Hey everyone, ManOfAllCreation here. I made some thought-provoking t-shirt designs of sheep wearing masks. I think the designs are pretty awesome :D Have a look and see if you like it: manofallcreation.creator-spring.com/
And this is why Peterson's thinking it so great: it doesn't deal with absolutes. Most people you meet would say "I'm pro gay marriage" or "I'm against gay marriage", but Peterson responds "I'm pro for X reasons and I'm against Y reasons". That's also the way I always try to think and it confuses the hell out of people. Not everyone can understand that you can be favorable some aspects of an idea and against others.
@@seanothepop4638 it's not really got anything to do with Marxists getting married. The question is, would you support a movement if it was fueled by cultural Marxists? His answer is that he would support gay marriage the same way he supports trans people and would use their pronoun but if the fuel for a movement is an ideological move to take down 'the system' then be wouldn't support that movement specifically. Hopefully that makes sense, I'm not sure if I explained that perfectly but I think that's what he means.
@@seanothepop4638 there are many systems that exist that these people want to take down/vastly change, mostly the government and capatalism but also Judeo-Christian places of worship, basically anything that is culturally Western. Also Jordan doesn't want to keep traditions necessarily he just knows the value of things aren't always surface level so he would say get rid of tradition and culture at your own risk. As for his value, first of he's a person so that's already infinite value to me personally and that goes for you too. Also before becoming famous he practiced psychology for many years so there's all those people he helped, he was also a semi consistent guest on a Canadian show which I believe is called The Agenda or something along those lines. Not to mention he's had multiple businesses of his own and helped other businesses. He became famous for his ability to speak up against compelled speech laws and then used that fame to help as many people as possible and continued being able to monetise all that (while still keeping all his work free) to again try and help as many people as possible. So when you talk about how little value he has, what is it your talking about exactly? Without him I mostly likely would have killed myself because I needed to hear what he was saying. I could probably list of many things if you want but I think I've already proven that he was value no matter which way you define it.
@@seanothepop4638 I've got so many things that I could say on this matter but if I can't convince you then I'll not bother trying. I will however mention to try and understand what someone's point is before disagreeing with it.
@@seanothepop4638 I appreciate that! Also in a Catholic church they have a canon that they have to stick to, other than that there's a lot of variation from church to church.
Get government out of the business of marriage, let consenting adults marry each other, let religious institutions choose who they perform weddings for.... That's all. Government should not be legislating social structures. Period.
@@prexst Well everyone has a right to their own opinion. Telling an atheist that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't very helpful just as telling a Christian that it can be between anyone isn't helpful. If people are going to state an absolute they should back up their argument, no amount of shouting will change one's opinion... it will do quite the opposite.
As a gay man myself, I actually do understand where he is coming from. When I was younger, and there was a debate on the issue in Canada, I honestly was fine with it simply have the same rights, but calling it something other than marriage. I honestly just wanted to be in a relationship that would be recognized as an actual relationship, but had no desire to undermine anyone. Canada ended up allowing gay marriage, but churches could refuse. I think that reflects that type of compromise: extend, don't undermine. In the UK, they actually did give it a different name for a while. Also, he's not wrong that too many people today, gay or straight, don't give marriage the respect I think it deserves. The high divorse rate and quick quickie vegas weddings are reflections of this. Whenever we hear someone has been married a long time, we applaud them. What we all truly want is long lasting commitment.
Perhaps you could help me understand something, since you're a gay man. I have always been in favour of allowing gay people to receive the same legal standing as a heterosexual couple with respect to marriage. Some countries have called this a civil union, I personally don't care what you want to call it. Gay people should have the same tax advantages that are awarded to straight couples etc. Where I get utterly confused, is when some gay people actively want to get married inside a church and/or be wed by a priest. Why would you want that? Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc are all anti-gay per their scriptures. So I guess the question I am asking is, if you're a religious gay man, why would you follow the religion that you do and if you're not religious but still want to get married in a church, why?
@@FreedomOfTħought To echo the previous reply, within any religion there is a spectrum of beliefs, and even within some of the denominations, things change over time. Consider the current pope versus the previous one. Then people themselves exist on a spectrum of how religious they behave. Many people won't discuss religion much, or go to church weekly, but still do certain things like get married in a church, baptize their children, have a religious funeral, and go to church on Easter and Christmas. Then there are people who are actually quite religious, raised that way, and also happen to be gay. They'll generally find acceptance among certain group of people and denominations. On top of that, scripture is constantly being interpreted differently, debated, and revisited. Some people may see themselves as people actively working to push the church towards being more accepting of people who are gay. Ultimately, no religion has a single stance that never changes and people of faith are extremely diverse.
I'm gay and in favor of gay marriage, and my main argument is the first one that he gave in this vid. I think it's important to not equate every LGBT person with the figure of the "swj" (I'm not saying it is what he himself says here, but a lot of people tend to lean that way). As a gay woman I often feel uncomfortable that my orientation might be understood as a political stance. It's not. We discover ourselves to be gay/bi/trans first, then we might decide to become more political about it by claiming better integration/legitimation/rights. LGBT people can be anywhere on the political spectrum.
Might be too late to comment, but I’d just say the general perception of “gay” or LGBT+ is one of culture, that of a single community. I’d argue you can be homosexual without being gay, because homosexuality (although the term sound uppity when used in casual conversation) is a sexual orientation, but gay is a cultural phenomena-they literally have a flag. What we today call “gay” is not what people of a hundred years ago would’ve called “gay” or “homo” (or worse) because what we consider homosexual today didn’t exist culturally anywhere in human history. Sure, you can be an individual that’s identifies as gay and be of any political opinion, but people will default to leftist sjw progressives as the assumption because that’s the cultural norm. I get how that must be uncomfortable for you. Treating the label like that I think has led to lots of people feeling like they didn’t quite belong. I think that’s why the LGBT+ label keeps adding letters. I’d be curious if a few years later you still think marriage (not open relationships) integration helps the community at large?
@@davidpo5517well gay is another term for homosexuality because it was used as a slur against homosexual people. I’m a gay man so I’ll give you my side of the story. Anything you find in homosexuality you will find it in heterosexual society. Most don’t like to admit it, the promiscuity association that has been slapped on homosexuals stems from far right bigots who want to find a excuse to keep the demonization label on homosexuality. When I was with my bf he believed that a open relationship was best for us in the begging sense we where new and not sure if we are serious, so keep the emotions to ourselves but our sex lives fluent. We tried it and said it wasn’t for us because it did not fufill us like a monogamous relation would. Fast forward today are relationship grew solid we are exclusive only to eachother and we are open and honest about our troubles of the past. Like any normal human being we look at some people and will say “there cute” etc but we bolth can agree with eachother that we found the one.
So true. I once met a gay nazi lol And a black nazi. And not "nazi" as in "conservative" or "I dont agree with them". Literal full blown nazis. Ive yet to meet a jewish one, that'd be great.
lakshen47 how is gay marriage going to impact either? I don’t get the problem, let people marry whatever human they want, it really doesn’t have much of an impact.... when so many “straight” couples get divorced the perceived sanctity of marriage is long dead... now if is a union of love rather than convenience so, I ask, who cares?
@@TheStalec It's not that gay marriage does much of anything really, but if helps a nasty agenda gain momentum it may be what we look back at as being the first step.
@@lakshen47 I see what you mean. I think this stance, whilst understandable, perhaps isn't the best strategically. We agree that it doesn't do much of anything. It's low cost, socially and economically. By allowing the far left to champion the cause, it adds gravity to their movement and attracts moderate people to them that gradually become more and more... extreme. I think by making it legal, and actually championing it, you can deny these groups these stances and keep them away from power by limiting them to very extreme and fringe ideals that not many people are into. Taking the wind out their sails, if you know what I mean? I think being rigid in politics is a bad idea, you got to be willing to sacrifice some positions to the tides of social change, than be broken by the sea because you aren't willing to go with the flow.
There seem to be a lot of people on here forgetting the context of the question! He’s clearly saying if it’s purely for Ideological reasons then no he’s not in favour If it’s for the traditional reasons then yes and and good luck to you This isn’t rocket science people!
But like... for gay people it was never about an “ideology”, it was about being able to live in society the same as everybody else. Just because the issue becomes hijacked somewhere you need to be able to look at it from the core issue and make your own opinion. To say “well I’m against it when Marxists are for it” is a lazy analysis in my opinion.
How EXCATLY does allowing gay marriage somehow impose an ideological idea? This is the problem with the right; They disagree and denounce the left as Marxist or Socialist REGARDLESS of the policies they try to enact.
Sean, I’m not 100% sure that that is true. He starts off that way, that if it’s an ideological issue, then no. But then in the last few seconds of the clip, all of a sudden he changes lanes with the typical ‘marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman’ rhetoric. That, in it’s self is the most ideological stance one can take - one where an ideology of one person can dramatically impact the life of another.
I think that tradition can be good as well as bad. I can see where Mr. Peterson is coming from, and his point of view, but I disagree with it. Here's why. As time moves on, some traditions fade out. This is a natural and good process because traditions that are harmful to others are, in my opinion, bad. I think that gay marriage is definitely not a tradition that has been in this world a long time, so likewise, people who don't like change will be more opposed to than those who are more accepting of change. This whole notion of gay marriage being brought on by the "radical left" is rather absurd, because many reasonable and moderate people, even conservatives like a friend of mine, are accepting of gay marriage. His point that gay marriage will bring upon the downfall of a long lasting tradition of heterosexual marriage doesn't seem like it is backed by fact and precedented reason; I don't think that will happen. As long as there are humans living in a relatively free and accepting society such as America (and many other countries, I'm sure. I'm using America as an example because I live there), the tradition of heterosexual marriage will not seize to exist. However, if the marriage of a man and a women is no longer practiced in the future, then I don't think it would be a huge issue, and I wouldn't be as opposed to it as Mr. Peterson probably would be. If heterosexuality seized to exist entirely and be replaced with homosexuality, then the human race will die out. I don't think this will happen as it is in human nature to reproduce, but I'm not talking about the end of heterosexuality. I talking about the end of heterosexual marriage. If people don't want to marry, then they shouldn't be forced to. If people want to marry (including homosexuals), then they shall be allowed to marry. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that in itself. Saying you don't support gay marriage because the "radical left" support it would be like saying "I'm not going to breath, because the liberals breath". Obviously this is an extreme exaggeration, but you see my point. Disliking something because a group of people you disagree with like it is a very narrow minded way of thinking. I am all about freedom. My final point is, as long as what you're doing is not hurting others, then it should be fine and not outlawed.
You nailed it.🤘 I'm a conservative gay and this is the very reason I cherish the fact that gays are finally allowed to get married. Thank you for this comment.
I find it weak to say ... I disagree with X cause my enemy supports it. Either you support the idea for the sake of the idea that it is correct. Who else decides to support it does not make it more or less true.
@@alnotbiggaytho7124 I'm gay, I wouldn't support legislation limiting straight people's sexuality just because homophobes would be hurt by it, that'd be immoral. His argument is literally "fuck them"
Exactly, I mean we wouldn't make any progress if all the parties were to just degrade all of the ideas other parties have. I think this is an essential problem we have nowadays in politics. Parties don't dare to accept ideas of other parties because they fear that this would make them weak in the eyes of public. By supporting good ideas of other parties we would get much more progress towards a healthier and better society, instead we follow one party blindly and try to shut down and fight their ideas.
@@j0rdanflynn that doesnt make any sense. if you are in support of a position you support the outcomes of that position being adopted by society. if you dont, then you dont support that position. "sinister reasons" not only is vague but in no way should undermine your core principles, you can hold a belief without adopting the same line of reasoning that another person has. you basically stop thinking when you let your opponent decide your position for you. also i just find it a bit performative, i feel like hes created his identity around being in opposition to the "postmodern neo-marxist" villain hes created, so now he has to oppose anything this vague group of leftists do, even if he objectively agrees with the position.
So far, I think straight people have done plenty to undermine the institution of marriage by being so hasty to marry and to divorce. As long as gay couples take marriage seriously as a commitment to love and family. That could bolster its meaning rather than weaken it.
Andy Brice this is not the fault of anybody but government and modern convenience. Marriages fall apart because states support the right of the mother to take the children and leave the husband over anything these days. They then feed and support these women who could have very well destroyed their marriage. It incentivises women to leave their husbands. Additionally, the local grocery store has everything they need and food stamps will be there to provide it. They no longer feel dependent on men because the government will bail them out of their marital mistakes.
Paul2377 In fairness, we only have a few years of data so far. But I'd imagine that after a lifetime fighting for the right to marry, most gay couples will take it quite seriously.
I like Jordan and many of his ideas but kinda don't like how he generalizes the Marxists or Left Wingers ideas. The reason behind legalising gay marriage is simply telling the state it's not their business if someone wants to love or spend his or her life with.
I see that he is very big on the HOW the laws come about and the process we allow ourselves to take in obtaining them do you see how that could be of importance the things we allow that have dangerous roots even if we enjoy the fruit lol just a thought
The question isn't whether the government should allow gay people to love each other and spend their lives together. It's whether the government should recognize such an arrangement as a marriage.
Exactly. It's incidental that it may fit into a Marxist agenda, and if it does then oh well. It's primarily about the people it directly affects, and they've had to take enough shit from tradcons since, well, forever.
@@FriendlyNeighbourhoodSpidey Well that isn't true. I would say though that straight males are the group least likely to like them because *most* gays are very feminine but don't look like women so the males are less likely to see them as a "bro" and (obviously) don't have any potential for a relationship.
I really enjoy listening to you, Dr Peterson, but you seem to have fallen into a trap you yourself (rightfully, in my opinion) criticize. Being against a proposition merely because it's being backed by groups whose policies you detest isn't a good excuse, if it is indeed a good proposition. And worst of all, I feel you failed to give a straight answer, even though this may seem like a complicated issue. I agree with some of the comments making the case that a civil union should not be a government issue, if it is between to consenting adults. Regarding your "if the marital vows are taken seriously" condition, I don't believe a third party should be the judge, since I don't think one would argue that two straight adults would be "more integrated into standard society" if takes their vows seriously. As I see it, this is a case of "equality of opportunity", which is, as far as I'm aware, one of your - and my - stances regarding social equality. The outcome is not being being controlled, it's simply a civil right that is being extended to the entirety of the population. Have I misunderstood any of your points? Also, could you (or anyone that reads this) clarify what you call "ever-increasing demand for assault against traditional modes of being"?
Alexandre Cintra Marriage is about creating a stable relationship for the creation and raising of children, because children are entitled to a mother and father. A gay couple cannot meet those criteria. Why would a government recognize them as "married" as though it is the same? Of course they should have the same rights and benefits as spouses do under a civil union, but we both know this isn't about rights.
Narrev Narrev i’m sorry to disagree with you, but marriage is not just about raising children. If that were the case there wouldn’t be fewer and fewer couples having kids. In a broader sense, legal marriage gives stability to relationship by recognizing the rights of a partner to benefits extended by law or economical practices, such as inheritance, insurance AND child custody. So I stand by my original statement that this is a civil rights issue more than anything else.
Yes, it's about rights, since it's the only thing left since like You said "they' can't have kids". Or maybe it's just where I'm from that marriage (civil) is a civil union. But there is a bigger problem in your thought - what about infertile heterosexual couples? If they can't have kids (from assumption) can this be called marriage? If yes, then we don't agree on our views on marriage, but your opinion is internally coherrent, and thus valid.
You love someone, you want to stay with them forever under an official and accepted vow; Marry them. And I think - no matter who‘s behind the idea - we have no right to dictate who may love whom. End of discussion.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said. The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic. What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation. Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades. Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them. A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing. As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love. Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 Not only did you get your science and statistics incredibly inaccurate, but you are also lying. Identical twin study actually showed that the more a identical twidentical twin shows a certain behavior especially when they're gay the other twin is 60% most likely to also be gay, what you're thinking of is fraterinal twins, those are the ones you are talking about. If so I could not find any of the studies you listed please state your evidence before talking out of your mouth there is no science that supports Peterson's words, As far as I'm concerned you are nothing but a liar and a bad one at that, stop trying to push homophobic ideologies on people and stop trying to get people to bend to your will it's not working and sure as hell is pathetic and isn't a good look on you. Be better!
@@tommore3263 There is no such thing as science that supports that, It's already breaking to you but you are wrong and you have no evidence to support this.
@@tommore3263 so what if that one friend had that experience that's really the only experience and he thought he was gay that meant he was never gay in the 1st place, bringing up that one experience is not only useless but it's also very harmful. Be better!
That is not the only or the major thing he is against. He supports gay marriage if it is going to make the couple happy & not promiscuous , that is there is a deep exuberance & something of paramount significance in it. However the talk of neo Marxists comes if through a progressive guise they are attempting to destroy the traditional values attached to something as important as binding of two life partners. That is where Peterson is against it...
I know this is a late reply, but I don't think he's saying that. I think he was mostly acknowledging the concern the question asker had, saying "I understand feeling that way."
@Med Man after reading through this comment section, I am honestly so done with this talk about gay people having an agenda to destroy traditional values. Gay people want to marry for the same reasons you do - to make their love official and real, and be recognized in society as no different from a man and woman loving each other. Peterson talks in these broad terms but never really explains how exactly will gay marriage undermine traditional values? You'll still be able to have a wife, house and kids. You can still choose to be abstinent before marriage or whatever. Your "traditional values" are nothing more than a set of rules created because they worked for the majority of population. Well, things are now changing, and we are taking into account what the minorty wants, too. It doesn't affect you. Gay people wanna get married and live their gay lives in peace, they have no incentive to bother with your traditions, they'd just like to have their own space.
