The debate was very painful to watch because I agree with Doug and he was back on his heals almost the entire time. His arguments were difficult to understand and his analogies lacked relevance. He seemed to lack confidence. Andrew, on the other hand, was far more passionate and used every emotional trigger known to the left to make his points. Doug had the upper hand with the moral argument but seemed afraid to use or defend it for fear of seeming confrontational. That fear never crossed Andrew's mind. He went for the jugular and got his fangs deeply into it, sorry to say. Andrew kept referencing his Catholicism which he used to deflect attacks on his moral deficiencies. Sadly, he didn't need to. Anyone who knows anything about Roman Catholicism knows that Andrew is the very worst of Catholics. He is polytheistic, immoral and a disgrace to the Catholic faith. His view on marriage in no way aligns with Catholic doctrine. His comments during the debate were the equivalent of giving the middle finger to his religion. He should have been nailed to the wall. How dare he criticize conservatives and evangelicals and be allowed to get away with it. He represents the prince of hypocrites. This discussion with Peter Hitchens appeared to me a meeting where Doug was subliminally asking Peter, "Where did I go wrong?" Peter was polite.
Agreed. There were many times in that debate, I thought, where Wilson should have called out Andrew on his hypocrisy of calling himself Christian while maintaining that homosexuality and premarital sex are morally good things, despite the scriptures clearly saying they’re not. Wilson should have also told Andrew to stop flip flopping between Christianity and secularism whenever it best supported his argument. Andrew used the term “Christian” recklessly and without much thought, it seemed, to simply try winning over the crowd (who were not swayed, probably because they’re not stupid). But whenever Wilson referenced Christianity, Andrew kept saying that his argument was a fundamentalist one based on faith that would shut down any secular conversation. He was essentially giving Wilson a layup on his own goal, and Wilson didn’t take it.
If you're incapable of keeping a vow, you have no business making one in the first place. Stay well clear of marriage (and any other long-term commitments), as you obviously don't have the maturity to see them through.
So in other words were back in the days of Jesus where a husband could divorced his wife at the drop of a notice because he wanted a different sexual partner. Except now its anybody for any reason. - Its not just about ending relationships because of abuse, its about ending relationships for any reason, even stupid reasons. - Relationships are NOT just about sex, not even marriages.
The moment Doug lost the debate was when Andrew asked him “why have been the bad consequences of gay marriage”, and Doug said “I’m a Christian and I believe in the scriptures”.
Incorrect. The moment when the truly bigoted exposed themselves was when they denigrated Doug Wilson for his Christian belief. Also, Doug easily won the debate.
@@DrVarner They’re not denigrating his Christian belief. They’re denigrating him for saying his Christian beliefs should be imposed on others through the law.
@@DrVarner In the debate, he says that the reason he opposes gay marriage is the scriptures. Then Sullivan says “that is a religious argument based upon authority, based upon faith.” Wilson replies “absolutely”.
@@davidsimpson7229 yes, I recall that part. However, you claimed Wilson said he wanted to impose his religious beliefs through law. I am simply asking you where in the debate does he say that? Sullivan, twisted Wilson’s words and talked over him claiming a theocracy but Wilson never even hinted at that as his meaning. In fact, Wilson pressed Sullivan on morality by democratic consensus by asking if the will of the people decided on a theocracy, would he support it? Sullivan evaded the question and abandoned his previous standard. This is just one instance of many when Sullivan utterly contradict something he emphatically claimed. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
Actually hes saying that this legislation allows the government the right to force a willing couple apart, and that is a violation of privacy. - How you drew the idea that it forces unwilling people to stay together I'm not sure.
Save it. I have no interest in hearing your twisted interpretations of history, Biblical or otherwise. I don't debate scripture with atheists (I'm assuming); pearls before swine and all that.
No, I long ago realized that discussing subjects with people who, from the outset, dismiss them out of hand, is a waste of time (like this conversation). Nor do I care how poor you think my Biblical knowledge is, so save the bait. No doubt you're just another who's memorized the portions of scripture you find most distasteful. How original.
