MARRIAGE is MORE than a LEGAL CONTRACTUAL UNION (as Mr. Keyes makes it out to be) between two persons. Marriage in TODAY'S SOCIETY is the most profound IDENTIFIER two people can choose to represent the ultimate commitment and love to each other. No other institution has the DISTINCTION that "marriage" does as the ultimate commitment to another person.To reserve marriage for non-homosexuals alone demonstrates EXCLUSIVITY, which often equates to INEQUALITY. WE cannot let a DEFINITION define love!
Listening to unintelligent people is becoming more and more entertaining! Everyone needs a good laugh once in a while! Thanks for the great laugh Keyes...keep it coming!
It's amazing how condescending someone can sound when they're saying absolutely nothing of substance. Two full minutes of yammering about procreation being the basis of mariage? So if ya can't fuck, a can't get hitched? Is that what yer sayin', Nutty McNutsack?
@UtubeDenizen: Oh my goodness, how clever we think we are! I'd love to know what "argument" you're referring to. Keyes doesn't make an argument. He preaches, sometimes incoherently. Clearly, the man is mentally dysfunctional. But you must be a genius, because you can go on YouTube and post cool one-liners with not a hint of substance. No wonder you like this guy. Neither of you has anything to say.
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."
How terribly sad it is that Alan Keyes would want to keep his own daughter Maya Jeanne Marcel-Keyes a second-class citizen here in the United States simply because she was born a lesbian. That is what he is doing by working to deny marriage equality to all Americans.
then i take it that all those coaches raping those boys along with the homosexual priests conferring same should subject society in it's educational ,legal and moral acceptance of a abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior which goes again the very foundation of civilization just to legatimize "homosexual marriage" is not only irrational but perverse to all the teachings of buddah,islam,christianity and judism..
@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.
The future belongs to those who can get along with everyone. There will be no place for die-hard bigots. Those ignorant narcissists will be isolated in a little world of their own...to their bitter and hate obsessed end.
The problem with gay marriage equality is there is no problem.
While it is clearly obvious that Alan Keyes is well educated and well spoken, his argument to the core of the issue is irrelevant. The argument is not about "marriage" within it's core definition and regulation of procreation, but really instead about a homosexual relationship having equality within civil and family rights, and the benefits thereof. Who cares if it's not a "marriage"? Let's call it a turkey sandwich for all I care.
@markdeming1989 Those are excellent questions. I think most people who throw the term "right" around have no idea what they are even talking about, let alone it's ontology.
I'm willing to debate maturely. The whole purpose of the opposition of gay marriage is not because we believe in inequality under law, but because it doesn't agree with our religion and the principle of marriage described above. I am completely (100%) behind an act to allow gays to engage in a "legal binding" (feel free to give it a more attractive name) to receive the full and exact financial benefits of a legal marriage. Calling it a "marriage" makes it a religious act though.Same for atheists
@SOCOM018 So you don't believe in religious freedom? If marriage is a religious act, then under the law shouldn't it be available to people of all religious beliefs, including beliefs that consider same-sex marriage valid? Why can't you have your personal convictions about marriage without forcing them onto everyone else? We live in a free society, not a theocracy.
@DoomsdayDragon95 Are you angry that your "input" on the matter of equality for all doesn't matter?
Nobody is asking your blessing. Get over yourself. Keep marrying for "religious reasons" or to avoid losing your family fortune or whatever other stupid "reason" you might have for marrying.
Gays and lesbians are now able to marry for LOVE, and are no longer stuck in sham marriages or living a life in hiding and without love and affection for a partner they are attracted to.
Anyway, this is bullshit. Marriage is a contract between two people. The CHILDREN are what is incidental about marriage. Many married couples choose not to have children, but still get married to share that powerful bond of love and because of the financial aspects we have assigned to marriage. Conversely, many unmarried couples have kids and can raise them just fine without being marriage. Marriage is not all about kids. Changing the "definition" would have no bad consequences.
Someone explain to me why we can't change the definition of marriage. I don't care why it has existed throughout history, that's irrelevant. Marriage is not solely for the reason of regulating responsibilities of procreation. What about couples who have children out of wedlock? Why is it a bad thing to remove the necessity of the institution of marriage? Why is it necessary for marriage to be necessary? The definition of marriage as a man and a woman isn't paramount to society's functionality.
GAY AGENDA EXPOSED! "AFTER THE BALL", is its handbook.
Google Gay Agenda (sites 1&4)
It sicks normal people to the stomach! I'm shocked. This news must be passed on to everyone in order to samesexbug to get a worldwide ban for human's sake!
Gays're working HARD MEDDLING scientific community, medical organisation, politics, media ,universities, schools, even KINDERGARTEN(!)to stick their agenda up.
It is as much menace as terrorist groups are to reverse order, peace and prosperity.
"...If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to
straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized..."
"...It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary."
Ronny Racist? What would you have said 50 years ago in your desperate fight to maintain segregation as the way of life ordained by God? Those arguments back then were just as ignorant. Even Ronald Reagan, in his capacity as Governor of California supported landlords "rights" to discriminate against tenents on the bsis of race. Are you ashamed of your hero, or do you make excuses for his racism? The difference was that he was proud to be a racist, while you're denying your anti-gay bias. Coward!
1 min, 4 sec: "Between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage."
Really? I doubt if Keyes can cite when the "institution of marriage" first occured, so I don't find this statement particularly convincing.
Alan keyes is one of the smartest people I ever had the pleasure of listening to. And his statement in this video is incredible, impressive and affective, even in the brief time he had
Those who agree with Mr.Keyes don't "buy" into what he's saying... We jus recognize the truth in it.. & besides I base my belief in that God condemns homosexuality in the first place...there's no argument that will ever stand up against that.
@rrosie1968 Please respond to my arguments that I have presented in my comments below, then. If I am ignorant in disagreeing with Keyes, point it out to me.
The truth of the language of sexuality is also missing in sexual relationships
between people of the same gender. Homosexual acts themselves, not the person with a homosexual orientation, are objectively & gravely immoral because there is no communion of body and spirit which facilitates openness to the procreation of new life. Homosexuality undermines the truth, fullness & wholeness of sexual communion. The Theology of the Body
@teton99 Theology meaning illusionary wordplay? It's just a bunch of words with unjustified positive and negative connotations attached to try and mould out your conclusion without ever justifying it. That you think it is not itself justification.
There is no facilitation of openness to procreation among infertile heterosexuals, including post-menopausal women, or among the 30% of heteros who try anal sex, or the 75% that do oral sex, or the 95%M, 65%W who masturbate.... so what?
"there is no communion of body and spirit which facilitates openness to the procreation of new life"
You do realize that you are describing a pair of teens in a parked car in an alley, a prostitute whose birth control fails, or a drunken encounter between strangers, right?
@teton9 What the fuck are you talking about. Sex isn't all about procreation. Sex is fun, healthy, and a good bonding experience with your partner, regardless of the possibility of procreation. If Bob wants to have anal sex with Jim, of course they will not create babies, but it will be fun, healthy, and strengthen their love for each other. Anyone who sees this healthy, fun, pleasurable, love strengthening act to be immoral is a bad person in my book. You provide no reasoning for your position.
it's the sentimentality that matters to the gays. They want to be able to say "This is my husband and I love him with all my heart." or "This is my wife and I love her with all my heart." They don't want to say these things and mean "I only married her because my religion say that marriage is there to get make a baby." or " I only married him because my religion says marriage is there to make a baby."
@CeLticFire1251 *chuckling* See what I mean? When someone is able to articulate their point like Mr.Keyes, you, in reprobate fashion, refuse to acknowledge truth. As I said before, you are an enabler.
@Tsuruta1 quoting you "*chuckling*". Now, quoting him "when you make a concept laughable, you are choosing to be irrational" okay so if you really take this guy as the truth, be consistent, now all joking aside, and I seriously mean it, and I will ask you again, where is procreation mentioned in the definition of marriage by the constitution?
@CeLticFire1251 Btw, though you raise a decent point here, even were marriage to be defined as being between a man and a women, legally or otherwise, it is worth noting that the definitions of words can and do constantly change, with little or no objection from anybody.
