Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: wren.co/start/emmathorne1m The first 100 to sign up will get their first month of the subscription covered by Wren for free!
It's funny; ¿don't you know?, all these anti-equality spoofs seem to believe homosexuals, alone, can breed. Dummy, if you're trying to breed them out, ¡allow their marriage! We're 'in a world, swimming with dolts.
In the 90s my parents were emphatically homophobic. Then my mom became friends with a co-worker that happened to be gay. My parents slowly changed their minds to “well, it’s not my place to judge, but gay marriage is still wrong.” They became such good friends that my parents and Robert and his partner would go out together. They would watch movies together. Then Robert got sick. _Really_ sick. He had AIDS and was dying. It was horrible. My parents were there for both of them. When Robert was in the ICU one time, his brother, who he was estranged from, blocked his partner from coming to visit him. They weren’t married (it wasn’t legal yet), Trey wasn’t related to him, so if Robert was incapacitated his family could bar Trey from his bedside. Luckily that time Robert was awake and conscious enough to kick his brother out. That’s what convinced my parents that marriage equality needed to be made legal. My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer around that time and he just kept thinking about what it would be like if his mom or siblings were able to legally keep my mom from his bedside in the hospital. Robert died at home with Trey by his side holding his hand. He specifically chose not to go to a hospital or hospice because he didn’t want to risk Trey being ripped from his side at the last minute. And there were so many horror stories during the AIDS epidemic of exactly that happening to people. Marriage isn’t just about making a family. If it were childfree folks, those of us that are infertile, and women post menopause wouldn’t ever bother with it. Marriage is a contract you make with the government that this person is now my next-of-kin, and all the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Being married to my husband means my abusive birth mother can’t kick him out of the hospital room, and if I die it means my stuff and my kid go to my husband, not her. You’re telling the government “I choose this person as my closest relative.” And that’s _incredibly_ important.
Yeah it's much harder to not empathize with people when they are no longer strangers. My grandma would beat it into my head that hate and discrimination was wrong. That everyone deserves respect. I'm so glad your parents made that friendship
Matt Walsh: the left always brings up religion into debates! Also Matt Walsh: *talks non-stop about religion in terms of same sex marriage* Every homophobic accusation is a confession.
It would be a funny challenge: Ask the anti marriage equality and "pro life" activists to argue for their position without bringing up the bible and see how long they can last. Once the refer to the Bible they have automatically lost the argument, since they insist that this isn't about the Bible.
@@joachimschoder There are better debaters than Ben and Matt who are certainly up to that challenge. The most common tactic is simply to lie, like the forced birth "medical" arguments about so-called fetal heartbeats and invented risks involved in abortion procedures.
@@joelpartee594 That's what I don't understand about a lot of radlibs, like "If we just tell them the truth and hard facts surely they will change their minds =)" Those people lie as easily as they breath, they manipulate any and all interactions for their personal gain. But sure, if you present them with the fact that they are wrong, they will acknowledge that because they are such good faith actors, right? Ugh
I once asked a Right-Winger who insisted there were non-religious reasons to oppose SSM what they were. After avoiding answering for a long while he finally came out with "the increased number of marriages will over burden wedding planners, bakers, etc." I swear on my life.
I'll give you a better one. Marriage itself is the foundation of the family, done to create a stable footing for the raising of society's next generation. That is how it has traditionally been seen. By marrying people, gay or otherwise, who aren't interested in raising a family, it weakens the institutional power of marriage within the cultural zeitgeist and transforms it into a farcical cultural ceremony devoid of its original purpose as a stabilizing force that helps facilitate a strong foundation for a family. This withering of the institution of marriage is something we've seen occur over the course of 100s of years as marriage has been destabilized through things like annulments and no-fault divorce, along with the recent sexual "liberation" movement, to the point where marriage is nothing more than a useless ceremony that holds no significance beyond two people "maybe" committing themselves to one another.
Gay people:we're gay Some Christians: ok I guess Gay couples: we want to get married Christians: no that's our word. You're literally destroying the entire world by asking
what actually is very interesting is how the lgbtq community, which is supposedly a minority with somewhere inbetween 1 to 5percent in the populations in the western countries, so how the minority expects the majority to suddenly change the laws for their benefit. Dont you find it hypocrite, to for one argument, use the minority standpoint, and for another, demand law changes? How changing laws, could be democratic, if 1-5percentile decides or wants to decide the law?
"the absence of empathy does not equal the presence of reason" Wow, that's great! Imma stealing that, but I'm thanking you first because I got manners!!!
I had same sex parents. The only issues I faced as a result were purely from the vitriol and ignorance of my peers when we were younger. I used to be told I was going to be gay because my parents were lesbian, and I was told my parents were going to hell. Funnily enough, I turned out straight and just dandy
That sucks, sorry you had to deal with these idiots, really amazing how these people defend this "right" to be bigoted jerks while still thinking they are loving and nice people, the cognitive dissonance is incredible
@@Dire_Pants Insane right? There are thousands of different denominations just within Christianity, never mind all the other religions. All believing that their denomination is the one on the true and righteous path to glory.
Like my grandpa said religion is great and all but much like a penis it's isn't always good to whip it out and people tend to hate you shoving it down their throat.
I'm a gay trans man married to a bi cis man and we have 2 kids. Want to know what degenerate leftist grooming we got up to today? We went out for waffles and then put up Christmas decorations! Watch out, traditional marriage and family! And Emma absolutely has the best eyebrows.
I am absolutely appalled by this.... Christmas decorations in November! Come on man, that's just not cricket. First week in December please (unless you are running a store then I can grudgingly accept that)! (+1 on the eyebrows too)
Oh noes not waffles. Tell the truth though do you subject your kids to the unmitigated evil of double Dad jokes. See I have no problem with same sex marriage but the idea of increasing a poor innocent child's exposure to dad jokes has gotta violate a Geneva convention :P
The scary thing is, if you listen to both Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro talk about marriage outside of LGBT+ issues, they actually _do_ seem to believe that infertile or childfree heterosexual couples are less valid than those who have/want children. They’ve insulted both single people who don’t want to get married, and married people who don’t want to have children-they really are obsessed with making sure other people procreate, and look down on people who don’t. So it’s not that they don’t _want_ to discriminate against straight childfree couples, it’s just that they can’t get away with that as easily as they can get away with discriminating against gay couples. Society has progressed more quickly to accept the fact that some people are childfree than the fact that some people are gay. If Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro talked more about what they really think of childfree people, they’d lose a lot more of their viewers than they do for bashing the LGBT+ community. That was actually what first turned me off-even back when I still considered myself a conservative, it was hearing the way Walsh and Shapiro (especially Walsh) constantly obsessed over marriage and procreation and bashed people who wanted no part in those things (especially single, childfree women like me) that made me begin gravitating away from The Daily Wire and started my gradual slide left. Actually, I guess I should thank them for showing their true colors like that-without that, I might still be homophobic. But when I heard multiple DW hosts frequently call single, childfree women like me lazy and selfish, watching them act like we are lesser human beings for not living the exact life they want us to-that made me say, “Hold on a minute. I know all these nasty things they’re saying about _me_ aren’t true. So what if all the things they’re saying about _other_ people/groups aren’t true, either? I’d better reexamine this.” So I did, and I wound up leaving the right for a more open-minded, moderate mindset.
Good for you, Allie. It takes a certain amount of intellectual courage and honesty to be able to critically evaluate your own beliefs in a single area, let alone multiple. You should be proud of yourself. It's not something everyone has the capability or willingness to do.
Hi @allie-678, Feel likewise. Reality for Ben&Matt is: ALL plants are green, ALL birds fly, ALL sunsets are red, ALL seas are blue, etc. I do not say ALL believers are stupid.
@@loutsont2985 @allie-678ey wrote that Ben&Matt really are obsessed with making sure other people procreate, and look down on people who don’t. I was engaged once to a girl who was Catholic, Like Walsh. She nor I wanted children for various reasons. But her parents insisted that the wedding be held in a Catholic church and that if I were going to marry their daughter I would have to take instruction in the religion. I was talking to a priest about instruction when I mentioned that neither of us wanted children. He was visibly upset and said we couldn't be married in the church because to Catholics, the only reason you get married was to have children. So that's why Walsh has six kids.
Matt Walsh: *going on about how the best parental dynamic for a child is one man and one woman Me: *staring in "raised by a one man and one woman parental dynamic who were both very abusive"
@@sassylittleprophet One of your parents _SURELY_ identifies as Trans or something equally _EVIL_. Otherwise your upbringing would have been in the image of _*_GOD._*_ _FACTS!_ */$arcasm*
Yeah, that procreation thing is always fascinating to me, as a guy who is heterosexual but can't father children. I doubt they'd ever tell me I couldn't get married. They'd probably talk up how I could adopt a child after getting married.. which kind of destroys their whole "joining flesh" argument, but I'm sure Ben and Matt would talk fast enough about anything else to avoid talking about that issue.
I can't have kids because my hetero parents neglected and abused me and my mom did drugs while pregnant with me, so I have never had the option to have kids.
If a man and woman of a certain age were to marry then children would not be possible, so is such a marriage is wrong in the eyes of christians because it obviously is not for the reason of procreation?
I want to watch this to support the channel and all, but I really get the feeling ill end up inconsolably furious that people like Walsh actually exist.
It doesn't bother me that they exist. What's really infuriating is how they possess such prominent positions in our society, that they have such massive platforms and followings, that they are so tolerated by the rest of us.
As someone in heterosexual relationship who is uninterested in having kids as a couple, would Matt and Ben feel my marriage is invalid for not taking part in “p r o c r e a t i o n”
No. They've already made quite clear they only care about procreation when it's a same sex couple. It's just a simple argument directed at simple minded people.
As a legal matter, yes. Marriage is a term legally reserved for the contractual union which reproduces labor. You are wedd e d. To the state that is the entering of the contract they wish to share with you whereby they will exchange tax rebate benefits for the production of laborers. Consummation of marriage is the fulfillment of that contract. Invalid as a term in a vacuum has no context, so to put it into context: yes, the state sees that union as invalid (or not fulfilling its interest of laborers produced), so the state doesn't compensate what hasn't been traded. The state seeing that union as invalid is what Matt and Ben would be referring to and it's not a personal take but a practical one. In practice, you are not fulfilling your end of the contract of trade with the state that is marriage. You won't be penalized nor benefit for it. It's like walking in to a shop and attempting to purchase something but the shop doesn't accept your form of currency. You just don't got what the store want.
@@happymaster19They WILL benefit, though. If one of them gets sick and is incapacitated, the other has the right to see them, and to dictate their health care. The state benefits as well, as most married couples place one another as their dependents on their health insurance, thus removing the states responsibility to provide aid for the other should they fall ill. Now, if we had a universal health care system, this wouldn't be an issue, but we don't, and as a result, having someone else willing to step up and place this person on their health care is actually a big deal for the US government, as those who remain uninsured are just as likely to fall ill and be in need of life saving treatments but far less likely to actually pay back the cost.
Here's an example of why gay marriages need to be recognised under the law: when astronaut Sally Ride died of cancer, her wife of 27 years did not receive ANY of the benefits a survivor of a military spouse receives. Not even the money for a burial. The right keeps asking why others need to use the word marriage for their relationship- there's a couple thousand laws mentioning marriage. Just for one example, I cannot be compelled to testify against my wife, but Sally could have been, as it wasn't legally a marriage back then. Finally, why the need for the law? A Supreme Court justice has said gay marriage could be overturned just like abortion was.
@@Clarytee217 The only people being an active hindrance and danger to society are conservatives. Like, name one opinion or policy of conservatives that only helps people. Just a straight up boon for society. Not sth that hurts non-white people and therefore indirectly helps white people.
I think it's mostly closeted self hating people who are projecting against the people who accept what they hate in themselves. They hate you because it distracts them from how much they hate themselves.
My personal religion is my own version of the Bible with an addendum by a guy who supposedly existed a long time ago (named Craig) that says gays are cool with God and can/should marry. Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are trying to infringe upon my religious rights by not allowing me to do what my own holy book instructs me to do in order to be close with my God
Every time they say "legal gay marriage will destroy conventional marriage" I hear "I would be married to someone of my same sex if that were legal, I don't want to be married to someone of the opposite sex but I have to"... same as saying "legal abortion is going to extinct humankind" sounds like "I wanted to abort but didn't because that wasn't legal".
A man and a woman with their kids is a family A man and a man is a family A woman and a woman is a family A single parent and their kid is a family A lady and her cat is a family There is no one definition for a family How can these people not understand this?
@@TaintedSoulSilver I think they care. They believe it's an attempt to deliberately redefine the word "family" as part of a larger plot to destroy traditional families. 'Cause "cultural Marxists" hate nuclear families.
I love the "biological" argument. Like babes, look at animals across the animal kingdom that reproduce asexually. Or ones that... *switch sex* to reproduce on their own or with a partner. Y'all. Animals are wild and there's a LOT of ways to reproduce that do not require penis and vagina.
