Alan Keyes teaches sex education lesson to homosexual interviewer (possible transcript)

one man AND one woman

It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate.

in prinicple??...it's a simple plumbing issue.

Though homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex, they can't marry people of the same sex. Guess what, neither can I.

The same goes for them (and me) with respect to adoption, in some states.

Sorry. Your arguments are completley and utterly BOGUS.

That is a really good one! LOL!

Question: in the title of this thread, what do the words (possible transcript) mean?

TOUGH STOUGH wrote: Homosexuals in this country are not oppressed, repressed or any other kind of 'pressed. I am sick and tired of arguments to the contrary. They can live together, have sex with one another (no one's peekin' in their bedrooms), acquire property, work, vacation etc (and do). They have legal means to assure the distribution of their property, or handling of their estate upon death and can even author living wills which will give their partners the same rights to make decisions regarding their health during illness and death as married spouses have.

_____________________________________

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

Did you even bother to read the above, Tough?
Can you refute their claims?

______________________________________

Tough:

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.

______________________________________

We cannot allow further Amendments to our Constitution that infringe upon our individual rights.

Government has no business in dictating the terms of civil marriage between consenting adults.
Granted, our States can regulate the rules on 'uncivil marriages', [pologamy, incest, etc], -- using constitutional due process, but they can't 'ban' queers from calling themselves married, and from demanding equal tax & insurance treatment from government.

"We cannot allow further Amendments to our Constitution that infringe upon our individual rights."

How is this an infringement upon gay rights? As I said and I'll repeat, "homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us."

LOL! I am crying bucket loads of tears after reading THAT one. Homosexuals are so terribly REPRESSED and OPPRESSED. Your positions are ridiculous.

What about people who never marry and live with other family members or friends all their lives and thus pay higher taxes? Is the tax structure fair to them?

TOUGH STOUGH wrote: Homosexuals in this country are not oppressed, repressed or any other kind of 'pressed. I am sick and tired of arguments to the contrary. They can live together, have sex with one another (no one's peekin' in their bedrooms), acquire property, work, vacation etc (and do). They have legal means to assure the distribution of their property, or handling of their estate upon death and can even author living wills which will give their partners the same rights to make decisions regarding their health during illness and death as married spouses have.

_____________________________________

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

Did you even bother to read the above, Tough?
Can you refute their claims?

______________________________________

Tough:
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.

______________________________________

We cannot allow further Amendments to our Constitution that infringe upon our individual rights.
Government has no business in dictating the terms of civil marriage between consenting adults.
Granted, our States can regulate the rules on 'uncivil marriages', [polygamy, incest, etc], -- using constitutional due process, but they can't 'ban' queers from calling themselves married, and from demanding equal tax & insurance treatment from government.
-187-

______________________________________

How is this an infringement upon gay rights? As I said and I'll repeat, "homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us."

LOL! I am crying bucket loads of tears after reading THAT one. Homosexuals are so terribly REPRESSED and OPPRESSED. Your positions are ridiculous.

What about people who never marry and live with other family members or friends all their lives and thus pay higher taxes?
Is the tax structure fair to them?
189

__________________________________________

No, the tax structure isn't 'fair', as we all know.
The solution? --- Amend the tax structure. The Republican supported 'Fair Tax' would work.

We don't need to amend the Constitution on marriage.
It is ~your~ positions on that, -- that are ridiculous.

Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country.

No one has ever interpreted a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry in this country, until now. It is you and people and activist judges like you who want to extend "rights" that just aren't there.

Therefore, a consitutional amendment, is very much in need.

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.

I ALWAYS agree with myself :)
And my statement makes perfect sense so it's easy.

I can't pretend to know EVERYTHING inside Keye's head.
ALL I have to go by is WHAT HE SAYS. What is so hard to understand about this?

< ...your several reasons for hating... Alan Keyes... >

Excuse me ? Shall we now discuss the use of invective ?

I didn't inject that word into our conversation. You did.

Perhaps you should "support your reasons for doing so with evidence."

< ...your post smacked of an intolerable, know-it-all tone... >

In other words, we are to regard Mr. Keyes just the way you regard
Mr. Keyes, and then we are to shut up. Correct ? End of subject.

Gosh, it may be difficult for you to understand this, but there's actually
more than one opinion out here about who best promotes conservative
values in our culture.