The idea that a word's definition can not be changed or expanded is not the reality of language at all. It is simply part of the rhetoric of those who oppose ss marriage.
@Jamieishere1 EXACTLY!!! my dad said the exact same thing to me a while ago, so there really is no point in freaking out over changing its definition!!
@Tsuruta1 "The truth" is now posted above, though as far as I remember you are the individual I PMd some of it to anyway. The fact that it is not easy to follow somebody's reasoning when they are using a convoluted, self-delusional form of semantics is not automatic proof that it is correct.
The bulk of heterosexists watching this video likely do not really understand it, yet pat themselves on the back, reassured that somebody who uses long words sides with them, so they must be right.
@CeLticFire1251 He is basically trying to distinguish between the essence of the relationship (it's principal components) as opposed to "incidentally" related aspects of it, such as, in this case, infertility. His argument is however flawed as it confuses "fertile heterosexuals" with "infertile heterosexuals", treating their essence as the same, while marking the essence of homosexuals as distinct... (a double standard).
@CeLticFire1251 Additionally, all the while he is doing this, he is still holding "reproductive ability" or "procreation" to be the validifying factor of marriage. Reproduction is STILL impossible, (both in principal and incidentally, if you want to use those words) for an infertile heterosexual.
His argument diminishes, upon critical examination, to a mish mash of "marriage is between a man and a women" and "marriage is about procreation". Both are unjustified rhetoric, not arguments.
@BenjaminWirtz Only in an insane asylum would Keyes logic not go over the heads of his audience. A full refutation of his argument is posted above. This is not merely a baseless slander. I've written out the counter more formally, if you wish for me to PM you an explanation of how his argument(s) is flawed?
@999Thip YOU ARE FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT BUT DON'T HINDER THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BY LEGISLATING YOUR BELIEFS. IT'S NOT RIGHT. ALSO IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT KING JAMES, THE SAME KING THAT HAD THE BIBLE TRANSLATED WAS A KNOWN HOMO. *TRUE STORY* BUT SO IRONIC THAT A GAY COULD HAVE SAVED OTHER GAYS FROM SO MUCH ADVERSITY IF ONLY THEY HAD OMITTED SOMETHINGS. BUT ANYWAY I'M NOT GAY AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. TO EACH HIS OWN, GDAY!!!
@999Thip I believe you just can't debate. You can ONLY regurgitate what has been told to you those sentiments that are someone else' s take on a particular subject. Did you know that higher education is the attempt to get young adults to think for themselves??? The world needs more critical thinkers and it's sad that you are NOT amongst them. I pity you, for you are a sheeple. WAKE UP!!!
@999Thip I welcome the return of your god, just like the nutcase who had thousands waiting on the rapture a few weeks ago. Your faith hasn't prevented you from being a better person. Racist much???
You all fall short of the religions you purport to practice. Drink your own Kool-aid I don't want any.
@999Thip Eating shellfish is an "abomination to the lord". How do you define abomination btw, out of curiousity? Slavery is A OK according to the Lord, as is polygamy, mass murder (provided he is the one doing it or he ordered the hit). Pretty much everything is ok actually, provided he is the perpetrator. Given your post though, I expect you are don't regard this as problematic, or if you do for any instance, your irrational belief will then kick in and tell you it's ok because God said so.
@999Thip I have seen some of the new testament too. I quote it because so do people such as yourself. You yourself described homosexuality as an "abomination", which as far as I remember is a reference purely derived from the OT (leviticus). So it seems you modify what you consider relevant in order to suit your own prejudices.
Jesus "fulfilling" the law is a totally vague statement that does not say whether or not it still applies, just allows people such as yourself to dismiss the bits
@999Things you don't like, while endorsing and repeating those that you do.
That the "law" would change soo drastically (even if it did) is an insane contradiction, which makes accounts of God's nature in general completely inconsistent and therefore almost certainly false, based on his own scripture alone.
If the OT no longer applies it should simply not be in any Bibles.
@999Thip "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
@999Thip Just to spell it out a little more btw. Slavery EVER being endorsed by anybody kinda puts a dent in their moral integrity. You don't hear murderers getting out of punishment because they committed the murder a year or so ago. They aren't even supposedly omnibenevolent, yet when it comes to your God, because his endorsement of slavery and advocation of the death penalty for disobedient children etc etc (according to you) no longer apply.... that's all hunky dory.
@Jamieishere1 Having children changes people..........once god had Jesus, he moved to the burbs to chill and "divinely inspire" the New Testament. All that genocide/slavery/oppression is in the past now............
@Jamieishere1 what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
you will have to stand before the living god one day, and give an account for your deeds.
you best get over what happen so long ago., and deal with the reality that death will happen to everyone of us, and hell is a place of weeping and nashing of teeth.,
@999Thip Sorry, no idea what you mean about China.
The rest of your comment unfortunately seems to be nothing more than a threat of eternal torture, which, while I'm sure it comes from a place of love... really isn't helpful and doesn't actually address any of the points I raised. Instead it seems to be a defence mechanism to duck out of having to deal with the points raised.
I have embraced reality and wish people such as yourself would do so too. U could start by actually debating.
@Jamieishere1 you speak of things you know nothing about,-
how can you not excape death?
look around you , people really believe that tomorrow is promiced to them.
its clear you have not seen a person die, when you love someone more then life itself, and hold them and try to wake them,they are gone, their sprit has left the body.
i thank god for the faith he gave me, to carry me through
@999Thip "you speak of things you know nothing about"
unless the proceeding sentences were a clarification of this, please expand on it, as without pointing to specifics it says nothing more than "you're wrong" (without demonstrating how).
"how can you not excape death?"
I don't understand how somebody can "not escape death", sorry, I don't see what you mean.
"people really believe that tomorrow is promiced to them."
If you mean people believe religion then yes... so what?
@999Thip I don't see the point you are trying to make, though you seem to hint at something like "a concept of a God helped me deal with the death of somebody close to me".
While that may be true, it does not make that concept correct/true and actually further reinforces the likelihood that the strength of your belief is based upon emotional need rather than actual evidence.
@999Thip "Faith" however refers to believing something in the absence of any good reason to do so. It also has an unjustified positive connotation attached to it, which helps to foster the illusion that credulity is somehow a virtue.
"homosexuality is a sin..
sin is sin.
murder,rape, etc is all sin.
and only jesus the very son of the living god ,can take our sins away."
@999Thip His answer was really good but what does it say to someone who is Atheist and gay ???
So there is a law that denies someone a right that is given to others, that is WRONG. Don't legislate religion.
You can call it a civil union, you don't have to call it a marriage. Like a GED versus a High School Diploma. Call it a Marriage Equivalency License. But don't deny others the right to form a union recognized by the state as contractually legal. GDAY!!!
@999Thip I don't have a boyfriend fuckface. The current laws prevent gays from being on each others insurance policies thru their employers and such. Also from filing taxes jointly and such. Those are rights they are being denied IDIOT. You say gay is a sin so be it, but so is eating pork, working on Sundays, sex out of wedlock and a host of other things. Let's legislate laws AGAINST those sins with a government that is supposed to stay separate from the church. GDAY!!!
@THEMONITOR72 do you not have control over you temper?
do you think quoting other sins that were long ago in the old testament will lesson the evil thats in homosexuality,
and please keep the lies of americas founding forfathers and the door., anyone who does reserch on americas foundation knows the men were bible beliving men.
@999Thip Was that your rebuttal??? I could crap a better retort in an adult diaper whilst in a comma. You are devoid of ANY substance on this subject. Please explain why should someone who doesn't believe in religion be subject to its laws in a supposed free state??? GDAY!!!
@THEMONITOR72 " I could crap a better retort in an adult diaper whilst in a comma."
Hahahahahaha that made me laugh ^^.
Oh and as I don't think you mentioned, the fact that the founding fathers were religious does not mean that they were against separation of Church and State. Many religious people are strongly in favour of it as they don't want the state meddling in religion (it works both ways).
@THEMONITOR72 A right is something that exists outside of government.... a license is a privilege. You can be a gay couple all day long, but you will never have a right to procreate together and raise natural born children. You can disbelieve God's will all day long, but the proof is in the pudding. Have sex with your gay partner and let me know when you get pregnant with a child, and then I will agree that there is a reason for you two to be married.
