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.
.......has in its .......pinky.
I am one of the most honest people you will ever meet here or anywhere else.
So unless you can back up your accusations don't waste your time posting them.
I can show you where Keyes said Bush was "evil" in his own article.
Now you show me where Kerry called Bush "evil". The idea that you are trying to rationalize Keye's condemnations of Bush by comparing them to Kerry's accusations against Vietnam Vets is comparing apples to oranges.
I am one of the most honest people you will ever meet here or anywhere else.
So unless you can back up your accusations don't waste your time posting them.
I can show you where Keyes said Bush was "evil" in his own article.
Now you show me where Kerry called Bush "evil". The idea that you are trying to rationalize Keye's condemnations of Bush by comparing them to Kerry's accusations against Vietnam Vets is comparing apples to oranges.
Maybe they will have figured out by then that Keyes has little to do with God....except that he thinks he has the right to condemn everybody who disagrees with him as "evil".
That clears up any doubt that might have remained about what your agenda here is.
Let's really have fun and pretend that a GOP team player is a conservative and not a closet socialist.
Liberal.
Now let's talk about CFR, Teddy Kennedy writing trillion dollar education bills, amnesty for illegals, open borders, inviting the UN to monitor our elections, giving the UN millions to renovate their building, willingness to sign the AWB, federal subsidy of drugs for seniors, ... and other liberal policies.
read later
The godsquad? Does that include me? I'm flattered.
good post
On record he has supported Bush for the general in 2000 and has been nothing but supportive of Bush during this election cycle.
Please feel free to refute me with facts. (But please give links.)
If by "we," you mean you, then perhaps. If by "we," you mean you and me, then no. You are being hostile, though; IOW confrontational and pugilistic when it is not necessary. I'm just asking for you to explain yourself without the invective.
Is it because I called Alan Keyes "Dr. Dream" ?
No. It's because you claimed that he preferred to be called Dr. Dream. I didn't know that about the radio show, so the comment makes more sense, but still, to say that he prefers to be called something (and he obviously doesn't ask people to call him that) is simply hyperbole.
Get used to the fact that there are more opinions in the world than your own, Outlaw.
I stated in my first post to you that I understand that you have an opinion, that by inference you could guess was different than mine. So obviously I understand it and am used to it (more hyperbole!). I just asked for you to explain it, and you haven't yet. I don't presume your opinion to be arbitrary. But I guess it could be--that's not for me to say.
First of all, your characterization is incorrect, but let me explain what I thought he was saying: I believe that it is more dangerous if your friends do your enemies' work than if the enemy attempts to do it himself. The reason is that you are looking for your enemy to fight you and you prepare yourself for that fight. Meanwhile, properly dug in and fortified with your enemy firmly in sight, your friend is rushing to your aid, stumbles on a branch, his weapon discharges accidentally, and the bullet hits you in the arm. Had you been prepared for this, you would have put sandbags behind you as well, and you would have had someone watching your back.
The person who stumbled had good intentions but made a mistake, but as a result of that mistake, he degraded your chances for victory, because you are now wounded. Victory may not be impossible, and the person who accidentally hurt you may still be a powerful force for your cause, but you must suffer for it as a result of his inattention.
I believe life begins at conception (and science backs me up on this). Because of this, abortion is wrong, a sin, and by definition of sin--evil. Now, before I go on, who among us is free from guilt? But that aside, I do think the decision was wrong for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it uses tax money to further the cause of the callous scientists who have no problem with killing innocent people who happen to be in the embryonic stage of development. Such scientists deserve and should get no reward. Aside from that, I don't think the government should be in the business of funding research. There is only one reason that federal funding of science has any constitutional validity, as far as I can tell, and that is when it comes to the purchasing of equipment and technology for the military. In that case, the purpose of such research should be pretty clear before money is allocated.
All that said, I disagree with Alan Keyes some things as well. No one person has all the answers. Collectively, we'll never come to the right conclusion in every instance. We do our best, though, and we will be much more successful if we firmly ground ourselves in principles that reflect the spirit of rightly-ordered liberty as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
You get the last word, because I will not be drawn into a debate about all of the things I disagree with the current administration. It serves no practical purpose at this time.
This issue is a tempest in a teapot simply because government has given favorable tax & insurance benefits to 'traditional' married couples. The solution is equally simple. End the favoritism.
Find other ways to promote family values.
______________________________________
Cam:
I think you have that backwards. What favorable tax and insurance benefits do they get that are not available to homosexuals who happen to be a "couple?"
______________________________________
Ask them.. I don't pay to much attention to the details of what the queers rant on about.
Nor do I pay much attention to the details of the proposed "Marriage Amendment"..
The whole concept is a Constitutional joke. -- A political idiocy that will backfire on the Republican Party.
173 -tpaine-
______________________________________
outlawcam wrote:
I asked you because you made the assertion. Back it up.
______________________________________
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
--- So tell me cam, now that we've established that the Marriage Amendment is a bad political joke, & that the issue is best resolved by altering tax codes, --- do you still think Keyes is wise to support it?
The petition is a joke, not the amendment. The first wherefore speaks of a generality that it does not back up. It's main gripe is that they have to spend resources to get the contractual benefits they seek. Boo hoo.
Amending the Constitution in the manner proposed would not placate those of the homosexual lobby. It will do just the opposite. The reason it is necessary is because there is a push by unelected judges to rewrite state constitutions and state laws in order to placate the homosexual lobby. Codifying this in the Constitution will prevent the courts from doing this as well as recognize the important of a stable family life in the maintenance of the republic.
A better solution would be to rein in the courts. If you have a practical way of accomplishing this, I'm all ears.
The reason it is necessary is because there is a push by unelected judges to rewrite state constitutions and state laws in order to placate the homosexual lobby.
You are hyping the issue. --- Judges cannot "rewite" laws or Constitutions. -- They only write opinions, deciding the case in question.
Legislatures are free to rewrite the questioned laws, and executives are free to enforce, or ~not~ enforce the judicial decisions on the legislatures laws. --- This process is called checks & balances in a free republic.
Codifying this in the Constitution will prevent the courts from doing this
Attempting to short circuit our judicial system is repugnant to our Constitutional principles, outlaw.. -- Do you care?
as well as recognize the important of a stable family life in the maintenance of the republic.
We can safeguard families without amending our Constitution.
A better solution would be to rein in the courts. If you have a practical way of accomplishing this, I'm all ears.
Our entire government system needs reining in. I suggest we start by demanding they conform to our existing Constitution.
--- Which is hard to accomplish when so many like you insist that it must be amended.
There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. There is everything wrong with our political system.
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.