@@anahrsak4793 EXACTLY! Trads are the kind of people who would want easy & hard mode removed from video games because "I only play on normal" as if the whole world is theirs.
Government should not be defining marriage. Call it a civil union for legal purposes (extended to homosexual couples), and leave the term "marriage" to the private citizenry.
J Cold Marriage is NOT a right, although Liberty is; and being able to marry as you please is Liberty. Unfortunately, the term "marriage" implies complimentary opposites, like a lock and key, or in this case a bride and groom. It also implies a transformation, as a lock and key open a door to reveal the other side, a bride and groom transform their lives by opening the door to procreation and having children. Although, being a person who truly believes in Liberty, the government should not be in any way, shape or form involved in marriage. Marriage is a private institute; it should remain a private institute and determined by the couple involved in keeping with a congregation of people, either of religious or communal affiliation.
Hubris it's just a fucking term made by humans, I vote that we practice marriage as they were orginally. To gain sheep and land for daughter. Said daughter being in complete control of her new master, the husband as the male representative of her family releasing her to him.
This topic is a good example of how we don't challenge our selves to think especially due to social media. For some reason examining complicated matters that have to do with religion, the government, free speech etc, becomes a rare/banned thing. Low resolution thinking will lead us towards oversimplified opinions and a lacking view of the world. That's why some people don't like peterson. He choses to challenge his thoughts and doesn't give an opinion based on what he considers to be right, but rather in good will while acknowledging all the dimensions of a problem.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 I don't see how he does that, honestly. He didn't dedicate a lot of time for the question because this is a qna style video. But he does talk about the topic enough
@@stam7250 talking about the topic =\= giving an answer. He can bullshit a lot and say very little. Is he religious? Does he support Trump? What he thinks about western imperialism? Topics he was asked about, yet he never gave a straight answer.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 he doesn't have to explicitly say any of those things though lol. Seems to me you are interested in what he believes but not for the sake of why. All those are complicated answers and some of them he has touched on. You can't expect him to talk in depth about whatever you want. I understood a lot from the little time he spent on the topic that the title suggests. Maybe you were expecting something else but I don't understand what
Confused is an understatement. Cry me a river. So is he turning from someone that thinks things through to someone that is against an issue if the progressives are for it?
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL why 2 males or 2 females need the goverment to validate their relationship?? they can make economic contracts if they want to or a death will... inheritance of what?? they cant procreate or adopt. homosexuals marrying sounds like a huge waste of public resources just to virtue signal and be more progressive
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL actually compare gay and straight marriages. They raise healthy kids. Think of it like this. They actually have to work at it to have kids. whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
Thanks for carefully weighing whether or not I deserve my civil rights based on a political movement I have nothing to do with, Jordan! I'll make sure to defeat the marxists personally.
Seriously: how does it make sense to deny someone their civil rights because that particular right is supported by a specific social/political entity? That would be like me rejecting less expensive healthcare because Joe Biden signed off on it. It's insane. It's denying people fulfillment, tax rights, visitation rights, and more because you're afraid of a scarecrow. No one is asking you to turn into an extreme leftist because the left supports gay marriage.
@@rye_ay_ay I'd say it's a cover for bigotry, for him. You can't admit you're personally opposed to something, so you dream up a bogeyman to "validate" your opposition. "Blue-eyed people shouldn't be able to get driver's licenses because um... nazis." Honestly, I hear the word "marxist" more times than I hear the word "america" in my daily life, and it seems to be every other word when talking with people on the right. Too many arguments seem to fall back on the lazy position of "I oppose X because marxism." I'm sure there are people on the left who do something similar as well. I wish people could discuss things directly, without supporting or opposing things based on various kinds of bogeymen people artificially tie to the issue. I don't care who started a movement or what some website says or that a single invidiual connected to something is a horrible person. Stop attacking strawmen and address an issue directly.
@@erseshe Look, even if I wasn’t gay, his point here is… that sometimes movements he doesn’t like are related to/have overlap with other movements? That’s not a valid reason to oppose civil rights. Imagine if the militancy of the Black Panther party meant we could reasonably deny all black people desegregation until the Black Panthers went away. It’s absurd, and frankly, an excuse for Peterson to push back against Marxism and gay rights at the same time while avoiding being called a homophobe, because “it’s about Marxism and taking advantage, not gay marriage!!”. If there’s some other intelligent point in this video, I’m not-so-sorry to say I missed it.
The question he was asked directly had to do with said movement. The point in this video is not an emotional or personal one. It's a very cold one: What is the point of gay marriage? What is the value? Value of marriage is stability, most notably for having and raising children, but also for integrating into society. Gay couples have less offspring. However, adoption is kind of a great thing for society~ I do wonder what the rates on that actually are for gay couples. It also seems like gay couples are, generally, decent parents. Read a study a while back on that and, as gay acceptance and gay marriage has grown, so has the "efficacy" of gay parents, which says to me that gay marriage is quite important on a societal level. In this video, Peterson himself said that gay marriage is good for integration into society. He basically laid out positives and negatives, but he kinda omitted a lot of his thought process here, so it's hard to fully grasp without having researched a bit into the topic of marriage beforehand.
to argue for it or against it.? Nice to hear someone talk about marriage and disregard emotions/ love / friendship into any consideration of it. It's all about promiscuity and the breeding quality of the hetero-marriage. Wow, what a master.
@Marc Dumont He's not against gay marriages but is worries about the impct it will have on traditional marriages. That's the same things as saying I've got nothing against drag but what about the impact on " traditional " men if men start tucking away their dicks with duct tape? Girl, gay marriages can be just as traditional (check out doc A Secret Love) or untraditional (meaning screwing around on every opportunity) as the best straight civil and church marriages.....Even Abraham slept around and Lot fooled around with his daughters. (and guess who got the blame ? Lot pulled the Kavanaugh card). Sick and tired of " traditional value" people pulling the yes you can have what we want if you become what we want card. What part of diversity is so hard to understand for Peterson ? He can always buy the rights to Boring Straight White Patriarchical Causasian Wonder Bread Judeo Christian Marriage if he's that desperate? Hell, he can even screw around under those terms.
@Marc Dumont No need to apologize. Quite happy with my own convictions and always instructive to compare 'em with the likes of Peterson or others. If they have a point, I'll re-evaluate, re-calibrate my own viewpoint. Not on this one.
@Marc Dumont Not sure where you live, but over here in the Netherlands, gay marriage is already old hat legally, same as in a lot of European and American States. Some modern protestant churches will hold gay marriages, and there are a bunch of Catholic priests that will give a church blessing to gay and lesbian couples. Germany had a slew of Catholic Priests defying the Vatican by holidng official gay weddings just the other day. The sky has not fallen, depravement has not set in. Anybody with a passing notion of history knows that religions themselves change throughout the centuries. Divorce? Celibacy? Racism ? Black priests? Heresy ? Inquisition ? What is said to be "Religious traidtion is wafer thin". Sex before marriage ? contraceptives? Abortions? There are objections in name and then there is reality. How many straight men and women lived unhappily in the past with gay husbnds or wives ? Or happily and were practical about it - to each his own. Did Henry the 8th have to behead 2 wives to have his 6 traditional marriages ? How many church sanctioned child brides in European history or illegal post order brides in Trump America? So much for tradition and history. And people have a right to belief and freedom of religion. But also let's be honest and and face how few REALLY believe and act the way they say they do. If you end up with half of the hetero's it's gonna be a lot.
@Marc Dumont it's refreshing to hear somebody debating in a nice way the pro's and cons. As for what are we saying to gay people. Well, to be honest, nothing we haven't heard before. And, yeah, we've heard every argument and insult and excuse. Not only on marriage but also on being a man or woman, or human even. And me being reactve.....it's a matter of iIve had my years of therapy to grow into myself and not make excuses for and self-hate part of myself (and guess were i picked those up ?). So yeah, by that time, you've thought about it a lot more than even Peterson ever did. Cause with him it's all data driven and the facts point out, but in the end it's his rather agenda driven ideology that puts an interpretation on some data. Do i need to make excuses for myself ? Hell no. For me time to say, i think that's a crap argument Peterson. And i've lived long enough to be TOO polite about it. Peterson calling women " crazy harpies" ain't that polite either.
life is more complicated than that though. An idea can can great but if bad people pushing it forward than chances are it won’t end up like you thought or how it should
@@xXxBlaqJesusxX "I'm sorry but we're going to have to deny you access to a foundational aspect of society because some people get a little too vocal about us denying said aspect"
LiL Speng i can only be the authority on who is good and bad for me and my ideals... its relative to my perspective. if i dont like you i’ll look for someone better. even try to be that someone better
I like how he's always advocating inclusion of marginalized communities specially in the area of LGBTQ. He sets up wonderful foundation to talk about these difficult to talk about topics.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 being against gay marriage is not being against gay people. You can love people how they are but you have the right not to agree with their decisions to change something that society took many years to create.
@@paulgonzalez2985 I never said he is against gay people. What did society take many years to create? Marriage? Giving gay people the legal right to marry who they want and get all the legal benefits straight people have is undermining our society how?
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 You are right you are initially talking about his hypocrisy using the strawman tactic to justify his stance against gay marriage. So I am wrong to assume you said he is against gay people.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 well when you say it like that it makes perfect sense to have gay marriage. Yet Marriage is the place of the creation of the nuclear family and therefore a future so maybe gay marriage should be just called gay union. Now it's a debate about labeling.
My thing is that I don't see why the government has any interest in gay marriage at all. It is irrelevant to the structure of society in that they don't reproduce and create families (the most basic form of society, the building blocks of civilization). The government has an interest in encouraging and supporting traditional marriage because they know society needs families. The government has never prohibited gay relationships because they don't care what people do. Legalizing gay marriage seems like just a social statement to me.
I’ve watched this a few times, and I think what Peterson is saying is that he has no issue with gay people who want to get married and will genuinely honor the vows of marriage. However, he does have an issue with legalizing gay marriage for the specific political purpose of giving the finger to tradition and traditional marriage, even though something like a civil union could give the exact same rights without changing the definition of marriage. This is a dilemma I’ve struggled with as well, though I’ve personally come to the conclusion of marriage being between two consenting adults who are committed enough to vow loyalty and dedication to one another for the rest of their lives, usually with the goal of starting a family. Gender doesn’t really matter to me.
I'm disappointed in this answer. If as you say traditional values are the best way to live for both the individual and society at large, and you also believe gay people have no choice whether or not they are gay, it makes sense you'd want them to live the best way they can. You're literally putting your agenda over what I've watched you argue for about 20 hours is the best sort of life for people to have. You're doing what you accuse the far left of doing.
“Traditional modes of being”?! How back in time we need to go in order to determine what is tradition that we follow? Who picks among all traditions what society follows? “Traditional long-term relationships” for example? Are you aware that families only 60 years ago were significantly different then families today. Position of children best demonstrate that, particularly if we go back only 100 years - children worked in factories all over USA. Women didn’t have the right to vote, while all possessions were belonging to man. In many societies it was illegal for a woman to ask for separation from their husbands even if they were regularly beaten or raped. So, that was a tradition only several decades ago. Relationships that are considered “traditional” today are more or less created in last 30-40 years (one generations idea of tradition). “Traditional modes of being” is a a thought that hides more than it reveals and cannot be the starting point or proof of any serious conclusion.
If you lived through AIDS you would know that because gay couples were not married(not considered related) horrendous acts were perpetrated. All I ever wanted were my equal rights under the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am grounded by The Constitution. Peterson is grounded by the Bible.
As a gay person who came to hear what he said, I'm happy I heard it. I can confirm there's a lot of promiscuity and it's really, really unfortunate. It makes it impossible for me to open myself up to others, and trust.
@Focused Studying yeah, there's a lot of promiscuity everywhere, and that's what scares me. It makes it harder to trust others. I don't feel bad about myself; it's the fact that I have enough standards for myself that I know I don't want to go through that stuff again, and again and again, as I already have
I’m gay as well, maybe don’t listen to Jordan Peterson. He didn’t talk about banning marriage for sterile straight couples, or straight couples that don’t plan to have kids, because what he opposes is the legal equality of gay people. Every time, whenever there is a movement of equality he blames it on “cultural Marxists” and rejects it out of hand. And that phrase, “cultural Marxism”, is worth looking up. It started as “cultural Bolshevism”, a conspiracy theory created by the Nazi regime to justify the mass extermination of Jews and leftists. He repeats it constantly, because he is far-right and good at hiding it. There are better places to get self-help advice from.
I know what you mean about promiscuity. As a gay man, I saw that for myself as well. But I also learned that I have a lot more power in that area than I originally thought at first. I chose to stick to my standards, and I never let a date with a guy go there, even if it meant that I had to cut the date short and go home. I was always nice and respectful, but I didn’t give in to something I didn’t want. (I was also very prayerful about the whole experienced, which helped me personally.) It wasn’t long before I met my husband, and life has been happy and wonderful ever since (married for 5 years now). I think the promiscuity is partly due to us being guys, and partly because homosexuality has been practiced in the dark for so many centuries that there is a strong counter-culture running deep within the gay community that has little regard for public health or morality. I’ve seen a lot of gay guys get sucked into that who would normally never be interested in it. Things that are done in the dark invite darkness, and I believe that finally putting gay relationships in the light with legalized gay marriage will eventually flush out a lot of the unhealthy practices. If anything, it allows gay men who want a traditional life to actually live one with someone they love.
@@vrproductions2773 promiscuity is due to there being no women to put on the brakes. Do you think straight men wouldn’t be as promiscuous as gay men if women had the sex drive of men?
I love Jordan Peterson when he talks about psychological concepts but I really dislike it when he uses psychological concepts to back up his political stances because I feel like thats really dishonest. Gay people just want to be able to get married like the rest of us. Its not political.
Is being gay political now? Or gay marriage is political thing or social problem? Stop being confused, get things straight. He uses his background of knowledge to create opinion which he gave to people: (simple): "Im not against gay marriage if it's for real, two loving people, vows are for real. I'd be against it if it was far-left wing propaganda" - he is really a tradicionalist but still he can adapt to new world order, that's where I admire people like him - open minded, always ready to change mind if something makes sense.
@@krystiangaweda can you read? I said if you use politics to hinder it then its political. The keyword words being "use politics" thats what makes it political
Damn, I normally find myself agreeing with Peterson on most issues but this answer was, as he said, “confused”. So vague and sloppy. For someone who champions exploring a thought thoroughly before making it a belief, this was a disappointingly thoughtless answer.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh- Of course it's easier to say I'm for it or against it as a black and white issue. What no one knows is if the society is cohesive enough to incorporate the change in a way that does not lead to dissolution because it no longer has any sense of shared values. Try to read more books and shit.
He's not a political commentator. He doesn't want to be someone like ben shapiro or milo. He's a psychoanalyst. He gives his personal take on whatever the issues are from a psychologists's perspective.
"...his answer doesn't make any sense, but he sounded smart saying them....". Made perfect sense to those who believe in commonsense truths / values. And he SHOULD be smart saying them - he's a professor.
The premise is deeply messed up in the first place. Why do YOU get to vote on someone else's basic human rights!? How much arrogance does it take to justify this usuality?
Well, in a sense gays have always had the same right as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's why it's a right and not an obligation.
@@cindyl2444 well that's actually a pretty new definition, love is part of it sure, but if you think that's why marriage was introduced, that's not the case.
Cara Wood honestly theres no such thing as "basic human rights". these "rights" are agreed by society. gay marriage was never a "basic human right", ofc society as a whole needs to decide if it shuld be. if that wasnt the case i can theoretically declare myself hving the "human right" to be rich
Although I have similar feelings, I worry if Peterson is lead by his feelings a bit too much about certain topics. I personally feel worryingly strong contempt for promiscuity and hedonism in general (by nature), but I am not sure if I would really let it guide me in picking the questions and answers in a scientific discourse. I feel like at certain topics even he is struggeling with himself to stay completely objective and not just picking a rational explanation for backing his feelings. Often I know the logical truth/relativity of a topic but am so fulfilled by disgust, that I can hardly say a word and think unimaginable things about actually totally fine people as if they were literally a pile of rotting feces. It takes much strength for me then to say something objective and it's at best a compromise. So I guess, would I be asked to do science in context of these topics, I would not do it.
Its all about feelings at the end of the day. There are facts but how you feel about the facts is what matters. Facts are lifeless in a sense. Logical truth is not objective reality. It is just taking everything that can be thought of at the time into consideration that's it.
J Cold I don't think so. Feelings are by far not the only thing to give direction and in no way the preferable to any other motives. If I am acting lead by my disgust I am in principle equivalent to those lead by lust, both are primitive and unreflected functions in the brain. Even if there there is no cultural goal/meaning/dogma shaping my plans and actions, feelings are still not unquestionably the preferable impulse to action. For those who have any sort of goal, may it even be to get rid of what makes you disgusted or may it be to experience the fulfillment of lust, the irrational and unreliable nature of feelings becomes pathologic and causes nothing but obstacles. In fact, following your emotions is one of the most nihilistic things you can possibly do, you let the randomness of the universe take controll over you.
Our decisions are based on emotion. I grew up condemning emotion just the same as you. But I been down that rabbit hole. The proof is people who received brain damage around their emotional circuits, they become paralyzed trying to make a decision. There is always some emotionality present in all of our decision making. In fact that's what makes us human, otherwise we would be robots. You can not believe that all you want, but that's where the research will lead you to.
