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.
TigersEye;"Liberal."
I now understand why you would defend even Keye's most inflamatory rhetoric.
You obviously share his view that it's OK to label those who disagree with you on an issue as "evil"...or even "worse" than evil.
I don't believe that meanspirited and divisive rhetoric is as much a sign of moral conviction as it is fanaticism.
And I hate to tell you, there are people on this forum, who have a far greater understanding of the constitution than you.
Roe vs. Wade first of all, had nothing to do with privacy. Secondly, there are virtually no rights to privacy in the constitution, except for protection against search and seizure, which had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade.
If you believe in abortion, you don't believe in the most basic right of all, the right to life. Therefore, it is you have the "authoritarian" personality. How more authoritative can one be, than to believe it is okay to take away an innocent someone's life?
I wholeheatedly agree. I thought YOU were comparing Keyes statment about Bush being evil (and just to set the record straight he didn't actually use Bushes name, did he? though we know who he meant) to Kerry's comments about the Viet Nam Vets. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Secondly, I would never defend or rationalize Keyes statement to which you refer. It was something that should not have been said, period. However, I am not going to hold it against Keyes for the rest of his life, and neither should you.
Nobody with the screenname "TOUGH STOUGH" should EVER apologize for ANYTHING. :)
Besides, sometimes I'm not as clear as I could be.
Secondly, I would never defend or rationalize Keyes statement to which you refer. It was something that should not have been said, period. However, I am not going to hold it against Keyes for the rest of his life, and neither should you.
Agreed.
But even if we don't hold a grudge against Keyes for that statement, it shows something ingrained in Keye's character that can't just be dismissed and will manifest itself in more of the same types of statements by Keyes.
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."
A "marriage amendment" would be a perfect example of 'substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints".
260 -tpaine-
Not in the current judicial climate. Sorry.
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.
What good is a 'restored memory', when you failed to understand the basic principles behind due process of law?
EV's reminder about a fair trial is only part of due process.
The far more important part is to prevent 'unfair', unconstitutional laws from being written to begin with.
-- Take some more courses at a better school. You were misled in the first ten.
There isn't anything I wrote that shows I failed to understand due process. We weren't even discussing due process at the time.
Denial is a funny habit, Tough, -- It makes your position look even worse.
Roe vs. Wade first of all, had nothing to do with privacy. Secondly, there are virtually no rights to privacy in the constitution, except for protection against search and seizure, which had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade.
The fact that our right to privacy is unenumerated does not negate its existence. Your attack on it is misguided. Are you sure you took ten courses in law ?
If you believe in abortion, you don't believe in the most basic right of all, the right to life.
Bull. I firmly believe that every murder should be prosecuted, and tried before a jury. -- Do you?
Therefore, it is you have the "authoritarian" personality. How more authoritative can one be, than to believe it is okay to take away an innocent someone's life?
Get your local prosecutor to prefer charges, and hold a trial then. Prove your point before a jury that some innocent life was taken.. Can you? Will you? -- No, you want a fiat 'law', -- decreeing that abortion is banned, and that women who end pregnancies are criminals.
Sorry kid, that isn't the American way. We live in a free republic under the rule of Constitutional law, not under prohibitional decrees.
Preventing the judicial branch from usurping its authority is essential to our Constitutional principles. Do you care?
To anyone who followed the conversation from its beginnings, I imagine so. The words I used are descriptive terms, not insults, and I did not ascribe "hatred" to you definitively--only as a possibility given the unsupported statements you made about Keyes. Thus, my statements were offered with evidence, while yours were not. My very first post to you was to request such evidence absent the invective. You immediately began by declaring my method of requesting unsatisfactory instead of actually answering the question. Yes. It is very revealing.
Best wishes to Dr. Dream, yourself, and every other misguided soul who confuses wisdom with the sound of his own voice.
And now we find ourselves in the exact same spot we started. Perhaps you are right--We've worn this subject down to a nub, and we made no practical progress in doing so. Best to you.
Tell em KEYES!
While at the same time they are busy trying to include the straightstream in their little world of lunacy, and they happen to be such an affluent market that companies for years have pitched products directly to them damning the hetero torpedos.