Exactly. Also, it completely ignores infertile couples or couples who choose not to have children after marriage. Should their marriage not be protected because they cant or don’t have children? Or just because it is a man-woman relationship its okay? I don’t think marriage should be defined as one category of people just because some are able to reproduce
1) I attended the California Prop 8 Federal Trial. The opponents of Marriage Equality were not able to conjure even ONE coherent argument against Equality. 2) I really don't like the term "gay marriage", as gay is NOT the point, but rather Gender Equality under the Law, is the actual point. Gender Equality acknowledges the right of 2 people to marry, regardless of gender/gender identity/gender presentation etc. 3) Gender Equal or Gender Neutral marriage is inclusive to intersex folk, as well as other non-binary/non-typical gender folks and right to marry.
The argument is so silly if you also take into account all of the gay animals out there. Bonobos which are about as close a (non-extinct) species gets to humans, have been observed to have so, so much gay sex lol. Honestly, mammals are pretty mild as far as crazy biological and sexual things; fish are probably the craziest like so many that just change sex because they need another male or female. I can't remember the name of the species but in my aquatic science class we talked about this one type of tropical reef fish where no individuals are born male, a female fish just turns into a male when a spot needs to be filled.
As a polyamorous, bisexual man in a long term domestic partnership, my partner and I have often discussed some of these things. Our whole stance on marriage has always been that it's always been a purely social contract sort of thing. Shapiro and Walsh seem like the kind of humans that think "Handmaid's Tale" was a guide and not a horrifying warning about fundamentalist theocracy.
As a gay person who is also married sometimes I forget how upset people get over gay marriage lol. It's honestly so crazy to me to have that be something people like Ben and Matt can just debate on. Why does it matter to them?
I think it's because it threatens patriarchal authority. If the family is the fundamental unit of society, and families don't have to have one man in charge and a woman who subserviently takes orders, then who knows what we'll allow next? Maybe we'll challenge racism, classism, and colonialism? Why, straight white cis christian men might have to be... equal ... to everyone else!!!!!!
I was raised by 2 single parents with joint custody. Both of them were physically abusive & emotionally negligent. But I can promise you this: They were both WAY worse before the divorce. They both have their flaws (as well as good intentions), but there's no denying that they're slightly better people now that they're just "friends/extended family" to each other. Marriage is not THE factor of a successful society, GOOD marriage is.
heres my lukewarm take: healthy relationships and social connections are that factor... marriage is just one form of relationships and certainly not a required one...
You don't need marriage at all for a successful society. There are plenty of different ways of structuring thing. In some cultures all the women and their children live together and guys go see their girlfriend, hook up and then go back home to their mom. Some cultures people bang who they like and they are all responsible for the children. The nuclear family is recent and hasn't really performed so great in all truthfulness. It's led to a lot of loneliness and isolation. Humans are tribal. Three or four people in a box not expected to like each other enough to all stay together more than 18 years isn't really working out great for us.
It's insane to me how the most sexually repressed group of people are unable to see marriage as anything other than a precursor to constant sex and reproduction, but then think others are over-sexualizing people. Meanwhile, they debase one of the most meaningful connections of a person's life to sex and reproduction. It could, now stay with me, just be a commitment of one person to another because they genuinely love each other, and has nothing to do with having sex and making babies. What a weirdo.
The most hilarious thing to me is that these two are so much "facts don't care about your feelings" but they determine their definition of "fact" by their own feelings.
Well you see they used the word "your", so they are still allowed to use feelings in their arguments, but not the people they argue against. I jest but they are so closed minded and they do not reflect on what they say whatsoever
@@Dude_Slick I would. They aren't actually very intelligent, matt in particular. ben has an admittedly impressive vocabulary, but that's only intimidating so long as you don't ever read. Neither of them would last long against someone that was familiar with their technique, and they know it. That's why they don't address their opponents in debate, and choose instead to sermonize to audiences.
@@Dude_Slick don’t get fooled by the insane leftists they debate. Someone like Blaire White would absolutely dunk on them with actual facts and logic. She already had a debate with Ben and won
Also on couples who choose not to have children, adopted and foster families, grandparents raising kids, people marrying post menopause. Also, I wonder what their opinion is on couples whose partner’s passed away after having children. Should those kids be taken away from their surviving parent, and given to another couple (a man and a woman) to be raised? It drives me crazy how people like Shapiro and Walsh think that the only family that should exist is a man and a woman and 2.3 children. People are a lot more complicated than that. Life is more complicated than that.
Happy to let anyone who finds these gentleman's arguments compelling know that my lesbian cousin getting married to the love of her life years ago did not affect my capability to become a mother within my heterosexual relationship!
@@LyzergideDaydreaming you know what, not necessarily. BUT, the right would be on high alert for any slip into “shoving their gay in their face” and the moment they slipped that’s when they’d be shoved aside. Look at Dave Ruben. He was fine until he reminded them all he’s gay by having children with his husband. He was so close to being cancelled and I’d be willing to bet he lost a good portion of his audience.
Man his comments about needing to be raised by two parents really hurt to hear. Like you mentioned single parents exist and that is my current situation. I used to have two parents until one tragically passed leaving my dad to raise me and my little brother by himself. Thank you for making me feel a little better after his comments.
Children in single parent homes statistically fare off worse than those in two parent homes. Regardless of the circumstances. This is not to say that children of abusive households are better off than a healthy single paren home. Abusive households are the exception. That proves the rule.
@@noobboon2579 Why? Because society is so individualistic. "It takes a village to raise a kid" This isn't just some saying. It's the truth. Having only one parent would be irrelevant if every other adult in the vicinity took part in raising the child.
You win on the eye brows. We just had a lesbian couple refused by a jeweler to design their wedding rings. Within a hour our pagan comunity not only filed against the jeweler but also refered the lovely couple to a pagan jeweler.
Do they also refuse divorced people? I have yet to see a verse in which same sex is called sinful by Jesus. And if you want to call towards the old testament I remind you that so is kosher eating and the Sabbath
@@sherlockwho5714 There's one passage in which Jesus may talk about homosexual people, in Matthew 5:22 he use the word "raca" which was not interpreted until the 1920s, when an homosexual historian suggested it would mean "soft" or "weak", in a sexual sense. And as the verse is "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council", logically, the verse means "don't insult homosexuals". But realistically, christians don't care. Even if we forget Paul's letters, who have three mentions of homosexuality as a sin, there's a lot of things that have not been preached by Jesus but are very important in christianity like the Trinity. But on a lighter note, things that had been extremely important in christianity, like doing the mess in latin, had been abolished fifty years ago, so things change, and maybe the major churches will accept homosexuality one day (some minor churches already did).
As someone who lived through the height of the AIDS epidemic, I can tell you one obvious legal benefit for same sex marriage. I had several friends in tragic situations in which one of the couple was dying of AIDS, and their partner was not allowed to visit them by the hospital because they were not "next of kin." In one case, the family of the ill person was homophobic and guilty and were keeping them on life support which the ill person had not wanted that, but the partner had no say. It was utterly tragic. One couple I know took the right of having one ADOPT the other so that there would be a legal relationship in case it was needed. I am straight, but I actually think these types of situations are part of the impetus for the push for same sex marriage. As someone who feared marriage myself (due to a messy upbringing), when I decided to marry, I learned about a whole host of other reasons besides child bearing (I do not have kids). One of those is saying to society at large: This is my beloved person, and I want you all to know that I really mean it and to treat them as such. To me it seems obvious that society should value the glue of stable love-and-economic relationships, whether gay or straight.
I personally love Shappiro's motto of "Facts don't care about your feelings" because his arguments are always rooted in feelings so you can just throw his motto right back at him. Hell you can throw it at pretty much anyone who un-ironically uses it because that's all they have is their feelings. They exist in a fact free zone.
These kinds of people seem to confuse "This line of thinking and/or so-called 'evidence' makes sense to _me"_ for "This line of thinking and/or so-called evidence is obvious _fact"_ In a way, it's arrogance, thinking that what works for them and their "line of evidence" sort of stuff that they claim, must be objectively true and other people are just not "getting it". The idea that whatever their ideas or thinking they have might just be (gasp) WRONG or FAULTY seems to not at all occur to them, or they are in denial because if the accept that something so important to them might be wrong or not absolute, their personal world's fall apart. That's the sense I've gotten from listening to a lot of the various camps of ridiculous people out there, they literally do NOT get the difference between objective facts and subjective interpretations and viewpoints. Not that they couldn't just be lying or grifting or using the ideology, but just thought I should share that angle of it.
You know when they start using that line or the "fAcTs aNd lOgIC" line that they won't have any factual nor logical argument. Only fallacies and made up statistics that can be debunked pretty easily. And tbh homophobia is deeply rooted in emotions since why do we have this conversation in the first place it they weren't somehow triggered by the existence of gay people.
@@balanc-joy9187 Could it be maybe an inherit cognitive flaw that leads to this line of thinking? Especially since we know that conservative have their biggest strongholds in states that belong to the white hilbilly culture, which is known for upholding parent-child and cousin inbreeding as a cultural tradition?
For the record, I made wedding cakes for gay couples before we even had civil/domestic partnerships (let alone gay weddings) in the US, so suck it, Matt and Ben.
Do you think they have a problem with the reverse? Do they mind if a queer person makes the cake for a straight wedding? Because my husband has done that. Twice. Everyone loved those custom-made gay cakes.
I love how they're glossing over the fact that the bill covers more than just gay marriage. They're just focusing on that. They're also engaging (as usual) in bad faith arguments saying "why would you do this if it's already what is going on?" Well, Roe v Wade is why. They know, they are ignoring it because they want gay marriage removed. Making codifying it makes it harder to remove. And that's the point, it is recognising rights that were previously only acknowledged via supreme court rulings.
The right does EVERYTHING in bad faith. I grow tired in the false equivalency of all ideas being equal. They are not. Us on the left need to take a more bold angry stance and go on the offensive against said bad ideas.
Another thing Ben completely glossed over, you can have kids or a family without being married. The only reason he equated marriage with kids is because... Religion says you can't bear kids without being married and should have a family. Which is another reason why his "it's not a religious thing!" argument so much more stupid, lol. Also they keep talking about society and LGBTQ people like they're separate things. Gay people ARE part of society. A large portion of society, in fact. We work, make families, give back to society, pay taxes etc. So if we wanna argue that, then he should be in favor of it. But we all know it comes down to religion and bigotry.
The bill specifically codifies interracial marriage as well, which was illegal in some US states into the 1960s. This was defended by use of the Bible as well. Because similar arguments apply, overturning one in the Supreme Court could allow both prohibitions to return.
At 16:30, When Matt said "there is no prior civilization with same-sex marriage" I literally just cried out, "CITATION NEEDED!" So I guess I'm obligated to get one of your shirts at this point haha
One of the best weddings I ever attended was between two people in their eighties. Procreation was a moot point, but they were a lovely couple because they made each other so happy.
I'm so glad you immediately rebuffed the idea there were no same sex unions in history. The other part that gets me is there is also massive historic and recent precedent for people who don't want to or can't procreate getting married. I honestly hate the "marriage is about procreation" ok, so I can't get married cuz I wont be having kids?
It might make sense if we had a Sci-Fi dystopian marriage competition, where tyrannical sci-fi government only issues a limited number of marriage licenses.
But you see, time and time again these peeps prove that for them history doesn't exist and that all the stuff they preach against just popped up out of nowhere only recently. Reality is history is an inconvenient truth that destroys their narrative, so it's best for them to not talk about it.
If marriage were purely about procreation, does that mean a woman who cannot get pregnant cannot marry? Of course that's not what they mean. Anyone who uses that argument is doing so not because they believe what they're saying, but because it serves the purpose of trying to convince you. In essence, just "means to an end," and there's something wholly vile and abhorrent in this because it implies being disingenuous in their motives. So then you ask, what might their true motives be? And the answer to that question, I'm afraid is likely so ugly that it would be indecent to publicly voice what those motives might be. Give these people no quarter, no leeway. The heart of their motivations is always bigotry and hatred, make no mistake.
everyone who is against gay marriage i’ve ever met is either (a) an actively practicing religious person or (b) not practicing raised in a religious household to the point that it still influences their thoughts and behaviors even if they don’t realize it
I was going just going to say One Topic, but then I saw what your actually comment was and wanted to say. “Hey you your finally awake it appears we are trapped on the same boat”. In other words I wanted to say that you are not the only one who feel that way. I also did this because I despise when people just comment on TH-camrs comments without having anything to say, and default to saying. “notice me senpai” or “omg it’s [Unnamed TH-camr] hi I didn’t expect to see you here.” every time I see comments like it makes me just feel like people are being bothersome, making TH-camrs less encouraged to engage in actual conversation with people in the comment section. So I hope this is at least slightly better. Also also I like watching your videos cause I like seeing couples, especially queer couples. and there are few places here on TH-cam with as much and many wholesome queer couples as your channel. And thanks to that, I have learned so many things about my self, thanks to your content and for that I’m eternally grateful. Nows hoping you actually see this, I kinda just started rambling on and on sorry about that 😅
Worst part is, if you asked them if someone that’s physically unable to have kids should be allowed to be married to their loved one and also benefit from the financial and legal supports/securities, they’d say of course. They just don’t wanna admit that they hate gay people and view them as less valid
It is that a man-woman marriage is of the nature to produce offspring. There are numerous reasons that either could be unable or unwilling to do so (age, illness, desire, injury, etc.) but their nature remains. That is what I get from what they're saying. I am pro-SSM, I just see these guys' point about what relationships the government has an interest in incentivizing. Doesn't mean I don't think we should expand the definition; that's democracy.
