Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Shop Now PSFF17_gno
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

The video of Obama on marriage in 2008...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 35 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 13, 2012, 2:10:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 13, 2012, 3:12:42 PM PDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM-4Ys0uUOg

The following is a quote from a Presidential-election debate between Alan Keys and Barack Obama:

Debate moderator:
"Mr. Keys, on the Channel Seven debate last Thursday night, you said and I'm quoting you: `Where procreation is IN PRINCIPLE impossible, marriage is irrelevant and not needed.` What about marriage between people who are well beyond child bearing age? irrelevant? not needed?"

Alan Keys:
"No, no its simply just a misunderstanding. The word `in principle' means -relating to the definition of - not relating to particular circumstances. So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple; it doesn't change what the apple is in principle. Human beings reason by concepts and definitions, we also make laws by means of definitions. And if you don't know how to operate with respect to those definitions, you can't make the law. An individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because 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 in the first place, as a matter of law and government.

But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you're talking about something that's not just incidentally impossible, its impossible in principle. And that means that if you say that that's a marriage, you are saying that marriage can be understood IN PRINCIPLE apart from procreation - you have changed its definition in such a way as in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution. Since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations-was to regulate from a social point of view-the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation, so when you start playing games in this way, you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.

James Peabody says:
All humans have the right to the experience of the fullness of their humanity; the human experience which includes a mother and a father.

Two men do not replace a mother
Two women do not replace a father

It is a violation of the natural rights of humanity to purposefully attempt having children outside this relationship, it is a denial of a child's humanity and its right to the full experience and expression of it - we are a species comprised of male and female. Adopting children is not the same as picking up a pet at the Animal Shelter, adoption is FIRST for the health and protection of the child both emotionally and psychologically, by providing it with the nearest approximation of a good mother and father available.

A child is not a consenting adult and therefore adoption can never be justified under the argument of "consenting adults" living together, because a child is not an adult and it is still human and has a right to experience a relationship with its mother and father. Adoption can only be understood as an imperfect solution to the tragedy that has separated a child from its biologic parents, and the purpose of adoption should always be to facsimilate the tragically missing biologic mother or father or both as the case may be.

Posted on May 13, 2012, 2:41:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012, 6:01:08 AM PDT
As to singling out homosexuality as an "abomination", Christians need to remember what the Book of Hebrews says about the old covenant; and it will also silence the false Christians and opponents of Christianity that wish to characterize [character assassinate the Christian faith] by defining Christianity from the Old Covenant.

Hebrews 8:7&13 ~
6... Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And do not let non Christians, opponents to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, get away with the whole "shrimp abomination" nonsense from Leviticus, because Christian brothers, we live under a New Covenant and if the Old Covenant was passing away 2000 years ago, we can assume that in truth it is now done; only the serpents and the ignorant defend "Old Testament" Christianity.

In the New Covenant the Levitical dietary code is specifically done away with in Acts 10:15 & 11:9. So when the false prophets, ignorant, and those who are yet immature in the faith, come trying assassinate the character and gospel of Jesus Christ with the tired, spent 'shrimp/homosexual abomination' argument, take it as a golden opportunity to lead people to the real faith whose deposit is represented in the New Covenant.

Yes all sexual immorality, INCLUDING acts of homosexuality, are sin and can never be defended in truth by Christians and the New Covenant, because it expressly calls Christians to genuine repentance of these acts, saying that those who practice this behavior will have no place in heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-12, but truly, please read the entirety 1 Corinthians 6 if you would bring people into a compassionate understanding of the Christian faith's desire to save all sinners, the sexually immoral which certainly does include people committing homosexual acts and living in that lust. Equally 1 Timothy 1:3-17. And Romans 1:16-32

All quotes from: The ESV Study Bible

Posted on May 13, 2012, 9:50:21 PM PDT
You're on the wrong side of history, James.

The rest of the country will move on without you, along the trajectory of greater equality and justice that has been our course for many years now.

You're free to join us... but you certainly won't stop us.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012, 8:31:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012, 8:40:59 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Oh, I see this is from the Illinois senatorial debate, not the 2008 presidential debate.

