Obama said "inevitable". Keyes said a child who could not identify their father could not aviod the "possibility" of having sexual relations with their siblings. The possibility could not be elemenated. Makes sense. Obama can not debate
For all of you who were adopted at birth, make sure you get frequent surveillances of your biological parents as you age so as not to accidentally have sex with them. Also, before intimacy with any potential partners make sure you get a blood sample first so as to ensure they aren't your biological sibling. Gay marriage leads to Oedipus Rex.
Obama is an utter joke as a debator, and he proves it here. His knack is solo teleprompter speeches that move the masses.
Obama couldn't beat Keyes in an intellectual debate if his life depended on it, but that is irrelevant since merely being a good debator doesn't make you an acceptable political candidate.
Listen the issue is not discrimination. Homosexuality is a sin. It is not normal. It can not reproduce with out medical help. It is not normal and sin.
@houseworth123 Jesus wasn't a normal man. Some people are abnormally kind, compassionate and considerate. Why is normality relevant?
Gluttony is also a sin (e.g. Philippians 3:18-19) yet ~34% of the U.S. population are obese and another ~34% are overweight (total 68%) according to the CDC... DRAMA lol.
Infertile couples and post menopausal women can't reproduce without medical help... so are their relationships unworthy of marriage too?
So according to Keyes, gay people getting married is wrong because it does not pertain to the definition of marriage, and uses that argument to debunk claims like an infertile couple or one that doesn't wish to have kids? But at the same time he can make ad hoc claims about adoption and incest to prove his point? One specific counter-example can ruin his opponent's point, but not his own?
I wish liberals said about their own beliefs that they wouldn't make it public policy. Their trick is to get conservatives to do that by making them fear they'll be "extremists" if they do.
Though I must say that Keyes seriously underestimated the degree to which the populace couldn't give two hoots about "good logic" when casting their votes.
@djs259 keyes' 'logic' is anything but. The true logic is this: if you suppress the identity of your natural parents then it makes it possible for you to commit incest unknowingly. That is true in many situations e.g. adoption, IVF or just simply not knowing anything about your family history. Logical conclusion: individuals must have a right to know who their natural parents are so they can avoid incest - that would include children adopted by homosexuals.
Civil Unions give gay people the exact same right as a married couple except they are not classified as "married" mainly because the definition is between a man and a woman, thus it wouldn't make any sense to call two men who are partners "married".
They have equal rights they are just classified as different in definition. What you are trying to do is call and apple and orange when it is clearly an apple.
@DMXthegreatUknow You like civil unions? Then GET one! Who's stopping you from being happy and fulfilled? Nobody cares about what YOU do, so feel free to get yourself a civil union.
Everybody else can make their own decisions. Millions will remain unmarried. Millions will go on marrying for reasons other than love (like money or a Green Crad), and with gay marriage equality becoming the law of the lad, millions no longer have to be trapped in sham marriages or unhappy.
@zerogullibility I think you misunderstood me, I do not want a civil union because I am straight, I can get married.
Gay couples have the same legal rights in a civil union as a married couple do. The difference between the two is that the definition is different.
I find it hard to comprehend why gays wish to promote how they are different in their sexuality i.e. mardigra. Yet they are so desperate to be defined equal/normal as a regular couple under the married "status".
@DMXthegreatUknow If you want inferior standing only for OTHERS, there's no need to further discuss it. You can not defend unfairness, yet claim your support for equality.
The problem with gay marriage is that there is no problem. Since you have no counter argument, you best sit back and "allow" equality to become the law of the land. Hypocrite!
@zerogullibility Gay people can never be married under the DEFINITION as it is stated that marriage is between a MAN AND WOMAN (please look up this meaning it will help you understand).
Gay marriage doesn't exist!, there is no such thing because marriage only applies to man and woman. I wouldn't mind if gay people wanted to get Gayridge and they called it that after their own ceremony. However calling gay couples married is illogical and doesn't make sense.
@DMXthegreatUknow Gay marriage doesn't have to make any sense to you, it just has to be an option and it has to be the law of the land. This is happening with or without your "blessing". Live with it.
@DMXthegreatUknow Separate but equal is not equal. This has been established, such as with the having separate drinking fountains and toilets for black people and white people and the repeal of antimiscegenation laws.
Marriage is actually not defined exclusively between a man and women, which is why American Evangelicals had to CHANGE the legal definition of marriage by getting laws passed that made it ONLY between 1 man and woman. The above is proof that definitions can and do change.
Keye's idiotic attempt to connect gay marriage/adoption with incest was an intellectual blunder and yet he continued down that path for the remainder of the clip.
can't gays and lesbians (is there a difference? hmmm), anyway why do we have to consider this as a civil rights issue. just construct a contract, make a will, grant a waiver etc... there are tools in place that would answer the concerns of the gay community. they don't have to have the right to marriage - just sign a fricking contract and or a will (tranfer of property on death; free access to one another granted by each to each other by way of a signed agreement, waiver etc..)
@miggyruru Anybody could say the same to you (you aren't allowed a marriage because you can sign a different set of contracts instead). You may be happy with that but many same-sex couples may not be and as other couples have the right to marry, it is up to those other couples (including yourself) to justify why that right should be denied to same sex couples I.E. why they should not have rights equal to your own.
Procreation is not actually impossible between two males or two females. Sperm can be biologically altered to become an egg. Stem cells taken from a female can also be biologically programmed to become a sperm cell.
@5LJ3A2 : now that is the stupidest statement of all time. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. if a gay man ejaculates inside a gay man it will never result in a pregnancy. if lesbians insert things into each other it will never result in a pregnancy. they together can never create a baby. WTF.
@miggyruru A sperm cell, and a sperm cell biologically altered to become an egg can be artificially inserted into a female's uterus. The developing baby is genetically the creation of the two gay partners, but develops inside the host female. Therefore, procreation has been achieved between two men.
@lightof the west7 Your argument is invalid, this is the thing Mr. Keyes pointed out clearly he suggested that when one proves a point doesnt mean it doesnt exist eslewhere. Also Alan Keyes owned Obama, his point in my opinion was better made than Obama's, however, they both made some valid points that must be recognized and in the end we still have a problem.
@CatherineDeLancret It doesn't matter if it's 5% or 0.005% of the population. Injustice is injustice, regardless of how many people it affects.
You presuppose that we should stick to tradition though not only would that mean 0 improvement of any kind was possible (no youtube, no PCs, no technology at all etc) but traditional marriage wasn't like it is today anyway. Women were basically property given from 1 man to another (father to husband), often for financial or political reasons.
@Jamieishere1 Well if you insist that the institution is free to change fine, but that doesn't mean that there is a logical case for legal discrimination here. If it is going to change just let attitudes shift without filing lawsuits that suggest that there is an actual injustice in play. You can't argue that someone is discriminating against another person because of what you want an institution to ultimately become.
Currently, marriage effectively exists as a form of segregation. Some people's relationships are granted this societal accolade while others are not. It is by definition an arbitrary discrimination until a sound reason can be provided as to why the segregation should persist, just as it was with inter-racial marriage.
It is the duty of the state to right injustice. It represents and is paid for by everybody, including minorities.
Once again, the charge of discrimination that you're making is only valid relative to the new function that you wish for this institution to take on. The phrase "some people's (romantic) relationships are granted this societal accolade while others are not" suggests that the purpose of marriage is to recognize romantic affinities, and nothing more. Even if you feel that this change of function is in the air, it does not grant us with a basis for a charge of legal discrimination.
@Jamieishere1 "This accolade" at present refers to an institution to which the concept of procreation is essential. Thus we do the same sex couple no wrong in denying them this accolade. If society as a whole decides that the institution must change, they may bring about this transformation through their legislatures.
@Aphoresis One of marriage's multiple functions is to recognise romantic affinities.
The concept of procreation is clearly not essential to marriage, as evidenced both by those states/countries that do have SS marriage legislation and the long history of infertile/post-menopausal couples who have got married and continue to be married.
If you bought in to Alan Keyes attempt to counter this counter argument, I am happy to PM you an explanation of how he is wrong.