J Cold Yes, you are right, a human without emotions and other evolutionary balast would basically be a robot, as nobody would design a robot with the consequences of the restrictions of evolution and birth. And the reason why humans without emotions have trouble is not due to the benefit of emotions, but due to the dependence of our whole system on these by design. Like happiness doesn't give you energy, we always have the energy, we could work highly efficient on our goals without pain or decay, our primitive brains are simply designed to depend on the same unsophisticated emotional and instinctual impulses as animals and therefore will not allow this. Nowadays we humans spend a far greater amount of time trying to manage our biological and psychological flaws than progressing towards improving ourselves and our situation in life. I know, that it is irrational to deny, suppress or mistreat the factual emotions that we have, as we can't escape them. We need to keep them in balance and cultivate them to make them align with our goals as good as possible and cause minimal trouble, and sometimes this means we need to scream and fight and sometimes it means we need to have intimacy. Yet, all this is an incredibly inefficient way of getting stuff done and I predict, that if we humans don't try to function a little bit more like a being that was indeed "intelligently designed", a machine, we will no doubt lose our justification of existence in the face of this superior world of intelligent systems that has been creating itself around us since centuries now. In the end, machines are freer than ourselves, as we are never truly free from our inner dictator-dog. I believe, that neither consciousness, nor the concept of arts and beauty are dependent on emotions, we only tend to believe so because both have strong emotional conotations for us.
It is always going to be a balancing act with our emotions. You can maybe make an argument that consciousness is not dependent on emotion, but not a very strong one. Art and beauty are completely subjective and probably based solely on emotions. You can't divorce emotions. They are like the chaos to the order. You can't rationalize everything about being.
[Using blanket statements to articulate this] I think the issue I see here is that he has built himself such a reputation as 'the one with all the answers', and I think it proves some humility in the fact that there is a moral inquiry which he hasn't thought through enough yet to give a coherent response. I don't think any respect should be lost for him because of this - we're all humans and we all have our 'buts' and 'erms'. He glosses over other important factors of marriage in this video, and it isn't as though our reproductive systems are actually perfect in the first place. In this light, I see a failed argument that if someone has reproductive issues then they shouldn't be allowed to get married (which would be total bs viewpoint imo). You shouldn't take everything he says as unilateral, but I think he is guilty of occasionally making statements that sound unilateral. His personal experiences with the extremist-left will give him his own biases as well, which he needs to decode and assimilate in tandem with his own moral pursuits. This isn't an easy question for him, and I'm glad he didn't pretend it was an easy question. But I'm annoyed that the moral pursuits of the left have become so tainted by the extremists, that the right for gay people to marry is being seen as a potential weapon of the "Marxist-left". There is no conversation between the right and the left anymore, and the effect its having on society is proving to be devastating. There is no incentive to listen, which is also why there are a lot of crybabies on this comment feed who want to argue for the hell of it.
How can the extreme-left use gay marriage for his "evil" purposes? Honestly, it would make more sense to discredit marriage as a whole. With higher divorce rates, they just have to sit down and watch the traditional life-style crumble under his outdated values.
I completely understand many of the opposing views on here and I enjoyed reading them all. I’m for gay marriage. Even if the marxists want to legalize gay marriage to further their own agenda, gay marriage should be a right to all no matter your sexual orientation.
@WaitingToFade na that's delusional. The idea of marriage is necessary to inculcate a sense of commitment to 'marriage'. Thus, the words of commitment in a marriage, usually. Or an expectation that the couple stay together forever. Becoz love isn't really abt love all the time, it's commitment. This is important for the dynamics of marriage to work out. Hence I think marriage has the relevance. Ppl like you are the reason divorce rates rise thanks to flimsy reasons.
@@romeojuliet7161 Agreed, it's like with any system that is flawed. There may be improvements to make, but to tear it all down would be worse. I think people just dont take it seriously enough, we see it as the "thing to do" or maybe some rite of passage, and then next thing you know you've rushed into a huge commitment with someone that you both weren't fully invested in. Maybe longer engagements would help, if you can be engaged for at least a year or two first? I mean, I certainly dont have any real solutions, but I would be cautious with uprooting the whole idea of marriage, it's done civilization way more good than harm I'd say. I do agree with Liam's original premise though, I dont see why that would have to exclude gay people from marriage.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said. The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic. What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation. Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades. Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them. A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing. As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love. Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
I remember I used to watch JP a bit couple of years ago. Kind of embarrassing now. As a gay man myself, this whole "lets have a debate about if some groups of people deserve civil rights or not" thing is just baffling.
This was from several years ago now. The idea lots of ppl are challenging these days is more the idea that the government should have any say in “marriage rights.” After all, if you have the right then why does the government have any say over whether or not it’s considered legal? If it had been set up properly, there wouldn’t have been any issue over gay marriages because the marriage would be legalized by the married couple themselves and the witnesses. Ppl against gay marriage wouldn’t have a say over gay people because we hold our rights ourselves, they’re not granted by government say so. Gay marriage is legal because gay ppl said it was. End of story in a perfect world. The governments involvement in the system and our personal lives is what makes all these stupid legality debates necessary. You’ll notice JP doesn’t moralize the question, is it right it wrong like a conservative, he just weighs pros and cons. Like a politician would. I like JP, but that putting our rights into the hands of the elite is what we need to get rid of.
What the hell was that? Sorry but until this point I was very interested in Jordan Petersons ideas but this is nonsense. You dont agree with something because the mentioned circumstance has followers you dont like? That is just wrong.
@@revimfadli4666 why does it matter. If Hitler had been the leader of germany to first abolish slavery we would still remember that as a good thing that he did, even if it gave him more political power to do so. In the same Vein, it is simply right to legalize gay marriage and criminalize discrimination based on sexuality, yet you would let yourself vote for the morally wrong decision because you disagree with some OTHER POINTS that the people who are pushing this one have? that is actually so fucking retarded and is certainly a fallacy of some kind. at the very least it means you are extraordinarily selfish and lack empathy for the downtrodden. At worst, it makes you no better than the boegymen "cultural marxists" that JP loves to talk about.
Well, 5 years in the future : The whole nuclear familly is a destroyed idea. The very idea of having children, a mother and a father, being a man or a woman are discussed and unsure. Seems like the loud LGBTQ+ community not only want more, but is REALLY asking for the fall of the cis-white-male. The life of the average gay male hasn't changed much at all. It has changed for women... they make most of the gay relationships, and represent 75% of gay households with whildren... So gay women still want children, they just don't want men... and this trend of women not wanting men, and even doing so for BELIEFS is increasing... All in all... the world is changing. Can't say for sure gay marriage made the world that much better... But obviously it's neither the sole reason for it going to shit...
All minority and majority groups need to avoid being manipulated. Think for yourselves. Be tolerant and considerate to others who feel or think differently to you. We are not just clones. God made us as individuals and loved us All
The libertarian view on this is clearly best, allow marriage between same sex couples but do not force churches or any individuals to marry homosexual couples. It's a really disconcerting idea that someone like Jordan would hold the position that you'd need a reason/benefit to justify equality of opportunity, in fact I've noticed recently that a lot of his thinking is consequentialist in that manner.
If you leave it up to churces, pastors, congregates, most will probably deny gay people to marry. Because many think it is a sin. Which is why government needs to get involved. If it is a sin btw, why did god make gay people?
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said. The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic. What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation. Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades. Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them. A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing. As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love. Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 How do you explain the 60% of homosexuals who weren't sexually abused at a young age? The majority of homosexuals, according to your own study, weren't sexually abused so to predicate the entirety of your argument on the minority is unjust, as it completely disregards the other 60%
@@tommore3263 This is completely irrelevant btw haha I know you are here to troll people, but at least stay on topic. It doesn't matter if being gay is something you can change or not. The fact is some people want to marry people of the same gender. Should we allow it or not? You can try again now.
@@tommore3263 Are you sure about that? I looked into these claims for myself as you recommended and I remember reading the exact opposite of what you just wrote. From what I know, if one twin is homosexual, it's highly likely the other one is as well (though not guaranteed, which is very interesting). Not sure where your sources are, but I'm quoting my Psychology Textbook here: "Genetic correlations between 0.30 and 0.60 for homosexuality have been reported for both men and women, suggesting that approximately half of the individual differences found in sexual orientation are due to genetic factors (Figure 11.9; Bailey & Pillard, 1995; Bailey et al., 1993; Kirk et al., 2000)." and "Twin studies tend to show consistently higher genetic correlations for sexual orientation between male identical twins compared to fraternal twins. This finding indicates that male homosexuality has a genetic basis. Results of studies comparing female identical and fraternal twins are not as consistent." As a gay person myself, I can also happily say I was not "sexually interfered with" by anyone growing up, and that both my parents are still alive. In fact, I was very sheltered and did not even know the definition of homosexuality until I was around 12 years old: I honestly thought I was the only person in existence with same-sex attraction because there was no representation to know otherwise back then, and I had no gay relatives. To further argue against this point, I have a heterosexual friend who was molested as a child: He's straight, I'm not. How does that make sense? Your argument that people can be made gay by getting raped is not only false, it's deeply homophobic. Please stop. I'd also advise you look up the stories of the many, MANY "ex-gays" who are later found hooking up on Grindr. Or the "ex-gays" that still struggle with their choice everyday... almost as if they're not ex-gays, and they're simply choosing celibacy, the same way a Priest might. Being celibate does not erase your sexual orientation. Nor does being with a member of the opposite sex: the more homophobic a society is or ashamed a gay person feels, the more likely they are to conform to heterosexual ideals (or kill themself) even if it's not true to what they feel. Also, keep in mind that the "lifestyle" with a higher suicide rate might not be due to being gay, but could be due to the constant threat of homophobia, exclusion from certain institutions like marriage, the threat of violence (I will never visit many parts of the world because it's simply not safe for me) and worst of all, banishment/rejection from your community, friends, and even family? Don't you think that would be the real reason for a higher suicide rate? It's cruel to mistreat gays, and then to point to the evidence of their suffering caused by the mistreatment as evidence that their mistreatment is justified. More from my textbook that isn't directly relevant but still interesting: "In contrast, studies have failed to confirm a genetic relationship between genes and homosexuality in women (Bailey et al., 2000; Långström et al., 2010). Thus, genes appear to play at least some role in sexual orientation, particularly for men. However, this statement does not mean that sexual orientation is determined by genetics. The brain and endocrine system are remarkably sensitive to the environment, and they interact with a variety of sociocultural factors (Meston & Ahrold, 2010). More research investigating these interactions is clearly necessary." The cause of homosexuality is still a mystery, especially as it's observable in other species too.
At the end of the day, homosexuality is nothing more then a fetish, what goes on in private between people is their own business, but it's entirely different to validate it with a legal marriage. Husbands, wives and families are societal cornerstones and same sex couples will never be on an equal level to that. No one says they can't live together, but it is wrong to have gay lovers/ roommates given the same status as spouses.
@Nirmala Prabhakaran you are fucking stupid, what is the purpose of it then? Its mostly about joint household responsibilities, taxes and procreation, if you take out one if the main things then its not the same.
The harm principle presupposes that we know what's best for us. Since you cannot prove the hypothesis of faith based on the harm principle, it's therefore faulty. Furthermore, how do you define Harm? And harming who? You? Another individual? or society as a whole.
When it comes to the traditional meaning and importance of marriage, what is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marring a sterile woman?
cassi farcas There isn't one! I appreciate your question was rhetorical of course. But yes, you've seen the flaw in that argument. Like every anti gay marriage argument that dies on its arse. Rather explains why it's legal now and why a majority support it.
+Paul2377 So we should deny marriage to infertile or sterile couples? What about old people who cannot procreate or raise children, shall we invalidate their marriages as soon as they come of age? By suggesting marriage is explicitly about procreation, you'd have to admit a slew of straight couples shouldn't be validly married.
cassi: That is the coupe de grace against every anti-gay argument based on having children. The greatest minds of the Catholic Church failed to answer it as did those of the East Orthodox and the myriad of Protestant faiths. I say "greatest minds" with a bit of mirth, of course, as all monotheistic religions possess nothing approaching a great mind. The greatest thinkers in these faiths approaches a sophomore level secular philosopher from any two bit Community College.
The thing is that I think marriage is completely redundant if it considers a healthy environment for children to grow up in. It's about a healthy and supportive relationship, and that can be seen and considered apart from marriage.
He’s not stopping people from doing anything, he’s just encouraging good behaviour. What did he say that would make you think that he doesn’t want people to do what they want to do. What does he suggest people should not do that bother you?
"Historically marriage has been between a man and a woman" Wtf do you mean? Historically marriage has been between one/ more humans.. In paganism marriages were both gay/straight for over 12,000 years. In Judaism marriage has been between one man and one (or more) women/little girls for over 8,000years. He must mean marriage historically for Christianity, not historically for everyone.. and I thought we have freedom of religion here in the US?
Hey dude love your videos. Was wondering if you could drop a playlist with all the music you put in at the end. I like them a lot for some reason. Thanks my dude and hope the channel continues to grow.
THE-ONE: "fortunately not in the USA" nor in any other country where it is now legal to do so. In all cases it's a civil union celebrated within the town or local council. I think it's a positive step forward that will augment social inclusion while reducing associations with extremist radical left wingers
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL that would only happen if religion and government began to shift together. Thankfully, atheists and antitheists exist to stop that from happening.
Not to mention it was never about homesexuality, it was about further blurring the lines between "male" and "female". Just five years ago we could never have imagined that such an assault on these distinctions would have been so evident in society.
He Always does this recently when confronted with questions religious in nature. The Sad truth is the majority of his fanbase are alt-right nutjobs that would revile him and send him death threats if he did something as simple as say "I don't think the evidence points to a god existing" or "Gay people should be allowed to marry" so he has to use very unconvincing convoluted talks to distract from the fact that he really just doesn't want to have to answer truthfully.
I had a conservative friend suggest I watch Jordan Peterson videos so I could attempt to understand his point of view. The only thing I've really taken away from it, is that this man very neatly fits into what I imagine a stupid person believes a smart person sounds like. It's all a mile wide and an inch deep, like pretty much every argument I've had the misfortune of encountering from a "conservative intellectual."
Then I would suggest a book by Jonathan Haidt, "The Rightous Mind". You can find it as an audio-book as well. It most likely will give you a lot more insight, and Haidt is pretty far from being a Conservative. The difference is that he has the knowledge and understanding to respect and see the value in the differences in people moral complexities that at the extreme splits into the general dichotomy of: Progressives/"Liberals" Vs. Conservatives. It's no key to unlock the mysteries of the universe, but I would say it's a pretty piece to try to make sense of the puzzle. ---- Or if you are feeling lazy or need an appetizer you can then at least listen to one of his many presentations and lectures you can find by just searching his name in the YTube search bar. Though that won't give as much insight as his book.
I agree, similar to Donald Trump's gaudy, everything gold tastes in decor is what poor people believe that is what rich looks like. Add to that his tastes in food (McDonald's and ketchup on his steak), his choice of words, and you have a clue as to how easily the ignorant are led.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said. The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic. What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation. Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades. Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them. A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing. As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love. Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 It's important to remember that science itself is not an absolute, and there remains a lot of bias in interpreting results. Science was at one time used to justify discrimination, slavery, and other unethical stances. Eugenics was supposedly based in science but its principles are now widely regarded as a movement used to justify genocide during the Holocaust. Sexuality is fluid for some people and static for others. There's not enough evidence-based studies nor a big enough sample size in those studies to conclude how much correlation there is between identical twins and sexuality. And I have no idea where you are getting the 95% statistic on identical twins but in most of the formal questionnaires that have been given to identical twins, the correlation between gay twins(compared to one gay twin and one straight twin) is significantly higher than 5%. I don't even want to get into your gay people were sexually abused as children argument, And for some anecdotal "evidence", I was never abused as a child. Yet, I knew from a very young age that I liked both men and women. This is something that I know to be true about myself over two decades later. I don't foresee this ever changing, but I know if I settle down with one person, many people will assume that I am gay if my partner is the same gender as me, or that I'm straight if my partner is a different gender than me. It doesn't change the fact that I am attracted to both.
@@cameronbennett8151, I always wonder why it is only those LGBT folks who say they only realized their differentness from the age of 13-14, etc. who get the most attention. I believe kids can be gay, bi, lesbian without bringing in the sexuality part into the discussion. I had a similar experience as you. When I reminisce back, I knew I was gay at the age of 5. I didn't know what it was or what name it had, of course. Plus, I live in Georiga (the country) so gay people didn't exist here. lmao, That's how people in my country believed even 10 years ago. I loved a kid in the neighborhood. The first time I watched porn (straight that is) was literally at the age of 14 or sth. I was not touched inappropriately by anybody or raped, like many LGBT people seem to have, in my childhood. I am in a monogamous relationship for over 4 years now. He's the only dude in my life I have ever had. We're planning to move to either the UK or the US, cause here I cannot create a family. Because, in our constitution, it is literally written that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Isn't the position "i am against something because someone i dont like is for it" the definition of an ideology? However brilliant Peterson is this is the first time out of billions questions where he started his response with something unconstructive.
For an intelligent man, he's surprisingly inarticulate in this video. I came away not really understanding his viewpoint because he rambled and jumped about all over the place.
Shouldn't gay marriage be an individual choice though? As much as I agree on Peterson's ideas, I think he generalizes the gay community quite strongly which I disagree on
@@seanothepop4638 its sad that most social issues nowadays are driven by political ideas. Maybe it would be better if people's ideas arent influenced by politics but rather through knowledge.