Wow! Glad to read the actual transcript. It bears no resemblance to the article I read on Drudge, from the NYT I think (There's a shocker).
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?
Preventing the judicial branch from usurping its authority is essential to our Constitutional principles. Do you care?
My posts here show that I do. Your flippant answer shows you do not.
Thanks, outlaw.
I finally answer to you in the same manner in which you respond to me, and now I am the flippant one? You need a lesson in perspective, my friend. Why do you not answer the question? It has been a central theme to our several conversations, but you have never addressed it.
The number of pro-lifers who advocate the above is well, almost zero. I have NEVER heard a pro-lifer advocate such but this belief has been ascribed to them for over 25 years, so your unoriginal comments are exceedingly tiresome and dishonest. IF ABORTION WERE BANNED, IT IS THE ABORTIONIST WHO THEN SHOULD BE TRIED AND CONVICTED.
Even when abortion was illegal in this country, except in rare instances, it was the abortionist who was tried. And it was also rare for women who attempted abortions themselves, to be tried.
But let's not forget, to kill you own offspring either outside or inside the womb, is a heinous act which is not negated through legalization however you and others may attempt to color it.
Thomist bump
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts or the law, attack the person. And if you can't attack the person, attack his supporters.
1)Occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment: the snags incidental to a changeover in upper management. See Synonyms at accidental.
2)Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature: incidental expenses.
es·sen·tial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-snshl) adj.
1)Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
2)Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients. See Synonyms at indispensable.
Natural family planning. It's different from "the rythm method." And NFP is only permitted for grave reasons, that is, reasons that threaten the existence of the marriage itself.
Nature and essence are essentially the same thing. The difference between the two terms is that "nature" denotes the intrinsic purpose of a thing while "essence" denotes what a thing is.
Incident occurs when two people cannot procreate due to an act that is beyond nature (accident, etc.) Essence occurs when two people, by nature, cannot procreate (homosexuals)
Correct.
This leaves more questions than answers:
1) What is the definition of nature?
The purpose of a thing. The nature of the reproductive system is reproduction, for example.
If someone is born sterile, do we consider that incident or essence?
Incidental.
Doctors work to promote health, or the proper operation of the body, because everyone recognizes that the purpose of medicine is to restore the proper operation of the body. ("Reproductive health" is the one glaring exception).
Should they be allowed to have sex, or to marry if nature has intended them not to procreate?
The term "nature" is ambiguous. You're using the term in two senses. The term "nature" can refer to the intrinsic purpose of a thing and also "mother nature," or the world as it exists. Nature in the first sense orders marriage toward procreation. Nature in the second sense allows cases of infertility to arise. Man can work to overcome the vicissitudes of "Mother Nature" by either ignoring them or correcting them. There is no moral problem or difficulty here.
2) If partner A is sterile, and the partner B marries A with knowledge of his or her sterility, is Partner B a selfish hedonist? In this case, Partner B would know that they cannot procreate, and would marry simply for the reasons that homosexuals would marry (love, etc.)
Sexual intercourse has two purposes within marriage, the unity of the couple and procreation. In the natural order, the purpose of marriage is the well-being of the spouses and their children. In the supernatural order, the purpose of marriage is for the spouses to aid each other in attaining heaven for themselves and their children. The natural and supernatural purposes of marriage can be realized in the case you present.
3) If science were to develop a means by which homosexuals could procreate, would this mean that we could no longer be against homosexual marriage and/or sex?
No. This would not represent the restoration of a state of health, the proper operation of the body, but an unnatural operation.
If not, are we to assume that those who take fertility pills as a means of becoming pregnant are selfish hedonists?
Fertility treatments are not immoral in principle because they represent health care, the restoration of the proper operation of the body.
4) If a family chooses adoption, have they met Keyes' standard of family? He sort of gets to an answer on this, but it isn't a sufficient answer. Why is procreation necessary to the family, as opposed to simple child-rearing?
Strictly, it is an artificial situation, but adoption represents an activity ordered toward a proper natural end. Children belong with parents, and vice-versa. Adoption represents an attempt to correct two evils, childless parents and parentless children.
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.