@Superlibertytv You don't see the bigger picture, as usual with religious zealots. If a man or woman is born sterile then that's how "God made them", true??? Then there should be NO MF'ING way for them to be married or have kids, according to your logic. Because YOU claim marriage is ordained thru the church by God to procreate etc. People adopt or have surrogates all day long, with technology. Secondly, I'm not gay and if I was it would be my DAMN business. You need to leave folks alone. GDAY!
@THEMONITOR72 I think you are the one advocating bothering other people and their religious practices by redifining the purpose of marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with ceremonies or calling each other husband and wife. It's sole purpose is to establish a family unit to create and raise children. What are two gay guys going to do? Their only choice is to adopt from a hetero couple... and then what? Raise a community of gay folks who eventually run out of heteros. Seems pointless.
@Superlibertytv Again, what I am saying is giving gays EQUAL rights under the law in no way effects YOU or me. Call it a Civil Union if you must but afford them the same privileges that married couples receive thru divorce, insurance policies, living wills, taxes, etc. I'm NOT speaking of the religious implications as I don't believe in them, I speak to the LEGAL benefits of such union as provided by our government. It's NOT a contagion and they've been here as long as the rest of mankind...
CONT... Last I checked women donate their eggs like men do sperm. So that is just as viable an option. Most gays come from hetero family units as well, so again your logic is FLAWED. You sound like the quintessential homophobic hypocritical Christian who claims to be Christlike. Big fail! Why don't you live your life and STOP trying to make others live theirs like you? You believe what you believe that is your right. Don't take that right from others. There are many forms of Christianity.
@Superlibertytv Further more because a gay person doesn't have the "right" to be called a spouse in some states, a partner on their deathbed dies ALONE because a particular state refuses to "recognize" the partner as next of kin. Isn't that outside of government??? STOP LEGISLATING RELIGION, if something doesn't effect you directly why does it bother you??? GDAY!!!
@THEMONITOR72 Next of kin can be simply laid out via a will.... you are taking this marriage thing way beyond its purpose. Marriage has nothing to do with government, however, government is intruding on marriage by trying to control, abuse, and regulate it, rather than protecting it. I am not advocating the legislation of religion... I believe you are by trying to redifine religious traditions and practices by using the law and government force. Check yourself. GDAY!!! ;)
@Superlibertytv Keep your "marriage" as defined by WHATEVER spirit in the sky you worship. I want church and state to be separate just as much as you. SO, call it a CIVIL UNION and give them the same DAMN rights afforded by married couples under the law. End of discussion,GDAY!!!
OK, keeping it real...if a man can marry a man should I be able to have (2) wives? Dam, lets change all the marriage principles, think about it. (1) man +(2) wives = (3) potential incomes, no need to cheat around with other women, all children will have a father.. win-win for all, right? We satisfy Keys principles....also noting there are (5) women to every MAN ! This in itself is disastrous for society..men will always cheat just too many women,Right?
@MrRick5690 Marriage is also tradition, that's why poligamy is not legally accepted in our society.
But if gay marriage is legalized, than what is the definition of marriage? Someone told me that marriage is "between TWO consenting adults". Well, why does it HAVE to be between two consenting adults? Why not 3 or 4 or 500 consenting aduls?
So marriage was intended to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation. Okay, so...
1. As procreation can legally happen outside of the bounds of marriage, what legal purpose does marriage serve?
2. If that is indeed the purpose of marriage, why is divorce, a process that completely severs the apparently necessary regulation of procreation in which he speaks of, not illegal?
1) Since many children are born outside of marriage, the institution has been weakened. So much of legislation these days has served to break down marriage so as to render it meaningless - and we're seeing the social consequences of these foolish political decisions.
2) Likewise, divorce has served to render marriage as pointless. Divorce should be much more restricted and only used in cases of actual necessity, which would make it rare.
This is probably the best argument against gay marriage I have ever heard. Keyes is probably the only politician I have seen argue in a philosophical way, instead of using plain ideology. Even though I am gay I like how, instead of resorting to: "i just believe it to be so, because of my beliefs"; Keyes actually presented a logical argument (which of course can be argued against, like all good arguments) against same sex marriage.
@rbrown6984 - He disguises his distinction between fertile and infertile heterosexual couples using the semantics "In principal" and "incidentally" (which is still not a logically justified distinction).
- He refers to an apple with a worm in it as a metaphor for an infertile heterosexual couple.
- He does so in the context of reproductive ability though and within this context, the worm (the infertility), is no less relevant than the homosexuality of a homosexual couple.
@rbrown6984 - He disguises his distinction between fertile and infertile heterosexual couples using the semantics "In principal" and "incidentally" (which is still not a logically justified distinction).
- He refers to an apple with a worm in it as a metaphor for an infertile heterosexual couple.
- He does so in the context of reproductive ability though and within this context, the worm (the infertility), is no less relevant than the homosexuality of a homosexual couple.
isnt he great? keyes really is everything that OBAMA is not ...articulate, smart as hell, PRINCIPLED and he even likes this country!!! if you havent watched the rest of this debate i assure you that it is well worth the time...obama and keyes had 2 debates (maybe 3) all of it is on youtube.
@theMETALDOVE - If you truly believe that Obama is not articulate, not smart, not principled, and not fond of this country, then you sir, or mam, are an ignoramus. First of all, he became the President precisely because of his rhetorical gift. Secondly, he was first in his class at Harvard Law School. Thirdly, in what area do you believe him to be unprincipled? Ethics? Law? What a stupidly general charge. Lastly, what evidence do you have that he doesn't like the U.S.A.? I'll answer: None.
the original bases (principles) behind marriage are the responsibilities surrounding the rearing of children, not procreation. also, the modern concept of marriage now covers legal rights for couples engaged in relationships of trust. the procreation argument will also collapse as technology allows non-interfertile couples to procreate.
idk why we don't just let gays get married. They seem like responsible, nice people who just wanna be free and live their lives. If they wanna get married let them. It's no skin off my ass.
@Vietnamemperor12346 Gay is a choice. It is a psychological problem. People will have homosexual tendencies, but they should not act on them. Someone may have tendencies to get angry and hurt someone, however, they should not act on those tendencies. You don't have to believe that it is a choice, you can go with the overwhelming scientific evidence that people are born that way (sarcasm). You also don't have to believe in gravity, but it doesn't change the truth.
@quickstar37 Gay isn't a choice. That's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of empirical data in the field of biology related to sexual dimorphism of the brain. If it doesn't happen to boys they are gay, if it does happen to girls, they are gay. They don't think it might be that way, they know it's that way. The differences are so significant that a neurobiologist can do an autopsy on a brain & tell whether it's a male brain or a female brain by looking at it with nothing more than their eyes.
@KenMacMillan Thus far there is no hard, concrete scientific evidence. Please cite that evidence here so I can read it. And if there was, it is still wrong. There are alcoholics with genetic predispositions to the disorder, yet that doesn't imply they should give in to their biological tendencies.
@KenMacMillan Thus far there is no hard, concrete scientific evidence. Please cite that evidence here so I can read it. And if there was, it is still wrong. There are alcoholics with genetic predispositions to the disorder, yet that doesn't imply they should give in to their biological tendencies. As for the Vietnam guy/girl, I am not even going to address your comment other than the sentence I just posted. Completely ideal-driven and illogical comment you made.
lol you sound like those radical christian. gay is the way you feel just like the way a men fall for a women and therefore you cannot change it. your example of someone getting angry and hurt someone are just totally ridiculous so why do you think there's counseling for anger management? have you ever heard counseling to be normal for gay people? plus all ex gay therapy and other treatment show no difference at all. so just love and respect gay rights and their character.
gay is not a choice! why would you want to choose to be discriminate, bullying and treated like second class citizens? you can change your behavior as a gay men however you CANNOT change they way you FEEL about the person to whom you are attracted to bottom line
@Vietnamemperor12346 There are testimonies of people, on YT and elsewhere, who are no longer homosexually active and some are now happily married to the opposite gender. But what do other LGBT say, "They are just pretending", or "have gone back into the closet," some nonsense like that. Now I don't go for physical assault or those hurtful slurs LGBT are called. But one has the right to say no to homosexuality and the things related, just as LGBT speaks out against the things of heterosexuality .
again the testimonies you said are similar to the ex-gay therapy. people might change their behavior on the outside but they still have same sex attraction feeling. why do you think there are thousands possibly million of people like adult or teenagers commit suicide? if they indeed can change then what the point of killing themelves and hurting their love ones? im sorry but this is the reality.