Assuming that a person being gay automatically precludes them engaging in a monogamous relationship is rather ignorant and quite insulting I think. Also, the extremely erroneous statement that 'gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexuals', is prejudicial and just highlights the fact that you spend far too much time in your mother's basement in front of a screen listening to the sound of your own voice and not nearly enough time out and about in the world gaining real-life experience.
One of a few points I disagree with the good professor. We live only once and personal happiness is one of the key-stones of a full life. Why would I care who people want to spend theirs with? Let them be happy.
Even if you disagree with the concept of gay marriage the government shouldn’t have a right to assign certain sexes to certain relationships, it’s no business of theirs or anyone else’s except those individuals involved so I find it ironic how the questioner didn’t support because of “marxists”
Marriage among other things is a contract. The vows provide instruction about maintaining that relationship so that it lasts. Good for the partners, the children, the family unit and for society. Of course, Gays should marry and adopt. Stability is good for everyone.
I support gay marriage, because marriage is about many things, not just raising kids, and all of those things (including raising kids) apply to gay people as well. If two dudes want to be married, that is on them. The rest of us don't need to meddle. I don't actually support government recognition of marriage at all. I think the whole thing should be privatized. but, if the government is going to recognize marriage, it should do it for gay marriages as well.
'If cultural marxists are for it then I am against it." Smh, that is literally the worst way to form an opinion. My opponent is for it thus I must be against it. That is what we call a syllogism.
@@enjoyevan Except he tends to ALWAYS blame movements of equality on the influence of “cultural Marxism”. I’m gay, am I not allowed to politically secure my own rights as a legal citizen of the US just because of some Marxist conspiracy theory that Peterson’s pan-fried brain has cooked up? If you reflexively oppose movements of equality then you are a right-wing reactionary and you are bigoted, no matter your excuse. All Peterson’s given me here is an indication that he really doesn’t think I have the right to marry since two males can’t biologically bear children (which is nonsense since he doesn’t mention sterile straight couples). That poses a political threat to me. What am I supposed to think when Marxists are always the ones protecting my freedoms? Always the ones actually taking direct action against police brutality? Or climate change? Or extreme poverty in the US? They’re consistently on the right side of these social issues, and Jordan Peterson wants you to do the opposite of what they say without even thinking. The dude has been lying to you about what Marxism even is, by his own admission in the Zizek debate the only Marxist writing he’s read is the Communist Manifesto. Which is kind of like reading The Lorax in preparation for a debate on climate change.
"if the marital vows were taking seriously......." lol Jordan you are soo biased. You think gay marital vows are taking less serious then straigh marital vows ?
Why would you be opposed to something good because its backed by someone you disapprove of? A proposal is either good or bad and if you have the luxury of a plebiscite on a concrete question like this, then use the chance to vote on the actual issue, not the people behind it.
I am mostly with Peterson, but here I think he should consider the benefit to the individual of marriage rather than to any offspring which may come of it. But it is true that marriage and the vows made are viewed flippantly in recent times.
Marriage... gay or otherwise is an expression of commitment... commitment is an expression of responsibility... responsibility a statement of maturity... so whichever way you 'cut' it...a good thing... No further qualifications required...
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said. The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic. What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation. Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades. Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them. A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing. As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love. Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
Tom, I could give you a list of books to refute your argument...but somehow I know that would be a pointless endeavor... But instead, I will give you a link....to a list of animals that express 'homosexual traits' and unlike the human version have no 'ax' to grind... Manly due to the fact, because they specifically can't read, they are not influenced in their thinking by any 'political' or 'religious' inclinations... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Maybe he doesn't share your every thought? Maybe he sees shit differently? It's pretty fucking weird that you're attempting to explain why he didn't say exactly what you wanted him to say.
Who am I to deny the secular rights I enjoy under the legal system to someone else? Edit: Tradition is just peer group pressure from dead people, or just a way to justify the whole "...but we have always done it this way...".
He is basically saying; if you vote to support the purposes of being a rebel then this won't achieve anything. If you vote to support their own rights as humans and to be accepted then yes this is the right thing to do. The issue is how people misinterpret what marriage is about , it is basically security for growing up children not a fun a ceremony. However many straights don't follow uts purpose anyway nowadays so gays being married wouldn't effect anyone.
Marriage is not just for raising children in stable environment. Marriage is a financial unit first of all. I've been employeed by companies where employees were offered benefits for them and for their spouses and these where significant benefits like health care and gym allowances etc... I could not use these. Gay couples are lacking all these opportunities around the world which straight people take for granted.
I love the way Peterson actually presents arguments and controversies that are taboo to talk about in the Western Society. We should challenge norms, attitudes and beliefs that most of us take for granted. Why legalize gay marriage? why being pro-abortion? why should we hire a person just because the person is either female or of color. Such things cannot be taken for granted. Peterson is contributing to a more open society where many taboo topics are highlighted and discussed openly without the fear of being seen as 'the bad guy'. He's only sharing his views and trying to provide rational arguments for and against something.
First, he never answers the question. When you go to The ballot box, the only choices are yes and no. You don't get to write an essay. Second, being against something because people you don't like are for it is stupid and juvenile. I am still dumbfounded that people think he's some sort of intellectual. His reasoning is as mature as someone saying that I'm against a strong military in the US because fascists support a strong military. Or this: I don't like Taylor Swift because Becky Smith likes Taylor Swift and I don't like Becky Smith. How about evaluating Taylor Swift, or gay marriage, on its own merits? He also ignores that half the gay marriages are between two women. He's probably right about the reason gay men have so many sex partners before marriage--no women to put the brakes on. You'll notice that lesbians tend to have very low body counts and are known to be extremely loyal and monogamous. Also, considering the divorce rate and the number of extramarital affairs among heterosexuals, gay people (5% of the population) are hardly a threat to the institution, even if their relationships were total disasters, which they are not. The answer should have been easy: vote yes, in favor of same-sex marriage. If you are heterosexual and concerned about the state of marriage, be wise in your choice of a marriage partner, don't cheat when you get married, and if the relationship becomes difficult, work harder at making sure it lasts. Stop judging other people's relationships.
Remember, it's not the ideology, it's the intrinsic values and moral foundation behind the ideology if anything. If it doesn't and it causes further suffering and illness and destroys truth, love, peace, wellness, etc. then yep I'd be against it too, regardless of what the ideology is whether it's gay marriage, equality of race (whilst disregarding dangerous intentions and behaviours), etc... tree-hugging if that's such a thing (whilst it allows abuse towards other living creatures who oppose tree hugging, etc.) - it can be whatever it is.
I want to hear Peterson's stand on whole wheat bread. I'm at a Trader Joe's right this minute and I can't make up my mind if I should get the sprouted or unsprouted grain. I figure a cognitive psychologist might be able to tell me what color of socks I should wear for my job interview. Please Daddy Peterson, guide me. And should I get take-out or Giorno's.
geinikan1kan geinikan1kan He's a public intellectual and people ask him questions because they care about his opinion on everything. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to care.
Narrev no, people ask Peterson questions cause they need a daddy authority to tell them how to think. Only in a unliterate present could a cognitive psychosis like dada Peterson get so much attention. He’s an alt-right Dear Abby.
Human beings need guidance at some points in their life, some more than others. I would encourage you to show greater compassion for people. Try to teach instead of expect that everyone already knows
Jordan Williams I agree with you. I am not against advice, especially spiritual advice. But I find that Peterson is feeding a reactionary mindset. He is positioning himself as a critic of so called social justice warriors. Social justice warriors are no more empty than the alt-right disciples Peterson intentionally or unintentionally strokes with his rather lame attempt at oppositional logic.
In most if not all western countries marriage no longer exists. What now exists is a state registered friendship pact voidable at the instance of either party. We continue to refer to this contract as marriage partly through sentiment, partly custom and partly self delusion. If real marriage still existed it would be vandalism to indulge the nonsense the homosexual unions are marriages but is it really a problem if we indulge a bit of virtue signalling by referring to these unions with the same meaningless hollowed out anachronistic word we apply to heterosexual friendship pacts? Hasn't the horse long since bolted?
tigerarmyrule - The no fault divorce law has weakened the marriage bond considerably. That, and the left's cultural marxist ideology that has resulted in their latest round of "progress" - same-sex "marriage". This has been allowed to happen because of widespread apostasy - the turning away from God and the resulting undermining of Christ based morality that formed the foundation of traditional marriage. And it's not only marriage that's been undermined. Societal breakdown is evident in a number of areas. All rooted in the same cause.
my problem is that if we accept that traditional marriage is largely a religious institution, then calling gay civil unions marriages is essentially forcing the state into religious matters. I'm an atheist/agnostic, this is a matter of principle to me. You shouldn't force churches to go against their beliefs. As stupid as their fairy tails sound to us, their freedom is our freedom.
Good points all. Demographers show us that by 2150 the West will be disappearing from human life through our own narcissistic disinterest. Too bad.. we were leading mankind for centuries. Others will carry on without this group of "consumers" screaming about their "rights" as they blot out the lives of the most vulnerable among us.
No that does not hurt his argument. He's talking natural law. Sexual reproduction organs are between the sexes for reproduction. This is simply natural. We're not allowed to poke people in the eye or shoot lead into their hearts and sex organs are no different from other bodily organs which only have natural purposes. It is frankly stunning that this most elementary knowledge of human reality even has to be said. The power of propaganda.
I was following the argument right up until the end when he did an about turn and all of a sudden spouted the rhetoric of ‘it’s meant to be between a man and woman’ - which had nothing to do with the Marxist argument he had earlier in the clip.
Yes I agree. There are people that are born attracted to the same sex so it seems like we should legalise gay marriage and deal with the political stuff separately
I don't know why Dr. Peterson conflates same sex marriages with radical leftist thought. Many radical leftists hate any marriage, considering it limiting and outdated. But being able to marry the spouse you love, is one of the most liberating examples of true freedom and self determination there is. You certainly are not taking anything from anyone else, by marrying the person you love. And I would never, ever force anyone to make me a damn cake !
Where I don’t like Jordan Peterson’s take on this is that I feel like he’s ignoring the rest of the left and focusing a bit excessively on “neo marxists”. A great majority of the progressive group are for gay marriage and their goal isn’t to “destroy the conservative society” as opposed to what he shows by ignoring this majority and focusing on the extremists.
He focuses on Marxists because he’s invoking the “cultural Marxist” conspiracy theory, the concept that communist infiltrators are to blame for most or all social progress. It started out as “cultural Bolshevism”, a conspiracy theory created by the Nazi regime to justify the mass extermination of Jews and leftists. There are better people to get plagiarized self-help advice from.
There is no "standard society." What an ahistorical statement. Patterns in marriage have changed continuously in the western world over the centuries. He needs to read Stephanie Koontz's Marriage, A History.
Adeel I am unsure of exactly what you mean by your comment. 99% of comments made on youtube cite absolutely no sources, so citing 1 is far better than most.
I agree with you, quite strongly, that historical patterns in marriage have changed continuously for a long time. I think actually that that's what JP meant when he said "there is no standard society", because one standard is defined, as (of course) the standard, but then that gets abolished or overthrown or replaced by another standard, and then another. And so overall, on average, there really is no standard. In other words, there's no standard standard, if you know what I mean.
"Gay men tend tend to be more promiscuous than average" Any data to support that? "Probably because there's no women to bind them with regards to sexual activity" That's not coherent. Another comment Jordan will ignore
I'm gay and catholic and I want to get married in the traditional and serious way. I also want to escape the gay culture and it's hipersexualisation, that has almost made me emotionally numb.
Hey everyone, ManOfAllCreation here. I made some thought-provoking t-shirt designs of sheep wearing masks. I think the designs are pretty awesome :D
Have a look and see if you like it: manofallcreation.creator-spring.com/
And this is why Peterson's thinking it so great: it doesn't deal with absolutes. Most people you meet would say "I'm pro gay marriage" or "I'm against gay marriage", but Peterson responds "I'm pro for X reasons and I'm against Y reasons". That's also the way I always try to think and it confuses the hell out of people. Not everyone can understand that you can be favorable some aspects of an idea and against others.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
@@seanothepop4638 it's not really got anything to do with Marxists getting married. The question is, would you support a movement if it was fueled by cultural Marxists? His answer is that he would support gay marriage the same way he supports trans people and would use their pronoun but if the fuel for a movement is an ideological move to take down 'the system' then be wouldn't support that movement specifically. Hopefully that makes sense, I'm not sure if I explained that perfectly but I think that's what he means.
@@seanothepop4638 there are many systems that exist that these people want to take down/vastly change, mostly the government and capatalism but also Judeo-Christian places of worship, basically anything that is culturally Western. Also Jordan doesn't want to keep traditions necessarily he just knows the value of things aren't always surface level so he would say get rid of tradition and culture at your own risk. As for his value, first of he's a person so that's already infinite value to me personally and that goes for you too. Also before becoming famous he practiced psychology for many years so there's all those people he helped, he was also a semi consistent guest on a Canadian show which I believe is called The Agenda or something along those lines. Not to mention he's had multiple businesses of his own and helped other businesses. He became famous for his ability to speak up against compelled speech laws and then used that fame to help as many people as possible and continued being able to monetise all that (while still keeping all his work free) to again try and help as many people as possible. So when you talk about how little value he has, what is it your talking about exactly? Without him I mostly likely would have killed myself because I needed to hear what he was saying. I could probably list of many things if you want but I think I've already proven that he was value no matter which way you define it.
@@seanothepop4638 I've got so many things that I could say on this matter but if I can't convince you then I'll not bother trying. I will however mention to try and understand what someone's point is before disagreeing with it.
@@seanothepop4638 I appreciate that! Also in a Catholic church they have a canon that they have to stick to, other than that there's a lot of variation from church to church.
Get government out of the business of marriage, let consenting adults marry each other, let religious institutions choose who they perform weddings for....
That's all.
Government should not be legislating social structures.
Period.
It's too late for that. Child support, alamony etc is already wedged into the state
+Matt Radford its not called a marriage if 2 people of the same sex get married .
Get government (state) out of business.
Let's make government (private) great again.
Zen Zen “it’s not called marriage if two people of the sane sex get married”.... fix your own error fake christian warrior
@@prexst Well everyone has a right to their own opinion. Telling an atheist that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't very helpful just as telling a Christian that it can be between anyone isn't helpful. If people are going to state an absolute they should back up their argument, no amount of shouting will change one's opinion... it will do quite the opposite.
If you're gay and you wanna get married, have at it. You don't need approval from Jordan Peterson.
Marriage is getting approval though. Why else get certification/throw a party?
no but the government should keep marriage between men and women the gays can have live in relationships
@@jayd4ever Don't you see how unfair that is?
@@oc7759 exactly
I want to live as a dog and have respect of everyone for it🥴
As a gay man myself, I actually do understand where he is coming from. When I was younger, and there was a debate on the issue in Canada, I honestly was fine with it simply have the same rights, but calling it something other than marriage. I honestly just wanted to be in a relationship that would be recognized as an actual relationship, but had no desire to undermine anyone. Canada ended up allowing gay marriage, but churches could refuse. I think that reflects that type of compromise: extend, don't undermine. In the UK, they actually did give it a different name for a while. Also, he's not wrong that too many people today, gay or straight, don't give marriage the respect I think it deserves. The high divorse rate and quick quickie vegas weddings are reflections of this. Whenever we hear someone has been married a long time, we applaud them. What we all truly want is long lasting commitment.
That makes sense, but i get to understand gay marriage it's not the problem with marriage that JP says, then it's always good to allow gay marriage.
Perhaps you could help me understand something, since you're a gay man.
I have always been in favour of allowing gay people to receive the same legal standing as a heterosexual couple with respect to marriage. Some countries have called this a civil union, I personally don't care what you want to call it. Gay people should have the same tax advantages that are awarded to straight couples etc. Where I get utterly confused, is when some gay people actively want to get married inside a church and/or be wed by a priest. Why would you want that? Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc are all anti-gay per their scriptures. So I guess the question I am asking is, if you're a religious gay man, why would you follow the religion that you do and if you're not religious but still want to get married in a church, why?
@@FreedomOfTħought To echo the previous reply, within any religion there is a spectrum of beliefs, and even within some of the denominations, things change over time. Consider the current pope versus the previous one. Then people themselves exist on a spectrum of how religious they behave. Many people won't discuss religion much, or go to church weekly, but still do certain things like get married in a church, baptize their children, have a religious funeral, and go to church on Easter and Christmas. Then there are people who are actually quite religious, raised that way, and also happen to be gay. They'll generally find acceptance among certain group of people and denominations. On top of that, scripture is constantly being interpreted differently, debated, and revisited. Some people may see themselves as people actively working to push the church towards being more accepting of people who are gay. Ultimately, no religion has a single stance that never changes and people of faith are extremely diverse.
@@seanothepop4638 They can in Canada.
Longlast commitment among gays?! XD Ah, and I'm gay.
I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. If the rest of us are miserable, why should they be happy? Let them marry!
🤣🤣🤣
why they can have live in marriages
😂😂😂
Let the others have it right? They won't know what hit them...
Lmao
I'm gay and in favor of gay marriage, and my main argument is the first one that he gave in this vid. I think it's important to not equate every LGBT person with the figure of the "swj" (I'm not saying it is what he himself says here, but a lot of people tend to lean that way). As a gay woman I often feel uncomfortable that my orientation might be understood as a political stance. It's not. We discover ourselves to be gay/bi/trans first, then we might decide to become more political about it by claiming better integration/legitimation/rights. LGBT people can be anywhere on the political spectrum.