The benefit is for the kids being produced. If you adopt, there can be a different category of benefit. If you can't/don't have kids, you can't/don't get that benefit.
@@cram6916the thing is there’s numerous legal protections that come from marriage. For instance you can’t kick someone’s married spouse out of the hospital without very clear cause (ie they’re actively attempting harm to other people) if they’re dying. If you’re not married there’s no such protections. Also, having and living with a partner acts as a sort of social safety net. It’s far harder to become homeless as a married couple than an individual. People are more likely to act responsibly because they have someone else they care about and, the truth is, for a lot of people it’s easier to be responsible because you want the best life for a partner than for yourself. If one partner becomes jobless it’s far easier to stay afloat if you have another person to help support. If you’re alone losing your job for whatever reason is life or death for most people. If you break your leg and can’t work for a month, or get let go during a downturn, or whatever, you might just be fucked. If you’re married and your partner works, it might be difficult, but you can still probably make it through alright. Your life will get harder, but you won’t be completely screwed, and that’ll probably make it easier to get back to work. There’s numerous other benefits the government has an interest in protecting because they act sort of like a social safety net for married couples other than just procreation, and thus marriage even without children is still beneficial to the government if you want to view it purely as a give and take contract with the government. Personally I think marriage is a right that should be protected even with no benefits for the government because family gets significant legal and social rights and it is basically the only way to choose family- all other familial relationships you are born into or adopted into when you’re a child. Also, there’s specific benefits (mainly tax benefits) for people who have kids. I think this indicates the government doesn’t view the benefits of marriage as a trade for having kids- there’s separate benefits to encourage that already. Ultimately the point makes sense on the surface but I think it fall apart on closer inspection and I don’t really think it’s defendable that marriage is a contract with the government and the terms are “try to have kids and you get some legal protections”, I think it’s fundamentally a legal right to choose a familial relationship, and past that maybe a contract to help support and assist this other person through difficult times in exchange for legal protections. I don’t think the expectation of kids really has any place nor should it in the implied terms of marriage as a legal contract, and purely as an incentive for the government to do it for their benefit I think the social safety benefits are, broadly speaking, large enough that it’s completely justifiable on those alone
I had an ex that really disliked gay marriage and was not religious. I never got around to really figuring out why that was, but I imagine if pressed he would not be able to come up with a reason why that makes much sense. He was way into these "facts don't care about your feelings" podcasters too, but I always felt like the stuff he didn't like was more based on emotion than logic. Still can't believe I got involved with that guy.
No, marriage today is VERY different from how it used to be. Marriage used to be primarily a contract between two families. A father would offer his daughter up for marriage to the son of a business client as a way to permanently bind their families and thus business interests together. The concept of a love matches is relatively new historically speaking. If they really want to go back to the old version of marriage then no one gets a say who they marry because their parents will make all the arrangements for them. Somehow I think that's going to be a tough sell for most people.
Sure, if you only look at societies near the UK. Plenty of other societies (and frankly, that marriage definition was only true of some income brackets) had love marriages
@@jendubay3782I’ve heard the opposite. That love marriage is more of western idea that’s spread to other cultures. Anyways, and I am not a historian so take this with a grain of salt, I think love marriage originated in islamic world during the middle ages before spreading to Europe after the crusades.
@@ianalan4367 another view point is that marriage is a "worldly thing" as Martin Luther said. And while we're at it - "it's good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Cor 7,1)
@@jendubay3782 since Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are both American (or at least come from western cultures) I doubt they would care about other cultures. Also, in Asia arranged marriages are a very common thing, not sure if love marriages were a thing in ancient times, im not going to pretend I know much about other Asian cultures but one thing I do know is that here in India from what I've heard about our mythology arranged marriages were a thing back then, and from what little ive heard about other cultures arranged marriages seem to have been a thing for a while now. I'm also not going to pretend that I know about cultures in other continents, but it's clear that the UK and regions around it weren't the only ones with arranged marriages
@@nikk6435 but that would be detrimental to his cause, as every talking point he has ever made is bullsh*t! He has to keep up the ridiculously fast and jarring speech pattern, or he may end up showing his complete incompetence!
Even if we grant the argument that trad family unit is the ideal best (which Emma pointed out is just plain wrong), it doesn’t follow that we must *ban* others or refuse to recognise them as positive or useful. If we decided the colour red was objectively the best colour, would Ben & Matt want to get rid of all other colours? Such tools…
It's not like people are suddenly going to become straight. It just means children will be raised in a family without the of protections of marriage. Labeling themselves pro-family is delusional.
Ben Shapiro looks like he tried to get the "Leonard Niimoy" look on his eyebrows so he could have a visual way of expressing that, like the fictional Mr. Spock, he's "logical and fact-based." I say "tried," because he looks more like a short Romulan with a yarmulke.
Marriage in the US is NOT about family, its about taxes, insurance and right of inheritance. My marriage is affected in no way shape or form by any other marriage, including a same sex marriage.
I wish these people would drop all their tongue wagging, and just come out and say "gay people squick me out" and be done with it. All the fake reasons and religious nonsense is such a transparent cover for their own uncomfortable feelings. Ben and Matt are exhausting.
@@bkkersey93 I don’t need to accept their religious reasons. I am not religious, therefore I don’t give a shit about how important their religion is to them when they’re getting in the way of my life. Men are hot and if god wanted me to be straight he would’ve made me straight… unless…? *gasp*
I am a cultural anthropologist and marriage and kinship was my favorite class to teach, although it was not my specialty. Comparatively speaking, marriage is a political, social, and economic arrangement between families. It's with Victoria (that lady) that the romantic love issue came in. The good thing for people like me, is that the romantic love aspect opened a way in Western society for same gender marriage, based on that Victorian ideal of love. To understand marriage and family in a society/culture, one needs to understand the economic system and how individual families fit into that. Serial monogamy coupled with neolocal residence fits in capitalism and late capitalism. Doesn't work in small holding agrarian mountain society like in Tibet. Ask me more, I love this stuff.
Much more than Victoria I would have guessed that Dickens had a profound effect on elevating the link between matrimony and romantic love (Victoria certainly contributed a strong role model of female agency and competence within a traditional marriage that also included unprecedented amounts of PDA). I'm not a historian of any sort, but the bits and pieces I've picked up over the years are certainly fascinating, like the idea that "love story" used to mean almost exclusively adulterous attraction like Tristan and Iseult. One interesting thing to me about how twentieth century capitalist countries like the United States dealt with the rapidly increasing economic independence of women is how swiftly, successfully, and invisibly wages and prices adapted to divert almost all the resulting net increase of economically productive labour into corporate profits - women, on the whole, ended up doing twice as much work while household prosperity stagnated.
Thanks for reminding me that Love and Marriage is a fairly recent development and that political, social and economics dictated marriage for much longer - as in Tradition, that much-loved term.
@@hsmd4533 Marriage doesn't just have its roots there. Marriage is, today, a social and legal contract (occasionally but not usually a political contract as well). Marriage isn't reliant upon children, though, and never has been - we know this because relatively few marriages throughout history have been annulled for lack of resulting progeny. It's not unheard of (Henry VIII comes to mind), but it's never been common.
It's so funny that Matt and Ben argue for laws that "benefit society" but also rage against laws that require individuals to do certain things that benefit society like vaccines and mask mandates. Also their argument works to support the opposition. Same sex marriage may not "benefit" society in their minds, but it also doesn't hurt it either. As you've pointed out, they aren't concerned for the health, well being or happiness of non hetero couples, but in their minds preventing them from marriage somehow prevents them from coupling or existing.
When Shapiro talked about Satanism, which is a cultural movement that uses the image of the Devil challenge religiously biased laws, he argued that the Devil in Paradise Lost "put his autonomy and freedom over the greater good" but realized quickly that he would agree with the Devil, so he had to backtrack.
I'm a sis (sissy) male & I have a problem with gay marriage. Over the decades I have had many gay couples as friends. My issue with gay marriage is that their marriages, on the whole, have worked out better than mine. I have thought about this a lot and now chalk this up to who defines your relationship. The norms of our society (🇺🇸) strictly define roles of the male/female marriage through archetypes. I have to be the strong silent type (even though I'm a sissy) and "my woman" has to make me a sandwich & squeeze out the pups. I was with a strong and brilliant woman for 8 years before we got married. It was the most fulfilling relationship I have ever had the honor to participate in. Then we got married and all kinds of shit hit the fan. My wife completely changed w/in a month. We ended up in couples therapy and I remember crying & begging for a divorce so I could get back the woman I deeply loved. I had no clue what had happened to us. In hindsight (and lots of therapy) I concluded I was in a three way relationship: me, Cathy, and the marriage roles archetype of marriage. Problem was, I'm hopelessly monogamous. I loved her & the life we built. I loved the relationship we built & shared. Marriage brought baggage that wasn't me & drove my wife (who was a preacher's kid) to hold us up to a standard that wasn't us. All of my married gay friends didn't have to deal with the shit I had to. They were entering into a non standard relationship where they had to work out & define their roles (like I had done very successfully with Cathy prior to the death rings we exchanged. Gay marriage is different because they have a lifetime of working it out & defining what their relationship is, screw the standard roles. So yeah, I have a problem with gay marriage. They can have each other, one on one. Not a forced code that can wreck a beautiful relationship. My problem is that deep down, I'm jealous
@@brownbrownbrown2938'm not the original commenter but I think as long as an adult doesn't surpass the weight limit then there's no harm in them using a bouncy castle Whether or not they're "too old" for it doesn't matter. I personally wouldn't find it fun, but the most important thing is whether or not they're causing harm
You hit the nail on the head about Matt Walsh asking questions then ignoring the answer and acting like that means he's won. I don't think I've heard a single time he's 'defeated' an opponent that wasn't made of straw.
It's literally his whole MO lol. Walsh: "So tell me, what *is* a woman?" Interview Subject: *Gives an appropriately complex, well-reasoned answer to the question* Walsh: "Hmm, so you don't know?"
I’m new here, but I really like how you not only argue against their ridiculous claims, but also back up your own claims with real statistics and evidence! It really goes to show how people like Ben and Matt can be easily debunked by a simple google search.
It makes me so angry when people assert that 'all societies in history have been homophobic' because A) demonstrably wrong and B) we do not know everything or really _anything_ about most societies in history! So it's just disingenuous to say that there's no way that any society has been accepting of queer people!
@@hsmd4533 i assume you support matt walsh/ben shabebo, who are people who want to make being gay/trans and just queer in general illegal, maybe think before you type stuff out next time because last i checked making being something (like being queer, for example) illegal just for existing isn't very tolerant
Ideologies that try to brute force one belief system on a population that comprises infinitely diverse belief systems and approaches to life is fundamentally incompatible with the culture and motto of this country, this being the country of freedom and melting pot of the world (as much as they wish it wasn't). Their rage at the general American population and their loss of the culture war is a reflection of their ideology's essential incompatibility with reality, but they do not channel that rage into change, only stubborn thrashing at those they lost to
Raised by single mother here. Father walked out, mother didn't care. Monogamy can eat my really bad thing. Been single my whole life. Had 2 relationships, both without marriage being a thing. Wanted a child, never had one, couldn't physically reproduce. I still support anyone who would choose to marry anyone else with their consent, and to have a child via whatever method they use. Other people and their choices in life is all about them and nothing to do with anyone else.
The Wedding cake thing is a legal precedent. A same sex couple asked some cake makers to make a cake, without disclosing it was for a same sex marriage. When the cake makers found out it was for SSM, they backed out making it. The couple took the back out by the bakers to court (there was no precedent, but it did seem like discriminatory behaviour). Court, I think said, no, you can't force people to make you a cake. But that really just means, people have to ask now if people will provide services without discriminating. Or service providers (eg. cake makers, tailors etc) have to advertise their stances. And honestly, turning people away over religious purposes loses people customers. Secular people, people of that religion who don't like their religion being used as a smoke screen for discrimination etc. Ben and Matt also don't like that "cancel culture" either. But it's always just people not wanting to financially support people who hurt others. Oh, as for ancient homosexuality, Julius Caesar was extremely bisexual. A real original "ladies man and a man's man *eyebrow waggle*". Alexander the Great was very close to his friend Hephaestion, including them visiting the tomb of Achilles and Patroculus and weeping. Achilles and Patroculus were definitely not "cousins".
No, the courts said the opposite. The courts said that it violated the law for the bakery to sell wedding cakes to different sex couples but refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples. So, that bakery no longer sells any wedding cakes because the owner didn’t want to stop being discriminatory against same-sex couples. That same baker got taken to court again for similar discriminatory action-this time for discrimination against a transgender person. That baker lost in court again. Public accommodations is a pretty straight forward legal precedent and concept. It’s illegal for a business, that’s open to the public, to refuse service based on a customer’s legally protected characteristic: sex, gender, race, nation of origin, etc. A baker could refuse to make a cake because the baker objects to the content, e.g. a written message containing hate speech; that refusal has nothing to do with the customer or customer’s protected characteristics. However, that baker had no objection to the wedding cake; he objected to the customers’ protected characteristic. That’s illegal.
i politely didnt speak up during my relatives recent "defend marriage" BS at the recent holiday. and i hate it. the only people attacking marriage are the people like matt and ben here. we want more people married and they want to prevent that, they are the ones attacking anything
It requires a mans sperm and a womans egg to produce a child. This dynamic is what brought humanity to where it is today. If same sex marriages were more widespread in the past, we'd still be living in medieval times at best. Gay men hire surrogate mothers, lesbians get sperm from donors. So we still rely on mens and womens reproductive means to have children. That makes gay marriage pointless.
