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 think their true desire is Obama Nation.
Baloney!
One MIGHT argue that your post smacked of an intolerable, know-it-all tone, which alienates more people than it attracts. I happen to understand it is your opinion, though, so I want to give you an opportunity to explain it using something other than invective.
"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
Keyes response above is valid for your argument as well...
Siutations such as the one referred here, and yours, are the exception...NOT THE RULE... which is what homosexual marriage proposes to become!
Society has created opportunities for "procreation" within a traditional family structure providing the essence of a traditional, sexually functional family. The new agenda is to redefine what is traditional and what is functional.
Firstly, thank you for posting this! Finally, a seemingly complete, unedited version.
Just wanted to note that the above in italics are Mostert's words, not Keyes'.
What Keyes said was:
"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. 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."While I can see how some people (such as Mostert) would like to draw conclusions here about Keyes' beliefs about birth control between married couples, that's just not the point.
The point is that marriage as intended by God is between one man and one woman who together share the responsibility of having and nurturing children, again as God intended.
Homosexual relationships are contrary to that; they are contrary to God's will.
If Keyes has ever publically said anything specific about the use of birth control between married couples, I am unaware of it.
However, one can't make a credible argument solely against Keyes because of one's perceptions about his view of birth control. *If* the perception is correct that he'd be against the use of birth control between married couples, one in opposition to the idea would take issue not only with Keyes but with *all* people who are anti-birth control.
So to single out Keyes on the birth control issue is irrelevant. The issue is homosexuality and why it and marriage can never go hand in hand.
"You should have this taken care of,"Valdez said, "You know somebody who can sew you up?."
The Mexican's eyes were glazed, wet looking. "What do you put in that thing?"
"I told you, something for rabbits. Listen, I'm going to get your horse and put you on it."
"I can't ride anywhere."
"Sure you can." Valdez lowered the Mexiacan's arm and gave his shoulder a pat. The Mexican winced and Valdez smiled. "You ride out to Mr. Tanner, all right? Tell him Valdez is coming. You hear what I said ? Valdez is coming. But listen, friend, I think you better go there quick."
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."
I'm glad Keyes brought up the difference in substance/nature. He's exactly right, and it's clear that this guy Signorile is not familiar with the terms and philosophical background of those terms that Keyes is using. Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., distinguished between ESSENCE and ACCIDENCE (or, as Keyes refers to it "incidence").
Even if scientific/medical advances someday make it possible for homosexual males to procreate, it is not an "ESSENTIAL PREDICATION" of their NATURE--the natural capacity is not present on their souls.
Likewise, even if Liddy Dole is not now able to procreate, it is still in her nature to do so AS A WOMAN (that is, as women are designed-the natural capacity).
Which is to say, women AS SUCH are designed by NATURE to procreate. Men are not. This is, it is part of the design inherent in their soul. Even if that CAPACITY is not realized, or able to be realized, the CAPACITY is part of the original design of the soul of women.
The fact that Liddy cannot is an ABBERATION or LACK of something that is part of her natural, original design.
I'm shooting from the hip here in my definition. If I took more time I could clean it up. Hope my definition is not misleading or too poorly worded. This gets complex.
I refer people who would like a more thoughful, exact background in this to read a book titled Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland, and William Lane Craig. Specifically, read those chapters on metaphysics.
That might lay it out better than I'm doing right here.
There are lots of other books, but that's just one that comes to mind. Also, a book titled BODY AND SOUL by J.P. Moreland goes even more into detail on this subject, but it's a difficult read for many.
Please feel free to make any corrections, or to elaborate on my post #168 :o)
The point is that the institution of the marriage relationship, as it has arisen from the physical nature of human beings, is between one man and one woman who together share the responsibility of having and nurturing children, again as they were naturally designed to do.Homosexual relationships are contrary to that; they are contrary to natural design and as such stand apart from that unique relationship that is the basis of the concept of marriage.
Does that still carry your point even though it was refashioned in secular terms?