Might be too late to comment, but I’d just say the general perception of “gay” or LGBT+ is one of culture, that of a single community. I’d argue you can be homosexual without being gay, because homosexuality (although the term sound uppity when used in casual conversation) is a sexual orientation, but gay is a cultural phenomena-they literally have a flag. What we today call “gay” is not what people of a hundred years ago would’ve called “gay” or “homo” (or worse) because what we consider homosexual today didn’t exist culturally anywhere in human history.
Sure, you can be an individual that’s identifies as gay and be of any political opinion, but people will default to leftist sjw progressives as the assumption because that’s the cultural norm. I get how that must be uncomfortable for you. Treating the label like that I think has led to lots of people feeling like they didn’t quite belong. I think that’s why the LGBT+ label keeps adding letters.
I’d be curious if a few years later you still think marriage (not open relationships) integration helps the community at large?
You may be pro gay marriage but God sure isn't 💀
@@davidpo5517well gay is another term for homosexuality because it was used as a slur against homosexual people. I’m a gay man so I’ll give you my side of the story. Anything you find in homosexuality you will find it in heterosexual society. Most don’t like to admit it, the promiscuity association that has been slapped on homosexuals stems from far right bigots who want to find a excuse to keep the demonization label on homosexuality. When I was with my bf he believed that a open relationship was best for us in the begging sense we where new and not sure if we are serious, so keep the emotions to ourselves but our sex lives fluent. We tried it and said it wasn’t for us because it did not fufill us like a monogamous relation would. Fast forward today are relationship grew solid we are exclusive only to eachother and we are open and honest about our troubles of the past.
Like any normal human being we look at some people and will say “there cute” etc but we bolth can agree with eachother that we found the one.
So true. I once met a gay nazi lol And a black nazi. And not "nazi" as in "conservative" or "I dont agree with them". Literal full blown nazis.
Ive yet to meet a jewish one, that'd be great.
To paraphrase Jefferson, as long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks by leg, I don't care.
amen, liberty or death!
True, but what if you can draw a logical and chronological line from it to one of those? How probable would it have to be for you to care?
lakshen47 how is gay marriage going to impact either? I don’t get the problem, let people marry whatever human they want, it really doesn’t have much of an impact.... when so many “straight” couples get divorced the perceived sanctity of marriage is long dead... now if is a union of love rather than convenience so, I ask, who cares?
@@TheStalec It's not that gay marriage does much of anything really, but if helps a nasty agenda gain momentum it may be what we look back at as being the first step.
@@lakshen47 I see what you mean. I think this stance, whilst understandable, perhaps isn't the best strategically. We agree that it doesn't do much of anything. It's low cost, socially and economically. By allowing the far left to champion the cause, it adds gravity to their movement and attracts moderate people to them that gradually become more and more... extreme. I think by making it legal, and actually championing it, you can deny these groups these stances and keep them away from power by limiting them to very extreme and fringe ideals that not many people are into. Taking the wind out their sails, if you know what I mean? I think being rigid in politics is a bad idea, you got to be willing to sacrifice some positions to the tides of social change, than be broken by the sea because you aren't willing to go with the flow.
There seem to be a lot of people on here forgetting the context of the question!
He’s clearly saying if it’s purely for Ideological reasons then no he’s not in favour
If it’s for the traditional reasons then yes and and good luck to you
This isn’t rocket science people!
But like... for gay people it was never about an “ideology”, it was about being able to live in society the same as everybody else. Just because the issue becomes hijacked somewhere you need to be able to look at it from the core issue and make your own opinion. To say “well I’m against it when Marxists are for it” is a lazy analysis in my opinion.
@@missylarsson3517 If you would have seen the most liked comment, it would of clarified for you and you wouldn't have posted a comment.
How EXCATLY does allowing gay marriage somehow impose an ideological idea? This is the problem with the right; They disagree and denounce the left as Marxist or Socialist REGARDLESS of the policies they try to enact.
Sean, I’m not 100% sure that that is true. He starts off that way, that if it’s an ideological issue, then no. But then in the last few seconds of the clip, all of a sudden he changes lanes with the typical ‘marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman’ rhetoric. That, in it’s self is the most ideological stance one can take - one where an ideology of one person can dramatically impact the life of another.
@@AlphaLeaderZ how can you put so many words together and not be able to make an iota of sense?
I think that tradition can be good as well as bad. I can see where Mr. Peterson is coming from, and his point of view, but I disagree with it. Here's why. As time moves on, some traditions fade out. This is a natural and good process because traditions that are harmful to others are, in my opinion, bad. I think that gay marriage is definitely not a tradition that has been in this world a long time, so likewise, people who don't like change will be more opposed to than those who are more accepting of change. This whole notion of gay marriage being brought on by the "radical left" is rather absurd, because many reasonable and moderate people, even conservatives like a friend of mine, are accepting of gay marriage. His point that gay marriage will bring upon the downfall of a long lasting tradition of heterosexual marriage doesn't seem like it is backed by fact and precedented reason; I don't think that will happen. As long as there are humans living in a relatively free and accepting society such as America (and many other countries, I'm sure. I'm using America as an example because I live there), the tradition of heterosexual marriage will not seize to exist. However, if the marriage of a man and a women is no longer practiced in the future, then I don't think it would be a huge issue, and I wouldn't be as opposed to it as Mr. Peterson probably would be. If heterosexuality seized to exist entirely and be replaced with homosexuality, then the human race will die out. I don't think this will happen as it is in human nature to reproduce, but I'm not talking about the end of heterosexuality. I talking about the end of heterosexual marriage. If people don't want to marry, then they shouldn't be forced to. If people want to marry (including homosexuals), then they shall be allowed to marry. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that in itself. Saying you don't support gay marriage because the "radical left" support it would be like saying "I'm not going to breath, because the liberals breath". Obviously this is an extreme exaggeration, but you see my point. Disliking something because a group of people you disagree with like it is a very narrow minded way of thinking. I am all about freedom. My final point is, as long as what you're doing is not hurting others, then it should be fine and not outlawed.
You nailed it.🤘 I'm a conservative gay and this is the very reason I cherish the fact that gays are finally allowed to get married. Thank you for this comment.
Agreed
Agreed
I find it weak to say ... I disagree with X cause my enemy supports it. Either you support the idea for the sake of the idea that it is correct. Who else decides to support it does not make it more or less true.
Unless it's beneficial to the enemy though, then it's a different situation.
@@alnotbiggaytho7124 I'm gay, I wouldn't support legislation limiting straight people's sexuality just because homophobes would be hurt by it, that'd be immoral. His argument is literally "fuck them"
He doesn’t support it in this case because he thinks the neo marxists are only pushing it for sinister reasons. Did you even watch the video lol?
Exactly, I mean we wouldn't make any progress if all the parties were to just degrade all of the ideas other parties have. I think this is an essential problem we have nowadays in politics. Parties don't dare to accept ideas of other parties because they fear that this would make them weak in the eyes of public. By supporting good ideas of other parties we would get much more progress towards a healthier and better society, instead we follow one party blindly and try to shut down and fight their ideas.
@@j0rdanflynn that doesnt make any sense. if you are in support of a position you support the outcomes of that position being adopted by society. if you dont, then you dont support that position. "sinister reasons" not only is vague but in no way should undermine your core principles, you can hold a belief without adopting the same line of reasoning that another person has. you basically stop thinking when you let your opponent decide your position for you.
also i just find it a bit performative, i feel like hes created his identity around being in opposition to the "postmodern neo-marxist" villain hes created, so now he has to oppose anything this vague group of leftists do, even if he objectively agrees with the position.
So far, I think straight people have done plenty to undermine the institution of marriage by being so hasty to marry and to divorce.
As long as gay couples take marriage seriously as a commitment to love and family. That could bolster its meaning rather than weaken it.
Andy Brice
As long as they do.
In the UK divorce rates are lower for gay couples than straight couples.
Andy Brice this is not the fault of anybody but government and modern convenience. Marriages fall apart because states support the right of the mother to take the children and leave the husband over anything these days. They then feed and support these women who could have very well destroyed their marriage. It incentivises women to leave their husbands.
Additionally, the local grocery store has everything they need and food stamps will be there to provide it. They no longer feel dependent on men because the government will bail them out of their marital mistakes.
If you swap the b and l in bolster, it becomes lobster.
Okay?
Paul2377 In fairness, we only have a few years of data so far.
But I'd imagine that after a lifetime fighting for the right to marry, most gay couples will take it quite seriously.
I like Jordan and many of his ideas but kinda don't like how he generalizes the Marxists or Left Wingers ideas. The reason behind legalising gay marriage is simply telling the state it's not their business if someone wants to love or spend his or her life with.
I see that he is very big on the HOW the laws come about and the process we allow ourselves to take in obtaining them do you see how that could be of importance the things we allow that have dangerous roots even if we enjoy the fruit lol just a thought
The question isn't whether the government should allow gay people to love each other and spend their lives together. It's whether the government should recognize such an arrangement as a marriage.
Exactly. It's incidental that it may fit into a Marxist agenda, and if it does then oh well. It's primarily about the people it directly affects, and they've had to take enough shit from tradcons since, well, forever.
No one likes gays
@@FriendlyNeighbourhoodSpidey Well that isn't true. I would say though that straight males are the group least likely to like them because *most* gays are very feminine but don't look like women so the males are less likely to see them as a "bro" and (obviously) don't have any potential for a relationship.
I really enjoy listening to you, Dr Peterson, but you seem to have fallen into a trap you yourself (rightfully, in my opinion) criticize. Being against a proposition merely because it's being backed by groups whose policies you detest isn't a good excuse, if it is indeed a good proposition. And worst of all, I feel you failed to give a straight answer, even though this may seem like a complicated issue.
I agree with some of the comments making the case that a civil union should not be a government issue, if it is between to consenting adults. Regarding your "if the marital vows are taken seriously" condition, I don't believe a third party should be the judge, since I don't think one would argue that two straight adults would be "more integrated into standard society" if takes their vows seriously.
As I see it, this is a case of "equality of opportunity", which is, as far as I'm aware, one of your - and my - stances regarding social equality. The outcome is not being being controlled, it's simply a civil right that is being extended to the entirety of the population.
Have I misunderstood any of your points? Also, could you (or anyone that reads this) clarify what you call "ever-increasing demand for assault against traditional modes of being"?
Alexandre Cintra Marriage is about creating a stable relationship for the creation and raising of children, because children are entitled to a mother and father. A gay couple cannot meet those criteria. Why would a government recognize them as "married" as though it is the same? Of course they should have the same rights and benefits as spouses do under a civil union, but we both know this isn't about rights.
Narrev Narrev i’m sorry to disagree with you, but marriage is not just about raising children. If that were the case there wouldn’t be fewer and fewer couples having kids. In a broader sense, legal marriage gives stability to relationship by recognizing the rights of a partner to benefits extended by law or economical practices, such as inheritance, insurance AND child custody. So I stand by my original statement that this is a civil rights issue more than anything else.
Yes, it's about rights, since it's the only thing left since like You said "they' can't have kids". Or maybe it's just where I'm from that marriage (civil) is a civil union. But there is a bigger problem in your thought - what about infertile heterosexual couples? If they can't have kids (from assumption) can this be called marriage? If yes, then we don't agree on our views on marriage, but your opinion is internally coherrent, and thus valid.
wait what was your degree again?
what does it have to do with anything?
You love someone, you want to stay with them forever under an official and accepted vow; Marry them. And I think - no matter who‘s behind the idea - we have no right to dictate who may love whom. End of discussion.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said.
The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic.
What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation.
Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades.
Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them.
A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing.
As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love.
Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 Not only did you get your science and statistics incredibly inaccurate, but you are also lying. Identical twin study actually showed that the more a identical twidentical twin shows a certain behavior especially when they're gay the other twin is 60% most likely to also be gay, what you're thinking of is fraterinal twins, those are the ones you are talking about. If so I could not find any of the studies you listed please state your evidence before talking out of your mouth there is no science that supports Peterson's words, As far as I'm concerned you are nothing but a liar and a bad one at that, stop trying to push homophobic ideologies on people and stop trying to get people to bend to your will it's not working and sure as hell is pathetic and isn't a good look on you. Be better!
@@tommore3263 There is no such thing as science that supports that, It's already breaking to you but you are wrong and you have no evidence to support this.
@@tommore3263 so what if that one friend had that experience that's really the only experience and he thought he was gay that meant he was never gay in the 1st place, bringing up that one experience is not only useless but it's also very harmful. Be better!
@@sindelscat9336 what part of what peterson said are you talking about that can't be supported by science?
Gotta disagree with JP on this one. Being against something just because your enemy is for it is one of the fundamental problems with politics
That is not the only or the major thing he is against. He supports gay marriage if it is going to make the couple happy & not promiscuous , that is there is a deep exuberance & something of paramount significance in it. However the talk of neo Marxists comes if through a progressive guise they are attempting to destroy the traditional values attached to something as important as binding of two life partners. That is where Peterson is against it...
I know this is a late reply, but I don't think he's saying that. I think he was mostly acknowledging the concern the question asker had, saying "I understand feeling that way."
That's not what he said, Cathy
@Med Man after reading through this comment section, I am honestly so done with this talk about gay people having an agenda to destroy traditional values. Gay people want to marry for the same reasons you do - to make their love official and real, and be recognized in society as no different from a man and woman loving each other. Peterson talks in these broad terms but never really explains how exactly will gay marriage undermine traditional values? You'll still be able to have a wife, house and kids. You can still choose to be abstinent before marriage or whatever. Your "traditional values" are nothing more than a set of rules created because they worked for the majority of population. Well, things are now changing, and we are taking into account what the minorty wants, too. It doesn't affect you. Gay people wanna get married and live their gay lives in peace, they have no incentive to bother with your traditions, they'd just like to have their own space.
@@anahrsak4793 EXACTLY! Trads are the kind of people who would want easy & hard mode removed from video games because "I only play on normal" as if the whole world is theirs.
Government should not be defining marriage. Call it a civil union for legal purposes (extended to homosexual couples), and leave the term "marriage" to the private citizenry.
Hubris marriage is for children, civil unions are for adults.
So my final cemented views are, gay people should be allowed to marry, but not adopt
This whole topic is about the term "marriage" and that's it. It should be about the rights only.
J Cold
Marriage is NOT a right, although Liberty is; and being able to marry as you please is Liberty.
Unfortunately, the term "marriage" implies complimentary opposites, like a lock and key, or in this case a bride and groom. It also implies a transformation, as a lock and key open a door to reveal the other side, a bride and groom transform their lives by opening the door to procreation and having children.
Although, being a person who truly believes in Liberty, the government should not be in any way, shape or form involved in marriage.
Marriage is a private institute; it should remain a private institute and determined by the couple involved in keeping with a congregation of people, either of religious or communal affiliation.
Hubris it's just a fucking term made by humans, I vote that we practice marriage as they were orginally. To gain sheep and land for daughter. Said daughter being in complete control of her new master, the husband as the male representative of her family releasing her to him.
David Ducette wrong. Read the supreme Court ruling and even the dissenting opinions
This topic is a good example of how we don't challenge our selves to think especially due to social media. For some reason examining complicated matters that have to do with religion, the government, free speech etc, becomes a rare/banned thing. Low resolution thinking will lead us towards oversimplified opinions and a lacking view of the world. That's why some people don't like peterson. He choses to challenge his thoughts and doesn't give an opinion based on what he considers to be right, but rather in good will while acknowledging all the dimensions of a problem.
He beats around the bush and never gives a straight answer on gay marriage, religion, politics etc. Snake oil salesman, if you will.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 I don't see how he does that, honestly. He didn't dedicate a lot of time for the question because this is a qna style video. But he does talk about the topic enough
@@stam7250 talking about the topic =\= giving an answer. He can bullshit a lot and say very little. Is he religious? Does he support Trump? What he thinks about western imperialism? Topics he was asked about, yet he never gave a straight answer.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 he doesn't have to explicitly say any of those things though lol. Seems to me you are interested in what he believes but not for the sake of why. All those are complicated answers and some of them he has touched on. You can't expect him to talk in depth about whatever you want. I understood a lot from the little time he spent on the topic that the title suggests. Maybe you were expecting something else but I don't understand what
Confused is an understatement. Cry me a river. So is he turning from someone that thinks things through to someone that is against an issue if the progressives are for it?
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL yes I did. Usually this guy makes sense, even if I disagree wi t h him. On this one he was all over the place.
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL
why 2 males or 2 females need the goverment to validate their relationship?? they can make economic contracts if they want to or a death will... inheritance of what?? they cant procreate or adopt. homosexuals marrying sounds like a huge waste of public resources just to virtue signal and be more progressive
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL actually compare gay and straight marriages. They raise healthy kids. Think of it like this. They actually have to work at it to have kids. whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
+Strelok C if that were true than elderly people, the disabled, etc wouldn't be all allowed to marry. So your comment is irrelevant.
Ugly Coyote
nope , disabled and elderly people can adopt. your opinion is irrelevant.
Thanks for carefully weighing whether or not I deserve my civil rights based on a political movement I have nothing to do with, Jordan! I'll make sure to defeat the marxists personally.