1) The concept of procreation is essential to the Institution as defined by the U.S. as a nation state, as well as to the majority of the individual states that constitute that state. Within their legal frameworks, it is therefore not legal discrimination.
2) Particular couples who happen to be past child bearing age have no real bearing on the matter. We said that procreation was part of the essential purpose of the INSTITUTION of marriage, not of the individual marriage.
@Aphoresis Thanks for the response and for numbering (it makes it easier to respond).
1) Please quote the law and explain why it can't or shouldn't change, particularly given it's past changes, such as with inter-racial marriage. That something is currently a certain way is no justification that it should have been or should continue to be so.
2) This point applies just as much to same-sex couples as infertile ones. If you feel there is a distinction, please clarify.
The Institution is a social apparatus, and it's purpose is a large scale social objective: to promote the procreation and rearing of children under the stable environment of the parties that produced them ACROSS SOCIETY. Individual cases are irrelevant to the accomplishment of the large scale social objective.
@Aphoresis Again your point here allows for same-sex marriage, just as much as infertile couple's marriage.
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that we have some moral/ legal obligation to avoid interference with the previously intended purpose of something.
Consider for example, the diffusal of a terrorist's bomb... the intended purpose is interfered with, in a way that has great benefit. So, clearly, intervention that prevents fulfilment of intended purpose isn't innately bad.
@Aphoresis Would you take the same relaxed approach of allowing society to change the institution over time if it were an issue of racism or some other more vivacious injustice?
Currently, there is segregation and it is not that different from the historic "separate but equal" racial segregation. People can of course argue that there's a difference in magnitude but that isn't an essential component of the analogy and there doesn't appear to be a difference in magnitude vs inter-racial mariage.
As for racial segregation, you have yet to demonstrate an equivalency between these two situations. I did not contend that genuine instances of legal discrimination ought to only be changed by evolutions in social opinion, i contended that it had not been demonstrated that this issue is actually an instance of legal discrimination in the first place.
"The action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart."
It is segregation by definition, which was deemed wrong in the case of race due to it effectively making minority races "second class citizens" due to the backdrop of prejudice under which the segregation occurred.
Separate but equal is not equal in such a climate because it implies state endorsement of some relevant quantitative difference.
The male female model is the procreative model, and therefore as long as it remains at the center of the institution of marriage, procreation lies at the center of the institution, regardless of any individual couples' ability or inclination to procreate. The reason that persons of the same sex are not recognized is not because they cannot procreate, it is because in order to recognize them the institution of marriage must discard of part of it's essential purpose for being.
@Aphoresis A male female infertile/post-menopausal model is no more a procreative model than a male-male or female-female one.
Do you consider it to be a good decision to scrap anti-miscegenation laws? If so, how do you consider that to be different from same-sex marriage? Is it purely due to the gender of those involved...?
This Moderator was a complete disgrace. A moderator is not supposed to take sides on controversial political issues such as this, and this moderator was CLEARLY doing that.
The problem with the moderator is not that he is taking sides, he fails to limit the argument and create the debate. These two gentlemen are arguing separate points. Therefore there is no argument.
@ronin752 He is showing his Bias when it comes to Gay marriage though.....and is using every chance he can get to set the Candidates up with "gotcha questions" involving Gay marriage. He is deliberately trying to make them look bad if they answer in a certain way. Thats irresponsible moderating.
Saying a married couple could also have the same problem with adoptive children happening to unknowingly have sex with their sibling does not disprove Keyes' logic. It does, however, make the point irrelevant to the debate. The possibility of incest is completely unrelated to the sexual preferences of the adoptive couple. By using that reason to ban same sex adoption, the same must apply to all adoptions.
I'm not sure why the basis of the institution of marriage is relevant. Just because it has existed as a way to regulate the responsibilities of procreation doesn't mean it must stay that way. To say that is the motivation for marriage today is naive. Is he implying that a couple cannot successfully procreate without being married? Why does it matter if the necessity for marriage is destroyed? That doesn't mean the institution will be destroyed. Why is it necessary for marriage to be necessary?
@YellaSpiceFamily How is this exclusive to same sex couples? It's not, the same problem exists in all adoptions. So if you are using this as a reason to ban same sex adoption, you must logically use the same reason to ban all adoptions in which the biological father is unknown, because the same problem always exists.
What are the chances that an adopted child will one day unknowingly meet their biological brother/sister and have sex? Does this type of incest happen often? Sure, I understand his "logic" but seriously, what are the odds? It seems like he's being a paranoid parent conjuring up "What if the sky falls down?" type situations.
Assuming that you choose a president for his belief system, or rather what shapes his character, his views and preferences for our country. Otherwise why are you voting? Because the majority likes him? Or because your parents vote? Shouldn't we as individuals theoretically chose a president based off of our own beliefs? Yes christians are voting for obama because he used the word christian but clearly denounces his faith. He seems to drop it in any heated discussion like it is too much a burden.
wow, listen to barrack obama. What kind of leader doesn't execute his moral beliefs as standard for himself, his family and his country? He is saying he believes in the union of man and woman, but than he also contradicts his moral belief (or rather renounces it) by stating that he believesit is ok to permit "civil union" referring to unmarried gay couples. Wow. Could you be any more contradicting.
No because he is not closed minded. Just because what you believe doesn't mean others have to just because you are in a position of authority. That's why its a democracy. I am personally not for gay marriage one bit, it even kind of erks me at times but I am not closed minded and say they shouldn't have the same rights others do. My argument against gay marriage would be that is it a biological paradox and with time homosexuals would die out by the process of evolution
For example believing abortion shouldn't be legal. You are (most likely) applying your religious views to everyone else. What if they are not religious? What if they believe statistics (which don't lie by the way) that say most of these babies from dead-beat parents will turn out to be detrimental to society anyway. Issues such as these that people are very ignorant on because of their religious views.
@ballsoffury4 terrible argument; you can't make all political decisions in response to statistics...statistics also say that a child who experiences any sort of gun-use incident is much more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, sooner or later. should any kid witnessing gun fire be preemptively incarcerated?
@ballsoffury4 terrible argument; you can't make all political decisions in response to statistics...statistics also say that a child who experiences any sort of gun-use incident is much more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, sooner or later. should any kid witnessing gun fire be preemptively incarcerated?
Are you that stupid, abortion is something you can logically deal with, you either abort the baby or you have it. Referring to your comment just because he is more likely to do it, doesn't mean the chances are high at all. A baby doesn't feel pain until it experiences neurulation (development of CNS) until that point I am pro choice. You can't incarcerate or execute a kid because he witnessed a crime, is that really logical? Let's be a little logical here
@ballsoffury4 i was applying the same logic to your argument that a person may use those statistics to justify having an abortion, in order to show you how poor the logic is. "just because he is more likely to do it, doesn't mean the chances are high at all"......no shit. that was my point because the same can be applied to the aborted child.
@sheshappybychoice That's because he's what the Bible describes as 'lukewarm.'
"So then thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" Rev 3:16. Which also describes the saying, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Obama is a politician, not a leader, and in the case of LGBT, an enabler.
@kady7869 But as Keyes pointed out, whether a heterosexual couple, i.e. husband and wife, elects not to procreate when the possiblity is still present for them to do so, that's incidental, and does change the fact that it's still possible in principle to procreate. In this case, incidental circumstances can't be used to change the definition of marriage in principle.
@dimic Thank you. :) However I didn't proofread. I meant, .....and does NOT change the fact it's still possible in principle to procreate..... But thank you again.
No one wishes: to see their bride abducted by apes; that peanut butter tasted like rotted pumpkins; that sex-change surgery should be required of all postal employees.
LOL...these people. If you think Keyes is making a good argument, put it in standard form and let me know if the conclusion follows. Hell, let me know if the conclusion follows regardless. Keyes does nothing more than use big words so as to give him credibility. I bet most of the people on his side can't even tell me WHY they think his arguments are correct. Because Keyes said so? Lmao. Put it in standard form. Tell me WHY he is correct. And don't say because it sounds like he is!
