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.
"Does Keyes think that if, because of disease or age or injury, a man or a woman is incapable of procreation, he or she should not be allowed to marry?"
I guess you didn't read the whole interview or your reading comprehension needs work.
Men can be fathers or father figures even if they are not the biological father of a child they raise (as in adopted children). Women can be mothers or mother figures ditto.
Two men taking care of a child cannot be a mother and a father. They are merely making a false show of family life. Men are different from women. A man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father, either biologically, psychologically, or in any other way.
Of course, if one parent dies, the remaining father or mother can and does raise the children adequately. But nature's arrangement is that there needs to be (A) one man and (B) one woman, both to conceive and raise children.
You should read some of the research that's been done on kids raised by homosexuals. It doesn't look good.
"Neither do those who have the unfortunate lot of being born without sexual organs (or even without functioning sex organs). Should we ban them from getting married?"
This is such a specious argument. How many people first of all are born without sexual organs, and out of that miniscule number, how many want to get married? You're waaaay out in left field.
We're talking about men and women, not biological anomalies. And if, for the sake of argument, two such unfortunates wanted to get married, one would still have to be a woman and one would have to be a man. If they had sexual organs but non-functioning ones, of course they could marry. Remember, Keyes used the word "paradigm" when referring to the Doles. A man and a woman marrying even if unable to conceive children are still the template of a family. Every man is (or has the potential) to be a symbolic or real "father" and every woman a "mother".
There are plenty of legal means for homosexuals to resolve their legal issues other than marriage.
As far as the tax issue is concerned, a tax code that is fairer to all is the answer, as you suggest.
As for the military--- there are plenty of other people the military does not accept. I'd like to be a quarterback for the New York jets too. But I can't. That's the way it is.
Exactly.
They take advantage of every seeming nuance.
Children deserve both a mother and a father. If one dies, that is the fault of nature, and is hard enough for the children. To deliberately place a child in a situation where he has either no mother or no father is the ultimate in selfishness.
Children deserve both a mother and a father. If one dies, that is the fault of nature, and is hard enough for the children. To deliberately place a child in a situation where he has either no mother or no father is the ultimate in selfishness.
How can they be married in one state and then move to another and not be married? States rights work with many issues but not this one.
You completely misunderstand the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and underestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf.
"Possible" transcript reflects the fact that I was uncertain of the interview's completeness, plus it was intermixed with some commentary. That's all. It appears to be fairly complete.
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 tpaine
____________________________________________________
ET writes:
Naive at best.
-199-
_________________________________________________
Naive? How so?
--- States are not required to recognize the unconstitutional acts of other States, or of the federal government.
Surely, -- you can agree with me on that point?
204 -tpaine-
_______________________________________
EternalVigilance wrote:
You completely misunderstand the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and underestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
______________________________________
Not so.. IMO, you completely hype the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and overestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
They are a bunch of girlymen.. Get a grip on reality.
_____________________________________
EternalVigilance wrote:
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf
_____________________________________
I'm arguing against playing girly games with our Constitution, bozo.
That's because you still lack a basic understanding of what the Founders called liberty.
I've seen that misunderstanding lead you in lots of strange directions over the last few years. This is just one more example.
So I'll repeat what I have said to you time and again: The Founders would have laughed at you for thinking that true God-given liberty included the right to do evil.
It didn't then, and it doesn't now.
Let's say a married, homosexual couple living in Massachusettes (which recognizes gay marriage) decides in their old age to move to Florida (which does not recognize gay marriage). You think they're not going to move? They'll move and they'll aggressively push the issue.
Once they get the right to be married in certain states, homosexuals will claim their liberty is hindered because they lack the right to relocate to a state of their choice AND have their marriage recognized. You and people like you will argue the same. It's about incrementalism and we know it.
Liberty does not mean people can do whatever the heck they want to do.
Homosexuals will argue that a particular state recognizes heterosexual marriages from other states and will win on those grounds.
How can they? You previously claimed: " -- No one has ever interpreted a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry in this country, until now. -- " - You and your State do not have to accept that "new ruling". Prove it's a BS opinion.
How can they be married in one state and then move to another and not be married? States rights work with many issues but not this one.
So you ~now~ admit they have a right to marry? --- Which is it? -- Here are your previous words:
Homosexuals NEVER had the right 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.
191 posted on 09/05/2004 11:40:10 AM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH
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.