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.
It's not flawed. It's one hundred percent accurate. You're simply assuming it is the entirety of what the man believes about marriage.
And you still have not come close to the essence of what marriage is.
In its truly fulfilled form, marriage is a type of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church.
That's what the Bible teaches, specifically.
No, to quote Dr. Keyes:
"The point of the matter is that marriage as an institution involves procreation. It is impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore they cannot marry."
Why is this not clear? He does not state that a marriage must have children to be a marriage. One man and one woman is the institutional paradigm which God established to be the marriage.
When I walk into a garage it does not make me a car. When two homosexuals come together in their way, "adopting the paradigm of family life" they are not married. "Being in the garage" is not what makes one married. It is as Dr. Keyes says essence, not incidence that makes one married.
But ask yourself why marry? This is the key question - if marriage is about starting a family then why marry someone sterile? The whole reason marriage (of some sort) exists in every human community is the need of a society of encourage the ordered production of children. People generally marry to start families, otherwise why bother? While we allow people to marry sterile people, we understand it as a exception rather than as a general principle. What gay marriage seeks is to eliminate the centrality of reproduction and family from the concept of marriage by focusing on exceptions rather than the central idea.
science finds a way that allows homosexuals to procreate, are we then to assume that homosexual marriage is moral?
This is actually an interesting question. I think we could allow gay marriage if homosexuals could procreate or human reproduction were completely distinct from sexual relations.
The interviewer is challenging Dr. Keyes willingness to apply the definition of marriage to a situation that he knows will cause pain.
"By definition" he says, she is a hedonist. By God's definition homosexuality is wrong. Do you need a Scripture reference? When two homosexuals unite for pleasuring each other, it is hedonism.
Is what they do marriage? no
What's the issue here?
Then tell him to stop running for office.
He's embarrassing the hell out of the Republican Party.
Outlawcam replies:
Let's talk about this for a second. Why is protecting the essence of family life important in our country?
Keyes: "-- 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."
" -- 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."
" --- 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."
_____________________________________
This 'hedonism' position may be 'unacceptable' to Keyes, and to other members of the Republican Party, but it is certainly not well thought out on a Constitutional basis. The only Constitutional basis for government regulation of marriage is in the enforcing of civil law, -- in the protection of individual rights.
The morality of who is contracted in marriage to whom is simply none of the States business.
-- Unless the rights of one or more of the parties involved -- [& in particular, - children] are being violated, governments have no legal basis to interfere in civil contracts of marriage.
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.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
Since when did it become compassionate to condone sin? Jesus NEVER did that - he would forgive the repentant sinner and tell them to go and sin no more. For you to suggest that Jesus would accept and condone homosexuality is sacreligious!
It's not flawed at all. We can understand certain exceptions to general rules as long as the exceptions don't violate in a general way the central principle. As an aside, historically, sterility was a legal ground for divorce and/or annulment of marriage if not disclosed in the same way that nonconsummation of a marriage was. That aside, we understand that heterosexual marriage reflects the natural means of reproducing even if in a few instances it won't lead to reproduction. Gay marriage on the other hand doesn't even attempt to recognize the centrality of reproduction to marriage.
we're allowing exceptions now (by allowing people to marry even if they know they cannot procreate), why is gay marriage uniquely bad?
It's not uniquely bad. We alsp bar incestous marriage, child marriage, and polygamy. How many exceptions should we make?
He's embarrassing the hell out of the Republican Party's RINOs...
You would deny marriage to a couple of 55 year olds?
Should they just live in sin?
This discussion is bizarre. Marriage is about two people who love one another and the result of that love is children, if the two are physically capable.
If they're not, the union of man and woman is still there.
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.