@pissedoffdude1 If two people IN PRINCIPLE can never have children, then they were not meant to be married. So I'm guessing this is why a man can't/shouldn't marry his dog, cat, pick up truck etc. Doesn't seem all that illogical to me nor did I hear any words that I would consider to be "big" in that explanation. Funny thing is though, Obama himself states that PERSONALLY he does not believe in homosexual marriage yet, he alters the course by turning it into a gay bashing issue.
@BlacksAreBeautiful That's exactly what I was arguing against. Do you have a reason for believing marriage should be defined that way? That definition of marriage devalues humans to the level of animals, which we are. If marriage isn't about love but procreation instead, why do we even have it to begin with? Mammals don't go around marrying each other to procreate. And I'm not arguing in favor of Obama's positions, so that last thing you posted is completely irrelevant.
@pissedoffdude1I can't offer a reason why anything has been defined the way it has been, I just accept the definitions of this and millions of other words. If everyone started forming movements trying to change definitions to suit their desires, how ineffective would language become? Mammals live instinctively and I'm not sure man was made to live that way.
He never said marriage was about procreation and not love, he says its about love between two who are able to procreate in principle.
@BlacksAreBeautiful That's his definition of marriage. He is arguing that marriage is defined as one man, one women - end of story. Thats like beleving every bit of the bible word for word. Keyes doesn't put forth a well-constructed argument in favor of heterosexual marriage. Instead, his argument can be analyzed as follows:
1. Marriage is defined as one man, one women, for the purpose of procreation
@pissedoffdude1 You have purposefully condensed the definition down, leaving out the qualifier in order to portray the definition as
a) Something he has made up and
'b) Something that is sinister or hateful in nature.
I can not explain it any better IN FULL than he can. I also can't make you understand. Do yourself a favor and stop taking the explanation out of it's full context and perhaps you may understand what he is saying.
@BlacksAreBeautiful Well said. Keyes was talking about the definition of marriage when it comes to law, government, and civilization, as opposed to people's personal feelings toward one another. Unfortunately, while Keyes said the qualifier, the moderator was talking over him.
@BlacksAreBeautiful but that type of logic can be used to justify nearly anything you want. The problem lies with the first premise, the definition of marriage. Keys automatically presupposes that marriage is to be defined as one man, one woman. In other words, he is arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman, because marriage is between one man and one woman. That being the case, Keys DID NOT make ANY argument against gay marriage. He just begged the question
@pissedoffdude1 Websters also has a definition for LOL. We are talking about how it has been defined for thousands of years prior, not some updated version brought about by pressure to be politically correct. I
What does religion have to do with letting gays and lesbians marry? umm... separation of state and church ring a bell? If homosexuals feel like having ceremony to unify a couple, they can freaking have it, without a bible, without the religious bullshit, they can have it and have all the rights that come with it. Period.
There is no rule that Christians can't believe that gays can't have equal rights. Not all Christians all the same just like not all Muslims are the same. Religious views can be a spectrum even in a particular religion. I don't believe that religious beliefs should infringe on the rights of others. I don't believe in Christianity nor the Bible which I believe is a book of mythology. I believe in religious diversity and equality.
Seems crazy that you have to justify human rights with biblical evidence. This isn't an English Literature essay, it's the demand for dignity and respect and equal rights for all human beings. As a European it's crazy to see politics chained to scripture in this way. It's disturbingly regressive.
I actually think both were right to a certain degree. Keyes is obviously the better orator. Although I might disagree with some of his fundamental points, the way he transitions his logic makes a lot of sense, weirdly enough.
Think about what you said mhamil973 i didn't agree with older bush younger bush or clintons politics i agree whole heartedly with what scripture says. If Obama says hes a christian this is what it says about this in 1corinthians ch.6-11 i gave it to you in a note to you. He is not a christian final because he does not comply with scripture sexual immorality is all those actions said in 1 corinthians.
@kingswithstyle21 God knows your heart. The bible says we should pray for our leaders. It also says love each other. regardless of differences. OBAMA has a good heart. He preaches no hate. Alan Keyes is spewing hate here. He has no place in politics.
WOW MR. Keyes owned President Obama on that debate. If your faith says its wrong, how can you go against your faith. It must not be a faith to him, but a way to come at christians as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
@kingswithstyle21 It's clear that you don't like Obama at all. Mr. Keyes argument was convoluted at best. Mr. Obama was simply saying "Don't go around bashing people because they are different", and that is why he is President today. God bless him.
god is the IDEA of man, SCIENCE is the dismissal of that idea. So i ask you this u irrational people, where is YOUR evidence? Us atheist have worked up our case and provided countless amount of evidence explaining nearly every physical aspect of reality as we know it and yet all you GOD believers say its simply a blind faith, something you believe that you cant prove. I call that DELUSIONAL!
@lilweezyana2010 Actually Jesus is a historical figure. To say Jesus is imaginary would be the same as saying Christopher Columbus didnt ever exist. Jesus is not only written historically in the cannon but he was written in other Hebrew Scriptures and Egyptian scrolls. So its a fact a man named Jesus did walk this earth. Whats also interesting is that he was able to do miracles that no other human could do. That was documented. Dont you think that some type of god had to give him such powers?
@elmphlemp LOL! Your statement just goes to show you and most you atheist that you really dont know much about the world. What I find with most Atheist is that they cant read, have "FACTS" completely wrong, and tend to dismiss the reality as they know it. Look it up Jesus is a historical figure. There are numerous documents which talk about Jesus other then the actual cannon. Jesus did indeed walk the earth. The tomb which he was buried is still in Jerusalem.
Who said anything about Atheism? I'm not sure what 'FACTS' you want me to read, but there wasn't one account of a Jesus of Nazareth for almost 100 years after his purported death. I'm not saying he didn't exist but there is as much proof of that as there is of Jesus being an appropriation of the Egyptian story of Isis and the baby Horus.
@elmphlemp Actually when he resurrected(After his death) it was written in both Hebrew and Greek scripture. What proof do you need when god froze a woman(Made to statue) and the statue is still there. People didnt have any kind of knowledge of sculpting in those times. The proof is there. The bible is written by 40+ authors who didnt ever know each other(Died 10+ years apart) but yet they claim "GOD" told them to write down history. I refuse to believe that the cannon was made up by "MAD MEN"
Some of the earliest known sculpture dates back more than 36,000 years, to say we had no knowledge of it is just a lie. If you truly believe that someone can magically be turned into a statue then more power to you. God bless you.
@elmphlemp ha ha ha ha LOL humans didn't exist 36,000 years ago(Or as science would say we humans were considered monkeys back then) WOW You are really an idiot. Of course I believe someone can be turned into a statue the statue is still there google it.
Holy shit, seriously? Humans didn't exist? Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Africa in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.
MAN CREATED GOD, PROVE ME WRONG is what im asking the people to prove.
Science is called evolution, you know those churches you live in, god didnt create them, man did. You know that book you read called the Bible? Man created that, no form of any external entity has ever breached its way into man kind ever in history. reality is all that is real, and GOD is not real.
@lilweezyana2010 Actually speaking about the bible. The bible was written by over 40+ authors who died withing a frame of 10 years apart. Science proved that. Knowing that all these authors claimed that a god of a higher power told them to write what they were suppose to write. Lets say even if they were out of theyre complete minds don't you think that there was a force of some sort to tell them to do something. I mean Im not going to run outside and throw my hat up in the air for no reason
There is a BIG difference between adopting a child that has been abandoned or saved from an abortion.... and INTENTIONALLY CREATING more children who are "fatherless".
I guess I should be surprised that Obama couldn't follow the logic, but after 2 years in office, I see that he simply lacks the mental power to understand...
I skimmed your comment quickly and thought you were saying that Keyes doesn't make sense. I'm very sorry, of course you were referring to Obama and I completely agree. My drug addled comment is reserved for whoever would agree with Obama in this debate. :) my mistake.