Seriously: how does it make sense to deny someone their civil rights because that particular right is supported by a specific social/political entity? That would be like me rejecting less expensive healthcare because Joe Biden signed off on it. It's insane. It's denying people fulfillment, tax rights, visitation rights, and more because you're afraid of a scarecrow. No one is asking you to turn into an extreme leftist because the left supports gay marriage.
@@rye_ay_ay
I'd say it's a cover for bigotry, for him. You can't admit you're personally opposed to something, so you dream up a bogeyman to "validate" your opposition. "Blue-eyed people shouldn't be able to get driver's licenses because um... nazis."
Honestly, I hear the word "marxist" more times than I hear the word "america" in my daily life, and it seems to be every other word when talking with people on the right. Too many arguments seem to fall back on the lazy position of "I oppose X because marxism." I'm sure there are people on the left who do something similar as well.
I wish people could discuss things directly, without supporting or opposing things based on various kinds of bogeymen people artificially tie to the issue. I don't care who started a movement or what some website says or that a single invidiual connected to something is a horrible person. Stop attacking strawmen and address an issue directly.
@@rye_ay_ay I completely agree.
@@erseshe Look, even if I wasn’t gay, his point here is… that sometimes movements he doesn’t like are related to/have overlap with other movements? That’s not a valid reason to oppose civil rights. Imagine if the militancy of the Black Panther party meant we could reasonably deny all black people desegregation until the Black Panthers went away. It’s absurd, and frankly, an excuse for Peterson to push back against Marxism and gay rights at the same time while avoiding being called a homophobe, because “it’s about Marxism and taking advantage, not gay marriage!!”. If there’s some other intelligent point in this video, I’m not-so-sorry to say I missed it.
The question he was asked directly had to do with said movement.
The point in this video is not an emotional or personal one. It's a very cold one: What is the point of gay marriage? What is the value? Value of marriage is stability, most notably for having and raising children, but also for integrating into society.
Gay couples have less offspring. However, adoption is kind of a great thing for society~ I do wonder what the rates on that actually are for gay couples.
It also seems like gay couples are, generally, decent parents. Read a study a while back on that and, as gay acceptance and gay marriage has grown, so has the "efficacy" of gay parents, which says to me that gay marriage is quite important on a societal level.
In this video, Peterson himself said that gay marriage is good for integration into society. He basically laid out positives and negatives, but he kinda omitted a lot of his thought process here, so it's hard to fully grasp without having researched a bit into the topic of marriage beforehand.
Thats thevlongest way o ever heard someone say "it depends" but I agree with him. Nearly always two sides
to argue for it or against it.? Nice to hear someone talk about marriage and disregard emotions/ love / friendship into any consideration of it. It's all about promiscuity and the breeding quality of the hetero-marriage. Wow, what a master.
@Marc Dumont He's not against gay marriages but is worries about the impct it will have on traditional marriages. That's the same things as saying I've got nothing against drag but what about the impact on " traditional " men if men start tucking away their dicks with duct tape?
Girl, gay marriages can be just as traditional (check out doc A Secret Love) or untraditional (meaning screwing around on every opportunity) as the best straight civil and church marriages.....Even Abraham slept around and Lot fooled around with his daughters. (and guess who got the blame ? Lot pulled the Kavanaugh card).
Sick and tired of " traditional value" people pulling the yes you can have what we want if you become what we want card. What part of diversity is so hard to understand for Peterson ? He can always buy the rights to Boring Straight White Patriarchical Causasian Wonder Bread Judeo Christian Marriage if he's that desperate? Hell, he can even screw around under those terms.
@Marc Dumont No need to apologize. Quite happy with my own convictions and always instructive to compare 'em with the likes of Peterson or others. If they have a point, I'll re-evaluate, re-calibrate my own viewpoint.
Not on this one.
@Marc Dumont Not sure where you live, but over here in the Netherlands, gay marriage is already old hat legally, same as in a lot of European and American States. Some modern protestant churches will hold gay marriages, and there are a bunch of Catholic priests that will give a church blessing to gay and lesbian couples. Germany had a slew of Catholic Priests defying the Vatican by holidng official gay weddings just the other day.
The sky has not fallen, depravement has not set in. Anybody with a passing notion of history knows that religions themselves change throughout the centuries. Divorce? Celibacy? Racism ? Black priests? Heresy ? Inquisition ?
What is said to be "Religious traidtion is wafer thin". Sex before marriage ? contraceptives? Abortions?
There are objections in name and then there is reality. How many straight men and women lived unhappily in the past with gay husbnds or wives ? Or happily and were practical about it - to each his own. Did Henry the 8th have to behead 2 wives to have his 6 traditional marriages ? How many church sanctioned child brides in European history or illegal post order brides in Trump America?
So much for tradition and history.
And people have a right to belief and freedom of religion. But also let's be honest and and face how few REALLY believe and act the way they say they do.
If you end up with half of the hetero's it's gonna be a lot.
@Marc Dumont it's refreshing to hear somebody debating in a nice way the pro's and cons.
As for what are we saying to gay people.
Well, to be honest, nothing we haven't heard before. And, yeah, we've heard every argument and insult and excuse. Not only on marriage but also on being a man or woman, or human even.
And me being reactve.....it's a matter of iIve had my years of therapy to grow into myself and not make excuses for and self-hate part of myself (and guess were i picked those up ?).
So yeah, by that time, you've thought about it a lot more than even Peterson ever did. Cause with him it's all data driven and the facts point out, but in the end it's his rather agenda driven ideology that puts an interpretation on some data.
Do i need to make excuses for myself ? Hell no. For me time to say, i think that's a crap argument Peterson. And i've lived long enough to be TOO polite about it.
Peterson calling women " crazy harpies" ain't that polite either.
Being against a good thing because some people are pro for bad reasons, is not a good reason.
I get the other points, but had to say this.
life is more complicated than that though. An idea can can great but if bad people pushing it forward than chances are it won’t end up like you thought or how it should
@@xXxBlaqJesusxX "I'm sorry but we're going to have to deny you access to a foundational aspect of society because some people get a little too vocal about us denying said aspect"
randomdude1191 no you just find another group you like better pushing that idea. Or do it yourself
LiL Speng i can only be the authority on who is good and bad for me and my ideals... its relative to my perspective. if i dont like you i’ll look for someone better. even try to be that someone better
Gay marriage is a no-brainer. As a gay man, I deserve the same rights to be married as a straight man.
The fact that he says he doesn’t support it because it’s being used a wedge is also using it as a wedge in his own argument lmao
Children need role models of both parents, and same-sex couples don't provide that.
How can you have a genuine opinion about anything if you have to ask yourself what some other group thinks about it first?
I like how he's always advocating inclusion of marginalized communities specially in the area of LGBTQ. He sets up wonderful foundation to talk about these difficult to talk about topics.
He uses a strawman (cultural marxism) to justify his stance against gay marriage. He uses tactics he says he despises.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 being against gay marriage is not being against gay people. You can love people how they are but you have the right not to agree with their decisions to change something that society took many years to create.
@@paulgonzalez2985 I never said he is against gay people. What did society take many years to create? Marriage? Giving gay people the legal right to marry who they want and get all the legal benefits straight people have is undermining our society how?
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 You are right you are initially talking about his hypocrisy using the strawman tactic to justify his stance against gay marriage. So I am wrong to assume you said he is against gay people.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 well when you say it like that it makes perfect sense to have gay marriage. Yet Marriage is the place of the creation of the nuclear family and therefore a future so maybe gay marriage should be just called gay union. Now it's a debate about labeling.
My thing is that I don't see why the government has any interest in gay marriage at all. It is irrelevant to the structure of society in that they don't reproduce and create families (the most basic form of society, the building blocks of civilization). The government has an interest in encouraging and supporting traditional marriage because they know society needs families. The government has never prohibited gay relationships because they don't care what people do. Legalizing gay marriage seems like just a social statement to me.
I’ve watched this a few times, and I think what Peterson is saying is that he has no issue with gay people who want to get married and will genuinely honor the vows of marriage. However, he does have an issue with legalizing gay marriage for the specific political purpose of giving the finger to tradition and traditional marriage, even though something like a civil union could give the exact same rights without changing the definition of marriage. This is a dilemma I’ve struggled with as well, though I’ve personally come to the conclusion of marriage being between two consenting adults who are committed enough to vow loyalty and dedication to one another for the rest of their lives, usually with the goal of starting a family. Gender doesn’t really matter to me.
I'm disappointed in this answer. If as you say traditional values are the best way to live for both the individual and society at large, and you also believe gay people have no choice whether or not they are gay, it makes sense you'd want them to live the best way they can. You're literally putting your agenda over what I've watched you argue for about 20 hours is the best sort of life for people to have. You're doing what you accuse the far left of doing.
“Traditional modes of being”?! How back in time we need to go in order to determine what is tradition that we follow? Who picks among all traditions what society follows? “Traditional long-term relationships” for example?
Are you aware that families only 60 years ago were significantly different then families today. Position of children best demonstrate that, particularly if we go back only 100 years - children worked in factories all over USA. Women didn’t have the right to vote, while all possessions were belonging to man. In many societies it was illegal for a woman to ask for separation from their husbands even if they were regularly beaten or raped. So, that was a tradition only several decades ago.
Relationships that are considered “traditional” today are more or less created in last 30-40 years (one generations idea of tradition). “Traditional modes of being” is a a thought that hides more than it reveals and cannot be the starting point or proof of any serious conclusion.
Parafrenica traditionel..fake help from
In our days i hear no american has the right to vote..good legal even
Tutankamon..in romans tuta is stupid
Eye don.t know..
There is a phrase that more or less goes: Tradition is peer group pressure from Dead people.
Let everyone be miserable. Great for divorce attorneys.
Only if there's a marriage in the first place.
yeah, no good argument against it, so if someone wants it, have at it.
If you lived through AIDS you would know that because gay couples were not married(not considered related) horrendous acts were perpetrated. All I ever wanted were my equal rights under the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am grounded by The Constitution. Peterson is grounded by the Bible.
Pererson is grounded by his arrogancy .......
This isn't a hard question. It is only difficult for someone who denies the possibility of value in positions he does not share.
Every question can be hard, depending on what you think about it.
As a gay person who came to hear what he said, I'm happy I heard it. I can confirm there's a lot of promiscuity and it's really, really unfortunate. It makes it impossible for me to open myself up to others, and trust.
@Focused Studying yeah, there's a lot of promiscuity everywhere, and that's what scares me. It makes it harder to trust others. I don't feel bad about myself; it's the fact that I have enough standards for myself that I know I don't want to go through that stuff again, and again and again, as I already have
I’m gay as well, maybe don’t listen to Jordan Peterson. He didn’t talk about banning marriage for sterile straight couples, or straight couples that don’t plan to have kids, because what he opposes is the legal equality of gay people. Every time, whenever there is a movement of equality he blames it on “cultural Marxists” and rejects it out of hand.
And that phrase, “cultural Marxism”, is worth looking up. It started as “cultural Bolshevism”, a conspiracy theory created by the Nazi regime to justify the mass extermination of Jews and leftists. He repeats it constantly, because he is far-right and good at hiding it.
There are better places to get self-help advice from.
I know what you mean about promiscuity. As a gay man, I saw that for myself as well. But I also learned that I have a lot more power in that area than I originally thought at first. I chose to stick to my standards, and I never let a date with a guy go there, even if it meant that I had to cut the date short and go home. I was always nice and respectful, but I didn’t give in to something I didn’t want. (I was also very prayerful about the whole experienced, which helped me personally.) It wasn’t long before I met my husband, and life has been happy and wonderful ever since (married for 5 years now).
I think the promiscuity is partly due to us being guys, and partly because homosexuality has been practiced in the dark for so many centuries that there is a strong counter-culture running deep within the gay community that has little regard for public health or morality. I’ve seen a lot of gay guys get sucked into that who would normally never be interested in it. Things that are done in the dark invite darkness, and I believe that finally putting gay relationships in the light with legalized gay marriage will eventually flush out a lot of the unhealthy practices. If anything, it allows gay men who want a traditional life to actually live one with someone they love.
@@vrproductions2773 promiscuity is due to there being no women to put on the brakes. Do you think straight men wouldn’t be as promiscuous as gay men if women had the sex drive of men?
I don't see any promiscuity, I think that's a lie that a lot of us hear as gay and bi men.
I love Jordan Peterson when he talks about psychological concepts but I really dislike it when he uses psychological concepts to back up his political stances because I feel like thats really dishonest. Gay people just want to be able to get married like the rest of us. Its not political.
Is being gay political now? Or gay marriage is political thing or social problem? Stop being confused, get things straight. He uses his background of knowledge to create opinion which he gave to people: (simple): "Im not against gay marriage if it's for real, two loving people, vows are for real. I'd be against it if it was far-left wing propaganda" - he is really a tradicionalist but still he can adapt to new world order, that's where I admire people like him - open minded, always ready to change mind if something makes sense.
@@krystiangaweda it is political when people are using politics to hinder it.
@@dankmemes7658 is every topic political if someone can hinder it? I don’t think so
@@krystiangaweda can you read? I said if you use politics to hinder it then its political. The keyword words being "use politics" thats what makes it political
Damn, I normally find myself agreeing with Peterson on most issues but this answer was, as he said, “confused”. So vague and sloppy. For someone who champions exploring a thought thoroughly before making it a belief, this was a disappointingly thoughtless answer.
+
At least he openly acknowledges his ambivalence, and to be fair, he didn't offer the topic, someone asked him.
Lol his answer doesn't make any sense, but he sounded smart saying them.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh- Of course it's easier to say I'm for it or against it as a black and white issue. What no one knows is if the society is cohesive enough to incorporate the change in a way that does not lead to dissolution because it no longer has any sense of shared values. Try to read more books and shit.
this is your brain on STEM
He's not a political commentator.
He doesn't want to be someone like ben shapiro or milo. He's a psychoanalyst. He gives his personal take on whatever the issues are from a psychologists's perspective.
"...his answer doesn't make any sense, but he sounded smart saying them....".
Made perfect sense to those who believe in commonsense truths / values. And he SHOULD be smart saying them - he's a professor.
Common sense fallacy.
The premise is deeply messed up in the first place. Why do YOU get to vote on someone else's basic human rights!? How much arrogance does it take to justify this usuality?
Well, in a sense gays have always had the same right as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's why it's a right and not an obligation.
Pedro Páramo marriage is about marrying the person you love, gay people didnt have the right to do that
@@cindyl2444 well that's actually a pretty new definition, love is part of it sure, but if you think that's why marriage was introduced, that's not the case.
Pedro Páramo yes but as the world evolves so do definitions. Most people now a days only marry for love.
Cara Wood honestly theres no such thing as "basic human rights". these "rights" are agreed by society. gay marriage was never a "basic human right", ofc society as a whole needs to decide if it shuld be. if that wasnt the case i can theoretically declare myself hving the "human right" to be rich
Although I have similar feelings, I worry if Peterson is lead by his feelings a bit too much about certain topics.
I personally feel worryingly strong contempt for promiscuity and hedonism in general (by nature),
but I am not sure if I would really let it guide me in picking the questions and answers in a scientific discourse.
I feel like at certain topics even he is struggeling with himself to stay completely objective and not just picking a rational explanation for backing his feelings.
Often I know the logical truth/relativity of a topic but am so fulfilled by disgust, that I can hardly say a word and think unimaginable things about actually totally fine people as if they were literally a pile of rotting feces.
It takes much strength for me then to say something objective and it's at best a compromise.
So I guess, would I be asked to do science in context of these topics, I would not do it.
Its all about feelings at the end of the day. There are facts but how you feel about the facts is what matters. Facts are lifeless in a sense. Logical truth is not objective reality. It is just taking everything that can be thought of at the time into consideration that's it.
J Cold I don't think so.
Feelings are by far not the only thing to give direction and in no way the preferable to any other motives.
If I am acting lead by my disgust I am in principle equivalent to those lead by lust, both are primitive and unreflected functions in the brain.
Even if there there is no cultural goal/meaning/dogma shaping my plans and actions, feelings are still not unquestionably the preferable impulse to action.
For those who have any sort of goal, may it even be to get rid of what makes you disgusted or may it be to experience the fulfillment of lust, the irrational and unreliable nature of feelings becomes pathologic and causes nothing but obstacles.
In fact, following your emotions is one of the most nihilistic things you can possibly do, you let the randomness of the universe take controll over you.
Our decisions are based on emotion. I grew up condemning emotion just the same as you. But I been down that rabbit hole. The proof is people who received brain damage around their emotional circuits, they become paralyzed trying to make a decision. There is always some emotionality present in all of our decision making. In fact that's what makes us human, otherwise we would be robots. You can not believe that all you want, but that's where the research will lead you to.
J Cold Yes, you are right, a human without emotions and other evolutionary balast would basically be a robot, as nobody would design a robot with the consequences of the restrictions of evolution and birth.
And the reason why humans without emotions have trouble is not due to the benefit of emotions, but due to the dependence of our whole system on these by design.
Like happiness doesn't give you energy, we always have the energy, we could work highly efficient on our goals without pain or decay,
our primitive brains are simply designed to depend on the same unsophisticated emotional and instinctual impulses as animals and therefore will not allow this.
Nowadays we humans spend a far greater amount of time trying to manage our biological and psychological flaws than progressing towards improving ourselves and our situation in life.
I know, that it is irrational to deny, suppress or mistreat the factual emotions that we have, as we can't escape them. We need to keep them in balance and cultivate them to make them align with our goals as good as possible and cause minimal trouble, and sometimes this means we need to scream and fight and sometimes it means we need to have intimacy.