@@noobboon2579 that also makes every single marriage that isn't between a couple currently raising a child pointless, so under your model if you have reproductive issues, you couldn't get married, once your kids grow up you must get divorced, fun one here - if your children die in an accident, you must now get divorced as you no longer have a family to raise, you have to immediately get pregnant once married; no lazing around being young. your idea that marriage can only be between fertile hetero couples is just a snit model and you can go sit in the corner for being a bigot. and tell me how allowing the people that weren't reproducing to have legal unions would have prevented births?
I stopped going to family functions for a similar reason. My family were, until the last decade the "buffet" christians. Picking and choosing what they believed in based on how they felt about it. Now they're getting more and more hard line and it gets tiring, pushing back against a room full of ignorant red necks that should know better than to start spouting off anti-LGBTQ points. After the third time my wife and I left because we're both bi, one of our best friends is gay, and the other I'd asexual, and telling them I wasn't going to sit and listen to that shit did nothing to dissuade them, I just stopped going. Turns out, holidays are much less stressful when you disown your family...
My husband and I got married because we liked (and loved) each other. We found the person with whom we wanted to do life with for the rest of our lives. I'd consider him my best friend. We want children but if we aren't able to does that make our marriage irrelevant? Nope. This rhetoric is so gross and I hate it.
They open with saying that same-sex marriage is already codified, so why bother with the law, then immediately say the law is bad because it codifies same-sex marriage. It's almost impressive
learning that same sex marriage existed in other cultures in many places and times made me so happy!!! because of my religious upbringing it took me to the age of 25 to accept my bisexuality and because of internalised homophobia i just assumed that it was only very recently that same sex marriage was accepted anywhere. I'm fonna go look all that stuff up, once i've finished this video of course. Thankyou Emma for making my day!! 😃
If anything this idea that marriage is solely between one man and one woman is relatively recent historically. And of course we don't know much about how prehistoric societies practiced marriage but I'd wager it was even less defined with lots of different types potential of unions being trialled throughout our human existence - same-sex, various forms of polygamy/polyamory, 'temporary' marriages and even no marriage at all.
Congratulations on accepting who you are! It took me until I was 30... despite the fact that I has experimented with same sex attraction, I figured that since I preferred women, I was just not quite straight, but straight enough to get by. Then I found a love that accepts me for me... friends that are family, and the various points of the spectrum of attraction and suddenly, it made sense, and felt normal. I still have scars from that time as I'm sure you do, but accepting ourselves is just as important as accepting other people for who they are. If the world could be like you, Ben and Matt would be laughed at as they should for their decrepit viewpoints.
You didn’t catch their worst point early on: “why does congress have to pass a law when the Supreme Court has ruled on this?”. Ladies and gentlemen I refer you to roe v wade which, if it was legislatively protected, would have remained law in the USA. Frankly the fact congress hasn’t done this already astounds me, and same goes for a lot of other laws and rulings.
"it was legislatively protected, would have remained law in the USA." I doubt it. The court probably would have just said the law was unconstituional. The Constituion is the highest law in the land, the court ignored that, they can ignore Congress.
@@EBDavis111 incorrect, by their method of interpretation the law would be entirely valid. The current legal framework is based on the historicity of a particular policy. In the United States the majority of states support abortion/gay marriage and have passed laws protecting the practices. In the case of roe v wade the only thing that was holding things up federally was an objectively poorly made legal argument that was incredibly arbitrary for the time. Passing a law which is broadly supported and has legal precedent both federally and states wise would almost certainly be solidly enforceable.
@@EBDavis111 if that’s your actual take then I don’t really know what to say besides when are you rioting cause if that’s truly the case thats what you ought to do in order to reverse the course of the system which is unjustly oppressing both you and everyone else in the nation. I would never make that claim cause I’ve not lost the plot but gg I guess
"The Supreme Court has already determined that same-sex marriage is the law of the land.." Interesting point Ben, because I seem to recall another matter the Supreme Court had already determined was the law of the land. In fact, at least one, but I'm pretty sure two of those recently appointed conservative Supreme Court justices said in their Senate hearings that it was the law of the land. And would you look at that? As soon as they had a chance they overturned it. Curious.
I was against gay marriage when i was like 17 or 18 (currently 29). Not really religious at that time (i was spiritual) Because i was studying psychology and my sources were old as f*ck... I though they were mentally ill, and it was stupid for them to ask such a thing, "destroying traditions" and all of that. It wasn't untill i got more informed and actually met some gay people that i realized i was wrong. It took a lot of time, it wans't a single argument or anything.
Ah yes, the respect you should treat someone with as a fellow human being should be entirely contingent on their "usefulness" to society. Wonderful take, Matt Walsh.
I liked that you fact checked Shapiro pulling polyandry facts out his ass. I was aware of the polyandrous marriages in the himalayas, Tibet/Nepal. Thanks for the research. (Also, happy for you and your mum 😊)
Hey, we are talking about "Let's say" Ben Shapiro, who probably knows, if he had to fact check and cannot make things up with "let's say", he would not be adored by some people.
Thankfully, my mom raised me to be accepting of others. So, even when I was religious (two decades ago) I still advocated for and supported marriage equality.
I had the privilege of attending a religious ceremony officiating the marriage of two men back in the 90's. Not legally binding at the time, but the exact same ceremony with most of the meeting participating as witnesses. Religions don't have to be homophobic.
My folks taught me nothing about queerness and were religious but the “let people be as long as they harm no one” mentality stuck with me so I can confirm religion, at least my folks flavor of Christian, doesn’t need to be bigoted.
I grew up in a Universalist sect of Hinduism. Though my mother remains slightly uneasy about same sex couples, she always taught me to be open minded and accepting. Since you know, karma and all that lol
@@joelpartee594 Not sure about other countries, but here in Germany, (catholic) pastors bless every kind of things, be it bikers, new roads, new buildings, whatever. But some of them up to today refuse to bless gay couples...
@@joelpartee594 they must not have been believing catholics then. If they were, they wouldnt bless or hold/host same sex marriages. They'd condone what their faith says to not condone. No wonder people leave their faith when their churches betray them.
oh yeah not to mention this also insults: -infertile women -single parents -one parent being abusive and having to escape them -a parent dies -children who are in foster care or have to be adopted and a lot more marriage isnt about procreating anyway. its about love.
9:45 I agree with your eyebrow ranking, but ben does a better job advertising them. The way he leans forward to always look out from underneath them, it draws your atention and in a "why are you doing that" sort of way. It's hypnotic in its perplexity
When somebody insists that marriage is only for procreation what they are asking for is a fertility check before an opposite sex couple IS ALLOWED TO marry. Women above a certain age would be automatically denied that request. If one partner becomes infertile before the couple has children the marriage would have to be dissolved so the fertile partner can find another fertile partner. It is strange that nobody is actually asking for this model since this is the logical conclusion of what they are asking for.
yeah... i mean they do already shame women for miscarriages (and of course abortion that goes without saying but yeah) involuntary miscarriages are often still considered the mothers fault among religious families its really awful and i hate it. same with children with developmental disabilities. they literally view it as a punishment for sin of the parents (usually the mother only) and/or the child as a demon.
@@williamchamberlain2263 The fertility check would need to apply to both partners. And they could still couple up with an infertile woman, just not getting married.
Any thought I had that Ben Shapiro was honestly voicing his own deeply held beliefs went out the window when started ranting against vaccine mandates. Several years ago he produced the only content I have ever agreed with calling out anti-vax parents, explaining their rights did not entitle them to endanger other people's children. His deeply held beliefs obviosly exist only as far as he can get paid for them.
I am 49 almost 50 I was raised by my mom and I have 4 sons 2 of which I raised on my on the oldest is a single father of 3 and is almost 30 the younger is almost 21 and I am very proud to say is gay and I love all 4 equally the second oldest is also a single father of 1 son and is bisexual and the middle son is a happly married father of 2 and I am proud to say I didn't teach them what to think but how to think for themselves
Back when i was in high school me and my mom talked about gay marriage once and said something like "im fine with them getting a civil union" and i asked her what it was she explained and i just said "so its marriage without calling it marriage" and she said that she never thought of it that way
This is a *very* important point. Justice Clarence Thomas has said he wants to revisit and undo previous rulings. That’s why the bill was introduced in Congress. I don’t blame Emma for not knowing about US politics of course. No shade for her not mentioning it.
@@mjjoe76 My "also" comment wasn't at Emma it was at the disingenuous arsehat brigade in the video asking but "why do we even need this law because it's already settled law". That is EXACTLY why we need it!
I grew up without knowing my father and I always preferred this situation to that of some friends with a horrible father. Later I became a single dad and my son and daughter turned both out great. (Emma reminds me a bit of my daughter btw😎)
*rolls up sleeves* Okey-dokey, Ben and Matt: Allow me to give you my firsthand story about the benefits of no-fault divorce. In 1973, my uncle and his wife grew apart, but their divorce was a courtroom $#!+show, with family members being begged to lie about each party on the witness stand, to the detriment of their kids. A few years later, my no-fault divorce consisted of “irreconcilable differences, with $$/week in child support and visitation as convenient to both parties.” And the ex and I were great co-parents, with no trauma to our child (who freely tells people the same). The End.
When New York legalized no fault divorce I volunteered for a pro bono program to help speed the flood of cases through the courts. Some couples have been waiting decades. I've never had so many joyful clients and never been hugged by my clients before. And I do asylum law!
My parents managed to achieve a de facto amicable divorce in California in 1971, but they essentially had to conspire against the judge and their own lawyers, inventing "grounds" and "custody arrangements" and "child support" between themselves and figuring out how to satisfy the legal requirements. They were and are remarkable people who never wavered in wanting the best for their kids, but they had to trust each other completely and fool the authorities like they were Ocean's Eleven, and it's no surprise that my story is very much the exception.
THIS. Yup the Supreme Court makes a choice until they decide to change it. The Equality Act prevents the court from deciding tomorrow or next week or next month or whenever to change their mind. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws they uphold and determine if laws agree with the the Constitution. These morons prove once more they don't understand shit (morons in question being Mulch and Shapepo. lol)
Odd how when it's something they aren't currently arguing against, the Supreme Court settling an issue and upholding it for 40 years isn't good enough, but shift the argument just one step, and voila, the Supreme Court decisions settle matters, isn't it?
Good job Editing Emma! The MOMENT Ben said that about there was NEVER any evidence of polyandrous marriage, I knew that was false. I watched a show years ago now (so I unfortunately don't remember the exact location and names of the people) about literally a polyandrous society. It's a community that lives on farming and the land is passed down through the woman's side. She takes on multiple husbands who share the cultivation of the land as well as paternity of her children. I wish I could remember the details. And I don't have time at the moment to research them again. But yeah, glad Editing Emma hopped in here. Thank you.
I learned about polyandry in a western civ class. But I doubt Ben has even that basic level of education. Edit: Child of a single parent here and she gave me and my brother everything she could. I'll always miss her. Also, polygamous people DO exist in our society. I've spoken with a few.
I have a relative who was a Mormon. She became a polygamous FLDS "sister wife." She abandoned polygamy and briefly became a Seventh Day Adventist. Now, she is married to a Messianic Jew. She seems happy, but I could't convince her to become an atheist like me. Ironically, I have been married once and for 45 years. She has been a staunch proponent of marriage and is anti-gay, anti-atheist, etc., yet my one marriage lasted until death do us depart, hopefully me first since I'm three years older than she is.
It exists of course, but it isnt going to be normalized for most people in western culture, and isn't even a good idea for most people. Even in the cultures that it was traditionally practiced in, it was mostly because of an overabundance of women, or practical due to economic and survival concerns. Ie a tribal African father wanting their daughters to marry a wealthy man, with an abundance of food, and being a landowner. Obviously in western society, things are bit different, but it should be obviously to you that historical practice of it is quite different. Then obviously some of it was done as a luxury, or hedonistic expression, perversion, or sexual excess, ie harems, concubines, mormon child wives, etc.
@@triumphant39 Citation fucking needed. I ask you not to call non monogamous relationships between consenting adults hedonistic, or associate them with pedophilia. Historical monogamous relationships had all the same problems. So, I await all your big juicy sources friend.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: wren.co/start/emmathorne1m
The first 100 to sign up will get their first month of the subscription covered by Wren for free!
What does it mean to have your subscription to Wren free? Isn't the point of Wren to contribute money towards mitigating climate change?
He like's pie, I hear him' saying.
Opposition 'to homosexual marriage, that's a queer idea.
If founded by State, forbidding any two adults from their wish to tie knot tye knots together is wrong.
It's funny; ¿don't you know?, all these anti-equality spoofs seem to believe homosexuals, alone, can breed.
Dummy, if you're trying to breed them out, ¡allow their marriage!
We're 'in a world, swimming with dolts.
In the 90s my parents were emphatically homophobic.
Then my mom became friends with a co-worker that happened to be gay.
My parents slowly changed their minds to “well, it’s not my place to judge, but gay marriage is still wrong.”
They became such good friends that my parents and Robert and his partner would go out together. They would watch movies together.
Then Robert got sick. _Really_ sick. He had AIDS and was dying. It was horrible. My parents were there for both of them.
When Robert was in the ICU one time, his brother, who he was estranged from, blocked his partner from coming to visit him. They weren’t married (it wasn’t legal yet), Trey wasn’t related to him, so if Robert was incapacitated his family could bar Trey from his bedside.
Luckily that time Robert was awake and conscious enough to kick his brother out.
That’s what convinced my parents that marriage equality needed to be made legal.
My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer around that time and he just kept thinking about what it would be like if his mom or siblings were able to legally keep my mom from his bedside in the hospital.
Robert died at home with Trey by his side holding his hand. He specifically chose not to go to a hospital or hospice because he didn’t want to risk Trey being ripped from his side at the last minute.
And there were so many horror stories during the AIDS epidemic of exactly that happening to people.
Marriage isn’t just about making a family. If it were childfree folks, those of us that are infertile, and women post menopause wouldn’t ever bother with it.
Marriage is a contract you make with the government that this person is now my next-of-kin, and all the benefits and responsibilities that entails.
Being married to my husband means my abusive birth mother can’t kick him out of the hospital room, and if I die it means my stuff and my kid go to my husband, not her.
You’re telling the government “I choose this person as my closest relative.”
And that’s _incredibly_ important.
Thank you for sharing such an important story.
That was very profound, thank you.
Thank you for sharing this!
This was beautifully written.
Yeah it's much harder to not empathize with people when they are no longer strangers. My grandma would beat it into my head that hate and discrimination was wrong. That everyone deserves respect.
I'm so glad your parents made that friendship
Matt Walsh: the left always brings up religion into debates!
Also Matt Walsh: *talks non-stop about religion in terms of same sex marriage*
Every homophobic accusation is a confession.
Last sentence amen amen
It would be a funny challenge: Ask the anti marriage equality and "pro life" activists to argue for their position without bringing up the bible and see how long they can last. Once the refer to the Bible they have automatically lost the argument, since they insist that this isn't about the Bible.
@@joachimschoder I absolutely love this idea. It's obvious that none of them can.
@@joachimschoder There are better debaters than Ben and Matt who are certainly up to that challenge. The most common tactic is simply to lie, like the forced birth "medical" arguments about so-called fetal heartbeats and invented risks involved in abortion procedures.
@@joelpartee594 That's what I don't understand about a lot of radlibs, like "If we just tell them the truth and hard facts surely they will change their minds =)"
Those people lie as easily as they breath, they manipulate any and all interactions for their personal gain.
But sure, if you present them with the fact that they are wrong, they will acknowledge that because they are such good faith actors, right?
Ugh
I once asked a Right-Winger who insisted there were non-religious reasons to oppose SSM what they were. After avoiding answering for a long while he finally came out with "the increased number of marriages will over burden wedding planners, bakers, etc." I swear on my life.
I've actually heard that before, too! I thought it was a joke.
@@Matt_Fields_29, and I thought it was something he'd just pulled out of his butt that minute! Wonders never cease.
So basically the bad in same gender marriage is more capitalism?
That’s a take I guess, coming from a right winger so heh.
LOL!!
I'll give you a better one. Marriage itself is the foundation of the family, done to create a stable footing for the raising of society's next generation. That is how it has traditionally been seen. By marrying people, gay or otherwise, who aren't interested in raising a family, it weakens the institutional power of marriage within the cultural zeitgeist and transforms it into a farcical cultural ceremony devoid of its original purpose as a stabilizing force that helps facilitate a strong foundation for a family. This withering of the institution of marriage is something we've seen occur over the course of 100s of years as marriage has been destabilized through things like annulments and no-fault divorce, along with the recent sexual "liberation" movement, to the point where marriage is nothing more than a useless ceremony that holds no significance beyond two people "maybe" committing themselves to one another.
Gay people:we're gay
Some Christians: ok I guess
Gay couples: we want to get married
Christians: no that's our word. You're literally destroying the entire world by asking
That's fine. This world's broken anyway
Which is funny because 'marriage' is something that's been around in different variations for thousands of years before any form of religion
what actually is very interesting is how the lgbtq community, which is supposedly a minority with somewhere inbetween 1 to 5percent in the populations in the western countries, so how the minority expects the majority to suddenly change the laws for their benefit. Dont you find it hypocrite, to for one argument, use the minority standpoint, and for another, demand law changes? How changing laws, could be democratic, if 1-5percentile decides or wants to decide the law?
Well I mean that’s literally how they see it. The entire world would go to shit if “immoral” things were allowed.
That's not why christians hate gays. They hate, because that's what their religion is--hate.
Somebody needs to remind them that the absence of empathy does not equal the presence of reason.
Whoever does, can you make a quick stop over to my father along the way? Thanks.
"the absence of empathy does not equal the presence of reason"
Wow, that's great! Imma stealing that, but I'm thanking you first because I got manners!!!
@@TaintedSoulSilvermine too
@@TaintedSoulSilver Should marriage between three or more people be legal?
@@goranmilic442 Yes
I had same sex parents. The only issues I faced as a result were purely from the vitriol and ignorance of my peers when we were younger. I used to be told I was going to be gay because my parents were lesbian, and I was told my parents were going to hell. Funnily enough, I turned out straight and just dandy
So Proud and Happy for you and your Moms ❤️❤️❤️
I adore that you used the word dandy! 😊
That sucks, sorry you had to deal with these idiots, really amazing how these people defend this "right" to be bigoted jerks while still thinking they are loving and nice people, the cognitive dissonance is incredible
Thumbs up for "Just Dandy"!
Their entire argument boils down to "Grr! How dare you socially reconstruct my social construct!"
It's even worse...it's "how dare you call me out for bigotry when I have been carefully passive aggressive with my attacks!"
@@AaronHendu I’m allowed to be a bigot and how dare you be so bigoted to say I can’t be a bigot
Watch me glue a fake moustache of facts-and-logic™ onto my bigotry and call it science
Haha the ever-changing nature of human society as we grow more aware of ourselves go brrrrrr
I had to
This
Religious liberty: The ability to enforce your religious views upon the rest of the human population.
And prevent people from questioning it in anyway.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You can't just force your religious views on me! Only I'm allowed to push my views on others!
@@Dire_Pants Insane right? There are thousands of different denominations just within Christianity, never mind all the other religions. All believing that their denomination is the one on the true and righteous path to glory.
Like my grandpa said religion is great and all but much like a penis it's isn't always good to whip it out and people tend to hate you shoving it down their throat.
I'm a gay trans man married to a bi cis man and we have 2 kids. Want to know what degenerate leftist grooming we got up to today? We went out for waffles and then put up Christmas decorations! Watch out, traditional marriage and family!
And Emma absolutely has the best eyebrows.
I am absolutely appalled by this....
Christmas decorations in November! Come on man, that's just not cricket. First week in December please (unless you are running a store then I can grudgingly accept that)!
(+1 on the eyebrows too)
Aw, you guys sound like a fab family-waffles are yummy! No Christmas for me, but decorating with your kids is always cool. ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
@@Mr_Wibble Lol, they always want to put them up once Halloween comes down. I always insist that we have to wait until after Thanksgiving.
You degenerate! Waffles in November?!
Oh noes not waffles. Tell the truth though do you subject your kids to the unmitigated evil of double Dad jokes. See I have no problem with same sex marriage but the idea of increasing a poor innocent child's exposure to dad jokes has gotta violate a Geneva convention :P
Listening to Ben Shapiro talk is like the opposite of ASMR
Aaargh it hurts, it's hurts 🤕
THANK YOU. I thought it was just me😭
It sounds like a gnome that became a fascist.
His cadence hurts. He never speaks a whole sentence at a time. It's constant starts and stops in the middle of a thought.
@lucio v lol this comment has a Translate to English button... It doesn't change it when you click it though.
The scary thing is, if you listen to both Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro talk about marriage outside of LGBT+ issues, they actually _do_ seem to believe that infertile or childfree heterosexual couples are less valid than those who have/want children. They’ve insulted both single people who don’t want to get married, and married people who don’t want to have children-they really are obsessed with making sure other people procreate, and look down on people who don’t. So it’s not that they don’t _want_ to discriminate against straight childfree couples, it’s just that they can’t get away with that as easily as they can get away with discriminating against gay couples. Society has progressed more quickly to accept the fact that some people are childfree than the fact that some people are gay. If Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro talked more about what they really think of childfree people, they’d lose a lot more of their viewers than they do for bashing the LGBT+ community. That was actually what first turned me off-even back when I still considered myself a conservative, it was hearing the way Walsh and Shapiro (especially Walsh) constantly obsessed over marriage and procreation and bashed people who wanted no part in those things (especially single, childfree women like me) that made me begin gravitating away from The Daily Wire and started my gradual slide left. Actually, I guess I should thank them for showing their true colors like that-without that, I might still be homophobic. But when I heard multiple DW hosts frequently call single, childfree women like me lazy and selfish, watching them act like we are lesser human beings for not living the exact life they want us to-that made me say, “Hold on a minute. I know all these nasty things they’re saying about _me_ aren’t true. So what if all the things they’re saying about _other_ people/groups aren’t true, either? I’d better reexamine this.” So I did, and I wound up leaving the right for a more open-minded, moderate mindset.
Good for you, Allie. It takes a certain amount of intellectual courage and honesty to be able to critically evaluate your own beliefs in a single area, let alone multiple. You should be proud of yourself. It's not something everyone has the capability or willingness to do.
It’s like they both have a weird breeding fetish or something-
Oooh this was how I left the Jordan Peterson bubble!
Glad you made it out
Hi @allie-678, Feel likewise. Reality for Ben&Matt is: ALL plants are green, ALL birds fly, ALL sunsets are red, ALL seas are blue, etc. I do not say ALL believers are stupid.
@@loutsont2985 @allie-678ey wrote that Ben&Matt really are obsessed with making sure other people procreate, and look down on people who don’t. I was engaged once to a girl who was Catholic, Like Walsh. She nor I wanted children for various reasons. But her parents insisted that the wedding be held in a Catholic church and that if I were going to marry their daughter I would have to take instruction in the religion. I was talking to a priest about instruction when I mentioned that neither of us wanted children. He was visibly upset and said we couldn't be married in the church because to Catholics, the only reason you get married was to have children. So that's why Walsh has six kids.
I hope Ben and Matt can get married one day❤🧡💛💚💙💜 They'd make such a great couple, yet bigots wanna stop them for no reason :(
If they do end up getting married, it will shake the conservative christian base to the core.
Your comment walked into my office, grabbed me by the throat, and gave me new life
I ship Matten walshiro
@@rowanquynn9964same lol
Yeah, cuz all homophobia comes from closeted gays. Straights aren't homophobic... apparently.
Matt Walsh: *going on about how the best parental dynamic for a child is one man and one woman
Me: *staring in "raised by a one man and one woman parental dynamic who were both very abusive"
It always works out great for those school shooters.
@@cathyosbourne6986 😂😂😂 dark humor at its finest
Given his line "the only emotional support my son needs is his bb gun" is a pretty compelling argument against the "traditional" dynamic..
@@sassylittleprophet One of your parents _SURELY_ identifies as Trans or something equally _EVIL_. Otherwise your upbringing would have been in the image of _*_GOD._*_ _FACTS!_
*/$arcasm*
@@sebastianstoltz7740 I'm actually nonbinary, so idk how that fits into the equation LOL 😂
Yeah, that procreation thing is always fascinating to me, as a guy who is heterosexual but can't father children. I doubt they'd ever tell me I couldn't get married. They'd probably talk up how I could adopt a child after getting married.. which kind of destroys their whole "joining flesh" argument, but I'm sure Ben and Matt would talk fast enough about anything else to avoid talking about that issue.
I can't have kids because my hetero parents neglected and abused me and my mom did drugs while pregnant with me, so I have never had the option to have kids.
MW actually say that couples should adopt if they can't have kids, on Rogan.
If a man and woman of a certain age were to marry then children would not be possible, so is such a marriage is wrong in the eyes of christians because it obviously is not for the reason of procreation?
@@charisma-hornum-fries I wonder what his opinion is on gay couples adopting, or a couple including a trans person adopting.
@@charisma-hornum-fries do they say that about gay couples or only hetero ones that comply with a lot of other requirements?
I want to watch this to support the channel and all, but I really get the feeling ill end up inconsolably furious that people like Walsh actually exist.
How dare anyone have a different opinion than you!
Not only exists but has a huge following that think what he spews actually makes sense, not just political culture war bs
@@hsmd4533 how dare anyone claiming America is about freedom blah blah but then want to force LAWS for all based off their religious OPINIONS.
@@hsmd4533 "how dare anyone disagree with anything theocratic fascists and stochastic terrorists say!"
That's how you sound 🤣
It doesn't bother me that they exist. What's really infuriating is how they possess such prominent positions in our society, that they have such massive platforms and followings, that they are so tolerated by the rest of us.
As someone in heterosexual relationship who is uninterested in having kids as a couple, would Matt and Ben feel my marriage is invalid for not taking part in “p r o c r e a t i o n”
Yes.
No. They've already made quite clear they only care about procreation when it's a same sex couple. It's just a simple argument directed at simple minded people.
@lbs7774 well I doubt op gives a shit. And I don't respect anyone who does care
As a legal matter, yes. Marriage is a term legally reserved for the contractual union which reproduces labor. You are wedd e d. To the state that is the entering of the contract they wish to share with you whereby they will exchange tax rebate benefits for the production of laborers. Consummation of marriage is the fulfillment of that contract. Invalid as a term in a vacuum has no context, so to put it into context: yes, the state sees that union as invalid (or not fulfilling its interest of laborers produced), so the state doesn't compensate what hasn't been traded. The state seeing that union as invalid is what Matt and Ben would be referring to and it's not a personal take but a practical one. In practice, you are not fulfilling your end of the contract of trade with the state that is marriage. You won't be penalized nor benefit for it. It's like walking in to a shop and attempting to purchase something but the shop doesn't accept your form of currency. You just don't got what the store want.
@@happymaster19They WILL benefit, though. If one of them gets sick and is incapacitated, the other has the right to see them, and to dictate their health care. The state benefits as well, as most married couples place one another as their dependents on their health insurance, thus removing the states responsibility to provide aid for the other should they fall ill. Now, if we had a universal health care system, this wouldn't be an issue, but we don't, and as a result, having someone else willing to step up and place this person on their health care is actually a big deal for the US government, as those who remain uninsured are just as likely to fall ill and be in need of life saving treatments but far less likely to actually pay back the cost.
Here's an example of why gay marriages need to be recognised under the law: when astronaut Sally Ride died of cancer, her wife of 27 years did not receive ANY of the benefits a survivor of a military spouse receives. Not even the money for a burial. The right keeps asking why others need to use the word marriage for their relationship- there's a couple thousand laws mentioning marriage. Just for one example, I cannot be compelled to testify against my wife, but Sally could have been, as it wasn't legally a marriage back then. Finally, why the need for the law? A Supreme Court justice has said gay marriage could be overturned just like abortion was.
That example alone show how gay marriages benefit society. Kids aren’t the only thing that potentially help society.
@@Clarytee217 The only people being an active hindrance and danger to society are conservatives.
Like, name one opinion or policy of conservatives that only helps people. Just a straight up boon for society.
Not sth that hurts non-white people and therefore indirectly helps white people.
Imagine being so insecure that other people being happy personally offends you to the point where you campaign against it.
I think it's mostly closeted self hating people who are projecting against the people who accept what they hate in themselves. They hate you because it distracts them from how much they hate themselves.
Not just campaign, but basically advocate for their genocide. Walsh is a fucking demon
Insecure? No
Evil? Yes
My personal religion is my own version of the Bible with an addendum by a guy who supposedly existed a long time ago (named Craig) that says gays are cool with God and can/should marry. Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are trying to infringe upon my religious rights by not allowing me to do what my own holy book instructs me to do in order to be close with my God
Every time they say "legal gay marriage will destroy conventional marriage" I hear "I would be married to someone of my same sex if that were legal, I don't want to be married to someone of the opposite sex but I have to"... same as saying "legal abortion is going to extinct humankind" sounds like "I wanted to abort but didn't because that wasn't legal".
A man and a woman with their kids is a family
A man and a man is a family
A woman and a woman is a family
A single parent and their kid is a family
A lady and her cat is a family
There is no one definition for a family
How can these people not understand this?
They absolutely do understand this. They just don't care. They want what they want and that is the only thing that matters to them.
@@TaintedSoulSilver I think they care. They believe it's an attempt to deliberately redefine the word "family" as part of a larger plot to destroy traditional families. 'Cause "cultural Marxists" hate nuclear families.
Aaaaand so say all of us!!!!!
I disagree with "A lady and her cat is a family.".
@@vshah1010
I don’t recall anyone appointing you to the role of He What Decides What a Family Is.
Get absolutely bent.
I love the "biological" argument. Like babes, look at animals across the animal kingdom that reproduce asexually. Or ones that... *switch sex* to reproduce on their own or with a partner. Y'all. Animals are wild and there's a LOT of ways to reproduce that do not require penis and vagina.
Exactly. Also, it completely ignores infertile couples or couples who choose not to have children after marriage. Should their marriage not be protected because they cant or don’t have children? Or just because it is a man-woman relationship its okay? I don’t think marriage should be defined as one category of people just because some are able to reproduce
i paused to make that comment and just resumed the video and Emma said my point
Exactly. Look at that one-gender species of lizard that reproduces asexually, but uses other lizards to, err, turn it on.
1) I attended the California Prop 8 Federal Trial. The opponents of Marriage Equality were not able to conjure even ONE coherent argument against Equality.
2) I really don't like the term "gay marriage", as gay is NOT the point, but rather Gender Equality under the Law, is the actual point. Gender Equality acknowledges the right of 2 people to marry, regardless of gender/gender identity/gender presentation etc.
3) Gender Equal or Gender Neutral marriage is inclusive to intersex folk, as well as other non-binary/non-typical gender folks and right to marry.
The argument is so silly if you also take into account all of the gay animals out there. Bonobos which are about as close a (non-extinct) species gets to humans, have been observed to have so, so much gay sex lol. Honestly, mammals are pretty mild as far as crazy biological and sexual things; fish are probably the craziest like so many that just change sex because they need another male or female. I can't remember the name of the species but in my aquatic science class we talked about this one type of tropical reef fish where no individuals are born male, a female fish just turns into a male when a spot needs to be filled.
As a polyamorous, bisexual man in a long term domestic partnership, my partner and I have often discussed some of these things. Our whole stance on marriage has always been that it's always been a purely social contract sort of thing. Shapiro and Walsh seem like the kind of humans that think "Handmaid's Tale" was a guide and not a horrifying warning about fundamentalist theocracy.
As a gay person who is also married sometimes I forget how upset people get over gay marriage lol. It's honestly so crazy to me to have that be something people like Ben and Matt can just debate on. Why does it matter to them?
There’s a lot of fear built into religions. Really runs counter to their claims of faith.
Im always asking the same thing. How does it effect their lives in any way?
But why did you get married? And I ask this to hetro couples too...why?
I think it's because it threatens patriarchal authority. If the family is the fundamental unit of society, and families don't have to have one man in charge and a woman who subserviently takes orders, then who knows what we'll allow next? Maybe we'll challenge racism, classism, and colonialism? Why, straight white cis christian men might have to be... equal ... to everyone else!!!!!!
Ignorance has led to unfounded fear and which leads to hate
I was raised by 2 single parents with joint custody. Both of them were physically abusive & emotionally negligent. But I can promise you this:
They were both WAY worse before the divorce. They both have their flaws (as well as good intentions), but there's no denying that they're slightly better people now that they're just "friends/extended family" to each other.
Marriage is not THE factor of a successful society, GOOD marriage is.
heres my lukewarm take: healthy relationships and social connections are that factor... marriage is just one form of relationships and certainly not a required one...
You don't need marriage at all for a successful society. There are plenty of different ways of structuring thing. In some cultures all the women and their children live together and guys go see their girlfriend, hook up and then go back home to their mom. Some cultures people bang who they like and they are all responsible for the children. The nuclear family is recent and hasn't really performed so great in all truthfulness. It's led to a lot of loneliness and isolation. Humans are tribal. Three or four people in a box not expected to like each other enough to all stay together more than 18 years isn't really working out great for us.
I'm so so so sorry.... This sounds horrendous :((( Hope you have a lot of love in your life now!!!
Sending much hugs & warmth💕
It's insane to me how the most sexually repressed group of people are unable to see marriage as anything other than a precursor to constant sex and reproduction, but then think others are over-sexualizing people. Meanwhile, they debase one of the most meaningful connections of a person's life to sex and reproduction. It could, now stay with me, just be a commitment of one person to another because they genuinely love each other, and has nothing to do with having sex and making babies. What a weirdo.
The most hilarious thing to me is that these two are so much "facts don't care about your feelings" but they determine their definition of "fact" by their own feelings.
They are exclusively crying because they got their feelings hurt.
Well you see they used the word "your", so they are still allowed to use feelings in their arguments, but not the people they argue against. I jest but they are so closed minded and they do not reflect on what they say whatsoever
You wouldn't debate either one of them.
@@Dude_Slick I would. They aren't actually very intelligent, matt in particular. ben has an admittedly impressive vocabulary, but that's only intimidating so long as you don't ever read. Neither of them would last long against someone that was familiar with their technique, and they know it. That's why they don't address their opponents in debate, and choose instead to sermonize to audiences.
@@Dude_Slick don’t get fooled by the insane leftists they debate. Someone like Blaire White would absolutely dunk on them with actual facts and logic. She already had a debate with Ben and won
“It’s not about religion”
Proceeds to almost exclusively talk about religion.
I love how their fake concern with 'procreation' can be brought down so easily just by asking what their opinion on infertile couples is.
And if all menopausal women should divorce their husbands.
@@daniellamcgee4251 With the kinds of people they are, I wouldn't put that past them.
Also on couples who choose not to have children, adopted and foster families, grandparents raising kids, people marrying post menopause.
Also, I wonder what their opinion is on couples whose partner’s passed away after having children. Should those kids be taken away from their surviving parent, and given to another couple (a man and a woman) to be raised?
It drives me crazy how people like Shapiro and Walsh think that the only family that should exist is a man and a woman and 2.3 children. People are a lot more complicated than that. Life is more complicated than that.
worlds population is 8 billion do we really need more
Just bring up why they want to create so many people but then not look after them, housing, health, jobs etc.
Happy to let anyone who finds these gentleman's arguments compelling know that my lesbian cousin getting married to the love of her life years ago did not affect my capability to become a mother within my heterosexual relationship!
Your cousin is a dud
I hope Ben and Matt realize that the bond they feel is just the true deep romantic love they really feel for each other 💗
gonna write a matt walsh x ben shapiro fic soon
@@nohintshere Forbidden love trope ❤️
I was wondering if anyone else was shipping these two, they're such a cute couple.
Oh my god could you imagine the fallout from these two openly being a thing? The right would absolutely lose their shit
@@LyzergideDaydreaming you know what, not necessarily. BUT, the right would be on high alert for any slip into “shoving their gay in their face” and the moment they slipped that’s when they’d be shoved aside. Look at Dave Ruben. He was fine until he reminded them all he’s gay by having children with his husband. He was so close to being cancelled and I’d be willing to bet he lost a good portion of his audience.
Man his comments about needing to be raised by two parents really hurt to hear. Like you mentioned single parents exist and that is my current situation. I used to have two parents until one tragically passed leaving my dad to raise me and my little brother by himself. Thank you for making me feel a little better after his comments.
I'm sorry for your loss. Hope your family is doing okay. ❤
Children in single parent homes statistically fare off worse than those in two parent homes.
Regardless of the circumstances.
This is not to say that children of abusive households are better off than a healthy single paren home.
Abusive households are the exception. That proves the rule.
Sorry for your loss but he means it’s BETTER for the child to grow up with two parents he’s not saying single mothers/fathers don’t exist
@@noobboon2579 Why? Because society is so individualistic.
"It takes a village to raise a kid"
This isn't just some saying. It's the truth.
Having only one parent would be irrelevant if every other adult in the vicinity took part in raising the child.
@@donniemarks94 And I promise you, being raised by OP's single dad is better than being raised by Walsh and his wife.
You win on the eye brows. We just had a lesbian couple refused by a jeweler to design their wedding rings. Within a hour our pagan comunity not only filed against the jeweler but also refered the lovely couple to a pagan jeweler.
Whenever I hear Pagan I think of vikings
Funny how non-christians are always better at embodying Christian ideals then actual Christians
Do they also refuse divorced people?
I have yet to see a verse in which same sex is called sinful by Jesus. And if you want to call towards the old testament I remind you that so is kosher eating and the Sabbath
@@johnsatan117 that is seriously awesome. Pagans waving big axes covered in a law suit :)
@@sherlockwho5714 There's one passage in which Jesus may talk about homosexual people, in Matthew 5:22 he use the word "raca" which was not interpreted until the 1920s, when an homosexual historian suggested it would mean "soft" or "weak", in a sexual sense. And as the verse is "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council", logically, the verse means "don't insult homosexuals".
But realistically, christians don't care. Even if we forget Paul's letters, who have three mentions of homosexuality as a sin, there's a lot of things that have not been preached by Jesus but are very important in christianity like the Trinity.
But on a lighter note, things that had been extremely important in christianity, like doing the mess in latin, had been abolished fifty years ago, so things change, and maybe the major churches will accept homosexuality one day (some minor churches already did).
As someone who lived through the height of the AIDS epidemic, I can tell you one obvious legal benefit for same sex marriage. I had several friends in tragic situations in which one of the couple was dying of AIDS, and their partner was not allowed to visit them by the hospital because they were not "next of kin." In one case, the family of the ill person was homophobic and guilty and were keeping them on life support which the ill person had not wanted that, but the partner had no say. It was utterly tragic. One couple I know took the right of having one ADOPT the other so that there would be a legal relationship in case it was needed. I am straight, but I actually think these types of situations are part of the impetus for the push for same sex marriage. As someone who feared marriage myself (due to a messy upbringing), when I decided to marry, I learned about a whole host of other reasons besides child bearing (I do not have kids). One of those is saying to society at large: This is my beloved person, and I want you all to know that I really mean it and to treat them as such. To me it seems obvious that society should value the glue of stable love-and-economic relationships, whether gay or straight.
I personally love Shappiro's motto of "Facts don't care about your feelings" because his arguments are always rooted in feelings so you can just throw his motto right back at him. Hell you can throw it at pretty much anyone who un-ironically uses it because that's all they have is their feelings. They exist in a fact free zone.
These kinds of people seem to confuse "This line of thinking and/or so-called 'evidence' makes sense to _me"_ for "This line of thinking and/or so-called evidence is obvious _fact"_ In a way, it's arrogance, thinking that what works for them and their "line of evidence" sort of stuff that they claim, must be objectively true and other people are just not "getting it". The idea that whatever their ideas or thinking they have might just be (gasp) WRONG or FAULTY seems to not at all occur to them, or they are in denial because if the accept that something so important to them might be wrong or not absolute, their personal world's fall apart.
That's the sense I've gotten from listening to a lot of the various camps of ridiculous people out there, they literally do NOT get the difference between objective facts and subjective interpretations and viewpoints.
Not that they couldn't just be lying or grifting or using the ideology, but just thought I should share that angle of it.
You know when they start using that line or the "fAcTs aNd lOgIC" line that they won't have any factual nor logical argument. Only fallacies and made up statistics that can be debunked pretty easily. And tbh homophobia is deeply rooted in emotions since why do we have this conversation in the first place it they weren't somehow triggered by the existence of gay people.
@@balanc-joy9187 Could it be maybe an inherit cognitive flaw that leads to this line of thinking? Especially since we know that conservative have their biggest strongholds in states that belong to the white hilbilly culture, which is known for upholding parent-child and cousin inbreeding as a cultural tradition?
And you think being gay is normal, yet they are the ones without facts? Imbeciles.
For the record, I made wedding cakes for gay couples before we even had civil/domestic partnerships (let alone gay weddings) in the US, so suck it, Matt and Ben.
Do you think they have a problem with the reverse? Do they mind if a queer person makes the cake for a straight wedding? Because my husband has done that. Twice. Everyone loved those custom-made gay cakes.
Lol
Pretty sure Matt and Ben don’t care.
@@hsmd4533
Pretty sure they do since whining about stuff against their Faiths is a majority of how they make their income lol.
I love how they're glossing over the fact that the bill covers more than just gay marriage. They're just focusing on that. They're also engaging (as usual) in bad faith arguments saying "why would you do this if it's already what is going on?" Well, Roe v Wade is why. They know, they are ignoring it because they want gay marriage removed. Making codifying it makes it harder to remove. And that's the point, it is recognising rights that were previously only acknowledged via supreme court rulings.
The right does EVERYTHING in bad faith. I grow tired in the false equivalency of all ideas being equal. They are not. Us on the left need to take a more bold angry stance and go on the offensive against said bad ideas.
Another thing Ben completely glossed over, you can have kids or a family without being married. The only reason he equated marriage with kids is because... Religion says you can't bear kids without being married and should have a family. Which is another reason why his "it's not a religious thing!" argument so much more stupid, lol.
Also they keep talking about society and LGBTQ people like they're separate things. Gay people ARE part of society. A large portion of society, in fact. We work, make families, give back to society, pay taxes etc. So if we wanna argue that, then he should be in favor of it. But we all know it comes down to religion and bigotry.
The bill specifically codifies interracial marriage as well, which was illegal in some US states into the 1960s. This was defended by use of the Bible as well. Because similar arguments apply, overturning one in the Supreme Court could allow both prohibitions to return.
@@highlorddarkstar It's hilarious that Mitch McConnell voted against it, even though he has an Asian wife.
Walsh thinks marriage is for children in a different way Shapiro does.
At 16:30, When Matt said "there is no prior civilization with same-sex marriage" I literally just cried out, "CITATION NEEDED!" So I guess I'm obligated to get one of your shirts at this point haha
@Shy Brotha Speaks True. But it’s still hella funny to see it from the so called “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd
HOWEVER there was plenty of polygamy in 'The Book'. I'm looking at you; Old Testament Jacob. Ffs.
More eloquent than me. I just yelled out, "BULLSHIT!" Then I heard my 6yo say, "Big Daddy, Little Daddy said a bad word!"
I'm sorry, sweetie.
@@austinluther5825 10 to 1 you said the same thing when Ben claimed there was no poly relationship with one woman and multiple men.
@@denverarnold6210 I think by that point I was just saying, "Nope."
Have to watch my language. I don't want to get in trouble again.
One of the best weddings I ever attended was between two people in their eighties. Procreation was a moot point, but they were a lovely couple because they made each other so happy.
I'm so glad you immediately rebuffed the idea there were no same sex unions in history. The other part that gets me is there is also massive historic and recent precedent for people who don't want to or can't procreate getting married. I honestly hate the "marriage is about procreation" ok, so I can't get married cuz I wont be having kids?
It might make sense if we had a Sci-Fi dystopian marriage competition, where tyrannical sci-fi government only issues a limited number of marriage licenses.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 I would read that book
But you see, time and time again these peeps prove that for them history doesn't exist and that all the stuff they preach against just popped up out of nowhere only recently. Reality is history is an inconvenient truth that destroys their narrative, so it's best for them to not talk about it.
If marriage were purely about procreation, does that mean a woman who cannot get pregnant cannot marry? Of course that's not what they mean. Anyone who uses that argument is doing so not because they believe what they're saying, but because it serves the purpose of trying to convince you. In essence, just "means to an end," and there's something wholly vile and abhorrent in this because it implies being disingenuous in their motives. So then you ask, what might their true motives be? And the answer to that question, I'm afraid is likely so ugly that it would be indecent to publicly voice what those motives might be. Give these people no quarter, no leeway. The heart of their motivations is always bigotry and hatred, make no mistake.
Another fun fact that neither Shapiro nor Walsh will admit: It is entirely possible to have kids without ever getting married.
everyone who is against gay marriage i’ve ever met is either (a) an actively practicing religious person or (b) not practicing raised in a religious household to the point that it still influences their thoughts and behaviors even if they don’t realize it
i really appreciate you covering this kind of content. i found your take on things very educational.
I was going just going to say
One Topic, but then I saw what your actually comment was and wanted to say.
“Hey you your finally awake it appears we are trapped on the same boat”.
In other words I wanted to say that you are not the only one who feel that way.
I also did this because I despise when people just comment on TH-camrs comments without having anything to say, and default to saying. “notice me senpai” or “omg it’s [Unnamed TH-camr] hi I didn’t expect to see you here.”
every time I see comments like it makes me just feel like people are being bothersome, making TH-camrs less encouraged to engage in actual conversation with people in the comment section. So I hope this is at least slightly better.
Also also I like watching your videos cause I like seeing couples, especially queer couples. and there are few places here on TH-cam with as much and many wholesome queer couples as your channel. And thanks to that, I have learned so many things about my self, thanks to your content and for that I’m eternally grateful.
Nows hoping you actually see this, I kinda just started rambling on and on sorry about that 😅
One topic!!! Hello!!!
Oh hey, OT!
Hey OT!! :D
yoo its you
Worst part is, if you asked them if someone that’s physically unable to have kids should be allowed to be married to their loved one and also benefit from the financial and legal supports/securities, they’d say of course. They just don’t wanna admit that they hate gay people and view them as less valid
I actually am not too sure they’d support it, tbh. Some of these culty types really do think a woman’s only purpose is being an incubator
It is that a man-woman marriage is of the nature to produce offspring. There are numerous reasons that either could be unable or unwilling to do so (age, illness, desire, injury, etc.) but their nature remains. That is what I get from what they're saying. I am pro-SSM, I just see these guys' point about what relationships the government has an interest in incentivizing. Doesn't mean I don't think we should expand the definition; that's democracy.
@C Ram that's just epicycles upon ridiculous epicycles though
The benefit is for the kids being produced. If you adopt, there can be a different category of benefit. If you can't/don't have kids, you can't/don't get that benefit.
@@cram6916the thing is there’s numerous legal protections that come from marriage. For instance you can’t kick someone’s married spouse out of the hospital without very clear cause (ie they’re actively attempting harm to other people) if they’re dying. If you’re not married there’s no such protections.
Also, having and living with a partner acts as a sort of social safety net. It’s far harder to become homeless as a married couple than an individual. People are more likely to act responsibly because they have someone else they care about and, the truth is, for a lot of people it’s easier to be responsible because you want the best life for a partner than for yourself. If one partner becomes jobless it’s far easier to stay afloat if you have another person to help support. If you’re alone losing your job for whatever reason is life or death for most people. If you break your leg and can’t work for a month, or get let go during a downturn, or whatever, you might just be fucked. If you’re married and your partner works, it might be difficult, but you can still probably make it through alright. Your life will get harder, but you won’t be completely screwed, and that’ll probably make it easier to get back to work. There’s numerous other benefits the government has an interest in protecting because they act sort of like a social safety net for married couples other than just procreation, and thus marriage even without children is still beneficial to the government if you want to view it purely as a give and take contract with the government.
Personally I think marriage is a right that should be protected even with no benefits for the government because family gets significant legal and social rights and it is basically the only way to choose family- all other familial relationships you are born into or adopted into when you’re a child.
Also, there’s specific benefits (mainly tax benefits) for people who have kids. I think this indicates the government doesn’t view the benefits of marriage as a trade for having kids- there’s separate benefits to encourage that already.
Ultimately the point makes sense on the surface but I think it fall apart on closer inspection and I don’t really think it’s defendable that marriage is a contract with the government and the terms are “try to have kids and you get some legal protections”, I think it’s fundamentally a legal right to choose a familial relationship, and past that maybe a contract to help support and assist this other person through difficult times in exchange for legal protections. I don’t think the expectation of kids really has any place nor should it in the implied terms of marriage as a legal contract, and purely as an incentive for the government to do it for their benefit I think the social safety benefits are, broadly speaking, large enough that it’s completely justifiable on those alone
"There's no sentient life on Mars."
The conversation between Walsh and Shapiro makes me believe there's no sentient life here either.
That’s funny
@@vidareklofvonrosen2442 thanks I came up with it myself.
Pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there’s bugger all down here on earth
👏 👏 👏
I had an ex that really disliked gay marriage and was not religious. I never got around to really figuring out why that was, but I imagine if pressed he would not be able to come up with a reason why that makes much sense. He was way into these "facts don't care about your feelings" podcasters too, but I always felt like the stuff he didn't like was more based on emotion than logic. Still can't believe I got involved with that guy.
Good you got out before he got abusive delusions
Nearly all (dis-)likes are based on emotions; it gets scary when the emotions are producing restrictive rules for others.
No, marriage today is VERY different from how it used to be. Marriage used to be primarily a contract between two families. A father would offer his daughter up for marriage to the son of a business client as a way to permanently bind their families and thus business interests together.
The concept of a love matches is relatively new historically speaking. If they really want to go back to the old version of marriage then no one gets a say who they marry because their parents will make all the arrangements for them.
Somehow I think that's going to be a tough sell for most people.
Sure, if you only look at societies near the UK. Plenty of other societies (and frankly, that marriage definition was only true of some income brackets) had love marriages
@@jendubay3782I’ve heard the opposite. That love marriage is more of western idea that’s spread to other cultures.
Anyways, and I am not a historian so take this with a grain of salt, I think love marriage originated in islamic world during the middle ages before spreading to Europe after the crusades.
Another viewpoint is that a marriage is between three. Husband, wife, and the sanctimony of God.
@@ianalan4367 another view point is that marriage is a "worldly thing" as Martin Luther said.
And while we're at it - "it's good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Cor 7,1)
@@jendubay3782 since Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are both American (or at least come from western cultures) I doubt they would care about other cultures.
Also, in Asia arranged marriages are a very common thing, not sure if love marriages were a thing in ancient times, im not going to pretend I know much about other Asian cultures but one thing I do know is that here in India from what I've heard about our mythology arranged marriages were a thing back then, and from what little ive heard about other cultures arranged marriages seem to have been a thing for a while now. I'm also not going to pretend that I know about cultures in other continents, but it's clear that the UK and regions around it weren't the only ones with arranged marriages
No matter how many times I hear Ben Shapiro speak, it always takes me a few minutes to realize that the footage isn't being sped up.
some of his listeners might start actually analyzing what he is saying and thinking if he slows down
@@nikk6435 but that would be detrimental to his cause, as every talking point he has ever made is bullsh*t! He has to keep up the ridiculously fast and jarring speech pattern, or he may end up showing his complete incompetence!
@@ChewedBubbleGun yes that's what I meant, they have no time to process his bs :D sometimes it's not even coherent sentences
Ahh yes, Matt “consent is too complicated for me to understand” Walsh.
So he’s a rapist?
@@donniemarks94 He either is one, or wants to be one and recognizes it's illegal, but just wants it to be legal.
"Why would they pass a law when the supreme court has already ruled to allow gay marriage?"