@pppeeeppee so you believe in a caring and forgiving God, in a prophet who preached understanding. But still you wan't them to burn. I feel sorry for you
@glamedrehl Actually I want the ignorance to burn. Gay people have a tendency to convey the fact that god is wrong, which is a ignorant thing to do. God is right a man is for a women. To defy that is saying god is wrong and therefore you deserve to burn. When gays say stuff like "We were born this way" is downright saying God is wrong and that I will ignore what the god says I chose my own destiny therefore for those who ignore the message deserve to be tortured and burned for ever and ever
@pppeeeppee still i feel sorry for you. you know there are gay animals. some types of swan mate and then scare away the female and raise the offspring with another male(but not all swans of this type do this). There have been cases of gay elefants and several other animaltypes. do they chose to be gay? No they didn't. I also believe in God, but my god doesn't judge,it'swithin every living thing, to hate another living thing is to hate God. God didn't create life but was created by life
@glamedrehl Okay now I know you are completely stupid. What ever happens in the animal kingdom is not something humans can understand ever. 2 male animals aren't mating you idiot. If a male Giraffe hugs and and shows affection to another male Giraffe that doesn't mean that Giraffe is gay. One thing I do know is that you are a fucking idiot who just goes by whatever he hears. Im sure some faggotts came along and said "Ohh there are gay animals.... SO..... Its natural for animals....."
@pppeeeppee be resonable humans understand many things of the animal kingdom. We understand so much we can clone them. we understand so much we can grow a human ear on the back of a mice. (look it up it's really possible) I didn't say the two males mated, i said one of the 2 males mates with the female after a while she legs her eggs and then the males scare her away and raise the young ones. I read it in national gegraphic. please be polite, i am polite as well.
It's simply an argument against Adoption In general, NOT Gay Marriage or Adoption,
And regardless of that, It's Still very vague, It's as simple as saying that people raised as Orphans and grew up in an adoptive family are Not allowed to have sex with an Older person For they might Be their Parents.
Keyes Does have a good point, Logical, But not entirely Correct.
Procreation is Not a Part of the definition of marriage , It's Simply An extra benefit, And I say EXTRA, because simply, Some DO NOT have that benefit, Such as infertiles,
And If you take things in "Principle" I can Take the mere fact that it takes 2 humans in a sexual intercourse To procreate, But Them being of the same gender is a Special Circumstance,
The FIRST logical Argument Against Gay marriage, But Not 100% correct.
Keyes is obviously a man with common sense and a moral, traditional backbone. Of course he will be laughed at by the dumb liberal Obama and this dipshit host. His argument is right about the possibility of incest when a child has no idea who the father is, how can anyone say his logic is wrong in this sense? Please explain to me.
Oh my fucking god. Can you believe this guy was an ambassador to the U.N.!?! Fucking reagan, this is what the republican party thinks is a good diplomat! hahahah what a fucking joke. Nowonder the world hates us. hahaha
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama said "inevitable". Keyes said a child who could not identify their father could not aviod the "possibility" of having sexual relations with their siblings. The possibility could not be elemenated. Makes sense. Obama can not debate
ryty2197 7 hours ago
Comment removed
ryty2197 7 hours ago
Comment removed
ryty2197 7 hours ago
Comment removed
ryty2197 7 hours ago
Keyes was Gold on the the first homosexuality issue. Quite shaky on the incest thing...
4MarksMojo 4 days ago
For all of you who were adopted at birth, make sure you get frequent surveillances of your biological parents as you age so as not to accidentally have sex with them. Also, before intimacy with any potential partners make sure you get a blood sample first so as to ensure they aren't your biological sibling. Gay marriage leads to Oedipus Rex.
firstatheist 6 days ago
Obama is dumb
optionsupdate 2 weeks ago
3:40 "It retains it's 'appleness'" What an idiot.
killerseps 2 weeks ago
President Obama looks so young.... He killed keys on this debate lol...I lived in chicago during this debate and I immediatly knew he was special.
lifelovefuture 3 weeks ago
@lifelovefuture
Obama is an utter joke as a debator, and he proves it here. His knack is solo teleprompter speeches that move the masses.
Obama couldn't beat Keyes in an intellectual debate if his life depended on it, but that is irrelevant since merely being a good debator doesn't make you an acceptable political candidate.
Newt Gingrich is a good example.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
That interviewer's got balls...... = )
TGIAustin911 1 month ago
Listen the issue is not discrimination. Homosexuality is a sin. It is not normal. It can not reproduce with out medical help. It is not normal and sin.
houseworth123 1 month ago
@houseworth123 Jesus wasn't a normal man. Some people are abnormally kind, compassionate and considerate. Why is normality relevant?
Gluttony is also a sin (e.g. Philippians 3:18-19) yet ~34% of the U.S. population are obese and another ~34% are overweight (total 68%) according to the CDC... DRAMA lol.
Infertile couples and post menopausal women can't reproduce without medical help... so are their relationships unworthy of marriage too?
Anyway, plz quote the bible on it being a sin.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
So according to Keyes, gay people getting married is wrong because it does not pertain to the definition of marriage, and uses that argument to debunk claims like an infertile couple or one that doesn't wish to have kids? But at the same time he can make ad hoc claims about adoption and incest to prove his point? One specific counter-example can ruin his opponent's point, but not his own?
Great logic there.
BlackFlame39 1 month ago
I wish liberals said about their own beliefs that they wouldn't make it public policy. Their trick is to get conservatives to do that by making them fear they'll be "extremists" if they do.
fool1shmortal 1 month ago
why dont gays have a common law marriage I think there are three types of marriage
optionsupdate 1 month ago
The guy Keyes guy was in Borat. :)
good2Bgodless 1 month ago
Obama got spanked sideways in this debate.
Though I must say that Keyes seriously underestimated the degree to which the populace couldn't give two hoots about "good logic" when casting their votes.
djs259 1 month ago in playlist keyes obama
@djs259 keyes' 'logic' is anything but. The true logic is this: if you suppress the identity of your natural parents then it makes it possible for you to commit incest unknowingly. That is true in many situations e.g. adoption, IVF or just simply not knowing anything about your family history. Logical conclusion: individuals must have a right to know who their natural parents are so they can avoid incest - that would include children adopted by homosexuals.
shahideurope 1 month ago
@djs259 you are so right, on both points. The appreciation of good logic has gone completely out the window.
GMLFire 1 month ago
@djs259
Yes that is true, in todays society truth and logic have been confused with "hate speech".
1RedshirtXLG 3 weeks ago
Can't explain two men fucking, no one can.
DMXthegreatUknow 2 months ago
I cannot comprehend why you would be against gay marriage.
Two gay people marrying doesn't hurt anyone,it doesn't take away striaght peoples' rights,nor does it affect our lives in the slightest.
The people that actively discriminate against the LGBTQ community make me sick.
It isn't our job as americans,as humans to choose who deserves certain rights,and who don't.
We ALL deserve equal rights,and sexuality shouldn't even be an issue anymore.
zerogullibility 2 months ago
@zerogullibility
Civil Unions give gay people the exact same right as a married couple except they are not classified as "married" mainly because the definition is between a man and a woman, thus it wouldn't make any sense to call two men who are partners "married".
They have equal rights they are just classified as different in definition. What you are trying to do is call and apple and orange when it is clearly an apple.
DMXthegreatUknow 2 months ago
@DMXthegreatUknow You like civil unions? Then GET one! Who's stopping you from being happy and fulfilled? Nobody cares about what YOU do, so feel free to get yourself a civil union.
Everybody else can make their own decisions. Millions will remain unmarried. Millions will go on marrying for reasons other than love (like money or a Green Crad), and with gay marriage equality becoming the law of the lad, millions no longer have to be trapped in sham marriages or unhappy.
zerogullibility 2 months ago
@zerogullibility I think you misunderstood me, I do not want a civil union because I am straight, I can get married.
Gay couples have the same legal rights in a civil union as a married couple do. The difference between the two is that the definition is different.
I find it hard to comprehend why gays wish to promote how they are different in their sexuality i.e. mardigra. Yet they are so desperate to be defined equal/normal as a regular couple under the married "status".
