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.
You know he'll lose just as well as I do.
Without your help either.
Does that mean neither of us should feel free to post our opinions on Keyes in FR discussion threads?
Do I even want to go here?
Keyes is again like in the last 4 races he lost, a joke that will leave devastation in the party after his loss and after he scoots out of IL back to his home state. But if the Keyes followers want to believe in the Great Pumpkin, so be it, however, after 5 defeats, God's candidate will again be scratching his head, wondering why the universe is against him.
This is politics. I'm concerned with winning elections.
Freaks like Alan Keyes who get 21% of the vote MAX and worse yet turn Republicans against each other don't help the GOP. Period.
You would be more credible if your criticism of leftist Republicans and their leftist voting records, was of equal or greater voracity.
What do you know about my views of leftist Republicans?
People can do wrong, but they do not have a "right" to do wrong and they have no entitlement to a constitutionally protectd "right" to engage in murder or perversion.
I have fought for the right to life intermittenly my entire adult life. I have fought for the first amendment and the right to freedom of speech, all at great personal cost. Most recently I helped a friend, who is an alcoholic, escape imprisonment in a nursing home for the rest of her life. It is where her "loving" family wanted to warehouse her.
Thus, you have no business accusing me of authoritarianism or of having a problem with basic individual rights. If you are pro-abortion then you have a problem with the most basic of all rights, the right to life. I suggest you cease promoting your leftist agenda and give this subject the serious consideration it deserves.
Signorile has a history that includes the kind of behavior usually only attributed to the prototypical bigot of the religious right: he was his own kind's worst enemy----he used to publish a magazine which OUTED every homosexual he could find in every walk of life he could think of, especially the arts and politics. He was in effect FORCING all those who just wanted to lead quiet lives somewhere in the closet into a harsh kind of politicization whether they wanted it or not. He just COULD NOT BE WORSE!
I have some real disagreement with the Bush adminstration, for instance, but other than a comment of affirmation here and there, I have been avoiding those discussions.
The above isn't even close to being my original point.
Probably because it's my point. Not yours. (?)
In other words, can't you leave that comment behind and move on, like Jim Rob and many of the rest of us?
Fine. While we're at it lets just leave Kerry's smears against the Vietnam Vets behind us.
After all they are much older than Keyes condemnations of President Bush.
The essence is what Aristotle called the power, the nature. The incidental is what happens to the nature. Even in the case of the child who is born sterile, his or her nature is to be a human and humans are sexually procreative.
You are also trying to make the rule from the exception or the hard case.
In 2), the partner who marries without informing the other is committing fraud against the partner. On the other hand, the State doesn't have to be told that about the sterility. While on the other hand, the State will know without asking that same sex partners are sterile.
The last 2 go along with the nature of human beings as sexually reproducing species.
The State regulates marriage. Society supports it for the betterment of the society, itself. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to go agaist the established norm of man and woman in marriage.
Bingo! Its all about the numbers, Keyes never ever wins, no matter what you do. He leaves only ruin and a small cadre of of followers galvanized to win again, only now, again means moving state to state to stage this freakshow. Stop the madness.
I have had several courses in law the past year, ten to be precise, in each I recieved an "A". As bad as my momentary lapse of memory may be, as I have already confessed to EV, please spare me the lessons on the constitution. EV's reminder was all I needed, and the memory of my paper on due process and the 14th amendent, has been almost completely restored.
The definition of NATURE?
Certainly when it comes to human sexuality it is the created intent of God which is clearly evident in the male/female biological design.
The idea that sterility should raise questions as to whether a man and woman should be able to marry and have sex is ridiculous. Male/female sexual union is NATURAL by design regardless.
Right. But we must never hold "grudges" against a "fellow conservative". (gag)
Let's pretend Keyes is a team player in the GOP. Just for fun in this thread.
Kerry's blunders and wrongs are packed with substance. Keyes are more strategic and stylistic in nature. Incredible that you would try and equate the two.
A clever attempt at diversion. Nice try but no cigar.
And do you or do you not support Specter now against Hoeffel in the general election?
Keyes called Bush "evil".
Can you think of a worse judgement to make on someone?
I think you know the answers to both questions already.
Yes and Yes.
I think both Keyes and his followers recognize that he is the longest of long shots to EVER win high political office. I think he is too inflexible on a number or issues, like the one discussed on this thread, and his avowed (and ridiculous) intention of overturning Roe V. Wade during his Presidential bid. HOWEVER, he HAS gotten farther than either Nader or Buchanan as a "can't win" candidate, and he will ALWAYS be ten times the debater on ANY issue of importance than ANY mainstream candidate. That unfortunately does not serve him terribly well in the present political climate of soundbites and glib rhetoric.
I have considerable differences with him, but I would vote for him anyway, just as he says he has differences with Bush, but would vote for HIM.
If you think Keyes comments about Bush, compare to Kerry's statements about Viet Nam vets in which he likens them to Ghengis Kahn and mentions all manner of horrible atrocities they supposedly committed but in truth didn't, you are intellectually dishonest.
You try to figure out the complete madness of the party, I just think they went mental. And when Alan loses for the 5th time, will the godsquad ask why God's candidate can't win?
Yes, I agree, though I haven't lived in Illinois for 20 years, I'm ready to believe that the Ill Republicans are nimrods and have no interest in fielding a more moderate candidate with a real chance to win. This is a characteristic also of my current home state of NJ : both the state Party AND the RNC refused to go out of their way to help a really good candidate like Bret Schundler.It's as though the Ill, Republicans know they are too disorganized
and ineffective to field a real candidate, so they looked to Keyes to at least make the race "interesting", at the same time basking in the glow of having a "real smart" guy like Keyes running against that other guy whose name I never get right.
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.