Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
Mike Signorile, who says in his bio he co founded a now-defunct New York City magazine for lesbian and homosexuals, is known for what we might call harassing politicians about sex. He prowled the halls of the 1996 Republican Convention in San Diego, which I attended, pouncing on unsuspecting delegates about sex. It appears that at the Republican Convention in New York, he finally pounced on someone who pounced back when he went after Alan Keyes, Illinois Republican candidate for the US Senate.
Signorile's first sentence was: "I am speaking with Alan Keyes — and you've come to the Republican convention to support President Bush, I presume?"
Alan Keyes responded: "Certainly. I think that President Bush needs to be reelected for the sake of this country's security. He has provided the kind of leadership that we're going to have to have if we're going to confront and defeat the challenge of terrorism that has already claimed so many American lives."
Signorile's second sentence was: "What did you think of Vice President Cheney last week coming out and saying he doesn't agree with the President on the Federal Marriage Amendment? Seems to be a break with the party. Do you think he is sending a mixed signal?"
Alan Keyes, amiably replied: "I don't know. I think he is entitled to his personal convictions, but I think that the party's position is the correct one. We have to stand in defense of the traditional marriage institution in order to preserve its basis in procreation and make sure that we retain an understanding of family life that is rooted in the tradition of procreation, of childbearing and childrearing. That is the essence of family life."
And then Signorile attacked with: "Now, Vice President Cheney, of course, has a daughter. She is gay. He used the word gay. He says he has a gay daughter. He seems very proud of his gay daughter. It seems like real family values and certainly seems like preserving the American family. Is his family un-American?"
That wasn't a very smart move on Signorile's part. The next part of the interview went as follows:
Mike Signorile: "Well, one can wish that Bob and Liddy Dole would have a child, but that's just impossible. Pigs can't fly.
Alan Keyes: No, I'm sorry, that is incidental. In point of fact, Bob and Liddy Dole can have children. They incidentally face problems that prevent them from doing so. In principle . . ."
Mike Signorile: "Don't homosexuals incidentally face problems too?"
Alan Keyes: "No, you don't understand the difference between incident and essence. Homosexuals are essentially incapable of procreation. They cannot mate. They are not made to do so. Therefore the idea of marriage for two such individuals is an absurdity."
Mike Signorile: "But one or the other in the couple can procreate. The men can donate their sperm, the women can have babies."
Alan Keyes: "The definition and understanding of marriage is 'the two become one flesh.' In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals."
Mike Signorile: "But what about a heterosexual couple who cannot bear children and then adopt? They are not becoming as one flesh, they are taking someone else's flesh."
Alan 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."
Mike Signorile: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?"
Alan Keyes: "Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Mike Signorile: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."
Alan Keyes: "He may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."
[UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: "Do you really believe that, that Mary Cheney . . ."
Alan Keyes: "By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it's nothing of the kind.
[UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: "What is it?"
Alan Keyes: "It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations."
Mike Signorile: "Mr. Keyes, how can you support President Bush then, because if something were to happen to him, the President would be Dick Cheney, who has a daughter who you say is a hedonist, and a selfish hedonist, and the President would be supporting that at that point?"
Alan Keyes: "It seems to me that we are supporting a ticket that is committed to the kinds of things that are necessary to defend this country, and we are all united in that support, in spite of what might be differences on issues here and there."
Contrary to the way this has been reported by most news sources, it wasn't Alan Keyes who called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist." It wasn't Alan Keyes who brought up the Cheney family and it wasn't Keyes who was trying to create a scene. It was Signorile who brought up the Cheney family and Signorile, the homosexual, who, trying to rattle the unflappable Alan Keyes, said: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist."
A hedonist is a person whose highest goal in life is pleasure. Not all the selfish hedonists in our culture are homosexuals or lesbians, according the Keyes clear definition. That definition would also fit heterosexuals who selfishly avoid procreation or whose selfishness leads to divorce.
Keyes' sex education lesson to a confused homosexual ought to be required reading in every sex education class in the country. It might begin scaling back the flood of misery, disease, and early death that await those who chose to get involved in homosexual and lesbian life styles.