DMXthegreatUknow 2 months ago 4
@DMXthegreatUknow If you want inferior standing only for OTHERS, there's no need to further discuss it. You can not defend unfairness, yet claim your support for equality.
The problem with gay marriage is that there is no problem. Since you have no counter argument, you best sit back and "allow" equality to become the law of the land. Hypocrite!
zerogullibility 2 months ago
@zerogullibility Gay people can never be married under the DEFINITION as it is stated that marriage is between a MAN AND WOMAN (please look up this meaning it will help you understand).
Gay marriage doesn't exist!, there is no such thing because marriage only applies to man and woman. I wouldn't mind if gay people wanted to get Gayridge and they called it that after their own ceremony. However calling gay couples married is illogical and doesn't make sense.
DMXthegreatUknow 2 months ago
@DMXthegreatUknow Create a new definition and Im fine with it, but can't call something its not.
E.G
Apple in not an orange
Horse is not a dog
Shoe is not a sock
Understand?
DMXthegreatUknow 2 months ago
@DMXthegreatUknow Gay marriage doesn't have to make any sense to you, it just has to be an option and it has to be the law of the land. This is happening with or without your "blessing". Live with it.
zerogullibility 2 months ago
@DMXthegreatUknow Separate but equal is not equal. This has been established, such as with the having separate drinking fountains and toilets for black people and white people and the repeal of antimiscegenation laws.
Marriage is actually not defined exclusively between a man and women, which is why American Evangelicals had to CHANGE the legal definition of marriage by getting laws passed that made it ONLY between 1 man and woman. The above is proof that definitions can and do change.
Jamieishere1 2 months ago
Keye's idiotic attempt to connect gay marriage/adoption with incest was an intellectual blunder and yet he continued down that path for the remainder of the clip.
firstatheist 6 days ago
can't gays and lesbians (is there a difference? hmmm), anyway why do we have to consider this as a civil rights issue. just construct a contract, make a will, grant a waiver etc... there are tools in place that would answer the concerns of the gay community. they don't have to have the right to marriage - just sign a fricking contract and or a will (tranfer of property on death; free access to one another granted by each to each other by way of a signed agreement, waiver etc..)
miggyruru 2 months ago
@miggyruru Anybody could say the same to you (you aren't allowed a marriage because you can sign a different set of contracts instead). You may be happy with that but many same-sex couples may not be and as other couples have the right to marry, it is up to those other couples (including yourself) to justify why that right should be denied to same sex couples I.E. why they should not have rights equal to your own.
Jamieishere1 2 months ago
Procreation is not actually impossible between two males or two females. Sperm can be biologically altered to become an egg. Stem cells taken from a female can also be biologically programmed to become a sperm cell.
5LJ3A2 2 months ago
@5LJ3A2 : now that is the stupidest statement of all time. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. if a gay man ejaculates inside a gay man it will never result in a pregnancy. if lesbians insert things into each other it will never result in a pregnancy. they together can never create a baby. WTF.
miggyruru 2 months ago
@miggyruru A sperm cell, and a sperm cell biologically altered to become an egg can be artificially inserted into a female's uterus. The developing baby is genetically the creation of the two gay partners, but develops inside the host female. Therefore, procreation has been achieved between two men.
5LJ3A2 2 months ago
@miggyruru "they together can never create a baby"
Its a good thing that procreation is in no way required to validate a marriage, huh? If it were....gays might be in trouble!
clubindiana4 2 months ago
@lightof the west7 Your argument is invalid, this is the thing Mr. Keyes pointed out clearly he suggested that when one proves a point doesnt mean it doesnt exist eslewhere. Also Alan Keyes owned Obama, his point in my opinion was better made than Obama's, however, they both made some valid points that must be recognized and in the end we still have a problem.
jtpfla3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Why are we going to allow maybe 5% of the entire world to destroy traditions we've had for over 2,000 years.
CatherineDeLancret 3 months ago
@CatherineDeLancret Because gay people have been discriminated against for over 2,000 years. About time they were given the same rights eh
5LJ3A2 2 months ago
@CatherineDeLancret It doesn't matter if it's 5% or 0.005% of the population. Injustice is injustice, regardless of how many people it affects.
You presuppose that we should stick to tradition though not only would that mean 0 improvement of any kind was possible (no youtube, no PCs, no technology at all etc) but traditional marriage wasn't like it is today anyway. Women were basically property given from 1 man to another (father to husband), often for financial or political reasons.
Jamieishere1 2 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Well if you insist that the institution is free to change fine, but that doesn't mean that there is a logical case for legal discrimination here. If it is going to change just let attitudes shift without filing lawsuits that suggest that there is an actual injustice in play. You can't argue that someone is discriminating against another person because of what you want an institution to ultimately become.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis Thanks for the comment.
Currently, marriage effectively exists as a form of segregation. Some people's relationships are granted this societal accolade while others are not. It is by definition an arbitrary discrimination until a sound reason can be provided as to why the segregation should persist, just as it was with inter-racial marriage.
It is the duty of the state to right injustice. It represents and is paid for by everybody, including minorities.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1
Once again, the charge of discrimination that you're making is only valid relative to the new function that you wish for this institution to take on. The phrase "some people's (romantic) relationships are granted this societal accolade while others are not" suggests that the purpose of marriage is to recognize romantic affinities, and nothing more. Even if you feel that this change of function is in the air, it does not grant us with a basis for a charge of legal discrimination.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1 "This accolade" at present refers to an institution to which the concept of procreation is essential. Thus we do the same sex couple no wrong in denying them this accolade. If society as a whole decides that the institution must change, they may bring about this transformation through their legislatures.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis One of marriage's multiple functions is to recognise romantic affinities.
The concept of procreation is clearly not essential to marriage, as evidenced both by those states/countries that do have SS marriage legislation and the long history of infertile/post-menopausal couples who have got married and continue to be married.
If you bought in to Alan Keyes attempt to counter this counter argument, I am happy to PM you an explanation of how he is wrong.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1
1) The concept of procreation is essential to the Institution as defined by the U.S. as a nation state, as well as to the majority of the individual states that constitute that state. Within their legal frameworks, it is therefore not legal discrimination.
2) Particular couples who happen to be past child bearing age have no real bearing on the matter. We said that procreation was part of the essential purpose of the INSTITUTION of marriage, not of the individual marriage.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis Thanks for the response and for numbering (it makes it easier to respond).
1) Please quote the law and explain why it can't or shouldn't change, particularly given it's past changes, such as with inter-racial marriage. That something is currently a certain way is no justification that it should have been or should continue to be so.
2) This point applies just as much to same-sex couples as infertile ones. If you feel there is a distinction, please clarify.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1
The Institution is a social apparatus, and it's purpose is a large scale social objective: to promote the procreation and rearing of children under the stable environment of the parties that produced them ACROSS SOCIETY. Individual cases are irrelevant to the accomplishment of the large scale social objective.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis Again your point here allows for same-sex marriage, just as much as infertile couple's marriage.
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that we have some moral/ legal obligation to avoid interference with the previously intended purpose of something.
Consider for example, the diffusal of a terrorist's bomb... the intended purpose is interfered with, in a way that has great benefit. So, clearly, intervention that prevents fulfilment of intended purpose isn't innately bad.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1 *under the stable environment of the care of the parties that produced them
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis Would you take the same relaxed approach of allowing society to change the institution over time if it were an issue of racism or some other more vivacious injustice?
Currently, there is segregation and it is not that different from the historic "separate but equal" racial segregation. People can of course argue that there's a difference in magnitude but that isn't an essential component of the analogy and there doesn't appear to be a difference in magnitude vs inter-racial mariage.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1
As for racial segregation, you have yet to demonstrate an equivalency between these two situations. I did not contend that genuine instances of legal discrimination ought to only be changed by evolutions in social opinion, i contended that it had not been demonstrated that this issue is actually an instance of legal discrimination in the first place.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis Segregation's web definition:
"The action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart."