@@deepzepp4176 Whoa, took me a while to understand what you meant :) God bless you, especially during these strange and unsettling times where we can’t go out without a face muzzle, antisocial distancing, hands face space yada yada ❤️🙏🏽
Really? I usually find that that the only argument worth having is with people who disagree with me. It sure is the only one that sometimes changes my opinion. I can quote the happy parts of the Bible at length, and I do love them. It's just that the stupid and evil parts are way more fun to discuss with Christians. Which is why I commented on this video in the first place.
i have some sympathy with conservative chrisitians who feel left out of changing cultural norms regarding same sex marriage, the teaching of science in schools, and even atheism. ultimately, people have to decide if they want to live in a secular constitutional republic (which we live in) or a theocracy (which we dont live in). most of us believers and all non believers dont want to live in any theocracy. until conservative religious people accept this fact, they will always feel left out.
One nation under god is not a secular republic 🙄 It’s the idea that man is not the panicle and that we are answerable to a higher power. Even the Deists who crafted your constitution knew that.
Where did you ever get the idea that the intention of our founders was to create "a secular constitutional republic?" There is nothing at all secular about the Declaration or Constitution. These documents say nothing about the separation of church and state. That is simply a mantra of the uninformed. All of the founders writings encourage the free expression of religion and never its repression. It was never excluded from the public forum. It is now, but that is a secular construct forced upon an intentional Judeo-Christian ethic that oozes from the founders' writings. John Adams said that ceasing to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God in our democratic republic would be its demise. Religious freedom is part of the cornerstone of our form of government.
Don't be talking to me, I've been married for 12 years, and we have every intention of staying together for life. The point is, not everyone is so lucky. Especially when it happens too early in life, some couples just grow apart and without any bad intentions make each other's lives a living hell. To demand that they still stay together and live out their lives in misery is just the kind of enormous theocratic arrogance that I would have thought civilized society would have stamped out by now.
OK fine. If you're not interested in discussing the Bible with people who disagree with you, you're in effect not interested in the Bible at all. You're just interested in preserving your own twisted opinions. And if the "pearls before swine" quote is the best Bible verse you can come up with, it just reinforces my assumption that you haven't actually read it.
3:23 So not forcing unwilling adults to live together is an immense invasion of individual privacy by the state?!? Holy crap, how is it even possible for a sentient being to have his thinking so twisted and distorted?
I understand your objection. However, there is definitely a hole in your understanding of family. You phrased it in a way that made it seem like it was one person trying to leave another person, when in fact a family unit also involves children. When children are involved it's not just about you and the other person anymore. I just wanted to point out that big hole that people seem to be missing.
When only one part wants to be in a relationship it is no longer a willing couple. How could that possibly be difficult to understand? By analogy, when two people want to have sex, it's called intercourse. When only one does, it's called rape.
robby rensenbrink You are tellling me you want me to explain 2000 years of theology and hermeneutics? Here it is God (all-knowing and all-powerful) sent his spirit with permission from Mary to give birth to the savior of the world that is very very basic.
Anybody who tries to Justify their Sin has already Lost the Debate.
Thanks again for modelling cultural courage, Doug!
Hitchens vs Douglas, a very different collision!
I see what you did there
The debate was very painful to watch because I agree with Doug and he was back on his heals almost the entire time. His arguments were difficult to understand and his analogies lacked relevance. He seemed to lack confidence. Andrew, on the other hand, was far more passionate and used every emotional trigger known to the left to make his points. Doug had the upper hand with the moral argument but seemed afraid to use or defend it for fear of seeming confrontational. That fear never crossed Andrew's mind. He went for the jugular and got his fangs deeply into it, sorry to say. Andrew kept referencing his Catholicism which he used to deflect attacks on his moral deficiencies. Sadly, he didn't need to. Anyone who knows anything about Roman Catholicism knows that Andrew is the very worst of Catholics. He is polytheistic, immoral and a disgrace to the Catholic faith. His view on marriage in no way aligns with Catholic doctrine. His comments during the debate were the equivalent of giving the middle finger to his religion. He should have been nailed to the wall. How dare he criticize conservatives and evangelicals and be allowed to get away with it. He represents the prince of hypocrites. This discussion with Peter Hitchens appeared to me a meeting where Doug was subliminally asking Peter, "Where did I go wrong?" Peter was polite.