We agree on the objective premise that Alan Keyes is right on the issues. I said that. Maybe you forgot.

We disagree on subjective matters. You find him "amiable" and
"unflappable".

I find him a self-aggrandizing wack, in the tradition of Al Sharpton.

Nonetheless, were I a resident of Illinois, I'd vote for him. Despite
his inflated ego, he's still a better choice than Obama.

It's beyond me why Illinois Republicans couldn't do better than this,
but oh well.

By the way, Outlaw, Mr. Keyes prefers to be addressed as "Dr. Dream".

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?

It isn't. You summed it up well. In fact you explained it much better than Keyes.

The problem with Keye's statement is that it sounded too simplistic...like *gays can't have babies so therefore they can't get married.*

I agree that EVEN if a male/female couple cannot have children, this does not validate homosexual marriage.

Regardless of the ability to procreate, the homosexual union is STILL biologically unnatural.

TOUGH STOUGH wrote:

Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country.

No one has ever interpreted a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry in this country, until now. It is you and people and activist judges like you who want to extend "rights" that just aren't there.

Therefore, a consitutional amendment, is very much in need.

There is no need for an Amendment, if: -- "Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country."

Just ignore their demands, and they will fade away. -- Simple solution, right?

"It is you and people and activist judges like you who want to extend "rights" that just aren't there."

You seem to have this unusual habit of considering only a PORTION of someone's post.

Now that activist judges in several states seem to have suddenly and incorrectly found a homosexual right to marriage and are attempting to foist homosexual marriage upon the nation, an amendment is a virtual necessity.

TOUGH STOUGH wrote: Homosexuals in this country are not oppressed, repressed or any other kind of 'pressed. I am sick and tired of arguments to the contrary. They can live together, have sex with one another (no one's peekin' in their bedrooms), acquire property, work, vacation etc (and do). They have legal means to assure the distribution of their property, or handling of their estate upon death and can even author living wills which will give their partners the same rights to make decisions regarding their health during illness and death as married spouses have.

_____________________________________

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

Did you even bother to read the above, Tough?
Can you refute their claims?

______________________________________

Tough:

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.

______________________________________

We cannot allow further Amendments to our Constitution that infringe upon our individual rights.
Government has no business in dictating the terms of civil marriage between consenting adults.
Granted, our States can regulate the rules on 'uncivil marriages', [polygamy, incest, etc], -- using constitutional due process, but they can't 'ban' queers from calling themselves married, and from demanding equal tax & insurance treatment from government.
187 -tpaine-

______________________________________

How is this an infringement upon gay rights? As I said and I'll repeat, "homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us."
LOL! I am crying bucket loads of tears after reading THAT one. Homosexuals are so terribly REPRESSED and OPPRESSED. Your positions are ridiculous.
What about people who never marry and live with other family members or friends all their lives and thus pay higher taxes?
Is the tax structure fair to them?
189 -Tough-

__________________________________________

No, the tax structure isn't 'fair', as we all know.

The solution? --- Amend the tax structure. The Republican supported 'Fair Tax' would work.
We don't need to amend the Constitution on marriage.
It is ~your~ positions on that, -- that are ridiculous.
190 tpaine

______________________________________

Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country.

No one has ever interpreted a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry in this country, until now. It is you and people and activist judges like you who want to extend "rights" that just aren't there.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment, is very much in need.
191 -Tough-

______________________________________

There is no need for an Amendment, if: -- "Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country."

Just ignore their demands, and they will fade away. -- Simple solution, right?

_______________________________________________

TOUGH STOUGH wrote:

You seem to have this unusual habit of considering only a PORTION of someone's post.

Now that activist judges in several states seem to have suddenly and incorrectly found a homosexual right to marriage and are attempting to foist homosexual marriage upon the nation, an amendment is a virtual necessity.

________________________________________________

TOUGH, - you have this unusual habit of reading & replying to only a PORTION of someone's post.

So? -- Let the gay activists & judges "foist" their marriage claims. -- You say they have no rights on this issue? -- Ignore them. Refuse to recognize those claims in your State or County.

-- No amendment necessary.

Just in case you haven't seen this one yet. Amazing that Keyes has the guts to be interviewed by a flaming radical homosexual like Signorile.

Refuse to recognize those claims in your State or County.

Naive at best.

Thank you very much for posting this. There was a lot heat and not so much light on previous threads about this.