Yet, all this is an incredibly inefficient way of getting stuff done and I predict, that if we humans don't try to function a little bit more like a being that was indeed "intelligently designed", a machine, we will no doubt lose our justification of existence in the face of this superior world of intelligent systems that has been creating itself around us since centuries now.
In the end, machines are freer than ourselves, as we are never truly free from our inner dictator-dog.
I believe, that neither consciousness, nor the concept of arts and beauty are dependent on emotions, we only tend to believe so because both have strong emotional conotations for us.
It is always going to be a balancing act with our emotions. You can maybe make an argument that consciousness is not dependent on emotion, but not a very strong one. Art and beauty are completely subjective and probably based solely on emotions. You can't divorce emotions. They are like the chaos to the order. You can't rationalize everything about being.
[Using blanket statements to articulate this] I think the issue I see here is that he has built himself such a reputation as 'the one with all the answers', and I think it proves some humility in the fact that there is a moral inquiry which he hasn't thought through enough yet to give a coherent response. I don't think any respect should be lost for him because of this - we're all humans and we all have our 'buts' and 'erms'.
He glosses over other important factors of marriage in this video, and it isn't as though our reproductive systems are actually perfect in the first place. In this light, I see a failed argument that if someone has reproductive issues then they shouldn't be allowed to get married (which would be total bs viewpoint imo).
You shouldn't take everything he says as unilateral, but I think he is guilty of occasionally making statements that sound unilateral. His personal experiences with the extremist-left will give him his own biases as well, which he needs to decode and assimilate in tandem with his own moral pursuits. This isn't an easy question for him, and I'm glad he didn't pretend it was an easy question.
But I'm annoyed that the moral pursuits of the left have become so tainted by the extremists, that the right for gay people to marry is being seen as a potential weapon of the "Marxist-left". There is no conversation between the right and the left anymore, and the effect its having on society is proving to be devastating. There is no incentive to listen, which is also why there are a lot of crybabies on this comment feed who want to argue for the hell of it.
How can the extreme-left use gay marriage for his "evil" purposes? Honestly, it would make more sense to discredit marriage as a whole. With higher divorce rates, they just have to sit down and watch the traditional life-style crumble under his outdated values.
Further to my second point: if you reduce yourself to the opposition of what or whom you dislike, you are nothing but a puppet for your enemy.
Everybody who's watching this is already a puppet.
He would have been a puppet if he supported gay marriage.
I completely understand many of the opposing views on here and I enjoyed reading them all. I’m for gay marriage. Even if the marxists want to legalize gay marriage to further their own agenda, gay marriage should be a right to all no matter your sexual orientation.
exactly!! if ''the marxists'' want to do the right thing then let them do it.
Why exactly should ancient collective delusions outweigh two people wanting to marry each other?
@WaitingToFade na that's delusional. The idea of marriage is necessary to inculcate a sense of commitment to 'marriage'. Thus, the words of commitment in a marriage, usually. Or an expectation that the couple stay together forever.
Becoz love isn't really abt love all the time, it's commitment. This is important for the dynamics of marriage to work out. Hence I think marriage has the relevance. Ppl like you are the reason divorce rates rise thanks to flimsy reasons.
@@romeojuliet7161 Marriage is pointless
@@FriendlyNeighbourhoodSpidey marriage is pointless for losers
@@romeojuliet7161 Agreed, it's like with any system that is flawed. There may be improvements to make, but to tear it all down would be worse. I think people just dont take it seriously enough, we see it as the "thing to do" or maybe some rite of passage, and then next thing you know you've rushed into a huge commitment with someone that you both weren't fully invested in. Maybe longer engagements would help, if you can be engaged for at least a year or two first? I mean, I certainly dont have any real solutions, but I would be cautious with uprooting the whole idea of marriage, it's done civilization way more good than harm I'd say. I do agree with Liam's original premise though, I dont see why that would have to exclude gay people from marriage.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said.
The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic.
What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation.
Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades.
Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them.
A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing.
As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love.
Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
I remember I used to watch JP a bit couple of years ago. Kind of embarrassing now. As a gay man myself, this whole "lets have a debate about if some groups of people deserve civil rights or not" thing is just baffling.
Same. And wtf was the part about opposing equal rights to spite “neo marxists”?
@@crossroads670 🤣🤣🤣 exactly
This was from several years ago now. The idea lots of ppl are challenging these days is more the idea that the government should have any say in “marriage rights.” After all, if you have the right then why does the government have any say over whether or not it’s considered legal?
If it had been set up properly, there wouldn’t have been any issue over gay marriages because the marriage would be legalized by the married couple themselves and the witnesses. Ppl against gay marriage wouldn’t have a say over gay people because we hold our rights ourselves, they’re not granted by government say so. Gay marriage is legal because gay ppl said it was. End of story in a perfect world.
The governments involvement in the system and our personal lives is what makes all these stupid legality debates necessary.
You’ll notice JP doesn’t moralize the question, is it right it wrong like a conservative, he just weighs pros and cons. Like a politician would. I like JP, but that putting our rights into the hands of the elite is what we need to get rid of.
the 1.8k that disliked obviously did not understand what he said.
@The Geek Squad Leader maybe you should listen more carefully idiot
What the hell was that? Sorry but until this point I was very interested in Jordan Petersons ideas but this is nonsense. You dont agree with something because the mentioned circumstance has followers you dont like?
That is just wrong.
Besides that his neomarxist/ cultural marxist talk is confused.
Perhaps not 'just' because he disliked 'some' followers, but because said subgroup were exploiting the movement for another goal?
@@revimfadli4666 why does it matter. If Hitler had been the leader of germany to first abolish slavery we would still remember that as a good thing that he did, even if it gave him more political power to do so. In the same Vein, it is simply right to legalize gay marriage and criminalize discrimination based on sexuality, yet you would let yourself vote for the morally wrong decision because you disagree with some OTHER POINTS that the people who are pushing this one have? that is actually so fucking retarded and is certainly a fallacy of some kind. at the very least it means you are extraordinarily selfish and lack empathy for the downtrodden. At worst, it makes you no better than the boegymen "cultural marxists" that JP loves to talk about.
Well, 5 years in the future :
The whole nuclear familly is a destroyed idea. The very idea of having children, a mother and a father, being a man or a woman are discussed and unsure. Seems like the loud LGBTQ+ community not only want more, but is REALLY asking for the fall of the cis-white-male. The life of the average gay male hasn't changed much at all. It has changed for women... they make most of the gay relationships, and represent 75% of gay households with whildren... So gay women still want children, they just don't want men... and this trend of women not wanting men, and even doing so for BELIEFS is increasing...
All in all... the world is changing. Can't say for sure gay marriage made the world that much better... But obviously it's neither the sole reason for it going to shit...
All minority and majority groups need to avoid being manipulated. Think for yourselves. Be tolerant and considerate to others who feel or think differently to you. We are not just clones. God made us as individuals and loved us All
The libertarian view on this is clearly best, allow marriage between same sex couples but do not force churches or any individuals to marry homosexual couples. It's a really disconcerting idea that someone like Jordan would hold the position that you'd need a reason/benefit to justify equality of opportunity, in fact I've noticed recently that a lot of his thinking is consequentialist in that manner.
If you leave it up to churces, pastors, congregates, most will probably deny gay people to marry. Because many think it is a sin. Which is why government needs to get involved. If it is a sin btw, why did god make gay people?
@Jordan - I think I have some troubles understanding your comment.. are you trying to say that people *choose* to be gay?
The least impressed I've been with JP, but I get he's mainly exercising caution.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said.
The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic.
What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation.
Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades.
Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them.
A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing.
As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love.
Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 How do you explain the 60% of homosexuals who weren't sexually abused at a young age? The majority of homosexuals, according to your own study, weren't sexually abused so to predicate the entirety of your argument on the minority is unjust, as it completely disregards the other 60%
expect he’d be devastated to hear that
@@tommore3263 This is completely irrelevant btw haha I know you are here to troll people, but at least stay on topic. It doesn't matter if being gay is something you can change or not. The fact is some people want to marry people of the same gender. Should we allow it or not?
You can try again now.
@@tommore3263 Are you sure about that? I looked into these claims for myself as you recommended and I remember reading the exact opposite of what you just wrote. From what I know, if one twin is homosexual, it's highly likely the other one is as well (though not guaranteed, which is very interesting).
Not sure where your sources are, but I'm quoting my Psychology Textbook here: "Genetic correlations between 0.30 and 0.60 for homosexuality have been reported for both men and women, suggesting that approximately half of the individual differences found in sexual orientation are due to genetic factors (Figure 11.9; Bailey & Pillard, 1995; Bailey et al., 1993; Kirk et al., 2000)." and "Twin studies tend to show consistently higher genetic correlations for sexual orientation between male identical twins compared to fraternal twins. This finding indicates that male homosexuality has a genetic basis. Results of studies comparing female identical and fraternal twins are not as consistent."
As a gay person myself, I can also happily say I was not "sexually interfered with" by anyone growing up, and that both my parents are still alive. In fact, I was very sheltered and did not even know the definition of homosexuality until I was around 12 years old: I honestly thought I was the only person in existence with same-sex attraction because there was no representation to know otherwise back then, and I had no gay relatives. To further argue against this point, I have a heterosexual friend who was molested as a child: He's straight, I'm not. How does that make sense? Your argument that people can be made gay by getting raped is not only false, it's deeply homophobic. Please stop.
I'd also advise you look up the stories of the many, MANY "ex-gays" who are later found hooking up on Grindr. Or the "ex-gays" that still struggle with their choice everyday... almost as if they're not ex-gays, and they're simply choosing celibacy, the same way a Priest might. Being celibate does not erase your sexual orientation. Nor does being with a member of the opposite sex: the more homophobic a society is or ashamed a gay person feels, the more likely they are to conform to heterosexual ideals (or kill themself) even if it's not true to what they feel. Also, keep in mind that the "lifestyle" with a higher suicide rate might not be due to being gay, but could be due to the constant threat of homophobia, exclusion from certain institutions like marriage, the threat of violence (I will never visit many parts of the world because it's simply not safe for me) and worst of all, banishment/rejection from your community, friends, and even family? Don't you think that would be the real reason for a higher suicide rate? It's cruel to mistreat gays, and then to point to the evidence of their suffering caused by the mistreatment as evidence that their mistreatment is justified.
More from my textbook that isn't directly relevant but still interesting: "In contrast, studies have failed to confirm a genetic relationship between genes and homosexuality in women (Bailey et al., 2000; Långström et al., 2010). Thus, genes appear to play at least some role in sexual orientation, particularly for men. However, this statement does not mean that sexual orientation is determined by genetics. The brain and endocrine system are remarkably sensitive to the environment, and they interact with a variety of sociocultural factors (Meston & Ahrold, 2010). More research investigating these interactions is clearly necessary." The cause of homosexuality is still a mystery, especially as it's observable in other species too.
At the end of the day, homosexuality is nothing more then a fetish, what goes on in private between people is their own business, but it's entirely different to validate it with a legal marriage. Husbands, wives and families are societal cornerstones and same sex couples will never be on an equal level to that. No one says they can't live together, but it is wrong to have gay lovers/ roommates given the same status as spouses.
@Nirmala Prabhakaran you are fucking stupid, what is the purpose of it then? Its mostly about joint household responsibilities, taxes and procreation, if you take out one if the main things then its not the same.
All I know is that gay marriage doesn't force anybody to do anything.
A crime without a victim is a victimless crime.If two guys get married,who is the victim of what crime?
Thus,you cannot recommend it nor condemn it.
The harm principle presupposes that we know what's best for us. Since you cannot prove the hypothesis of faith based on the harm principle, it's therefore faulty. Furthermore, how do you define Harm? And harming who? You? Another individual? or society as a whole.
the only reason to be against gay marriage that makes sense to me is that youre in love with one of them
When it comes to the traditional meaning and importance of marriage, what is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marring a sterile woman?
cassi farcas There isn't one! I appreciate your question was rhetorical of course. But yes, you've seen the flaw in that argument. Like every anti gay marriage argument that dies on its arse. Rather explains why it's legal now and why a majority support it.
+Paul2377 So we should deny marriage to infertile or sterile couples? What about old people who cannot procreate or raise children, shall we invalidate their marriages as soon as they come of age? By suggesting marriage is explicitly about procreation, you'd have to admit a slew of straight couples shouldn't be validly married.
GigaBitor Did you mean to send this to me? I'm pro gay marriage.
cassi: That is the coupe de grace against every anti-gay argument based on having children. The greatest minds of the Catholic Church failed to answer it as did those of the East Orthodox and the myriad of Protestant faiths. I say "greatest minds" with a bit of mirth, of course, as all monotheistic religions possess nothing approaching a great mind. The greatest thinkers in these faiths approaches a sophomore level secular philosopher from any two bit Community College.
Yet nobody is promoting it to be the law of the land to ban infertile couples from getting married.
The thing is that I think marriage is completely redundant if it considers a healthy environment for children to grow up in. It's about a healthy and supportive relationship, and that can be seen and considered apart from marriage.
Just let people do what they want bro.
He’s not stopping people from doing anything, he’s just encouraging good behaviour.
What did he say that would make you think that he doesn’t want people to do what they want to do. What does he suggest people should not do that bother you?
@J W Looking after oneself and others to the nth degree
@J W I’m not sure myself. I would love to be in a position to comment.
thats his point
@@dp503 good behavior? did we go back to the 1900's?
"Historically marriage has been between a man and a woman"
Wtf do you mean? Historically marriage has been between one/ more humans.. In paganism marriages were both gay/straight for over 12,000 years. In Judaism marriage has been between one man and one (or more) women/little girls for over 8,000years. He must mean marriage historically for Christianity, not historically for everyone.. and I thought we have freedom of religion here in the US?
Hey dude love your videos. Was wondering if you could drop a playlist with all the music you put in at the end. I like them a lot for some reason. Thanks my dude and hope the channel continues to grow.
Same
The government should not have any say in a voluntary relationship between two consenting adults.
Paul33 or two consenting teens
@@eugenespolicyproductions477 Nope just two consenting adults
How does 2 men getting married affect anyone here personally?
I checked with my husband: we were definitely not effected at all.
I love you Jordan, but this could've been really easy : " yes I support Gay Marriage "
pheebles so he should follow suit blindly and not give a logical thought on it?
Actually thats what he did. He followed the church blindly, was philosophically incoherent, and ignored the actual philosophical rights issues
a government cannot force the Church to marry same sex people. It's legal marriages (read: by the law, or government) that they're talking about
THE-ONE: "fortunately not in the USA" nor in any other country where it is now legal to do so. In all cases it's a civil union celebrated within the town or local council. I think it's a positive step forward that will augment social inclusion while reducing associations with extremist radical left wingers
THE-ONE-CROBC-METAL that would only happen if religion and government began to shift together. Thankfully, atheists and antitheists exist to stop that from happening.
Not to mention it was never about homesexuality, it was about further blurring the lines between "male" and "female". Just five years ago we could never have imagined that such an assault on these distinctions would have been so evident in society.
I think Jordan Peterson is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Very bizarre response.
He Always does this recently when confronted with questions religious in nature. The Sad truth is the majority of his fanbase are alt-right nutjobs that would revile him and send him death threats if he did something as simple as say "I don't think the evidence points to a god existing" or "Gay people should be allowed to marry" so he has to use very unconvincing convoluted talks to distract from the fact that he really just doesn't want to have to answer truthfully.
I had a conservative friend suggest I watch Jordan Peterson videos so I could attempt to understand his point of view. The only thing I've really taken away from it, is that this man very neatly fits into what I imagine a stupid person believes a smart person sounds like. It's all a mile wide and an inch deep, like pretty much every argument I've had the misfortune of encountering from a "conservative intellectual."
Then I would suggest a book by Jonathan Haidt, "The Rightous Mind". You can find it as an audio-book as well.
It most likely will give you a lot more insight, and Haidt is pretty far from being a Conservative. The difference is that he has the knowledge and understanding to respect and see the value in the differences in people moral complexities that at the extreme splits into the general dichotomy of: Progressives/"Liberals" Vs. Conservatives.
It's no key to unlock the mysteries of the universe, but I would say it's a pretty piece to try to make sense of the puzzle.
----
Or if you are feeling lazy or need an appetizer you can then at least listen to one of his many presentations and lectures you can find by just searching his name in the YTube search bar. Though that won't give as much insight as his book.
I agree, similar to Donald Trump's gaudy, everything gold tastes in decor is what poor people believe that is what rich looks like. Add to that his tastes in food (McDonald's and ketchup on his steak), his choice of words, and you have a clue as to how easily the ignorant are led.
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said.
The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic.
What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation.
Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades.
Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them.
A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing.
As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love.
Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
@@tommore3263 It's important to remember that science itself is not an absolute, and there remains a lot of bias in interpreting results. Science was at one time used to justify discrimination, slavery, and other unethical stances. Eugenics was supposedly based in science but its principles are now widely regarded as a movement used to justify genocide during the Holocaust.
Sexuality is fluid for some people and static for others. There's not enough evidence-based studies nor a big enough sample size in those studies to conclude how much correlation there is between identical twins and sexuality. And I have no idea where you are getting the 95% statistic on identical twins but in most of the formal questionnaires that have been given to identical twins, the correlation between gay twins(compared to one gay twin and one straight twin) is significantly higher than 5%.
