Skip to comments.
Alan Keyes teaches sex education lesson to homosexual interviewer (possible transcript)
RenewAmerica.us ^
| 9-4-2004
| Mary Mostert
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:
Alan Keyes: "No, the point of the matter is that marriage, as an institution, involves procreation. It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism, and one can wish all one might, but pigs don't fly and we can't change the course of nature."
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.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: bicurious; election; fundamentalism; homophobia; homosexual; homosexualagenda; interview; keyes; obama; senate; unchristian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 361-367 next last
To: TOUGH STOUGH
To: TOUGH STOUGH
To: bannie
It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate.
in prinicple??...it's a simple plumbing issue.
183
posted on
09/05/2004 10:16:07 AM PDT
by
ErnBatavia
("Dork"; a 60's term for a 60's kinda guy: JFK)
To: tpaine
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.
To: Nan48
That is a really good one! LOL!
To: sinkspur
Question: in the title of this thread, what do the words (possible transcript) mean?
186
posted on
09/05/2004 10:26:01 AM PDT
by
Howlin
(I'm mad as Zell)
To: TOUGH STOUGH
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.
187
posted on
09/05/2004 10:38:29 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
To: tpaine
"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."
To: tpaine
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?
To: TOUGH STOUGH
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.
190
posted on
09/05/2004 11:22:52 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
To: 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 consitutional amendment, is very much in need.
To: EternalVigilance
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?
192
posted on
09/05/2004 11:46:13 AM PDT
by
Jorge
To: outlawcam
< ...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".
193
posted on
09/05/2004 11:46:39 AM PDT
by
Chaffer
To: ThirstyMan
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.
194
posted on
09/05/2004 11:59:00 AM PDT
by
Jorge
To: TOUGH STOUGH
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?
195
posted on
09/05/2004 11:59:26 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
To: tpaine
"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.
To: TOUGH STOUGH
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.
197
posted on
09/05/2004 2:21:32 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
To: ItsOurTimeNow
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.
198
posted on
09/05/2004 2:24:19 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)
To: tpaine
Refuse to recognize those claims in your State or County. Naive at best.
199
posted on
09/05/2004 2:26:12 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(The Butchers of Beslan will burn in hell for eternity.)
To: outlawcam
Thank you very much for posting this. There was a lot heat and not so much light on previous threads about this.
200
posted on
09/05/2004 2:26:48 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 361-367 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson