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.
I don't think I suggested it was rocket science.
You and people like you reinforce the opposition, including Obama, instead of reinforcing Keyes.
How are homosexuals denied the right to life, liberty and property?
What are you talking about?
Where did I EVER suggest "that Jesus would accept and condone homosexuality"?
I have ALWAYS taken the position that homosexuality is sin according to the Bible.
Perhaps you should read my posts next time, before you respond? (just a suggestion)
He's not giving them hell. He just tells the truth and they think it's hell. :-)
Thanks for posting that. It puts it into an entirely new light for me. I've been around long enough to know that I shouldn't trust the media to report things in the proper context.
EV;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.
You are one of the funniest posters on FR.
Because you continue to argue even when you have nothing left to defend.
I NEVER said ANYTHING about the totality of what Keyes believed on the subject of homosexuality.
I was simply responding to the arguments he presented in the article. Comprende?
You just can't admit it when you're proven wrong.
You: "I NEVER said ANYTHING about the totality of what Keyes believed on the subject of homosexuality."
You prior to that: "I was simply responding to his argument as it was stated. And it was flawed. Procreation is not the ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong."
Sheesh, you even put it in caps. You're not even agreeing with yourself now, man.
The homosexual solution is simple. End the push for marriage. Utilize available civil remedies in place of legal marriage.
He says procreation is the "POINT" of marriage.
You should reread his statement. He says procreation is the point of the "INSTITUTION" of marriage. Not the point of marriages.
Keyes is against homosexual sex because it does not lead to procreation. This is based on logic, not on Biblical teachings. It leaves the door open to acceptance of homosexual sex if they can find a way to procreate.
I could be wrong, but I think this answers your question. It is the premise upon which his argument is based, and it is both biblical and absolute.
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."
Counter his argument instead of leveling ad hominems.
Maybe the Republican Party needs hell embarrassed out of them a little more. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
This is getting silly. I know that successful procreation is not a requirement for a marriage. So does Dr. Keyes. The moral foundation upon which God has established the marriage covenant, as revealed in Genesis and referred to by Dr. Keyes, is a male/female relationship -- ALONE. Dr. Keyes refers to procreation as a qualifying characteristic for the kind of two people who can enter this married relationship.
Who can procreate? Only a man and a woman. Can every man and every woman procreate successfully? No Can they still marry if they can't procreate? Yes Who can marry? Only a man and a woman. The "essence" [his wording] of the two marriage partners is this male/female paradigm which "includes" procreation, but does not require it. Why is this so hard? [Going off to bed now]
I think you have that backwards. What favorable tax and insurance benefits do they get that are not available to homosexuals who happen to be a "couple?"
So what is your excuse?
"Keyes has run in four elections, and has lost every single one."
You mean, other politicians have never lost elections? Hmmm . . . seems like our current president lost a few, as well as his dad. And don't forget that Mr. Obama lost big time in a couple of races, too.
How about we do something novel and help Alan win this one?
Given the number of people who voiced support for Keyes on Jim Robinson's thread who rarely if ever post on these 'Keyes' threads I think we can safely dismiss the above statement as pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra.
Lima Charlie. ;)
Would it be fair to say that since sinkspur, et al, always seem to show up on these "Keyes" threads that they could be considered Keyes cultists? They just can't seem to leave the man alone.
I think he has a strong opinion that will not be changed no matter what we say. More power to him. He's probably a good enough guy; I just wish he would do something more productive than bash Keyes--who has offered the President his support for his conduct in the war on terror. It seems we all have more to build on as allies than we can achieve by being enemies.
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.