@Vietnamemperor12346 People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, not limited to homosexuals sad to say. And I nor can you determine those reasons, nor are we responsible for their actions. The best witnessing tools are the people who are no longer living homosexual lifestyle. Testimonies on YT are right here.
@Tsuruta1 "People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons"
But.....when the group in question participating in these "Witch Doctor Ex-Gay Programs" is experiencing a dramatically higher rate of suicide......wouldn't any rational, normal person then deduce that there is a problem with the "Magical Gay Cure Camp"?
It seems that only someone with a personal stake/or desperate NEED to believe in this "Magical Gay-Away Experience" would be so invested.
I'm starting to suspect that you don't understand what separate and equal was. Legally there were no distinctions in the qualities of separate facilities. There was only a nominal distinction. There were black facilities, and there were white facilities. Legally they were mandated to be equal in quality. Just like there is marriage, and there is gay civil unions. In both cases the issues reach far beyond a nominal distinction in practice. The fact that you deny the parallel is absurd.
"is that homosexuality describes an inclination to a pattern of behavior, skin color or heritage does not; legally the two are not handled the same."
2 things wrong there. 1 is obvious. You're begging the question. You're saying gay marriage is not legal because legally it's not. Another is that your assuming a special distinction between race and gender attraction. By your logic I could say women should be able to vote but not blacks because there is a distinction between gender and race.
Stop living in the 19th century. Procreation is CLEARLY not the main reason people get married, and gay people will not affect your marriage (if it does, your marriage apparently has way bigger problems). I can concede that churches can and should be able to marry only who they want to, but the state must treat any 2 consenting adult citizens equally. FWIW, I don't think religious marriage should have any legal standing at all.
@frednora You missed the point; the sole reason the institution of marriage was ever formulated was to delegate social responsibilities to familial parties in the context of procreation; therefore one cannot call a union between two men a 'marriage', as procreation is impossible. The difference between 'marriage' and a 'civil union' is simply nominal. The left seeks to usurp the law as a catalyst for the revision of social norms; it is not the place of the government to do so.
@RebelWrestler45 The institution has changed considerably since its creation. Women are no longer considered property and it is no longer acceptible to marry 14 year olds on a dowry. The government has an obligation to recognize any union between 2 consenting adults in all ways. Alan Keyes has been on record to be against that, and has an anti-gay record a mile long. If your church doesn't want to marry my partner and I, that is fine... but the government shouldn't be able to discriminate.
@frednora That is relative an culturally incidental; it is irrelevant to the principle of marriage. The government has an obligation to recognize a union between two consenting adults in the administration of benefits and de jure practices; not in name. As a libertarian, I disagree with Keyes on a lot of things, but opposition to gay marriage need not be of a religious or moral nature; it is a question of nominal recognition, which cannot be forced by the minority, by means of the legislature.
@RebelWrestler45 If this is all a nominal thing, then what difference does it make to you whether my partnership is called "marriage" as opposed to "civil union"? If this is about a name then you call it what ever you want, however as a Libertarian, what difference does a name make to you? Why should we be wasting time and tax dollars trying to differentiate and regulate a name? Alan Keyes wants to go far beyond just names though. He is no friend to gays.
This has been flagged as spam show
MARRIAGE is MORE than a LEGAL CONTRACTUAL UNION (as Mr. Keyes makes it out to be) between two persons. Marriage in TODAY'S SOCIETY is the most profound IDENTIFIER two people can choose to represent the ultimate commitment and love to each other. No other institution has the DISTINCTION that "marriage" does as the ultimate commitment to another person.To reserve marriage for non-homosexuals alone demonstrates EXCLUSIVITY, which often equates to INEQUALITY. WE cannot let a DEFINITION define love!
Bjoobs1995 1 month ago
Wow. That man awesome. Sure knows what he's talking abour
Meme14Skillz 1 month ago
1:56 "What is he saying?"-Barack Obama
rmv2015 1 month ago
call the gay marriage different -> problem solved.
Joker12332111 1 month ago
wow this is actually a very good argument for his position. there was nothing hateful or belittling about it.
markdeming1989 1 month ago
Listening to unintelligent people is becoming more and more entertaining! Everyone needs a good laugh once in a while! Thanks for the great laugh Keyes...keep it coming!
christopherse2 1 month ago
It's amazing how condescending someone can sound when they're saying absolutely nothing of substance. Two full minutes of yammering about procreation being the basis of mariage? So if ya can't fuck, a can't get hitched? Is that what yer sayin', Nutty McNutsack?
AceSkepTik 1 month ago
@AceSkepTik Saying nothing? That comment alone shows your stupidity in understanding the argument,
UtubeDenizen 5 days ago
@UtubeDenizen: Oh my goodness, how clever we think we are! I'd love to know what "argument" you're referring to. Keyes doesn't make an argument. He preaches, sometimes incoherently. Clearly, the man is mentally dysfunctional. But you must be a genius, because you can go on YouTube and post cool one-liners with not a hint of substance. No wonder you like this guy. Neither of you has anything to say.
AceSkepTik 5 days ago
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."
Coretta Scott King
RCSVirginia 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How terribly sad it is that Alan Keyes would want to keep his own daughter Maya Jeanne Marcel-Keyes a second-class citizen here in the United States simply because she was born a lesbian. That is what he is doing by working to deny marriage equality to all Americans.
RCSVirginia 2 months ago
then i take it that all those coaches raping those boys along with the homosexual priests conferring same should subject society in it's educational ,legal and moral acceptance of a abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior which goes again the very foundation of civilization just to legatimize "homosexual marriage" is not only irrational but perverse to all the teachings of buddah,islam,christianity and judism..
ywillburn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@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
This has been flagged as spam show
The future belongs to those who can get along with everyone. There will be no place for die-hard bigots. Those ignorant narcissists will be isolated in a little world of their own...to their bitter and hate obsessed end.
The problem with gay marriage equality is there is no problem.
zerogullibility 2 months ago
While it is clearly obvious that Alan Keyes is well educated and well spoken, his argument to the core of the issue is irrelevant. The argument is not about "marriage" within it's core definition and regulation of procreation, but really instead about a homosexual relationship having equality within civil and family rights, and the benefits thereof. Who cares if it's not a "marriage"? Let's call it a turkey sandwich for all I care.
pixelboxcreative 2 months ago
@pixelboxcreative i'v been thinking on this issue for a while now. what are your thoughts?
1) how do you define right?
2) do rights come from the government or are they inherent in individuals?
3) what is the basis for family rights?
markdeming1989 1 month ago
@markdeming1989 Those are excellent questions. I think most people who throw the term "right" around have no idea what they are even talking about, let alone it's ontology.
Locke7778 1 month ago
I've never heard Alan Keyes say a single thing that makes sense.
friendofthefunk 3 months ago 2
@friendofthefunk exactly...
MrJackThompson 2 months ago
Alan Keyes is right on the money in his explanation. Protect the children from the gay agenda.
427dynodon 3 months ago
I'm willing to debate maturely. The whole purpose of the opposition of gay marriage is not because we believe in inequality under law, but because it doesn't agree with our religion and the principle of marriage described above. I am completely (100%) behind an act to allow gays to engage in a "legal binding" (feel free to give it a more attractive name) to receive the full and exact financial benefits of a legal marriage. Calling it a "marriage" makes it a religious act though.Same for atheists
SOCOM018 3 months ago
@SOCOM018 So you don't believe in religious freedom? If marriage is a religious act, then under the law shouldn't it be available to people of all religious beliefs, including beliefs that consider same-sex marriage valid? Why can't you have your personal convictions about marriage without forcing them onto everyone else? We live in a free society, not a theocracy.
friendofthefunk 2 months ago
This video took out obamas brilliant response. Youtube it if you don't know what I mean.
theshonen8899 3 months ago
@DoomsdayDragon95 Are you angry that your "input" on the matter of equality for all doesn't matter?