Interesting that the clip shows Obama answering the question directly and honestly with no verbal distractions to hide his opinion. Keys on the other hand has to loop-de-loop around the question in order to obfuscate why he thinks same sex unions are wrong. The apple and worm analogy was so lame. The procreation reason was so lame. That he should Mai tain that an elderly or infertile male-female couple could still "in principle" procreate but a same sex couple could not is beyond lame.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012, 6:02:38 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 6, 2015, 7:59:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 7:51:04 AM PDT
Thank you Lily.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 8:25:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 8:27:33 AM PDT
Weaver says:
Alan Keyes is an interesting guy. He's a dangerous guy, but interesting--not so easy to dismiss. I don't think Keyes's apple and worm analogy was lame at all. I think it reveals how Keyes--and some Christians like him--thinks. Marriage is an unchanging ideal, a truth. It exists as a divinely created institution to produce children. That's one way of interpreting Genesis--"be fruitful and multiply." It's certainly not the only way, and it's probably not the way most Christians think, but it's certainly one way. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Some marriages won't produce children. Keyes thinks this is okay--though he seems to relegate these unions to a sort of second-class status--something like a shadow of the real thing. But it doesn't change the institution itself. Childless couples are participating in an institution that they can't take full advantage of, but they can still benefit from. Gay couples can't because they are "in principle" outside of the institution.

This is an entirely religious argument, of course. Keyes assumes that either your religious beliefs are the same as his or that they ought to be. He's basically theocratic in his politics. The job of government is to enforce and protect his particular interpretation of Christianity--which he either argues for or just assumes is the right one. He's against secularism. He's always been clear and unapologetic about this. I sort of admire Keyes for his clarity about this--although I think his vision of government is basically no different from the Taliban.

His argument runs into trouble, though, when he talks about marriage as a social contract--because social contracts, unlike God-sanctioned institutions, evolve as society changes. He argues that government has always had an interest in regulating marriage in order to protect child-rearing. But by this argument, prohibiting gay marriage only makes sense if the couple chooses to have children. I don't think this is something that Keyes actually believes, though. Keyes doesn't address this issue directly, but I think it's safe to assume that he would oppose gay marriage even where there were no children.

He then asserts that gay marriages are harmful to children--or at least not as beneficial as heterosexual marriages. The problem is that this is merely an assertion based on his own prejudices. He offers no evidence for it. And with more and more gay couples having children, this argument is less and less persuasive. In fact, in the challenge to Prop 8 in California, opponents of gay marriage didn't even try to give any evidence of this. There just isn't any out there.

So Keyes's argument isn't persuasive, but it is interesting in as much as it reveals a particular way of thinking. Like many other gay marriage opponents, Keyes's argument asserts that the job of government is to enforce Christian beliefs. Where his argument wanders into the territory of marriage as a social institution or a social contract, it falls apart. I think that's a microcosm of the arguments about gay marriage in general.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 11:54:43 AM PDT
Secular definition of marriage in the Roman Empire before the birth of Jesus Christ:

The Family
In Roman Society
Catullus, Poem 61, lines 204-223

Gaius Valerius Catullus was born at Verona in northern Italy. He lived from about 84 to about 54 B.C. As a youth he moved to Rome where he made a home.

Poem 61 by Catullus is a wedding song sung by young men and girls before the bridal chamber, in honor of the marriage of Manlius Torquatus and Aurunculeia. In this passage from the poem, family life is celebrated. Man and woman are "joined together" in marriage (coniugium) with the hope that their marriage may prove fruitful (fēlīx). The wish that the marriage produce a child is a central theme of the passage. The importance of children is clearly stated: it is through offspring that the good family name (nōmen) will be passed along to successive generations. The comparison that follows introduces a major consideration in a Roman marriage: the character of the wife. If she is to be a suitable mother, she must first be an exemplary wife and possess what the Romans called pudīcitia (chastity, purity, virtue). The reputation of the wife must be flawless: she must always remain faithful to her husband. The term ūnivira (uni ~ one, vir ~ man, -a ~ woman: one man woman) was applied to such a woman:

To have had a single husband was considered a feminine virtue, and the epithet ūnivira is one of the chief titles of honor in the sepulchral epitaphs of married women. Women who regarded conjugal loyalty lightly incurred severe disapproval. The cōnūbium was thus in every way a very powerful bond among the Romans, who founded their empire and their civilization on the sanctity of family life.-Paoli, Rome: Its People, Life and Customs, pages 115-116

A child's future was determined in part by the virtue of his or her mother. Penelope, the wife of Ulysses, was the embodiment of the virtuous wife in ancient society. She faithfully awaited her husband's return from the Trojan War. During Ulysses' nineteen-year absence, she attended to the needs of the household and of their son Telemachus. His rightful place in society was secured by Penelpe's faithfulness to her long-absent husband.
Here is a passage from Catullus' wedding song:

Coniugium fēlīciter éveniat!
May the marriage turn out happily!