So, Mr. Expert, which seat are you running for, exactly?
Well, if memory serves, he won two primaries.
And the presidential sweepstakes is hardly a fair barometer of that, since Dole and Bush were the preordained winners in '96 and '00. The Republican establishment had picked their guy well in advance of the primaries.
But the fact remains that Alan Keyes has millions of Republicans who love and respect him, and consider him to be a prime representative of their views.
I can't afford the pay cut.
Yeah...
I'll agree with that, though I'd disagree with "millions."
I'm done.
This issue is a tempest in a teapot simply because government has given favorable tax & insurance benefits to 'traditional' married couples.
The solution is equally simple. End the favoritism.
Find other ways to promote family values.
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
-tpaine-
Gay people do have the right to get married.
Big of you to admit it.
Do you have the power to dictate the rules of peoples civil marriage contracts? -- More appropriately, do you see this power enumerated in our Constitution?
They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Sorry kid. But even sexual deviates have rights to life, liberty, and property. -- Unless they violate the rule of law.
be sure that my name is on that list.
I'm thankful that most of the Keyes haters don't live in Illinois and can't vote for the socialist baby killer Obama.
I live in Illinois and I vote.
>>Jesus reprimanded the "experts on the Law" for their self-righteous, judgmental application of the law which was completely lacking in compassion and mercy.>>
Actually, no. He condemned them as hypocrites for following the letter of the law without knowing the heart of the law. He did not condemn them for a lack of compassion.
I'm glad you're there, my friend.
If you, and everyone like you, will drag everyone they know to the polls, the outcome will shake the world.
Untrue. For one thing YOU'RE not a Keyes cultist. For another, people in the media read these threads all the time. You are not only giving them ideas with which to hurt Allen's candidacy, you're proving to them that Allen's support is divided, fodder which further hurts his candidacy.
BTW, I like Allen Keyes, but would hardly consider myself a cultist. There are far too many other conservatives I like at least as much.
Now, if you want to accuse me of being a Reagan cultist, you would ALMOST be correct.
If I can think of it, they can think of it.
You give me far too much credit.
Mobilemitter;Well, no, not really. Ya see, Jesus understood the meaning behind the text, the true "spirit" of the law. Keyes did not miss it. The grace of marriage extends to the two (that being the man and the woman) who will become one.
What are you talking about?
Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus debate the "experts on the law" about whether the meaning of marriage included homosexuality.
That was completely out of the question.
What Jesus debated the experts on the law, the Scribes and Pharisees on, was NOT their allowing unlawful marriages or sexual conduct, but rather their hypocritical sefl-righteous application of the law.
In the past several years the only republicans who have gotten anywhere have parroted the democrats. Anti death penality, anti guns,anti life, tax and spend and still call themselves republicans.
I feel that we are fortunate to finally have a candidate who is a god loving constitution loving conservative, a man I can vote for and vote for him I will.
It seems that to too many people this is a horse race and they don't want to vote for someone who is going to lose anyway. I'll vote for Alan Keyes and if he loses I will have done the right thing.
I also wonder if there may be some underlying racism involved too, after all Alan Keyes is very black and very smart to be so very black.
I wouldn't care if the man were shades of green. He's from Maryland? Who cares!
Nowhere did I "assume" anything about Keye's belief about marriage.
I was simply responding to his argument as it was stated. And it was flawed. Procreation is not the ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong.
It isn't BIG of me, it's a fact.
bflr for great talking points.
And of course, you misrepresent Mr. Keyes.
No way on God's green earth that he believes that that is the ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong.
Quit building your arguments on shifting sand.
No, to quote Dr. Keyes: "The point of the matter is that marriage as an institution involves procreation. It is impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore they cannot marry."
Why is this not clear? He does not state that a marriage must have children to be a marriage.
Yes he does. Read his statment again;
"The point of the matter is that marriage as an institution involves procreation."
He says procreation is the "POINT" of marriage.
There is much more to marriage than procreation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.