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.
Ofiscated? Do you mean obfuscated?
Keyes is a judgmental, holier-than-thou demagogue who isn't satisfied to just challenge differing views but has to characterize all those who disagree with him as evil.
He even labeled Bush as evil during the stem cell controversy.
My bet is Obama would LOVE to debate Keyes, because the comparison to Keye's seriously flawed personality will make Obama look EVEN more likable.
And I doubt Obama is worried about debating a terrible politician who never manages to get more than 21% of the vote.
I have the same impression.
I guess that makes you one of the more "tolerant" folks in the world. Congratulations.
. . . it's time for people in the conservative, thoughtful part to form a mutual declaration of facts society. Don't count on the MSM!
Where does it sound like that?
Jesus reprimanded the "experts on the Law" for their self-righteous, judgmental application of the law which was completely lacking in compassion and mercy.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
The fact is many heterosexual couples are also incapable of procreation.
Is their marriage therefore an "absurdity"?
Keyes' arguments are weak. This is NOT the main reason why marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
Actually it makes me on of the folks who remembers Jesus saying "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy".
And what is 'the main reason'?
Please be precise.
... incidence and essence...
Here's how the conversation began:
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.
**************************************************
Seems to be clear that Alan Keyes is sticking with the Party's definition of marriage. Alan Keyes is not going out of his way to condemn those who practise various other forms of sexual pleasuring, only as they pertain to being defined as marriage.
The interviewer here is drawing him out [as he does to many others], placing his own definitions in Keyes' mouth, trying to trick him into agreeing with him.
It didn't work. In this regard it reminded me of those who taunted Jesus to get him to say something damning which they could use to condemn him. Mr. Signorile went home frustrated with Mr. Keyes.
The best he was able to do, was to take his own comment about Vice President Cheney's daughter, as being a "selfish hedonist" out of its context and attribute that statement to Mr. Keyes.
That much is pretty obvious isn't it?
The "main reason" can be found in the words of Jesus and His reference to the book of Genesis and God's created intent when if came to man, woman and marriage.
As Bill Bennet said;"Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it.Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow."
Keyes argues that homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have children.
Well polygamist can procreate.
Does that mean marrying multiple wives is OK?
Keyes' argument is flawed.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
Well, no, not really. Ya see, Jesus understood the meaning behind the text, the true "spirit" of the law. Keyes did not miss it. The grace of marriage extends to the two (that being the man and the woman) who will become one. So, by the given text we have x + y = 1. Don't see x + x = 1 or y + y =1. If we want to say x + x or y + y is =1, well then we can certainly say that. Just note that it is we (not God) who is saying it!
That isn't really my definition of "essence" - it's my definition, or example, of "incident". Having a male and a female is essential to human reproduction. The accident of sterility of either partner doesn't change that essential fact. Having two people of the same sex is essentially non-reproductive - it doesn't just "happen" that the couple is sterile - it's sterile by design. You could look at it this way - if we devise of method of curing sterility, the sterile heterosexual couple can then reproduce but nothing more than a wholesale change in the human animal will allow a homosexual couple to reproduce with each other.
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.