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.
I pinch someone in the arm. He screams in pain. Now, let us discuss whether or not pinching someone in the arm causes pain or not. Classic leftist dialectics: it's all relative; it all depends. Whether you're aware or not is irrelevant, but that's what you're trying to do with your challenge. Certain things are not to be disputed, challenged or debated - they're absolutes.
>>It seems the difference is nature.>>
Yes, and behavior. And behavior requires a choice. Hence, the preference of the gay lifestyle.
>>This leaves more questions than answers>>
He already answered your question 1.
Your question 2 was answered in his retort to the homosexual's question on the Doles.
Your question 3 is irrelevant but interesting.
Your question 4 assumes that people living today are better capable of child-rearing than any generation before us, and that homosexuals are just as capable of nurturing children to be productive members of society as non-homosexual marriages. The first assumption is invalid on the basis of pride. The second is false, since adults teach their children far more by example than by word. Homosexuals cannot provide an atmosphere in which a child can learn how to procreate and raise a family in that framework.
Fair request, but that'll be the end of the discussion, right there. It can't be done.
As for Javelina not liking my comparison of Dr. Keyes' superior logic and wisdom to Jesus', you'd have to have read the Gospels to know what I was talking about.
Jesus revealed a wisdom that is from above. That does sound "silly" to anyone who hasn't had such a revelation from God and is basing their existence upon their own logic.
Abstract doesnt work too long in normal conversation. If you try and remain in the dwelling of the living and breathing, and relate your argument to people that are real and moving, your words will not put people to bed early.
Your rhetoric isn't making ANY progress. Keyes didnt use the moral judgement of 'wrong' or even 'right.' He remained in the realm of what the homosexual would understand (note his special attention to this end).
There is no heart of the matter when talking about science of the unknown future. Keyes nailed it again.
You seem to be lost in a loop or irrelevency, with no relation to the issue at hand. Welcome to FR, but rhetorical logic doesnt fly here. Enjoy the self-debate. People love to watch even more than chime in.
Lastly, I repeat... Homosexuals are incapable of doing what heterosexual couples have done for millenia... and homosexuals have neither the resources nor the anatomy to improve on it.
I am not a Keyes hater although I do not support the man. he is a better man than Obama and in this article he shines like a new car.
Well everyone is entitled to make up their own idea of what a marriage is, aren't they? Where do we start and where do we stop?
By revelation we know: God made us male and female for the purposes of partnership and procreation. Sex is accomplishes both in a marriage.
Dr, Keyes quotes the Genesis revelation; "The two become one flesh" and on that basis a marriage can only occur between a man and a woman as they come together for partnership and create offspring [one flesh]. Using sex to promote a partnership outside of marriage is not what God intended. Sex is by God's definition, marital intimacy, not a tool for "strengthening unions".
That understanding, while quite common these days, is outside of the Judeo-Christian revelation [pagan].
Just because it is an absolute doesn't mean there is not a reason. It is the reason I'm trying to express.
There would be no need for him to lie, nor should he. What he should have done is avoided making a phrase that is going to be used as a sound bite and is easily going to be taken out of context.
I'll give ya an example, when Ann Coulter wrote the book treason, and was promoting it, liberal media folks tried to goad her into a soundbite against various politicians, she didn't bite and she managed to make sure everything she said, couldn't be taken out of context. Thats polish.
Exactly. Or better yet -- don't give interviews to Michaelangelo Signorile, noted left-wing activist, in the first place!
The error here is failing to understand that what we call gay is merely a grown-up version of "playing house."
Can you show me where he said that?
He reserves the word "marriage" for the male/female relationship and this is based on the revelation from God found in Genesis..."the two become one flesh". Everything else sexual, [and there are plenty of other forms] he categorizes as "the exchange of mutual pleasure" but not marriage.
If you do not recognize the difference between incident and essence you probably drink lemonade made from artificial flavoring.
Ping!
Everything you ask is answered in the article; why must you torture the reasoning?
ping!
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.