Nobody is asking your blessing. Get over yourself. Keep marrying for "religious reasons" or to avoid losing your family fortune or whatever other stupid "reason" you might have for marrying.
Gays and lesbians are now able to marry for LOVE, and are no longer stuck in sham marriages or living a life in hiding and without love and affection for a partner they are attracted to.
thursdaysrecords1 3 months ago
Anyway, this is bullshit. Marriage is a contract between two people. The CHILDREN are what is incidental about marriage. Many married couples choose not to have children, but still get married to share that powerful bond of love and because of the financial aspects we have assigned to marriage. Conversely, many unmarried couples have kids and can raise them just fine without being marriage. Marriage is not all about kids. Changing the "definition" would have no bad consequences.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
Someone explain to me why we can't change the definition of marriage. I don't care why it has existed throughout history, that's irrelevant. Marriage is not solely for the reason of regulating responsibilities of procreation. What about couples who have children out of wedlock? Why is it a bad thing to remove the necessity of the institution of marriage? Why is it necessary for marriage to be necessary? The definition of marriage as a man and a woman isn't paramount to society's functionality.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
fucking brilliant
kingkyzr 3 months ago
GAY AGENDA EXPOSED! "AFTER THE BALL", is its handbook.
Google Gay Agenda (sites 1&4)
It sicks normal people to the stomach! I'm shocked. This news must be passed on to everyone in order to samesexbug to get a worldwide ban for human's sake!
Gays're working HARD MEDDLING scientific community, medical organisation, politics, media ,universities, schools, even KINDERGARTEN(!)to stick their agenda up.
It is as much menace as terrorist groups are to reverse order, peace and prosperity.
truthcarrier1 4 months ago
@truthcarrier1 You are incredibly stupid.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google: AFTER THE BALL (site 4)
"...If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to
straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized..."
"...It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary."
Shame on them!
truthcarrier1 4 months ago
Ronny Racist? What would you have said 50 years ago in your desperate fight to maintain segregation as the way of life ordained by God? Those arguments back then were just as ignorant. Even Ronald Reagan, in his capacity as Governor of California supported landlords "rights" to discriminate against tenents on the bsis of race. Are you ashamed of your hero, or do you make excuses for his racism? The difference was that he was proud to be a racist, while you're denying your anti-gay bias. Coward!
Chelsea4President 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To destroy the functionality of the penis in the name of body-image is insanity by any measure.
YourUTubeMonitor 4 months ago
These people won't listen to the truth. it's unbelievable! Alan Keyes is telling the truth!
scootergreen3 4 months ago
wow!
triofdoom 4 months ago
Wow this guy sounds like christian taliban.
richardjeraj 5 months ago
@richardjeraj
Actually he sounds like 60-70 percent of Americans,
He sounds like the entire Western World prior to the late 20th century (When the Western world began to go into decline)..
Aphoresis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 4 months ago
Obama was sitting there wondering where Keyes kid his teleprompter
HereIsRick 5 months ago
1 min, 4 sec: "Between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage."
Really? I doubt if Keyes can cite when the "institution of marriage" first occured, so I don't find this statement particularly convincing.
Xenophile665 5 months ago
Alan keyes is one of the smartest people I ever had the pleasure of listening to. And his statement in this video is incredible, impressive and affective, even in the brief time he had
EmeraldLeafVids 5 months ago
If people are past child bearing age, would keynes say they may as well split up?
boliusb 5 months ago
Too bad this guy didnt win over Obama
Wheelie9341 5 months ago
Those who agree with Mr.Keyes don't "buy" into what he's saying... We jus recognize the truth in it.. & besides I base my belief in that God condemns homosexuality in the first place...there's no argument that will ever stand up against that.
rrosie1968 6 months ago
Why argue with ignorance... Blind ppl will never see... ..... Once again Thank u Mr.Keyes!!!
rrosie1968 6 months ago
@rrosie1968 Please respond to my arguments that I have presented in my comments below, then. If I am ignorant in disagreeing with Keyes, point it out to me.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
Agree 100000% with Mr. Keyes!!!! It only takes common sense to see the reality of what he is saying! Thank you Alan!
rrosie1968 6 months ago
I don't seem to remember mentioning his interracial, lesbian daughter Maya in any of his interviews............
Hmmmm.....very suspicious!
clubindiana4 6 months ago
The truth of the language of sexuality is also missing in sexual relationships
between people of the same gender. Homosexual acts themselves, not the person with a homosexual orientation, are objectively & gravely immoral because there is no communion of body and spirit which facilitates openness to the procreation of new life. Homosexuality undermines the truth, fullness & wholeness of sexual communion. The Theology of the Body
teton99 6 months ago
@teton99 Theology meaning illusionary wordplay? It's just a bunch of words with unjustified positive and negative connotations attached to try and mould out your conclusion without ever justifying it. That you think it is not itself justification.
There is no facilitation of openness to procreation among infertile heterosexuals, including post-menopausal women, or among the 30% of heteros who try anal sex, or the 75% that do oral sex, or the 95%M, 65%W who masturbate.... so what?
Jamieishere1 6 months ago
@Jamieishere1
The question is: does Keyes even believe his own bullshit?
rodgierad 6 months ago
@rodgierad Unfortunately I expect so, though the real tragedy is those other than him who buy it without even really understanding it.
Jamieishere1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@teton99
"there is no communion of body and spirit which facilitates openness to the procreation of new life"
You do realize that you are describing a pair of teens in a parked car in an alley, a prostitute whose birth control fails, or a drunken encounter between strangers, right?
Homosexual acts are immoral?
Ridiculous.
rodgierad 6 months ago
@teton9 What the fuck are you talking about. Sex isn't all about procreation. Sex is fun, healthy, and a good bonding experience with your partner, regardless of the possibility of procreation. If Bob wants to have anal sex with Jim, of course they will not create babies, but it will be fun, healthy, and strengthen their love for each other. Anyone who sees this healthy, fun, pleasurable, love strengthening act to be immoral is a bad person in my book. You provide no reasoning for your position.
LightoftheWest7 3 months ago
Allen Keyes is sharp
jedimaster411 7 months ago
I don't know that many words.. but does he agree with homosexual marriage or not? :o
SelenaMakesVideos101 7 months ago
@SelenaMakesVideos101 No he doesn't but his argument for disagreeing is fortunately just semantics and flawed.
Jamieishere1 6 months ago
it's the sentimentality that matters to the gays. They want to be able to say "This is my husband and I love him with all my heart." or "This is my wife and I love her with all my heart." They don't want to say these things and mean "I only married her because my religion say that marriage is there to get make a baby." or " I only married him because my religion says marriage is there to make a baby."
Kaynahugs 7 months ago
what does he mean by "in principal"?? can someone please explain so I understand better?
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 Your answer is at 0:20.
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1 where is procreation mentioned in the definition of marriage??
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 *chuckling* See what I mean? When someone is able to articulate their point like Mr.Keyes, you, in reprobate fashion, refuse to acknowledge truth. As I said before, you are an enabler.
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
Comment removed
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1 quoting you "*chuckling*". Now, quoting him "when you make a concept laughable, you are choosing to be irrational" okay so if you really take this guy as the truth, be consistent, now all joking aside, and I seriously mean it, and I will ask you again, where is procreation mentioned in the definition of marriage by the constitution?
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tsuruta1 there, that proves it, you are an unintelligent moron who can't come up with an answer.
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 Btw, though you raise a decent point here, even were marriage to be defined as being between a man and a women, legally or otherwise, it is worth noting that the definitions of words can and do constantly change, with little or no objection from anybody.
The idea that a word's definition can not be changed or expanded is not the reality of language at all. It is simply part of the rhetoric of those who oppose ss marriage.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 EXACTLY!!! my dad said the exact same thing to me a while ago, so there really is no point in freaking out over changing its definition!!
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 ME...ME...ME!!! (hand up)
Ummmm....ya, its not mentioned?
clubindiana4 7 months ago
@clubindiana4 I wish youtube had an actual "like" button
CeLticFire1251 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 I wish youtube had an "enabler" button :)
clubindiana4 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1 "The truth" is now posted above, though as far as I remember you are the individual I PMd some of it to anyway. The fact that it is not easy to follow somebody's reasoning when they are using a convoluted, self-delusional form of semantics is not automatic proof that it is correct.