I don't even want to get into your gay people were sexually abused as children argument,
And for some anecdotal "evidence", I was never abused as a child. Yet, I knew from a very young age that I liked both men and women. This is something that I know to be true about myself over two decades later. I don't foresee this ever changing, but I know if I settle down with one person, many people will assume that I am gay if my partner is the same gender as me, or that I'm straight if my partner is a different gender than me. It doesn't change the fact that I am attracted to both.
@@cameronbennett8151, I always wonder why it is only those LGBT folks who say they only realized their differentness from the age of 13-14, etc. who get the most attention. I believe kids can be gay, bi, lesbian without bringing in the sexuality part into the discussion. I had a similar experience as you. When I reminisce back, I knew I was gay at the age of 5. I didn't know what it was or what name it had, of course. Plus, I live in Georiga (the country) so gay people didn't exist here. lmao, That's how people in my country believed even 10 years ago. I loved a kid in the neighborhood. The first time I watched porn (straight that is) was literally at the age of 14 or sth. I was not touched inappropriately by anybody or raped, like many LGBT people seem to have, in my childhood. I am in a monogamous relationship for over 4 years now. He's the only dude in my life I have ever had. We're planning to move to either the UK or the US, cause here I cannot create a family. Because, in our constitution, it is literally written that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Isn't the position "i am against something because someone i dont like is for it" the definition of an ideology? However brilliant Peterson is this is the first time out of billions questions where he started his response with something unconstructive.
For an intelligent man, he's surprisingly inarticulate in this video. I came away not really understanding his viewpoint because he rambled and jumped about all over the place.
Maybe It's just you.
@@korppi164 Well, my comment got 25 upvotes and yours got 1. So maybe it's not just me after all.
@@Paul2377 When people scroll down, they see your comment, they don't see mine if they don't click on your comment.
@@korppi164 You said "maybe it's just you". But, considering 25 people agreed with me, it can't just be me. The numbers don't lie. ;-)
Shouldn't gay marriage be an individual choice though? As much as I agree on Peterson's ideas, I think he generalizes the gay community quite strongly which I disagree on
@@seanothepop4638 yeah I think this video just got recommended to a lot of people recently.
@@seanothepop4638 its sad that most social issues nowadays are driven by political ideas. Maybe it would be better if people's ideas arent influenced by politics but rather through knowledge.
Assuming that a person being gay automatically precludes them engaging in a monogamous relationship is rather ignorant and quite insulting I think. Also, the extremely erroneous statement that 'gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexuals', is prejudicial and just highlights the fact that you spend far too much time in your mother's basement in front of a screen listening to the sound of your own voice and not nearly enough time out and about in the world gaining real-life experience.
One of a few points I disagree with the good professor.
We live only once and personal happiness is one of the key-stones of a full life. Why would I care who people want to spend theirs with? Let them be happy.
Even if you disagree with the concept of gay marriage the government shouldn’t have a right to assign certain sexes to certain relationships, it’s no business of theirs or anyone else’s except those individuals involved so I find it ironic how the questioner didn’t support because of “marxists”
You should do what you think is right, regardless of who might happen to agree with you
asd qwe - Man doing what HE thinks is right is why the world is in the state it is today, and has been since the beginning.
It is not about integrity, it is about not being a sociopath
Marriage among other things is a contract. The vows provide instruction about maintaining that relationship so that it lasts. Good for the partners, the children, the family unit and for society. Of course, Gays should marry and adopt. Stability is good for everyone.
Barashnikov so white dancing with suspect"ly"anonime american black to me..are they gay or they rule the world?
I support gay marriage, because marriage is about many things, not just raising kids, and all of those things (including raising kids) apply to gay people as well. If two dudes want to be married, that is on them. The rest of us don't need to meddle. I don't actually support government recognition of marriage at all. I think the whole thing should be privatized. but, if the government is going to recognize marriage, it should do it for gay marriages as well.
Why couldn't you just stop at: "I think the whole thing should be privatized" (?)
'If cultural marxists are for it then I am against it." Smh, that is literally the worst way to form an opinion. My opponent is for it thus I must be against it. That is what we call a syllogism.
Don't underestimate the destructive power of Marxism. Being against Marxism axiomatically is not an unreasonable place to start.
@@enjoyevan If your opposition to marxism becomes what dictates your every thought, then yeah it's a pretty bad place to start.
@@renblais1274 I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately MANY people are like Peterson when it comes to that. At least he's honest.
@@enjoyevan Except he tends to ALWAYS blame movements of equality on the influence of “cultural Marxism”.
I’m gay, am I not allowed to politically secure my own rights as a legal citizen of the US just because of some Marxist conspiracy theory that Peterson’s pan-fried brain has cooked up? If you reflexively oppose movements of equality then you are a right-wing reactionary and you are bigoted, no matter your excuse.
All Peterson’s given me here is an indication that he really doesn’t think I have the right to marry since two males can’t biologically bear children (which is nonsense since he doesn’t mention sterile straight couples). That poses a political threat to me. What am I supposed to think when Marxists are always the ones protecting my freedoms? Always the ones actually taking direct action against police brutality? Or climate change? Or extreme poverty in the US? They’re consistently on the right side of these social issues, and Jordan Peterson wants you to do the opposite of what they say without even thinking. The dude has been lying to you about what Marxism even is, by his own admission in the Zizek debate the only Marxist writing he’s read is the Communist Manifesto. Which is kind of like reading The Lorax in preparation for a debate on climate change.
@@IAmNumber4000 if you think Marxists protect freedom then I have a bridge to sell you. Good lord read about the 20th century for Christ sake.
"if the marital vows were taking seriously......." lol Jordan you are soo biased. You think gay marital vows are taking less serious then straigh marital vows ?
At the end of gay people cant change who they are attracted too so why dont they deserve the same LEGAL rights as others?
Why would you be opposed to something good because its backed by someone you disapprove of? A proposal is either good or bad and if you have the luxury of a plebiscite on a concrete question like this, then use the chance to vote on the actual issue, not the people behind it.
I am mostly with Peterson, but here I think he should consider the benefit to the individual of marriage rather than to any offspring which may come of it. But it is true that marriage and the vows made are viewed flippantly in recent times.
Marriage... gay or otherwise is an expression of commitment...
commitment is an expression of responsibility...
responsibility a statement of maturity...
so whichever way you 'cut' it...a good thing...
No further qualifications required...
I am duplicating what I wrote in response to the same objections to what Peterson said.
The science agrees with Peterson who is basically not engaging this sacred cow of the modern world. The science shows in identical twin studies with large national cohorts that nobody is born with homosexual traits. When one twin behaved in a homosexual manner, the other genetically identical twin did not in up to 95% of the cases. Its not genetic.
What IS shown in the NYC AIDS studies, is that over 40% of the "homosexuals", were in fact people who were sexually interfered with by older males at the average age of eleven years old. This fact is further backed by whole nation student populations in NZ which found that the less than 1% of children who did not see themselves as normal sexually, were 300% more likely to have been children of sexual and other abuses. So too the 30 millions in the Denmark Registry study where it was discovered that same sex behavior was correlated with the early death of a same sex parent, early divorce, and same sex parent alienation.
Its time we face the most basic biological and psychological facts and start to show compassion and care for the sexually abused children , rather than waiting to drag other children to victim parades.
Look these facts up yourselves and stop bowing to the LGBQ cultural ideological masters. And we should reach out to victims who have had "just born that way" ideology forced upon them.
A good friend of mine believed for over ten years that he just "was" gay. Today he has a lovely girlfriend and is a lot happier. There are three times as many ex-gays as so called "gays". At one point, 3% of the heterosexual population firmly believed that they were gay. There is no such thing.
As the most obvious biological facts about human anatomy naturally suggrest it is a developmental disorder maintained by rigid social ideological enforcement that labels anyone who knows better a "hater" etc. I am a liberal incidentally. Locking abused children into the known lifestyle problems including an eight times higher suicide rate, drug abuse , etc, is not an act of "inclusion" or love.
Love must be informed by facts. And facts are truly liberating. Look into these claims for yourself. The children will thank you along with people like my tennis pal who had been living imprisoned by the current ideology that has been refuted by science.
Tom, I could give you a list of books to refute your argument...but somehow I know that would be a pointless endeavor...
But instead, I will give you a link....to a list of animals that express 'homosexual traits' and unlike the human version have no 'ax' to grind...
Manly due to the fact, because they specifically can't read, they are not influenced in their thinking by any 'political' or 'religious' inclinations...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
You can really tell he isn’t trying to upset his 4chan fans on this one
For real he has a 4chan fans community XD, and by the way what's up with that?, 4chan does or doesn't like gay marriage?....
Maybe he doesn't share your every thought? Maybe he sees shit differently? It's pretty fucking weird that you're attempting to explain why he didn't say exactly what you wanted him to say.
Brandon Mercedes of course they dont they're mostly alt right trolls
4chan is a troll/joke, there probably worse than alt right since they want chaos
Who am I to deny the secular rights I enjoy under the legal system to someone else?
Edit: Tradition is just peer group pressure from dead people, or just a way to justify the whole "...but we have always done it this way...".
He is basically saying; if you vote to support the purposes of being a rebel then this won't achieve anything. If you vote to support their own rights as humans and to be accepted then yes this is the right thing to do. The issue is how people misinterpret what marriage is about , it is basically security for growing up children not a fun a ceremony. However many straights don't follow uts purpose anyway nowadays so gays being married wouldn't effect anyone.
Marriage is not just for raising children in stable environment. Marriage is a financial unit first of all. I've been employeed by companies where employees were offered benefits for them and for their spouses and these where significant benefits like health care and gym allowances etc... I could not use these. Gay couples are lacking all these opportunities around the world which straight people take for granted.
ვააა. ქართველი?😄🤘 მიყვარხარ.
I love the way Peterson actually presents arguments and controversies that are taboo to talk about in the Western Society. We should challenge norms, attitudes and beliefs that most of us take for granted. Why legalize gay marriage? why being pro-abortion? why should we hire a person just because the person is either female or of color. Such things cannot be taken for granted. Peterson is contributing to a more open society where many taboo topics are highlighted and discussed openly without the fear of being seen as 'the bad guy'. He's only sharing his views and trying to provide rational arguments for and against something.
First, he never answers the question. When you go to The ballot box, the only choices are yes and no. You don't get to write an essay.
Second, being against something because people you don't like are for it is stupid and juvenile. I am still dumbfounded that people think he's some sort of intellectual. His reasoning is as mature as someone saying that I'm against a strong military in the US because fascists support a strong military.
Or this: I don't like Taylor Swift because Becky Smith likes Taylor Swift and I don't like Becky Smith.
How about evaluating Taylor Swift, or gay marriage, on its own merits?
He also ignores that half the gay marriages are between two women. He's probably right about the reason gay men have so many sex partners before marriage--no women to put the brakes on. You'll notice that lesbians tend to have very low body counts and are known to be extremely loyal and monogamous.
Also, considering the divorce rate and the number of extramarital affairs among heterosexuals, gay people (5% of the population) are hardly a threat to the institution, even if their relationships were total disasters, which they are not.
The answer should have been easy: vote yes, in favor of same-sex marriage. If you are heterosexual and concerned about the state of marriage, be wise in your choice of a marriage partner, don't cheat when you get married, and if the relationship becomes difficult, work harder at making sure it lasts. Stop judging other people's relationships.
Remember, it's not the ideology, it's the intrinsic values and moral foundation behind the ideology if anything. If it doesn't and it causes further suffering and illness and destroys truth, love, peace, wellness, etc. then yep I'd be against it too, regardless of what the ideology is whether it's gay marriage, equality of race (whilst disregarding dangerous intentions and behaviours), etc... tree-hugging if that's such a thing (whilst it allows abuse towards other living creatures who oppose tree hugging, etc.) - it can be whatever it is.
I want to hear Peterson's stand on whole wheat bread. I'm at a Trader Joe's right this minute and I can't make up my mind if I should get the sprouted or unsprouted grain. I figure a cognitive psychologist might be able to tell me what color of socks I should wear for my job interview. Please Daddy Peterson, guide me. And should I get take-out or Giorno's.
geinikan1kan geinikan1kan He's a public intellectual and people ask him questions because they care about his opinion on everything. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to care.
Narrev no, people ask Peterson questions cause they need a daddy authority to tell them how to think. Only in a unliterate present could a cognitive psychosis like dada Peterson get so much attention. He’s an alt-right Dear Abby.
life is short. just eat whatever you like.
Human beings need guidance at some points in their life, some more than others. I would encourage you to show greater compassion for people. Try to teach instead of expect that everyone already knows
Jordan Williams I agree with you. I am not against advice, especially spiritual advice. But I find that Peterson is feeding a reactionary mindset. He is positioning himself as a critic of so called social justice warriors. Social justice warriors are no more empty than the alt-right disciples Peterson intentionally or unintentionally strokes with his rather lame attempt at oppositional logic.
Bro. He literally didn't answer the question??
Every day i get more content with the professor's ideas on life
You must hate love and sex.
@@palmereldritch7777 why would I?
Become content with your own ideas on life.
This is why I idolize Jordan Peterson so much. He thinks so deeply about every issue.
Bro you shouldn't idolize Jordan Peterson you should be able to hear him out with an unbiast point of view
Did he just blame male promiscuity on women not binding them with regards to their sexual activity?
I think he did.
In most if not all western countries marriage no longer exists. What now exists is a state registered friendship pact voidable at the instance of either party. We continue to refer to this contract as marriage partly through sentiment, partly custom and partly self delusion. If real marriage still existed it would be vandalism to indulge the nonsense the homosexual unions are marriages but is it really a problem if we indulge a bit of virtue signalling by referring to these unions with the same meaningless hollowed out anachronistic word we apply to heterosexual friendship pacts? Hasn't the horse long since bolted?
tigerarmyrule - The no fault divorce law has weakened the marriage bond considerably. That, and the left's cultural marxist ideology that has resulted in their latest round of "progress" - same-sex "marriage". This has been allowed to happen because of widespread apostasy - the turning away from God and the resulting undermining of Christ based morality that formed the foundation of traditional marriage. And it's not only marriage that's been undermined. Societal breakdown is evident in a number of areas. All rooted in the same cause.
Still not convinced why we should use the government as a club against homosexual couples (or anyone for that matter)
my problem is that if we accept that traditional marriage is largely a religious institution, then calling gay civil unions marriages is essentially forcing the state into religious matters. I'm an atheist/agnostic, this is a matter of principle to me.
You shouldn't force churches to go against their beliefs. As stupid as their fairy tails sound to us, their freedom is our freedom.
Good points all. Demographers show us that by 2150 the West will be disappearing from human life through our own narcissistic disinterest. Too bad.. we were leading mankind for centuries. Others will carry on without this group of "consumers" screaming about their "rights" as they blot out the lives of the most vulnerable among us.
No that does not hurt his argument. He's talking natural law. Sexual reproduction organs are between the sexes for reproduction. This is simply natural. We're not allowed to poke people in the eye or shoot lead into their hearts and sex organs are no different from other bodily organs which only have natural purposes. It is frankly stunning that this most elementary knowledge of human reality even has to be said. The power of propaganda.
I was following the argument right up until the end when he did an about turn and all of a sudden spouted the rhetoric of ‘it’s meant to be between a man and woman’ - which had nothing to do with the Marxist argument he had earlier in the clip.
Yes I agree. There are people that are born attracted to the same sex so it seems like we should legalise gay marriage and deal with the political stuff separately
I don't know why Dr. Peterson conflates same sex marriages with radical leftist thought. Many radical leftists hate any marriage, considering it limiting and outdated. But being able to marry the spouse you love, is one of the most liberating examples of true freedom and self determination there is. You certainly are not taking anything from anyone else, by marrying the person you love. And I would never, ever force anyone to make me a damn cake !
Where I don’t like Jordan Peterson’s take on this is that I feel like he’s ignoring the rest of the left and focusing a bit excessively on “neo marxists”. A great majority of the progressive group are for gay marriage and their goal isn’t to “destroy the conservative society” as opposed to what he shows by ignoring this majority and focusing on the extremists.
He focuses on Marxists because he’s invoking the “cultural Marxist” conspiracy theory, the concept that communist infiltrators are to blame for most or all social progress. It started out as “cultural Bolshevism”, a conspiracy theory created by the Nazi regime to justify the mass extermination of Jews and leftists.
There are better people to get plagiarized self-help advice from.
There is no "standard society." What an ahistorical statement. Patterns in marriage have changed continuously in the western world over the centuries. He needs to read Stephanie Koontz's Marriage, A History.
yeah siding one source to side your opinion will only make you a joke
Adeel I am unsure of exactly what you mean by your comment. 99% of comments made on youtube cite absolutely no sources, so citing 1 is far better than most.
I agree with you, quite strongly, that historical patterns in marriage have changed continuously for a long time. I think actually that that's what JP meant when he said "there is no standard society", because one standard is defined, as (of course) the standard, but then that gets abolished or overthrown or replaced by another standard, and then another. And so overall, on average, there really is no standard. In other words, there's no standard standard, if you know what I mean.
This is correct, but I think what JP means here is the main flow of society (in whatever direction it happens to go)
Biology is the standard. And child rearing which is that for which marriage exists. There is absolutely nothing to talk about here.
Whats with the low quality earrape anime shit at the end?
"Gay men tend tend to be more promiscuous than average"
Any data to support that?
"Probably because there's no women to bind them with regards to sexual activity"
That's not coherent.
Another comment Jordan will ignore
I'm gay and catholic and I want to get married in the traditional and serious way. I also want to escape the gay culture and it's hipersexualisation, that has almost made me emotionally numb.