It is segregation by definition, which was deemed wrong in the case of race due to it effectively making minority races "second class citizens" due to the backdrop of prejudice under which the segregation occurred.
Separate but equal is not equal in such a climate because it implies state endorsement of some relevant quantitative difference.
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
@Jamieishere1
The male female model is the procreative model, and therefore as long as it remains at the center of the institution of marriage, procreation lies at the center of the institution, regardless of any individual couples' ability or inclination to procreate. The reason that persons of the same sex are not recognized is not because they cannot procreate, it is because in order to recognize them the institution of marriage must discard of part of it's essential purpose for being.
Aphoresis 1 week ago
@Aphoresis A male female infertile/post-menopausal model is no more a procreative model than a male-male or female-female one.
Do you consider it to be a good decision to scrap anti-miscegenation laws? If so, how do you consider that to be different from same-sex marriage? Is it purely due to the gender of those involved...?
Jamieishere1 1 week ago
Obama owns keyes without even going on a giant homophobic rant
theshonen8899 3 months ago
This Moderator was a complete disgrace. A moderator is not supposed to take sides on controversial political issues such as this, and this moderator was CLEARLY doing that.
williwo 3 months ago 11
@williwo
The problem with the moderator is not that he is taking sides, he fails to limit the argument and create the debate. These two gentlemen are arguing separate points. Therefore there is no argument.
ronin752 3 months ago
@ronin752 He is showing his Bias when it comes to Gay marriage though.....and is using every chance he can get to set the Candidates up with "gotcha questions" involving Gay marriage. He is deliberately trying to make them look bad if they answer in a certain way. Thats irresponsible moderating.
williwo 3 months ago
@williwo The moderator must be the devil advocate and make hard questions. That's how it should not take sides.
pedroamaralcouto 1 month ago
Saying a married couple could also have the same problem with adoptive children happening to unknowingly have sex with their sibling does not disprove Keyes' logic. It does, however, make the point irrelevant to the debate. The possibility of incest is completely unrelated to the sexual preferences of the adoptive couple. By using that reason to ban same sex adoption, the same must apply to all adoptions.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
I'm not sure why the basis of the institution of marriage is relevant. Just because it has existed as a way to regulate the responsibilities of procreation doesn't mean it must stay that way. To say that is the motivation for marriage today is naive. Is he implying that a couple cannot successfully procreate without being married? Why does it matter if the necessity for marriage is destroyed? That doesn't mean the institution will be destroyed. Why is it necessary for marriage to be necessary?
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
It's incredible watching this back. Obama never gave a straight answer. Ever. Not even back then.
historypoliticsbb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama's face on 7:16 was hillarious...he was like "Oh shit, I got caught...I feel so dumb" hahaha
bull1504 4 months ago
Comment removed
bull1504 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SSM Stances:
Changes Definition: See Merriam-Webster
It is Unnatural: So are most of the things we use/do on a daily basis
It Is Against God: Old Testament laws are no longer applied, New Testament makes no mention
No Reproduction: Not needed for Marriage i.e. castrates and full hysterectomies can wed
It leads to Corruption: Same argument was made against interracial marriages
It is a Choice: 1st Amendment
It is Genetic: 14th Amendment
Only thing left…Bigotry
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@postproduction101
Please do us all a favor and perform a Google news search on "Sperm Donor Super Dads".
Careful - you might want to watch out for that falling sky.
YellaSpiceFamily 4 months ago
@YellaSpiceFamily How is this exclusive to same sex couples? It's not, the same problem exists in all adoptions. So if you are using this as a reason to ban same sex adoption, you must logically use the same reason to ban all adoptions in which the biological father is unknown, because the same problem always exists.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
What are the chances that an adopted child will one day unknowingly meet their biological brother/sister and have sex? Does this type of incest happen often? Sure, I understand his "logic" but seriously, what are the odds? It seems like he's being a paranoid parent conjuring up "What if the sky falls down?" type situations.
postproduction101 5 months ago
Comment removed
wqsr4o 6 months ago
Assuming that you choose a president for his belief system, or rather what shapes his character, his views and preferences for our country. Otherwise why are you voting? Because the majority likes him? Or because your parents vote? Shouldn't we as individuals theoretically chose a president based off of our own beliefs? Yes christians are voting for obama because he used the word christian but clearly denounces his faith. He seems to drop it in any heated discussion like it is too much a burden.
sheshappybychoice 7 months ago
wow, listen to barrack obama. What kind of leader doesn't execute his moral beliefs as standard for himself, his family and his country? He is saying he believes in the union of man and woman, but than he also contradicts his moral belief (or rather renounces it) by stating that he believesit is ok to permit "civil union" referring to unmarried gay couples. Wow. Could you be any more contradicting.
sheshappybychoice 7 months ago
@sheshappybychoice
No because he is not closed minded. Just because what you believe doesn't mean others have to just because you are in a position of authority. That's why its a democracy. I am personally not for gay marriage one bit, it even kind of erks me at times but I am not closed minded and say they shouldn't have the same rights others do. My argument against gay marriage would be that is it a biological paradox and with time homosexuals would die out by the process of evolution
ballsoffury4 6 months ago
@ballsoffury4 We the U.S. are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Tsuruta1 6 months ago
@Tsuruta1
Most moronic comment award goes to you.
ExChristian999 5 months ago
@ExChristian999 You keep it, :) you deserve it FAR more than I do.
Tsuruta1 5 months ago
@ExChristian999 ...and to the republic for which i stand...
UnderATallTree 5 months ago
Hypocrisy= Openmindedness you say?? Please clarify..
sheshappybychoice 6 months ago
@sheshappybychoice
For example believing abortion shouldn't be legal. You are (most likely) applying your religious views to everyone else. What if they are not religious? What if they believe statistics (which don't lie by the way) that say most of these babies from dead-beat parents will turn out to be detrimental to society anyway. Issues such as these that people are very ignorant on because of their religious views.
ballsoffury4 6 months ago
@ballsoffury4 terrible argument; you can't make all political decisions in response to statistics...statistics also say that a child who experiences any sort of gun-use incident is much more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, sooner or later. should any kid witnessing gun fire be preemptively incarcerated?
UnderATallTree 5 months ago
@ballsoffury4 terrible argument; you can't make all political decisions in response to statistics...statistics also say that a child who experiences any sort of gun-use incident is much more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, sooner or later. should any kid witnessing gun fire be preemptively incarcerated?
UnderATallTree 5 months ago
@UnderATallTree
Are you that stupid, abortion is something you can logically deal with, you either abort the baby or you have it. Referring to your comment just because he is more likely to do it, doesn't mean the chances are high at all. A baby doesn't feel pain until it experiences neurulation (development of CNS) until that point I am pro choice. You can't incarcerate or execute a kid because he witnessed a crime, is that really logical? Let's be a little logical here
ballsoffury4 5 months ago
@ballsoffury4 i was applying the same logic to your argument that a person may use those statistics to justify having an abortion, in order to show you how poor the logic is. "just because he is more likely to do it, doesn't mean the chances are high at all"......no shit. that was my point because the same can be applied to the aborted child.
UnderATallTree 5 months ago
@UnderATallTree
Really dude? Ok, show me the statistics of how a child turns out from cracked out parents dealing drugs to make it by. Show me those...
ballsoffury4 5 months ago
@sheshappybychoice That's because he's what the Bible describes as 'lukewarm.'
"So then thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" Rev 3:16. Which also describes the saying, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Obama is a politician, not a leader, and in the case of LGBT, an enabler.
Tsuruta1 6 months ago
Yeppers... Alan Keyes a Real black presidential Hopeful
MrMdrennan 7 months ago
Not everyone marries to procreate.
kady7869 8 months ago
@kady7869 But as Keyes pointed out, whether a heterosexual couple, i.e. husband and wife, elects not to procreate when the possiblity is still present for them to do so, that's incidental, and does change the fact that it's still possible in principle to procreate. In this case, incidental circumstances can't be used to change the definition of marriage in principle.