Brevī tempore līberōs date!
Produce children soon!

Nōn decet nōmen tam vetus sine līberīs esse.
It is not right for such and ancient name (i.e., family) to be without children.

Semper indidem līberōs ingenerāte:
Always produce children from the same stock:

ut Torquātus parvulus,
so that a tiny Torquatus,

ex gremiō mātris suae porrigēns tenerās manūs,
stretching forth his tender hands from his mother's lap,

dulce rīdeat at patrem sēmihiante labellō.
may smile sweeltly at his father with half-opened lips.

Sit similis Manliō, suō patrī, et facile omnēs eumnōscitent!
May he be like Manlius, his father, and may all easily recognize him!

Ōs parvulī Torquātī pudicitiam suae mātris indicet!
May the face of the tiny Torquatus reveal the chastity of his mother!

Tālis laus ab bonā mātre genus Torquātī approbet,
May such praise, due to his good mother, show the worth of the family line of Torquatis

quālis fāma Tēlemachī est ūnica ab optimā mātre Pēnelopā.
as the fame of Telemachus is outstanding, due to his best of mothers, Penelope.

from: THE ROMANS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES Book I, edited by Gilbert Lawall,
ISBN 0-8013-0267-6

Posted on May 16, 2012, 11:55:30 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 16, 2012, 11:57:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 11:56:51 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 15, 2016, 2:45:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 12:51:42 PM PDT
Iatric says:
When the majority matters, you'll have a point. I'd much rather be on God's side than the majority side on any issue.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 12:57:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 12:58:59 PM PDT
Rev Otter says:
<<God's side>>

i don't think you understand. soon enough it *will* be "God's side".

today, people look back at anti-abolitionists who used the Bible and their beliefs to justify slavery and say "well, they weren't REAL Christians."

today, people look back at anti-miscegenation crowd who used the Bible and their beliefs to justify prohibition of mixed-race marriages and say, "well, they obviously weren't REAL Christians".

in a few short years, people will be saying the same thing about today's anti-gay marriage crowd: "they probably meant well, but they weren't REAL Christians."

that's going to be their legacy, and how politics and theology and history will all remember them.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 2:44:37 PM PDT
Iatric says:
In reply to your post on May 16, 2012 12:57:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 1 hour ago

Rev. Otter says:

[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 4:05:36 PM PDT
Weaver says:
Ahhh--if we could only know what God's side was.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:18:53 PM PDT
History will look no better against those standing in the way of same-sex marriage than it does on those who stood in the way of mixed-race marriage... and for exactly the same reasons.

Posted on May 18, 2012, 10:34:21 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Funny how "God's side" is always determined after the fact... usually a few decades later, when hopefully everyone has forgotten exactly who was arguing against what now looks like common sense.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 12:42:50 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
S.Kessler wrote: "That he should Mai tain that an elderly or infertile male-female couple could still "in principle" procreate but a same sex couple could not is beyond lame."
~~~~

Exactly.

Why don't we see people who're pushing the 'marriage is about procreation' idea out there protesting _elderly people_ getting married?

Why don't we see them out there with picket signs that read: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and some old lady!" ?

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 12:45:24 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Iatric wrote: "Rev. Otter says:

[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway.]"
~~~~

It's always cute when someone _responds_ to someone's post just to say they're 'ignoring' them

