyes but you have to agree it was a catch 22 that he put himself into. If the interview ended with Keyes stating that homosexuality was "selfish hedonism" there would not have been any significant controversy. That the next question forced him to either be consistent with what he just said seconds prior or to retract , parse , admit mistake or waffle, was the trap that he was not able to extricate himself.

Posted by: Dman at September 1, 2004 10:34 PM

Being called a hedonist is an insult? Wow, tell Hollywood, bar the door Katy.

Oh please, its a roundabout or euphemistic way of saying "she chose the lifestyle".

I'm still trying to remember that time I made the choice to be straight. Maybe you can remember when you did?

Posted by: McQ at September 1, 2004 10:35 PM

I was really expecting one of the Cheney's to say SOMETHING to defend their daughter about this. It sort of seemed like a setup to further crack open a door that Cheney peaked through with comments about relationships and freedom last week. Open Republican acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans may be the final nail in the Democrats' coffin.

Of course, no one save the most hardcore news-hounds had any idea Keyes said that, let alone who Alan Keyes is.

Keyes is so 15 years ago.

Posted by: Joe Maller at September 2, 2004 01:32 AM

In fairness, how could he exclude Cheney's daughter from the statement, with any degree of intelectual honesty? Give him credit in this at least.

Posted by: Bithead at September 2, 2004 09:56 AM

"Oh please, its a roundabout or euphemistic way of saying "she chose the lifestyle".
Just like that resort in the carribean right?

A non-procreating lifestyle is genetic? Explain please.

Posted by: andy at September 2, 2004 10:45 PM

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

When did you choose to be straight?

Posted by: McQ at September 2, 2004 10:50 PM

"When did you choose to be straight?"

I didn't, my parents did it for me, just like you and everyone else.

You can explain now. Is it a genetic flaw? I'm very confused.

Posted by: andy at September 3, 2004 10:27 AM

No kidding. I guess that puts all the orphans out there in terrible jeopardy, doesn't it?

I can tell you're confused. Uh, no its not a "genetic flaw", but it appears to be a matter of predisposition which may have genetic links.

But I'm fascinated ... so what you're saying is your parents made a conscious choice to make you straight and then convinced you to be straight? And you agreed to do that ... you know, give up all those thoughts you had about boys?

How'd you ever do that?

Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 10:37 AM

Not what I'm saying at all. Try this...

Isn't homosexuality heritable?
Yes, significantly.

So it is inherited?
No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.

But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"? Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!

So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?
No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do-a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.

But doesn't homosexuality run in families?
Yes.

So you get it from your parents, right?
You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.

But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is the associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.

So what are these traits?
An important question, indeed. Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed- encouraged-to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments- family or societal-foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit most from that kind of research?

Well, what traits do you guess are "associated," as you put it, with homosexuality?
May I speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific hypotheses are first generated. The important thing is not to avoid ideas that prove wrong, just not to cling to them if they do.

Okay, go ahead, speculate.
Intelligence, anxiety, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, taste. You know, all the stereotypes.

But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited? We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes a thug

From a dialog with Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.

Posted by: andy at September 3, 2004 10:14 PM

Andy, you applied a false dichotomy earlier when, in response to someone suggesting that a homosexual orientation was not chosen, you remarked on the absurdity of it being genetic.

Non-chosen doesn't imply genetic. The causes aren't known, though there's strong evidence (e.g. Bailey's twin studies over the years) that there's SOME degree of heritability, though even 100% heritability of this orientation wouldn't by any means imply that one can't have moral objections to homosexual acts.
LeVay's INAH-3 studies MIGHT, in fact be a result of behavior, though this seems unlikely. The size of this nucleus in gay men is intermediate between that of straight men and women, unless you think that difference is also due to behavior, which is unlikely for reasons I won't address now. It's still possible that it's an effect rather than a cause (or effect sharing a common cause) of the difference between gay and straight men, but this doesn't seem a likely conclusion.

Finally, it should be obvious to anyone with more than a pulse that sexual attractions are not chosen. It should be equally obvious that sexual actions are, thus leaving homosexual behavior open to moral interpretation (though I couldn't bring myself to respect the vast majority of moral systems that exist (i.e. most religious ones) as anything more than dipshittery).
My main objection is that while the trait's not chosen, this implies little to nothing about the genetics.

It's pretty established that there's SOME degree of heritability, and it seems obvious to me (having lots of experience with homosexuals) that there's a biological component. HOW genes that increase the likelihood of homosexual attraction have survived n the gene pool (and moreover seem to appear ubiquitously throughout all human populations) is a mystery to me. There are lots of hypotheses and theories, none of which seem satisfactory to me.

Posted by: Escuerdo at October 15, 2004 03:16 AM