"OBAMA NATION"
LOL Good one!
WE DON'T WANT OBAMA NATION!
Let's talk about this for a second. Why is protecting the essence of family life important in our country?
Keyes:
" --- 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."
_____________________________________
This 'hedonism' position may be 'unacceptable' to Keyes, and to other members of the Republican Party, but it is certainly not well thought out on a Constitutional basis.
The only Constitutional basis for government regulation of marriage is in the enforcing of civil law, -- in the protection of individual rights.
The morality of who is contracted in marriage to whom is simply none of the States business.
-- Unless the rights of one or more of the parties involved -- [& in particular, - children] are being violated, governments have no legal basis to interfere in civil contracts of marriage.
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.
Cam:
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?"
Ask them.. I don't pay to much attention to the details of what the queers rant on about.
Nor do I pay much attention to the details of the proposed "Marriage Amendment"..
The whole concept is a Constitutional joke. -- A political idiocy that will backfire on the Republican Party.
Where does it sound like that?
Jesus reprimanded the "experts on the Law" for their self-righteous, judgmental application of the law which was completely lacking in compassion and mercy.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
Keyes was explaining to Singorile, much like Jesus had to explain to the "experts" what they should have already known. They had the text, they read the text, they should have known what the text meant, however, having no real knowledge of God and therefore no "spiritual" discernment, they both misunderstood and misapplied scripture. Keyes spent a little time in Genesis to try and help Signorile get understanding of what should be common knowledge.
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
My reference to the text in Genesis was just in keeping with the context with which Keyes tried, valianty, to explain the scripture upon which the concept of marriage is introduced. It was not to imply that the confrontation between Jesus and the experts of the law took place in Genesis or that they in fact discussed matters detailed in Genesis. It just sounds like Keyes is doing a great job of trying to share truth with those who for whatever reason are struggling with it. Sorta like Jesus did with all those struggling experts.....
If I may interject a thought,
I believe that the reply that would be consistant with Keyes logic on the first point is that when infertile hetros marry, they are incidentally getting a "fringe benifit" of the larger institution of marriage. Caught in the wake, as it were.
The reason for this is that, even if we wanted to, we could not practically limit marriage to the fertile because we are not always sure with certainty who IS infertile. So marriage exists for the reason it exists, and if, along the way, somoene incidentaly benifits from that, no matter. The law takes no notice of trifles.
To the second point, you are missing one VERY central truth: the act of procreation, as it relates to marriage, is NOT the biological creation of life alone, it is also the healthy seeing of that creation to adulthood. Thus, even if a homosexual couple found the means to reproduce of their own seed an offspring - without a parent of both genders, they can still not give that child the sort of rearing that hetro marriage is established to render.
While I personally am unable to remove God from any part of the picture, I appreciate your trying to make my post more understandable to folks who might be coming from different belief systems. :-)
My main concern is that people might let the question "But what about married heterosexuals who do not have children?" distract them from Keyes' point.
Hopefully both our posts will help prevent that from happening!
I asked you because you made the assertion. Back it up.
Tax Reduction for Homosexuals Denied Rights and Benefits by Government Petition
Address:http://www.petitiononline.com/LGTaxes/petition.html Changed:3:16 PM on Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Read the above, and weep for your political myopia.
Tough:
Gay people do have the right to get married. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
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?
Sorry kid. But even sexual deviates have rights to life, liberty, and property. -- Unless they violate the rule of law.
How are homosexuals denied the right to life, liberty and property?
See my last post to 'outlaw' for the link to some of their claims..
The legal definition of marriage should not be changed to accommodate their desires. We have seen what happens to the family and how it is further destroyed, when the definition of marriage is changed to permit homosexual marriage in places like Sweden for instance.
We all must stand firmly against the changing of the legal definition of marriage, to include homosexual marriage or any other kind of marital arrangement other than one man or one woman. We cannot allow homosexuals or any other group to hurt traditional marriage and traditional values any further.
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.