Agreed. There were many times in that debate, I thought, where Wilson should have called out Andrew on his hypocrisy of calling himself Christian while maintaining that homosexuality and premarital sex are morally good things, despite the scriptures clearly saying they’re not. Wilson should have also told Andrew to stop flip flopping between Christianity and secularism whenever it best supported his argument. Andrew used the term “Christian” recklessly and without much thought, it seemed, to simply try winning over the crowd (who were not swayed, probably because they’re not stupid). But whenever Wilson referenced Christianity, Andrew kept saying that his argument was a fundamentalist one based on faith that would shut down any secular conversation. He was essentially giving Wilson a layup on his own goal, and Wilson didn’t take it.
exactly so. not to mention, this sullivan guy is now divorced from his "husband" in the year 2023.
@@nchinth What, the one from Detroit? The ceremony he said he 'wished you'd all been there (in a way)' as 'our mothers walked us down the aisle' ?
If you're incapable of keeping a vow, you have no business making one in the first place. Stay well clear of marriage (and any other long-term commitments), as you obviously don't have the maturity to see them through.
So in other words were back in the days of Jesus where a husband could divorced his wife at the drop of a notice because he wanted a different sexual partner. Except now its anybody for any reason.
-
Its not just about ending relationships because of abuse, its about ending relationships for any reason, even stupid reasons.
-
Relationships are NOT just about sex, not even marriages.
When you're the one presuming to change an age-old institution to suit your whims, I'd say you arrogance far exceeds mine.
Well, they’re not really whims if they’re based on a presumption
Prescient.
I may have missed an apostrophe and used a few ALL CAPS but I am certain that it is comprehensible.
Well. That was depressing.
Good thing Jesus is King.
Peter Hitchens sounds a lot like Prince Charles here.
What's up with Peter? Did he catch a cold or something?
Yes. Our Palouse weather assaulted him, but he handled it quite well.
@@CanonPress a lockdown could have solved that problem :P
The moment Doug lost the debate was when Andrew asked him “why have been the bad consequences of gay marriage”, and Doug said “I’m a Christian and I believe in the scriptures”.
Incorrect. The moment when the truly bigoted exposed themselves was when they denigrated Doug Wilson for his Christian belief.
Also, Doug easily won the debate.
@@DrVarner They’re not denigrating his Christian belief. They’re denigrating him for saying his Christian beliefs should be imposed on others through the law.
@@davidsimpson7229 when in the video does he make this claim?
@@DrVarner In the debate, he says that the reason he opposes gay marriage is the scriptures. Then Sullivan says “that is a religious argument based upon authority, based upon faith.” Wilson replies “absolutely”.
@@davidsimpson7229 yes, I recall that part. However, you claimed Wilson said he wanted to impose his religious beliefs through law.
I am simply asking you where in the debate does he say that? Sullivan, twisted Wilson’s words and talked over him claiming a theocracy but Wilson never even hinted at that as his meaning.
In fact, Wilson pressed Sullivan on morality by democratic consensus by asking if the will of the people decided on a theocracy, would he support it?
Sullivan evaded the question and abandoned his previous standard. This is just one instance of many when Sullivan utterly contradict something he emphatically claimed.
Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
Wow!
COVID 19 and a half and he don't give a f%$5 what a legend.
I much prefer the term "natural marriage," or just "marriage," to "Christian marriage."
Why?
You'll have to rephrase that into comprehensible English if you expect me to respond to it.
Actually hes saying that this legislation allows the government the right to force a willing couple apart, and that is a violation of privacy.
-
How you drew the idea that it forces unwilling people to stay together I'm not sure.
very vveak
Save it. I have no interest in hearing your twisted interpretations of history, Biblical or otherwise. I don't debate scripture with atheists (I'm assuming); pearls before swine and all that.
