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.
Nope. It's the freedom to do good without interference.
The idea that they are all the stereotypical girly men is completely inaccurate and you know it.
Today, in many ways we have the complete opposite.
Indeed.
Black is white, white is black, good is evil, evil is good.
But thankfully, most American's consciences are not yet totally seared.
That's why we win with the public on these core issues like the homosexual agenda and abortion, when the people themselves are allowed to decide instead of some liberal judge living in some leftleaning ivory tower.
No, I don't think there is a right in the constitution for homosexual marriage anymore than there is a right to privacy that entitles one to an abortion.
Right.
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.
216 tpaine
_____________________________________
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.
217 -bozo ev-
_____________________________________
I'm laughing at your pitiful attempt to claim I'm advocating some strange "evil". Try to regain control of your emotions.
Why the juvenile insults?
You initiated the 'juvenile insults', by claiming I was arguing on behalf of the queer agenda. --- Here:
______________________________________
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.
213 tpaine
______________________________________
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf.
214 -ev-
Your problem is that like most liberals, you see rights in the constitution that simply aren't there.
So, you see an intrinsic right to homosexual acts in the Constitution, eh?
Funny no one else did til this degraded generation.
It's also 'funny' that someone like yourself who claims to be such a constitutionalist can support something that the Founders would have without a doubt opposed with all their strength.
Like most authoritarians, you see State powers where they are not needed and never delegated.
I'm well aware that you have a problem with some of our basic individual rights.
It's quite amazing how many here at FR advocate a 'not quite so free republic'. -- Not that I mind.
Gotta love a target rich environment.
230 -tpaine-
EternalVigilance wrote:
So, you see an intrinsic right to homosexual acts in the Constitution, eh? Funny no one else did til this degraded generation.
Yep EV, even sexual deviants have rights to life, liberty, & property, unless they harm someone with their acts, and are convicted of crimes.
Shocking concept to you, is it?
It's also 'funny' that someone like yourself who claims to be such a constitutionalist can support something that the Founders would have without a doubt opposed with all their strength.
I don't like queers any more than they did. -- I too tend to ignore them. -- It's the American way.
Given the charges you leveled in your post, it seemed like reasonable speculation...but I gave an alternative in case it didn't fit.
In other words, we are to regard Mr. Keyes just the way you regard Mr. Keyes, and then we are to shut up. Correct ?
I never said anything of the kind. You are entitled to your opinion. I just asked you to resort to your reason instead of your ad hominems. I do not think the invective is productive.
I assure you that your hostility towards me is unfounded.
By the way, Outlaw, Mr. Keyes prefers to be addressed as "Dr. Dream".
And you wonder why I even dare suggest the word "hatred?"
New grant gives state a license to promote healthier marriages (Alaska)
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208110/posts
What hath Keyesian politics wrought?
I've read on FR the laws and punishments against sodomy and particularly same sex acts in the early days of America - even up to the mid 19th century, the punishments were extremely severe. Around the time of the Revolution the punishment was often death. Jefferson changed the Virginia punishment to merely castration. The founders obviously did not think highly of same sex activities. They would be dumbfounded at the discussions now about homosexuality. They would think people have gone mad.
And they would be right.
You're right. But I don't know how important this distinction really is to the argument.
I mean, what's the difference between the "INSTITUTION" of marriage, and marriage?
Counter his argument instead of leveling ad hominems.
Why should I?
Do you agree with him that President Bush is more "evil" than Clinton when it comes to the stem cell research?
Do I really need to convince you that Keyes is over the top with these kinds of remarks?
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.