Priceless :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 12:46:13 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Brian Curtis wrote: "Funny how "God's side" is always determined after the fact... usually a few decades later, when hopefully everyone has forgotten exactly who was arguing against what now looks like common sense."
~~~~

As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient"

:)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 2:03:06 PM PDT
tokolosi says:
Before my 70-year-old mom got married to her 68-year-old sweetheart a few years ago, during the pre-wedding counseling session the preacher asked if they planned on having children. (One of his standard questions I guess.) Her guffaws rattled the windows...

Posted on May 18, 2012, 2:12:00 PM PDT
Below is the original definition of marriage in America; as it occurred in the first edition of the Webster Dictionary by Founding Father Noah Webster.

American Dictionary of the English Language / noah webster 1828
Marriage, n. [Fr. mariage, from marier, to marry, from mari a husband; L. mas, maris ; Sp. maridage.]
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb. xiii.
2. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt. xxii.
3. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev. xiii.

Online version 1828 Dictionary: http://1828.mshaffer.com/
I recommend every Christian American own a hardcopy of this dictionary. It is a window into the values and character of America when she got her start.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 2:14:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2012, 2:18:31 PM PDT
tokolosi says:
Definitions change over time; they *evolve* (insert scary word to nutjob* Christians).

(*a certain subset of the faith; not all Christians are nutjobs. ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012, 2:22:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2012, 2:23:47 PM PDT
Pro tip: The current year is 2012, not 1828

Word definitions change over time.

Social institutions change over time.

Cultures change over time.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive... they give a "snapshot" of word usage at a particular time, as determined by an editorial board of fallible humans.

"I recommend every Christian American own a hardcopy of this dictionary. "

Are you asking Christian Americans to limit themselves to the language - and by extension, the viewpoints - of someone from 1828?

Posted on May 18, 2012, 2:35:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 21, 2012, 6:40:37 AM PDT
RKG says:
i'm scratching my head - and not because of dandruff...

you termed your post: THE VIDEO OF MARRIAGE AND OBAMA IN 2008.

YOU TOOK 8 PARAGRAPHS TO REPRODUCE WHAT ALAN KEYS SAID. AND THEN YOU WENT OFF ON YOUR RANT

ARE YOU PEOPLE FOR REAL?!

Posted on May 19, 2012, 12:54:27 PM PDT
There is a history and tradition that stretches back through this American Nation, back through the British Empire and English traditions, back through to 1st century Christianity, and back through 600 hundreds years of the pre-Christian Roman Empire...

... by which a man and a woman will after due consideration, and not only by a moments transient passion, will decide to enter into a vow between themselves and those members of their community who support their decision, to enter into an exclusive bond for the rest of their lives with the purpose of bringing new life into the world by the union of their two descents in their own flesh, the two becoming one. If a living healthy child, the one flesh of their two beings, is not born to the couple, they are in the truest sense not wed and the marriage has not occurred.

Not all that desire to, even get a chance to try to be married, and of those who do get to make the attempt at marriage, not all succeed in being fruitful; and yet, though tragedy is part of human existence, time does not stop, and one way or another, we move on.

The word "marriage" in our english language is traced back through the French language and beyond to the Latin root "maritus". Though you call a rose by any other name, history will not be served by changing the word "marriage" to mean a different thing, it just promotes confusion and irrationality, and fosters the decay of society into narcissism. Without taking into account religion, human life, at its best is a balance between reason and passion, which requires and must allow some flexibility; but though exceptional things do and at times must happen, they do not, and we should not think, that they change the underlying rules of nature. "Decadence" is also a word, with meaning and history and structure. Each man and woman, in their lives will choose, either by conscience or apathy.

con + science = with + knowledge; the Latin root consciencia
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1266 Jul 21, 2017
Catholic-Protestant Discussion XXXIX 5321 7 hours ago
My Mob Pub and Coffee Shop, Parth the Thirteenth 3231 7 hours ago
Last Day Biblical Prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled, the stage is being set, are you ready? Part Three 7272 7 hours ago
Jesus said... "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me." John 14:6 Part Three 9912 7 hours ago
One Book One Authority by Dr.Douglas D. Stauffer 593 7 hours ago
Part 3- the somewhat newer thread 3100 8 hours ago
I completely understand now why Mormons aren't Christians. 9208 8 hours ago
Dancing While Stannding Still by Richard Rohr 7 1 day ago
Lectio Divina...for the building up of God's Kingdom - Part 2 435 1 day ago
Are the Father and Son both YHWH? 998 1 day ago
More discussions on Mormonism 1327 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  35
Initial post:  May 13, 2012
Latest post:  May 23, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.