Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Infuse It or Lose It! 

When we are in the market for a good time, we like to call erstwhile Republican presidential candidate and failed Senate hopeful Alan Keyes, who dropped the following science in re our third favorite subject, sex, in 2004. The speech came three months before Mr. Keyes denounced Lesbian mother-to-be Mary Cheney as a "selfish hedonist," and nine months before his own daughter came out (twice! -- simultaneously!) as a "liberal queer":
A little aside, because we use this word [sex] in such careless ways, and I actually think that in some sense, we have allowed the careless use of it with respect to those activities that are engaged in by same-sex couples. You can call them many things. It's not entirely clear to me you can call them sexual, because in point of fact, sex is no part of what they do. Indeed, they have, in forming that same-sex relationship, turned their backs on the sexual distinction. So, though they use, in the course of it, those organs which conform to and express the sexual distinction, their use of the organs has nothing to do with that distinction, and therefore, nothing to do with real sexuality.

Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences. And the reason I say that the child isn't an accident, is because everything about those differences points in one direction: procreation!

Now, see, this is the kind of thinking, though, that we really have to take patiently because we use the word so carelessly most of the time, but the truth is that the sexual distinction as such--that is to say, human sexuality as such--exists for the sake of procreation and nothing else. It's that simple . . . .

And if we adopt an understanding of marriage that is on the wholesale basis of hedonism and self-gratification, one of the problems with it is that we're lying to people. We're giving them the impression that you enter an estate by your will, and that you can stay in it, leave it when you please; it's all about freedom. Marriage isn't all about freedom. It's a little bit, I think, like military life . . . .

Yes, there are some really deep and profound joys and gratifications involved in military life, but nobody in their right mind would think that's what it's about. What it's about is getting yourself ready to fight and face death and go through a whole lot of miserable conditions in order to make sure that you can effectively pursue the mission of defending your country, defeating the enemy. So, though it involves joys, those joys are kind of incidental, they're kind of nice spin-offs--but the truth is that there's an essential discipline, an essential sacrifice, an essential conformity of the heart to the requirements of the institution . . . .

But now comes along the supreme court of Massachusetts in order to tell us, what? Well, in order to tell us, under the specious argument about rights that they prefer the understanding of human sexuality that regards hedonistic self-gratification as right conduct that must be legitimized, made lawful and acceptable to the society.

And yet, the law of Massachusetts embodies another view that says that marriage is based upon a sexual distinction haunted by the essence of that sexual distinction, which is the capacity for procreation and the responsibilities and obligations that are involved; that marriage should be based upon a clear understanding embodied in the very flesh of the parties to the marriage that that vow, that commitment to the married estate, means that one has acknowledged the stepping across the line from a realm of simple choice and free pleasure to a realm where pleasure will be connected with procreation and obligation and responsibility.

Which should we choose?
Mindless sensual pleasure, or boot camp? We have not been confronted with such an insoluble dilemma since Eddie Izzard asked us to select either cake, or death. Because of Mr. Keyes's undeniable skill at posing morally complex philosophical conundrums, we are extremely disappointed that no enterprising reporter has thought to solicit his opinion on the following news item:
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits . . . .

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."
We are eager to hear Mr. Keyes's position on the proposed legislation, because we are quite sure he would not wish to see the infertile, the post-menopausal, or (for that matter) the sexually abstemious enjoying "special rights" denied to the queer, whether liberal or otherwise.

TANGENTIALLY-RELATED (AT BEST!) SIDEBAR: We are pleased to report that previously-gay pastor Ted Haggard, who was forced to resign the presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals over his love of cock, has emerged from three grueling weeks of rehab "completely heterosexual." Unconfirmed reports say that Haggard may relocate to San Francisco, where he hopes to score with some of the luscious, man-starved babes ditched earlier this week by embattled Mayor Gavin Newsom.

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us