The bulk of heterosexists watching this video likely do not really understand it, yet pat themselves on the back, reassured that somebody who uses long words sides with them, so they must be right.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 I love your comments!!!
THEMONITOR72 7 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 Ty.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 He is basically trying to distinguish between the essence of the relationship (it's principal components) as opposed to "incidentally" related aspects of it, such as, in this case, infertility. His argument is however flawed as it confuses "fertile heterosexuals" with "infertile heterosexuals", treating their essence as the same, while marking the essence of homosexuals as distinct... (a double standard).
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@CeLticFire1251 Additionally, all the while he is doing this, he is still holding "reproductive ability" or "procreation" to be the validifying factor of marriage. Reproduction is STILL impossible, (both in principal and incidentally, if you want to use those words) for an infertile heterosexual.
His argument diminishes, upon critical examination, to a mish mash of "marriage is between a man and a women" and "marriage is about procreation". Both are unjustified rhetoric, not arguments.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
Keyes' logic goes over Obama's head, you can see his stupified look 1t 1:55
BenjaminWirtz 7 months ago
@BenjaminWirtz Only in an insane asylum would Keyes logic not go over the heads of his audience. A full refutation of his argument is posted above. This is not merely a baseless slander. I've written out the counter more formally, if you wish for me to PM you an explanation of how his argument(s) is flawed?
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
CAN YOU PEOPLE PLEASE CALL SIN FOR WHAT IT IS,
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN,
ITS A ABOMANATION TO THE LORD.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip The Lord doesnt exist, jackass.
NecroKath 8 months ago
@NecroKath WISDOM REST IN THE HEART OF ONE WHO HAS UNDERSTANDING,
BUT IN THE HEART OF FOOLS, IT IS MADE KNOWN......
999Thip 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@999Thip Shout at me all you want, it still doesnt prove God exists.
NecroKath 8 months ago 3
@999Thip YOU ARE FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT BUT DON'T HINDER THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BY LEGISLATING YOUR BELIEFS. IT'S NOT RIGHT. ALSO IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT KING JAMES, THE SAME KING THAT HAD THE BIBLE TRANSLATED WAS A KNOWN HOMO. *TRUE STORY* BUT SO IRONIC THAT A GAY COULD HAVE SAVED OTHER GAYS FROM SO MUCH ADVERSITY IF ONLY THEY HAD OMITTED SOMETHINGS. BUT ANYWAY I'M NOT GAY AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. TO EACH HIS OWN, GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 sometimes people write such stupid things, i cant reply back.. sorry
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip I believe you just can't debate. You can ONLY regurgitate what has been told to you those sentiments that are someone else' s take on a particular subject. Did you know that higher education is the attempt to get young adults to think for themselves??? The world needs more critical thinkers and it's sad that you are NOT amongst them. I pity you, for you are a sheeple. WAKE UP!!!
GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 i know people like you, soon you will think you are above god himself,
you secular humanist are thinking that its all about you,
you have a rude awakening coming.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip I welcome the return of your god, just like the nutcase who had thousands waiting on the rapture a few weeks ago. Your faith hasn't prevented you from being a better person. Racist much???
You all fall short of the religions you purport to practice. Drink your own Kool-aid I don't want any.
GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 oh how true those words are.,
we as humans do fall short of the glory of god.
thank god for gods mercy.
god bless you brother.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip Yeah, GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@999Thip Eating shellfish is an "abomination to the lord". How do you define abomination btw, out of curiousity? Slavery is A OK according to the Lord, as is polygamy, mass murder (provided he is the one doing it or he ordered the hit). Pretty much everything is ok actually, provided he is the perpetrator. Given your post though, I expect you are don't regard this as problematic, or if you do for any instance, your irrational belief will then kick in and tell you it's ok because God said so.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 why is it that liberals such as yourself never read the new testament ?
if you have you would see clearly that jesus came so we might have life, for those who accept him as savior, and lord.
we are no longer under the law of moses, so why do you quote the old teatament?
jesus came to forfill the law my friend..
seek the truth,and the truth will set you free.
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip I have seen some of the new testament too. I quote it because so do people such as yourself. You yourself described homosexuality as an "abomination", which as far as I remember is a reference purely derived from the OT (leviticus). So it seems you modify what you consider relevant in order to suit your own prejudices.
Jesus "fulfilling" the law is a totally vague statement that does not say whether or not it still applies, just allows people such as yourself to dismiss the bits
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 ill make it more simple so even a child could understand it.
homosexuality is a sin..
sin is sin.
murder,rape, etc is all sin.
and only jesus the very son of the living god ,can take our sins away.
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Things you don't like, while endorsing and repeating those that you do.
That the "law" would change soo drastically (even if it did) is an insane contradiction, which makes accounts of God's nature in general completely inconsistent and therefore almost certainly false, based on his own scripture alone.
If the OT no longer applies it should simply not be in any Bibles.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 reading the old testament provides one with wisdom friend.
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
The Earth is still here btw.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@999Thip Just to spell it out a little more btw. Slavery EVER being endorsed by anybody kinda puts a dent in their moral integrity. You don't hear murderers getting out of punishment because they committed the murder a year or so ago. They aren't even supposedly omnibenevolent, yet when it comes to your God, because his endorsement of slavery and advocation of the death penalty for disobedient children etc etc (according to you) no longer apply.... that's all hunky dory.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Having children changes people..........once god had Jesus, he moved to the burbs to chill and "divinely inspire" the New Testament. All that genocide/slavery/oppression is in the past now............
clubindiana4 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
you will have to stand before the living god one day, and give an account for your deeds.
you best get over what happen so long ago., and deal with the reality that death will happen to everyone of us, and hell is a place of weeping and nashing of teeth.,
only way to excape hell is through jesus
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip Sorry, no idea what you mean about China.
The rest of your comment unfortunately seems to be nothing more than a threat of eternal torture, which, while I'm sure it comes from a place of love... really isn't helpful and doesn't actually address any of the points I raised. Instead it seems to be a defence mechanism to duck out of having to deal with the points raised.
I have embraced reality and wish people such as yourself would do so too. U could start by actually debating.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 23 yrs old and you never heard that saying about china?
and its hard to debate a person who is in the flesh, and not in the sprit..
the things i speak of are very hard for a person who walks by sight, and not by faith.
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip Phrases differ in their prevalence between cultures and nations so no, sorry I have not heard of it.
"its hard to debate a person who is in the flesh, and not in the sprit.."
It should be easy to debate a person who uses logic rather than superstition, unless you are wrong.
"i speak of are very hard for a person who walks by sight, and not by faith."
"Sight" presumably refers to empirical evidence (the basis for pretty much all of our beliefs... except when it comes to religion.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 you speak of things you know nothing about,-
how can you not excape death?
look around you , people really believe that tomorrow is promiced to them.
its clear you have not seen a person die, when you love someone more then life itself, and hold them and try to wake them,they are gone, their sprit has left the body.
i thank god for the faith he gave me, to carry me through
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip "you speak of things you know nothing about"
unless the proceeding sentences were a clarification of this, please expand on it, as without pointing to specifics it says nothing more than "you're wrong" (without demonstrating how).
"how can you not excape death?"
I don't understand how somebody can "not escape death", sorry, I don't see what you mean.
"people really believe that tomorrow is promiced to them."
If you mean people believe religion then yes... so what?
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@999Thip I don't see the point you are trying to make, though you seem to hint at something like "a concept of a God helped me deal with the death of somebody close to me".
While that may be true, it does not make that concept correct/true and actually further reinforces the likelihood that the strength of your belief is based upon emotional need rather than actual evidence.
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jamieishere1 what kind of evidence are you seeking?
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip "Faith" however refers to believing something in the absence of any good reason to do so. It also has an unjustified positive connotation attached to it, which helps to foster the illusion that credulity is somehow a virtue.
"homosexuality is a sin..
sin is sin.
murder,rape, etc is all sin.
and only jesus the very son of the living god ,can take our sins away."
Simply stating that does not make it true.
"the old testament provides one with wisdom"
On how to beat your slaves?