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1: Perfect explanation.
dimic 6 months ago
@dimic Thank you. :) However I didn't proofread. I meant, .....and does NOT change the fact it's still possible in principle to procreate..... But thank you again.
Tsuruta1 6 months ago
@kady7869 that was not his point
laffy 6 months ago
@kady7869 missed his rebuttal completely i see
UnderATallTree 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kady7869 and? your point? Homosexuality is not natural. There is no such thing as a "gay gene".
StrengthFromAbove83 5 months ago
@kady7869
That is irrelevant.
Aphoresis 4 months ago
No one wishes: to see their bride abducted by apes; that peanut butter tasted like rotted pumpkins; that sex-change surgery should be required of all postal employees.
ElHombreConDosOjos 8 months ago
Keyes can be a bit condescending at times, but damn he is brilliant.
BlacksAreBeautiful 8 months ago
Wow I have never witnessed such disregard for logic in a public political forum. Alan is an idiot.
superstar882 8 months ago
keys is the smartest dumbass i've ever heard
spunglass 8 months ago
LOL...these people. If you think Keyes is making a good argument, put it in standard form and let me know if the conclusion follows. Hell, let me know if the conclusion follows regardless. Keyes does nothing more than use big words so as to give him credibility. I bet most of the people on his side can't even tell me WHY they think his arguments are correct. Because Keyes said so? Lmao. Put it in standard form. Tell me WHY he is correct. And don't say because it sounds like he is!
pissedoffdude1 8 months ago
@pissedoffdude1 If two people IN PRINCIPLE can never have children, then they were not meant to be married. So I'm guessing this is why a man can't/shouldn't marry his dog, cat, pick up truck etc. Doesn't seem all that illogical to me nor did I hear any words that I would consider to be "big" in that explanation. Funny thing is though, Obama himself states that PERSONALLY he does not believe in homosexual marriage yet, he alters the course by turning it into a gay bashing issue.
BlacksAreBeautiful 8 months ago
@BlacksAreBeautiful That's exactly what I was arguing against. Do you have a reason for believing marriage should be defined that way? That definition of marriage devalues humans to the level of animals, which we are. If marriage isn't about love but procreation instead, why do we even have it to begin with? Mammals don't go around marrying each other to procreate. And I'm not arguing in favor of Obama's positions, so that last thing you posted is completely irrelevant.
pissedoffdude1 8 months ago
@pissedoffdude1I can't offer a reason why anything has been defined the way it has been, I just accept the definitions of this and millions of other words. If everyone started forming movements trying to change definitions to suit their desires, how ineffective would language become? Mammals live instinctively and I'm not sure man was made to live that way.
He never said marriage was about procreation and not love, he says its about love between two who are able to procreate in principle.
BlacksAreBeautiful 8 months ago
@BlacksAreBeautiful That's his definition of marriage. He is arguing that marriage is defined as one man, one women - end of story. Thats like beleving every bit of the bible word for word. Keyes doesn't put forth a well-constructed argument in favor of heterosexual marriage. Instead, his argument can be analyzed as follows:
1. Marriage is defined as one man, one women, for the purpose of procreation
2. Gays cannot procreate
3. Therefore, gays cannot get married.
Seems like a good argument
pissedoffdude1 8 months ago
@pissedoffdude1 You have purposefully condensed the definition down, leaving out the qualifier in order to portray the definition as
a) Something he has made up and
'b) Something that is sinister or hateful in nature.
I can not explain it any better IN FULL than he can. I also can't make you understand. Do yourself a favor and stop taking the explanation out of it's full context and perhaps you may understand what he is saying.
BlacksAreBeautiful 8 months ago
@BlacksAreBeautiful Well said. Keyes was talking about the definition of marriage when it comes to law, government, and civilization, as opposed to people's personal feelings toward one another. Unfortunately, while Keyes said the qualifier, the moderator was talking over him.
brizzoke 7 months ago
@BlacksAreBeautiful but that type of logic can be used to justify nearly anything you want. The problem lies with the first premise, the definition of marriage. Keys automatically presupposes that marriage is to be defined as one man, one woman. In other words, he is arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman, because marriage is between one man and one woman. That being the case, Keys DID NOT make ANY argument against gay marriage. He just begged the question
pissedoffdude1 8 months ago
@BlacksAreBeautiful Not only that, but same-sex marriage is part of the definition of marriage according to Webster's dictionary.
pissedoffdude1 8 months ago
@pissedoffdude1 Websters also has a definition for LOL. We are talking about how it has been defined for thousands of years prior, not some updated version brought about by pressure to be politically correct. I
BlacksAreBeautiful 8 months ago
Comment removed
gdemat0s 8 months ago in playlist keyes obama
OBAMA = PIECE OF SHIT! IMPEACH THE SOCIALIST IDIOT!
impeachobamanow2010 8 months ago
What does religion have to do with letting gays and lesbians marry? umm... separation of state and church ring a bell? If homosexuals feel like having ceremony to unify a couple, they can freaking have it, without a bible, without the religious bullshit, they can have it and have all the rights that come with it. Period.
bellebesos 9 months ago
WOW he has aged
LowellMorgan 9 months ago
There is no rule that Christians can't believe that gays can't have equal rights. Not all Christians all the same just like not all Muslims are the same. Religious views can be a spectrum even in a particular religion. I don't believe that religious beliefs should infringe on the rights of others. I don't believe in Christianity nor the Bible which I believe is a book of mythology. I believe in religious diversity and equality.
fomalhauto 9 months ago
Seems crazy that you have to justify human rights with biblical evidence. This isn't an English Literature essay, it's the demand for dignity and respect and equal rights for all human beings. As a European it's crazy to see politics chained to scripture in this way. It's disturbingly regressive.
dulcetteful 9 months ago
@dulcetteful Well said
bellebesos 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keyes is sharper than any sword.
krustykelvin 10 months ago
I actually think both were right to a certain degree. Keyes is obviously the better orator. Although I might disagree with some of his fundamental points, the way he transitions his logic makes a lot of sense, weirdly enough.
darkseclusion 10 months ago
Think about what you said mhamil973 i didn't agree with older bush younger bush or clintons politics i agree whole heartedly with what scripture says. If Obama says hes a christian this is what it says about this in 1corinthians ch.6-11 i gave it to you in a note to you. He is not a christian final because he does not comply with scripture sexual immorality is all those actions said in 1 corinthians.
kingswithstyle21 10 months ago
@kingswithstyle21 God knows your heart. The bible says we should pray for our leaders. It also says love each other. regardless of differences. OBAMA has a good heart. He preaches no hate. Alan Keyes is spewing hate here. He has no place in politics.
mhamil973 8 months ago
OBAMA IS SO RIGHT. OBAMA 2012' BABY
ALAN KEYES IS A NOT AS SMART AS HE THINKS. POOR GUY.
mhamil973 10 months ago
Comment removed
MARSSURVIVE1 9 months ago
OBAMA IS SO RIGHT. OBAMA 2012' BABY
mhamil973 10 months ago
I disagree with Keyes view, but DAMN did he nail his points. I have never seen someone defend that position so well
burrheadjr 10 months ago
WOW MR. Keyes owned President Obama on that debate. If your faith says its wrong, how can you go against your faith. It must not be a faith to him, but a way to come at christians as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
kingswithstyle21 10 months ago
@kingswithstyle21 It's clear that you don't like Obama at all. Mr. Keyes argument was convoluted at best. Mr. Obama was simply saying "Don't go around bashing people because they are different", and that is why he is President today. God bless him.
mhamil973 10 months ago
The black guy is right!...
MrJazkiller 10 months ago 14
@MrJazkiller Lolz...
khatin001 8 months ago
LOL makes me so angry that there was a time limit.