No, I long ago realized that discussing subjects with people who, from the outset, dismiss them out of hand, is a waste of time (like this conversation). Nor do I care how poor you think my Biblical knowledge is, so save the bait. No doubt you're just another who's memorized the portions of scripture you find most distasteful. How original.
spoilt by the invasion of the flu bug
How right you were.
@@deepzepp4176
Whoa, took me a while to understand what you meant :)
God bless you, especially during these strange and unsettling times where we can’t go out without a face muzzle, antisocial distancing, hands face space yada yada ❤️🙏🏽
My, this has aged badly hasn't it?
"Christian marriage"?
Hell yeah!
Really? I usually find that that the only argument worth having is with people who disagree with me. It sure is the only one that sometimes changes my opinion. I can quote the happy parts of the Bible at length, and I do love them. It's just that the stupid and evil parts are way more fun to discuss with Christians. Which is why I commented on this video in the first place.
i have some sympathy with conservative chrisitians who feel left out of changing cultural norms regarding same sex marriage, the teaching of science in schools, and even atheism. ultimately, people have to decide if they want to live in a secular constitutional republic (which we live in) or a theocracy (which we dont live in).
most of us believers and all non believers dont want to live in any theocracy. until conservative religious people accept this fact, they will always feel left out.
Lol. You're hilarious. Strawman much?
One nation under god is not a secular republic 🙄
It’s the idea that man is not the panicle and that we are answerable to a higher power.
Even the Deists who crafted your constitution knew that.
Where did you ever get the idea that the intention of our founders was to create "a secular constitutional republic?" There is nothing at all secular about the Declaration or Constitution. These documents say nothing about the separation of church and state. That is simply a mantra of the uninformed. All of the founders writings encourage the free expression of religion and never its repression. It was never excluded from the public forum. It is now, but that is a secular construct forced upon an intentional Judeo-Christian ethic that oozes from the founders' writings. John Adams said that ceasing to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God in our democratic republic would be its demise. Religious freedom is part of the cornerstone of our form of government.
at this point, there is nothing wrong with a theocracy as all countries are ultimately theocracies. The only question is who the country worships.
I think three words from my last post will sum up your comment quite nicely: enormous theocratic arrogance.
Don't be talking to me, I've been married for 12 years, and we have every intention of staying together for life. The point is, not everyone is so lucky. Especially when it happens too early in life, some couples just grow apart and without any bad intentions make each other's lives a living hell.
To demand that they still stay together and live out their lives in misery is just the kind of enormous theocratic arrogance that I would have thought civilized society would have stamped out by now.
cry about it
OK fine. If you're not interested in discussing the Bible with people who disagree with you, you're in effect not interested in the Bible at all. You're just interested in preserving your own twisted opinions. And if the "pearls before swine" quote is the best Bible verse you can come up with, it just reinforces my assumption that you haven't actually read it.
3:23 So not forcing unwilling adults to live together is an immense invasion of individual privacy by the state?!? Holy crap, how is it even possible for a sentient being to have his thinking so twisted and distorted?
I understand your objection. However, there is definitely a hole in your understanding of family. You phrased it in a way that made it seem like it was one person trying to leave another person, when in fact a family unit also involves children. When children are involved it's not just about you and the other person anymore. I just wanted to point out that big hole that people seem to be missing.
When only one part wants to be in a relationship it is no longer a willing couple. How could that possibly be difficult to understand?
By analogy, when two people want to have sex, it's called intercourse. When only one does, it's called rape.
Either way, it's sin.
was god married to mary when he did her?
Shows how much you know about the Bible making a stupid comment like that. Also she was conceived through the Holy Spirit
Connor Blasing
oh silly me, "concieved through the holy spirit"....of course.
robby rensenbrink Yes silly you. If you don't have any idea about what you are talking about don't talk about it until you do.
Connor Blasing I'm all ears, explain how someone becomes pregnant through the holy spirit.
robby rensenbrink You are tellling me you want me to explain 2000 years of theology and hermeneutics? Here it is God (all-knowing and all-powerful) sent his spirit with permission from Mary to give birth to the savior of the world that is very very basic.