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
What would this say about someone who has a sex change and legally becomes a woman? Can they NOW have a "marriage" sponsored by the state?
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
how awsome allen keys would be as president of the united states of america,
this guy is light,
and obummer is surly is from the darkness.
god save us from this traitor obummer.
can america wake up in time to vote him out next yr.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip His answer was really good but what does it say to someone who is Atheist and gay ???
So there is a law that denies someone a right that is given to others, that is WRONG. Don't legislate religion.
You can call it a civil union, you don't have to call it a marriage. Like a GED versus a High School Diploma. Call it a Marriage Equivalency License. But don't deny others the right to form a union recognized by the state as contractually legal. GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 who will stop you from living with your boyfriend?
you must understand that there are laws we humans must live by.
its clear that liberals just cant understand this fact.
and if you want to know what keyes thinks about homosexuality, just watch that video.
you might learn something.
i know i did.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip I don't have a boyfriend fuckface. The current laws prevent gays from being on each others insurance policies thru their employers and such. Also from filing taxes jointly and such. Those are rights they are being denied IDIOT. You say gay is a sin so be it, but so is eating pork, working on Sundays, sex out of wedlock and a host of other things. Let's legislate laws AGAINST those sins with a government that is supposed to stay separate from the church. GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 do you not have control over you temper?
do you think quoting other sins that were long ago in the old testament will lesson the evil thats in homosexuality,
and please keep the lies of americas founding forfathers and the door., anyone who does reserch on americas foundation knows the men were bible beliving men.
the rest of your reply is liberal dribble.,
wipe your mouth please.
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip Was that your rebuttal??? I could crap a better retort in an adult diaper whilst in a comma. You are devoid of ANY substance on this subject. Please explain why should someone who doesn't believe in religion be subject to its laws in a supposed free state??? GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 ill get back to you 2morrow, im going to bed. gnite
999Thip 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 " I could crap a better retort in an adult diaper whilst in a comma."
Hahahahahaha that made me laugh ^^.
Oh and as I don't think you mentioned, the fact that the founding fathers were religious does not mean that they were against separation of Church and State. Many religious people are strongly in favour of it as they don't want the state meddling in religion (it works both ways).
Jamieishere1 7 months ago
@Jamieishere1 LOL, AGREED. :)
THEMONITOR72 7 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 A right is something that exists outside of government.... a license is a privilege. You can be a gay couple all day long, but you will never have a right to procreate together and raise natural born children. You can disbelieve God's will all day long, but the proof is in the pudding. Have sex with your gay partner and let me know when you get pregnant with a child, and then I will agree that there is a reason for you two to be married.
Superlibertytv 8 months ago
@Superlibertytv You don't see the bigger picture, as usual with religious zealots. If a man or woman is born sterile then that's how "God made them", true??? Then there should be NO MF'ING way for them to be married or have kids, according to your logic. Because YOU claim marriage is ordained thru the church by God to procreate etc. People adopt or have surrogates all day long, with technology. Secondly, I'm not gay and if I was it would be my DAMN business. You need to leave folks alone. GDAY!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 I think you are the one advocating bothering other people and their religious practices by redifining the purpose of marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with ceremonies or calling each other husband and wife. It's sole purpose is to establish a family unit to create and raise children. What are two gay guys going to do? Their only choice is to adopt from a hetero couple... and then what? Raise a community of gay folks who eventually run out of heteros. Seems pointless.
Superlibertytv 8 months ago
@Superlibertytv Again, what I am saying is giving gays EQUAL rights under the law in no way effects YOU or me. Call it a Civil Union if you must but afford them the same privileges that married couples receive thru divorce, insurance policies, living wills, taxes, etc. I'm NOT speaking of the religious implications as I don't believe in them, I speak to the LEGAL benefits of such union as provided by our government. It's NOT a contagion and they've been here as long as the rest of mankind...
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
CONT... Last I checked women donate their eggs like men do sperm. So that is just as viable an option. Most gays come from hetero family units as well, so again your logic is FLAWED. You sound like the quintessential homophobic hypocritical Christian who claims to be Christlike. Big fail! Why don't you live your life and STOP trying to make others live theirs like you? You believe what you believe that is your right. Don't take that right from others. There are many forms of Christianity.
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@Superlibertytv Further more because a gay person doesn't have the "right" to be called a spouse in some states, a partner on their deathbed dies ALONE because a particular state refuses to "recognize" the partner as next of kin. Isn't that outside of government??? STOP LEGISLATING RELIGION, if something doesn't effect you directly why does it bother you??? GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
@THEMONITOR72 Next of kin can be simply laid out via a will.... you are taking this marriage thing way beyond its purpose. Marriage has nothing to do with government, however, government is intruding on marriage by trying to control, abuse, and regulate it, rather than protecting it. I am not advocating the legislation of religion... I believe you are by trying to redifine religious traditions and practices by using the law and government force. Check yourself. GDAY!!! ;)
Superlibertytv 8 months ago
@Superlibertytv Keep your "marriage" as defined by WHATEVER spirit in the sky you worship. I want church and state to be separate just as much as you. SO, call it a CIVIL UNION and give them the same DAMN rights afforded by married couples under the law. End of discussion,GDAY!!!
THEMONITOR72 8 months ago
OK, keeping it real...if a man can marry a man should I be able to have (2) wives? Dam, lets change all the marriage principles, think about it. (1) man +(2) wives = (3) potential incomes, no need to cheat around with other women, all children will have a father.. win-win for all, right? We satisfy Keys principles....also noting there are (5) women to every MAN ! This in itself is disastrous for society..men will always cheat just too many women,Right?
MrRick5690 9 months ago
@MrRick5690 Marriage is also tradition, that's why poligamy is not legally accepted in our society.
But if gay marriage is legalized, than what is the definition of marriage? Someone told me that marriage is "between TWO consenting adults". Well, why does it HAVE to be between two consenting adults? Why not 3 or 4 or 500 consenting aduls?
cashernandes1 8 months ago
So marriage was intended to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation. Okay, so...
1. As procreation can legally happen outside of the bounds of marriage, what legal purpose does marriage serve?
2. If that is indeed the purpose of marriage, why is divorce, a process that completely severs the apparently necessary regulation of procreation in which he speaks of, not illegal?
MatthiasVargas 9 months ago
@MatthiasVargas
Matthias, to answer your questions:
1) Since many children are born outside of marriage, the institution has been weakened. So much of legislation these days has served to break down marriage so as to render it meaningless - and we're seeing the social consequences of these foolish political decisions.
2) Likewise, divorce has served to render marriage as pointless. Divorce should be much more restricted and only used in cases of actual necessity, which would make it rare.
perezDeSanFernando 9 months ago
This is probably the best argument against gay marriage I have ever heard. Keyes is probably the only politician I have seen argue in a philosophical way, instead of using plain ideology. Even though I am gay I like how, instead of resorting to: "i just believe it to be so, because of my beliefs"; Keyes actually presented a logical argument (which of course can be argued against, like all good arguments) against same sex marriage.
MrJFJW 9 months ago
I love how Keyes didn't even give that guy a single second to make a sound. Real smooth debate, sir.
tomthecat94 9 months ago
Wow very well said, Excellent!!!
boanerges144 11 months ago
Keyes kicks ass again.
rbrown6984 11 months ago
@rbrown6984 - He disguises his distinction between fertile and infertile heterosexual couples using the semantics "In principal" and "incidentally" (which is still not a logically justified distinction).
- He refers to an apple with a worm in it as a metaphor for an infertile heterosexual couple.
- He does so in the context of reproductive ability though and within this context, the worm (the infertility), is no less relevant than the homosexuality of a homosexual couple.
Jamieishere1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rbrown6984 - He disguises his distinction between fertile and infertile heterosexual couples using the semantics "In principal" and "incidentally" (which is still not a logically justified distinction).
- He refers to an apple with a worm in it as a metaphor for an infertile heterosexual couple.
- He does so in the context of reproductive ability though and within this context, the worm (the infertility), is no less relevant than the homosexuality of a homosexual couple.
