First published on September 8, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.
For gays and lesbians there was little to watch for during the Republican National Convention, except perhaps the presence or absence of Mary Cheney, whose visibility was as varied as a troublesome member of the Politburo in old Kremlin photographs. But as a sideshow, Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes, who was not a delegate and spent most of his time promoting himself to the media, almost made the whole thing worthwhile.
Interviewed by Sirius Satellite Radio host Mike Signorile, Keyes delivered the following: "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."
When Signorile asked, "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?" Keyes, who never misses an opportunity to avoid being gracious, replied, "Of course she is. That goes by definition."
The next day, Keyes expatiated for the Chicago Sun-Times, "In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure."
Although Illinois Republicans professed themselves shocked and offended by Keyes' comments, Keyes is simply stating good Catholic doctrine. In the eccentric Catholic version of "natural law" genitals are "intended" for procreation. People may enjoy the pleasures of sex only if sex runs the risk of creating a fetus. Any other use of the genitals, as with homosexual sex, constitutes misuse.
This is the same argument the Vatican uses against masturbation and artificial birth control: They allow pleasure while avoiding the risk of creating a fetus, so they involve a misuse of genitals. Of course, Catholic natural law also ought to disapprove of sex by women after menopause or a hysterectomy, but it wimps out and says, "Well, it is sex of an essentially procreative type even though it cannot procreate, so it is allowable." They try to say this with a straight face.
As for Keyes' "organs intended for procreation," he seems ignorant of female anatomy. Someone should explain to him and the boys at the Vatican that the primary source of sexual pleasure for women is the clitoris, which is not involved in reproduction. So women engaging in homosexual sex are not using, much less misusing, organs of procreation. Perhaps a human anatomy text would help.
But "natural law" is pretty much discredited nowadays. To say genitals were "intended" for procreation ignores the fact that genitals, like the rest of our bodies, evolved as they did because they were more efficient means of reproduction than other means. Nothing about their development in the random mutation and natural selection process of evolution requires or implies any "intention" - or precludes their use for other purposes. The mouth evolved as an efficient way to eat, but people also use it to talk, sing, whistle and suck venom from snakebites. The Vatican has never really come to terms with evolution.
Recall too that in the Genesis story God first intended Adam to be alone in the Garden of Eden. So God must have originally intended Adam's penis for urinating since there was no other use for it. It was only later after God created Eve that God could have added using the penis for sex, although it does seem an odd choice. And since Adam and Eve were not told to have children until they were expelled from the Garden, God must not have initially intended Adam's penis for procreation even after creating Eve. Here as so often "natural law" conflicts with the Bible.
Consider finally Keyes' claim that a homosexual relationship involves nothing but the "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved" so it is a "self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship."
To most Americans, "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction" in a relationship probably sounds pretty good. Many heterosexual couples, even ones with lots of procreation, seem unable to achieve that, as witness the divorce rate.
And it seems particularly bizarre to call a relationship in which two men or women love, nurture and care for each other "self-centered" or "selfish." Keyes might try to say that of single people, but, if anything, loving and caring for another person should be viewed as benevolent, even "selfless." Did Keyes avert his eyes from gay men who cared for partners dying of AIDS? Or will he say anything at all no matter how mendacious?
Keyes reveals once again how religious conservatives reduce even the most deep and loving gay relationship to sex. They are absolutely obsessed with sex. And even though most of them would agree that sex can deepen and enrich their own loving relationships - how many engage in sex only to have more children? - they refuse to acknowledge that the same must be true for gays and lesbians. Because that would mean we are more like them than they want to admit.