Hellectika 10 months ago
Comment removed
Creationcreed 11 months ago
keyes is aTOAD LOL
melskilove 11 months ago
god is the IDEA of man, SCIENCE is the dismissal of that idea. So i ask you this u irrational people, where is YOUR evidence? Us atheist have worked up our case and provided countless amount of evidence explaining nearly every physical aspect of reality as we know it and yet all you GOD believers say its simply a blind faith, something you believe that you cant prove. I call that DELUSIONAL!
lilweezyana2010 11 months ago
@lilweezyana2010 Actually Jesus is a historical figure. To say Jesus is imaginary would be the same as saying Christopher Columbus didnt ever exist. Jesus is not only written historically in the cannon but he was written in other Hebrew Scriptures and Egyptian scrolls. So its a fact a man named Jesus did walk this earth. Whats also interesting is that he was able to do miracles that no other human could do. That was documented. Dont you think that some type of god had to give him such powers?
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@pppeeeppee
You'll have to cite sources for this, sorry.
elmphlemp 11 months ago
@elmphlemp LOL! Your statement just goes to show you and most you atheist that you really dont know much about the world. What I find with most Atheist is that they cant read, have "FACTS" completely wrong, and tend to dismiss the reality as they know it. Look it up Jesus is a historical figure. There are numerous documents which talk about Jesus other then the actual cannon. Jesus did indeed walk the earth. The tomb which he was buried is still in Jerusalem.
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@pppeeeppee
Who said anything about Atheism? I'm not sure what 'FACTS' you want me to read, but there wasn't one account of a Jesus of Nazareth for almost 100 years after his purported death. I'm not saying he didn't exist but there is as much proof of that as there is of Jesus being an appropriation of the Egyptian story of Isis and the baby Horus.
elmphlemp 11 months ago
@elmphlemp Actually when he resurrected(After his death) it was written in both Hebrew and Greek scripture. What proof do you need when god froze a woman(Made to statue) and the statue is still there. People didnt have any kind of knowledge of sculpting in those times. The proof is there. The bible is written by 40+ authors who didnt ever know each other(Died 10+ years apart) but yet they claim "GOD" told them to write down history. I refuse to believe that the cannon was made up by "MAD MEN"
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@pppeeeppee
Some of the earliest known sculpture dates back more than 36,000 years, to say we had no knowledge of it is just a lie. If you truly believe that someone can magically be turned into a statue then more power to you. God bless you.
elmphlemp 11 months ago
@elmphlemp ha ha ha ha LOL humans didn't exist 36,000 years ago(Or as science would say we humans were considered monkeys back then) WOW You are really an idiot. Of course I believe someone can be turned into a statue the statue is still there google it.
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@elmphlemp
Holy shit, seriously? Humans didn't exist? Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Africa in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.
elmphlemp 11 months ago
MAN CREATED GOD.
read it again,
MAN CREATED GOD, PROVE ME WRONG is what im asking the people to prove.
Science is called evolution, you know those churches you live in, god didnt create them, man did. You know that book you read called the Bible? Man created that, no form of any external entity has ever breached its way into man kind ever in history. reality is all that is real, and GOD is not real.
lilweezyana2010 11 months ago
@lilweezyana2010 Actually speaking about the bible. The bible was written by over 40+ authors who died withing a frame of 10 years apart. Science proved that. Knowing that all these authors claimed that a god of a higher power told them to write what they were suppose to write. Lets say even if they were out of theyre complete minds don't you think that there was a force of some sort to tell them to do something. I mean Im not going to run outside and throw my hat up in the air for no reason
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
There is a BIG difference between adopting a child that has been abandoned or saved from an abortion.... and INTENTIONALLY CREATING more children who are "fatherless".
I guess I should be surprised that Obama couldn't follow the logic, but after 2 years in office, I see that he simply lacks the mental power to understand...
DeathScouter 11 months ago
Keyes made Obama look like a kindergartner . What a SHAME that the voting people of America were dumb enough to elect this clown.
DeathScouter 11 months ago
I skimmed your comment quickly and thought you were saying that Keyes doesn't make sense. I'm very sorry, of course you were referring to Obama and I completely agree. My drug addled comment is reserved for whoever would agree with Obama in this debate. :) my mistake.
MrKatsper 1 year ago
I believe all faggots should burn in the pit of hell and be tortured forever and ever
pppeeeppee 1 year ago
@pppeeeppee so you believe in a caring and forgiving God, in a prophet who preached understanding. But still you wan't them to burn. I feel sorry for you
glamedrehl 11 months ago
@glamedrehl Actually I want the ignorance to burn. Gay people have a tendency to convey the fact that god is wrong, which is a ignorant thing to do. God is right a man is for a women. To defy that is saying god is wrong and therefore you deserve to burn. When gays say stuff like "We were born this way" is downright saying God is wrong and that I will ignore what the god says I chose my own destiny therefore for those who ignore the message deserve to be tortured and burned for ever and ever
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@pppeeeppee still i feel sorry for you. you know there are gay animals. some types of swan mate and then scare away the female and raise the offspring with another male(but not all swans of this type do this). There have been cases of gay elefants and several other animaltypes. do they chose to be gay? No they didn't. I also believe in God, but my god doesn't judge,it'swithin every living thing, to hate another living thing is to hate God. God didn't create life but was created by life
glamedrehl 11 months ago
@glamedrehl Okay now I know you are completely stupid. What ever happens in the animal kingdom is not something humans can understand ever. 2 male animals aren't mating you idiot. If a male Giraffe hugs and and shows affection to another male Giraffe that doesn't mean that Giraffe is gay. One thing I do know is that you are a fucking idiot who just goes by whatever he hears. Im sure some faggotts came along and said "Ohh there are gay animals.... SO..... Its natural for animals....."
pppeeeppee 11 months ago
@pppeeeppee be resonable humans understand many things of the animal kingdom. We understand so much we can clone them. we understand so much we can grow a human ear on the back of a mice. (look it up it's really possible) I didn't say the two males mated, i said one of the 2 males mates with the female after a while she legs her eggs and then the males scare her away and raise the young ones. I read it in national gegraphic. please be polite, i am polite as well.
glamedrehl 11 months ago
Speaking for his Incest Argument,
It's simply an argument against Adoption In general, NOT Gay Marriage or Adoption,
And regardless of that, It's Still very vague, It's as simple as saying that people raised as Orphans and grew up in an adoptive family are Not allowed to have sex with an Older person For they might Be their Parents.
=)
abooood95 1 year ago
Keyes Does have a good point, Logical, But not entirely Correct.
Procreation is Not a Part of the definition of marriage , It's Simply An extra benefit, And I say EXTRA, because simply, Some DO NOT have that benefit, Such as infertiles,
And If you take things in "Principle" I can Take the mere fact that it takes 2 humans in a sexual intercourse To procreate, But Them being of the same gender is a Special Circumstance,
The FIRST logical Argument Against Gay marriage, But Not 100% correct.
abooood95 1 year ago
Why the fuck do people wanna get married anyways lol.
DrinkSkateSleep 1 year ago
How many Americans actually use the Keyes argument when bashing gay marriage?
It's all about religion and how it restricts the way people can live their lives.
CrazyRsQuester 1 year ago
Keyes is obviously a man with common sense and a moral, traditional backbone. Of course he will be laughed at by the dumb liberal Obama and this dipshit host. His argument is right about the possibility of incest when a child has no idea who the father is, how can anyone say his logic is wrong in this sense? Please explain to me.
MrKatsper 1 year ago
@MrKatsper key word "SENSE." You seek SENSE from those who are ruled on NON-sense!! -Sad but true
BarzOnTheWindow1 1 year ago
@BarzOnTheWindow1 Your drug addled mind is sad but true.
MrKatsper 1 year ago
@MrKatsper Is it customary where you're from, to try to insult those who agree with you? "Drug addled...?"
BarzOnTheWindow1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarzOnTheWindow1 Your drug addled mind is sad but true.
MrKatsper 1 year ago
@BarzOnTheWindow1 Your drug addled mind is sad but true.
MrKatsper 1 year ago
Oh my fucking god. Can you believe this guy was an ambassador to the U.N.!?! Fucking reagan, this is what the republican party thinks is a good diplomat! hahahah what a fucking joke. Nowonder the world hates us. hahaha
durhamdf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If EQUALITY offends thee, thou art not a Christian, but a God damn asshole!
zerogullibility 1 year ago