Jamieishere1 10 months ago
The guys have to make energy to keep up with Keyes
agrincourt 11 months ago
damn he's sharp!
amartinjoe 1 year ago 11
@amartinjoe
isnt he great? keyes really is everything that OBAMA is not ...articulate, smart as hell, PRINCIPLED and he even likes this country!!! if you havent watched the rest of this debate i assure you that it is well worth the time...obama and keyes had 2 debates (maybe 3) all of it is on youtube.
theMETALDOVE 11 months ago 4
@theMETALDOVE - If you truly believe that Obama is not articulate, not smart, not principled, and not fond of this country, then you sir, or mam, are an ignoramus. First of all, he became the President precisely because of his rhetorical gift. Secondly, he was first in his class at Harvard Law School. Thirdly, in what area do you believe him to be unprincipled? Ethics? Law? What a stupidly general charge. Lastly, what evidence do you have that he doesn't like the U.S.A.? I'll answer: None.
boxingaddict25 9 months ago
@theMETALDOVE...I saw it all and he is wonderful!
D
HusbandandWifeShow 6 months ago
@theMETALDOVE Smart? The man is a religious fanatic and obviously a hatefull bigot. That rules out 'smart' conclusively.
How can you say that about a man who hates his fellow people over who they, just the book of a barbaric desert tribes reads that you should?
His arguments here are the exact same used to justify signs saying "Whites only" or "Don't buy from Jews" not too long ago.
Blahb27 6 months ago 2
the original bases (principles) behind marriage are the responsibilities surrounding the rearing of children, not procreation. also, the modern concept of marriage now covers legal rights for couples engaged in relationships of trust. the procreation argument will also collapse as technology allows non-interfertile couples to procreate.
masterooni 1 year ago
idk why we don't just let gays get married. They seem like responsible, nice people who just wanna be free and live their lives. If they wanna get married let them. It's no skin off my ass.
YJPY 1 year ago 2
The look on obamas face at 1:55 is priceless,
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
gay people can reproduce through surrogacy and have part biological children so there's no need to worry or concern of the extinction of human being
Vietnamemperor12346 1 year ago
@Vietnamemperor12346 Gay is a choice. It is a psychological problem. People will have homosexual tendencies, but they should not act on them. Someone may have tendencies to get angry and hurt someone, however, they should not act on those tendencies. You don't have to believe that it is a choice, you can go with the overwhelming scientific evidence that people are born that way (sarcasm). You also don't have to believe in gravity, but it doesn't change the truth.
quickstar37 1 year ago
@quickstar37 Gay isn't a choice. That's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of empirical data in the field of biology related to sexual dimorphism of the brain. If it doesn't happen to boys they are gay, if it does happen to girls, they are gay. They don't think it might be that way, they know it's that way. The differences are so significant that a neurobiologist can do an autopsy on a brain & tell whether it's a male brain or a female brain by looking at it with nothing more than their eyes.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
@KenMacMillan Thus far there is no hard, concrete scientific evidence. Please cite that evidence here so I can read it. And if there was, it is still wrong. There are alcoholics with genetic predispositions to the disorder, yet that doesn't imply they should give in to their biological tendencies.
quickstar37 1 year ago
@quickstar37
watch?v=6m2FBwVS044
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
@KenMacMillan Thus far there is no hard, concrete scientific evidence. Please cite that evidence here so I can read it. And if there was, it is still wrong. There are alcoholics with genetic predispositions to the disorder, yet that doesn't imply they should give in to their biological tendencies. As for the Vietnam guy/girl, I am not even going to address your comment other than the sentence I just posted. Completely ideal-driven and illogical comment you made.
quickstar37 1 year ago
@quickstar37
lol you sound like those radical christian. gay is the way you feel just like the way a men fall for a women and therefore you cannot change it. your example of someone getting angry and hurt someone are just totally ridiculous so why do you think there's counseling for anger management? have you ever heard counseling to be normal for gay people? plus all ex gay therapy and other treatment show no difference at all. so just love and respect gay rights and their character.
Vietnamemperor12346 1 year ago
@quickstar37
gay is not a choice! why would you want to choose to be discriminate, bullying and treated like second class citizens? you can change your behavior as a gay men however you CANNOT change they way you FEEL about the person to whom you are attracted to bottom line
Vietnamemperor12346 7 months ago
@Vietnamemperor12346 There are testimonies of people, on YT and elsewhere, who are no longer homosexually active and some are now happily married to the opposite gender. But what do other LGBT say, "They are just pretending", or "have gone back into the closet," some nonsense like that. Now I don't go for physical assault or those hurtful slurs LGBT are called. But one has the right to say no to homosexuality and the things related, just as LGBT speaks out against the things of heterosexuality .
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1
again the testimonies you said are similar to the ex-gay therapy. people might change their behavior on the outside but they still have same sex attraction feeling. why do you think there are thousands possibly million of people like adult or teenagers commit suicide? if they indeed can change then what the point of killing themelves and hurting their love ones? im sorry but this is the reality.
Vietnamemperor12346 7 months ago
@Vietnamemperor12346 People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, not limited to homosexuals sad to say. And I nor can you determine those reasons, nor are we responsible for their actions. The best witnessing tools are the people who are no longer living homosexual lifestyle. Testimonies on YT are right here.
Tsuruta1 7 months ago
@Tsuruta1 "People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons"
But.....when the group in question participating in these "Witch Doctor Ex-Gay Programs" is experiencing a dramatically higher rate of suicide......wouldn't any rational, normal person then deduce that there is a problem with the "Magical Gay Cure Camp"?
It seems that only someone with a personal stake/or desperate NEED to believe in this "Magical Gay-Away Experience" would be so invested.
P.S. some testimonies say its bullshit......
clubindiana4 7 months ago
I'm starting to suspect that you don't understand what separate and equal was. Legally there were no distinctions in the qualities of separate facilities. There was only a nominal distinction. There were black facilities, and there were white facilities. Legally they were mandated to be equal in quality. Just like there is marriage, and there is gay civil unions. In both cases the issues reach far beyond a nominal distinction in practice. The fact that you deny the parallel is absurd.
pokermaster54 1 year ago
"is that homosexuality describes an inclination to a pattern of behavior, skin color or heritage does not; legally the two are not handled the same."
2 things wrong there. 1 is obvious. You're begging the question. You're saying gay marriage is not legal because legally it's not. Another is that your assuming a special distinction between race and gender attraction. By your logic I could say women should be able to vote but not blacks because there is a distinction between gender and race.
pokermaster54 1 year ago
Stop living in the 19th century. Procreation is CLEARLY not the main reason people get married, and gay people will not affect your marriage (if it does, your marriage apparently has way bigger problems). I can concede that churches can and should be able to marry only who they want to, but the state must treat any 2 consenting adult citizens equally. FWIW, I don't think religious marriage should have any legal standing at all.
Alan Keyes is a disgrace of a father.
frednora 1 year ago
@frednora You missed the point; the sole reason the institution of marriage was ever formulated was to delegate social responsibilities to familial parties in the context of procreation; therefore one cannot call a union between two men a 'marriage', as procreation is impossible. The difference between 'marriage' and a 'civil union' is simply nominal. The left seeks to usurp the law as a catalyst for the revision of social norms; it is not the place of the government to do so.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 The institution has changed considerably since its creation. Women are no longer considered property and it is no longer acceptible to marry 14 year olds on a dowry. The government has an obligation to recognize any union between 2 consenting adults in all ways. Alan Keyes has been on record to be against that, and has an anti-gay record a mile long. If your church doesn't want to marry my partner and I, that is fine... but the government shouldn't be able to discriminate.
frednora 1 year ago
@frednora That is relative an culturally incidental; it is irrelevant to the principle of marriage. The government has an obligation to recognize a union between two consenting adults in the administration of benefits and de jure practices; not in name. As a libertarian, I disagree with Keyes on a lot of things, but opposition to gay marriage need not be of a religious or moral nature; it is a question of nominal recognition, which cannot be forced by the minority, by means of the legislature.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 If this is all a nominal thing, then what difference does it make to you whether my partnership is called "marriage" as opposed to "civil union"? If this is about a name then you call it what ever you want, however as a Libertarian, what difference does a name make to you? Why should we be wasting time and tax dollars trying to differentiate and regulate a name? Alan Keyes wants to go far beyond just names though. He is no friend to gays.
frednora 1 year ago