-He says, not 1 year after Roe v Wade is overruled
Even if we grant the argument that trad family unit is the ideal best (which Emma pointed out is just plain wrong), it doesn’t follow that we must *ban* others or refuse to recognise them as positive or useful. If we decided the colour red was objectively the best colour, would Ben & Matt want to get rid of all other colours? Such tools…
It's not like people are suddenly going to become straight. It just means children will be raised in a family without the of protections of marriage. Labeling themselves pro-family is delusional.
I love how I paused, spent a minute deciding on whose eyebrows were the best, then unpaused and Emma said what I had just concluded.
Ben Shapiro looks like he tried to get the "Leonard Niimoy" look on his eyebrows so he could have a visual way of expressing that, like the fictional Mr. Spock, he's "logical and fact-based." I say "tried," because he looks more like a short Romulan with a yarmulke.
Marriage in the US is NOT about family, its about taxes, insurance and right of inheritance. My marriage is affected in no way shape or form by any other marriage, including a same sex marriage.
I wish these people would drop all their tongue wagging, and just come out and say "gay people squick me out" and be done with it. All the fake reasons and religious nonsense is such a transparent cover for their own uncomfortable feelings. Ben and Matt are exhausting.
Or just except their religious reasons and move on. They don't have to do what any of you think they should.
@@bkkersey93 I don’t need to accept their religious reasons. I am not religious, therefore I don’t give a shit about how important their religion is to them when they’re getting in the way of my life.
Men are hot and if god wanted me to be straight he would’ve made me straight… unless…? *gasp*
I am a cultural anthropologist and marriage and kinship was my favorite class to teach, although it was not my specialty. Comparatively speaking, marriage is a political, social, and economic arrangement between families. It's with Victoria (that lady) that the romantic love issue came in. The good thing for people like me, is that the romantic love aspect opened a way in Western society for same gender marriage, based on that Victorian ideal of love. To understand marriage and family in a society/culture, one needs to understand the economic system and how individual families fit into that. Serial monogamy coupled with neolocal residence fits in capitalism and late capitalism. Doesn't work in small holding agrarian mountain society like in Tibet. Ask me more, I love this stuff.
Much more than Victoria I would have guessed that Dickens had a profound effect on elevating the link between matrimony and romantic love (Victoria certainly contributed a strong role model of female agency and competence within a traditional marriage that also included unprecedented amounts of PDA). I'm not a historian of any sort, but the bits and pieces I've picked up over the years are certainly fascinating, like the idea that "love story" used to mean almost exclusively adulterous attraction like Tristan and Iseult.
One interesting thing to me about how twentieth century capitalist countries like the United States dealt with the rapidly increasing economic independence of women is how swiftly, successfully, and invisibly wages and prices adapted to divert almost all the resulting net increase of economically productive labour into corporate profits - women, on the whole, ended up doing twice as much work while household prosperity stagnated.
Thanks for reminding me that Love and Marriage is a fairly recent development and that political, social and economics dictated marriage for much longer - as in Tradition, that much-loved term.
Oh so much this^^^^!!! Just gotta say, I would have LOVED to take your class.
The fact that marriage has its roots in societal and political contracts implies that the marital union was indeed reliant upon children.
@@hsmd4533 Marriage doesn't just have its roots there. Marriage is, today, a social and legal contract (occasionally but not usually a political contract as well). Marriage isn't reliant upon children, though, and never has been - we know this because relatively few marriages throughout history have been annulled for lack of resulting progeny. It's not unheard of (Henry VIII comes to mind), but it's never been common.
It's so funny that Matt and Ben argue for laws that "benefit society" but also rage against laws that require individuals to do certain things that benefit society like vaccines and mask mandates. Also their argument works to support the opposition. Same sex marriage may not "benefit" society in their minds, but it also doesn't hurt it either. As you've pointed out, they aren't concerned for the health, well being or happiness of non hetero couples, but in their minds preventing them from marriage somehow prevents them from coupling or existing.
When Shapiro talked about Satanism, which is a cultural movement that uses the image of the Devil challenge religiously biased laws, he argued that the Devil in Paradise Lost "put his autonomy and freedom over the greater good" but realized quickly that he would agree with the Devil, so he had to backtrack.
I'm a sis (sissy) male & I have a problem with gay marriage.
Over the decades I have had many gay couples as friends. My issue with gay marriage is that their marriages, on the whole, have worked out better than mine. I have thought about this a lot and now chalk this up to who defines your relationship. The norms of our society (🇺🇸) strictly define roles of the male/female marriage through archetypes. I have to be the strong silent type (even though I'm a sissy) and "my woman" has to make me a sandwich & squeeze out the pups. I was with a strong and brilliant woman for 8 years before we got married. It was the most fulfilling relationship I have ever had the honor to participate in.
Then we got married and all kinds of shit hit the fan. My wife completely changed w/in a month. We ended up in couples therapy and I remember crying & begging for a divorce so I could get back the woman I deeply loved. I had no clue what had happened to us. In hindsight (and lots of therapy) I concluded I was in a three way relationship: me, Cathy, and the marriage roles archetype of marriage. Problem was, I'm hopelessly monogamous. I loved her & the life we built. I loved the relationship we built & shared. Marriage brought baggage that wasn't me & drove my wife (who was a preacher's kid) to hold us up to a standard that wasn't us.
All of my married gay friends didn't have to deal with the shit I had to. They were entering into a non standard relationship where they had to work out & define their roles (like I had done very successfully with Cathy prior to the death rings we exchanged. Gay marriage is different because they have a lifetime of working it out & defining what their relationship is, screw the standard roles.
So yeah, I have a problem with gay marriage. They can have each other, one on one. Not a forced code that can wreck a beautiful relationship.
My problem is that deep down, I'm jealous
*cis, not sis. Bad spelling ruins your karma
I don't see how someone else marrying ANYONE affects anyone else. Ymmv
You are probably the same kind of person also who thinks young adults still using bounce houses is okay too
@@brownbrownbrown2938'm not the original commenter but I think as long as an adult doesn't surpass the weight limit then there's no harm in them using a bouncy castle
Whether or not they're "too old" for it doesn't matter. I personally wouldn't find it fun, but the most important thing is whether or not they're causing harm
@@brownbrownbrown2938 you got a problem with bounce houses?
@@gwit4051what even is that?
@@Manimmut those inflatable things that people get for kids parties
You hit the nail on the head about Matt Walsh asking questions then ignoring the answer and acting like that means he's won. I don't think I've heard a single time he's 'defeated' an opponent that wasn't made of straw.
It's literally his whole MO lol.
Walsh: "So tell me, what *is* a woman?"
Interview Subject: *Gives an appropriately complex, well-reasoned answer to the question*
Walsh: "Hmm, so you don't know?"
I’m new here, but I really like how you not only argue against their ridiculous claims, but also back up your own claims with real statistics and evidence! It really goes to show how people like Ben and Matt can be easily debunked by a simple google search.
Ben Shapiro needs to learn reeeeeaaal quick that if people like Matt Walsh get everything they want, he’ll be in the camps too.
That's not even just the tea that's the whole bottle of goddam vodka
@Excuse me but Yes, every one of them. They just get to be after the rest.
He yearns for the camps...
It makes me so angry when people assert that 'all societies in history have been homophobic' because A) demonstrably wrong and B) we do not know everything or really _anything_ about most societies in history! So it's just disingenuous to say that there's no way that any society has been accepting of queer people!
There was a man named Hyacinthus...
The Ancient Greeks literally practiced homosexuality
No need to use the history argument (valid) or the natural history argument (also valid); we can decide for ourselves what feels humane.
Watching even some seconds of Matt Walsh is really bad for my blood pressure.
Practice tolerance.
@@hsmd4533 practice leaving people alone in the comments
@@hsmd4533 One should not tolerate the intolerant.
@@hsmd4533 i assume you support matt walsh/ben shabebo, who are people who want to make being gay/trans and just queer in general illegal, maybe think before you type stuff out next time because last i checked making being something (like being queer, for example) illegal just for existing isn't very tolerant
*It begins to safely rain cute cats to help with that.*
Those two dudes are freaking batshit crazy. Always putting down those who don't live in a Republican Christian world. Thanks for posting Emma!
Ideologies that try to brute force one belief system on a population that comprises infinitely diverse belief systems and approaches to life is fundamentally incompatible with the culture and motto of this country, this being the country of freedom and melting pot of the world (as much as they wish it wasn't). Their rage at the general American population and their loss of the culture war is a reflection of their ideology's essential incompatibility with reality, but they do not channel that rage into change, only stubborn thrashing at those they lost to
Raised by single mother here. Father walked out, mother didn't care. Monogamy can eat my really bad thing.
Been single my whole life. Had 2 relationships, both without marriage being a thing. Wanted a child, never had one, couldn't physically reproduce.
I still support anyone who would choose to marry anyone else with their consent, and to have a child via whatever method they use. Other people and their choices in life is all about them and nothing to do with anyone else.
The Wedding cake thing is a legal precedent.
A same sex couple asked some cake makers to make a cake, without disclosing it was for a same sex marriage. When the cake makers found out it was for SSM, they backed out making it. The couple took the back out by the bakers to court (there was no precedent, but it did seem like discriminatory behaviour). Court, I think said, no, you can't force people to make you a cake.
But that really just means, people have to ask now if people will provide services without discriminating. Or service providers (eg. cake makers, tailors etc) have to advertise their stances. And honestly, turning people away over religious purposes loses people customers. Secular people, people of that religion who don't like their religion being used as a smoke screen for discrimination etc. Ben and Matt also don't like that "cancel culture" either. But it's always just people not wanting to financially support people who hurt others.
Oh, as for ancient homosexuality, Julius Caesar was extremely bisexual. A real original "ladies man and a man's man *eyebrow waggle*". Alexander the Great was very close to his friend Hephaestion, including them visiting the tomb of Achilles and Patroculus and weeping. Achilles and Patroculus were definitely not "cousins".
No, the courts said the opposite. The courts said that it violated the law for the bakery to sell wedding cakes to different sex couples but refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples. So, that bakery no longer sells any wedding cakes because the owner didn’t want to stop being discriminatory against same-sex couples.
That same baker got taken to court again for similar discriminatory action-this time for discrimination against a transgender person. That baker lost in court again.
Public accommodations is a pretty straight forward legal precedent and concept. It’s illegal for a business, that’s open to the public, to refuse service based on a customer’s legally protected characteristic: sex, gender, race, nation of origin, etc. A baker could refuse to make a cake because the baker objects to the content, e.g. a written message containing hate speech; that refusal has nothing to do with the customer or customer’s protected characteristics. However, that baker had no objection to the wedding cake; he objected to the customers’ protected characteristic. That’s illegal.
Disheartening that in this day and age we still have to defend our rights to be treated as human beings from demagogues like these.
i politely didnt speak up during my relatives recent "defend marriage" BS at the recent holiday. and i hate it. the only people attacking marriage are the people like matt and ben here. we want more people married and they want to prevent that, they are the ones attacking anything
It requires a mans sperm and a womans egg to produce a child. This dynamic is what brought humanity to where it is today. If same sex marriages were more widespread in the past, we'd still be living in medieval times at best.
Gay men hire surrogate mothers, lesbians get sperm from donors. So we still rely on mens and womens reproductive means to have children. That makes gay marriage pointless.
@@noobboon2579 that also makes every single marriage that isn't between a couple currently raising a child pointless, so under your model if you have reproductive issues, you couldn't get married, once your kids grow up you must get divorced, fun one here - if your children die in an accident, you must now get divorced as you no longer have a family to raise, you have to immediately get pregnant once married; no lazing around being young. your idea that marriage can only be between fertile hetero couples is just a snit model and you can go sit in the corner for being a bigot.
and tell me how allowing the people that weren't reproducing to have legal unions would have prevented births?
I stopped going to family functions for a similar reason. My family were, until the last decade the "buffet" christians. Picking and choosing what they believed in based on how they felt about it.
Now they're getting more and more hard line and it gets tiring, pushing back against a room full of ignorant red necks that should know better than to start spouting off anti-LGBTQ points. After the third time my wife and I left because we're both bi, one of our best friends is gay, and the other I'd asexual, and telling them I wasn't going to sit and listen to that shit did nothing to dissuade them, I just stopped going.
Turns out, holidays are much less stressful when you disown your family...
Benji referring to anyone else as cynical is comedy gold. Keep the hits coming, you literal monster!
My husband and I got married because we liked (and loved) each other. We found the person with whom we wanted to do life with for the rest of our lives. I'd consider him my best friend. We want children but if we aren't able to does that make our marriage irrelevant? Nope. This rhetoric is so gross and I hate it.
They open with saying that same-sex marriage is already codified, so why bother with the law, then immediately say the law is bad because it codifies same-sex marriage. It's almost impressive
learning that same sex marriage existed in other cultures in many places and times made me so happy!!! because of my religious upbringing it took me to the age of 25 to accept my bisexuality and because of internalised homophobia i just assumed that it was only very recently that same sex marriage was accepted anywhere. I'm fonna go look all that stuff up, once i've finished this video of course. Thankyou Emma for making my day!! 😃
If anything this idea that marriage is solely between one man and one woman is relatively recent historically. And of course we don't know much about how prehistoric societies practiced marriage but I'd wager it was even less defined with lots of different types potential of unions being trialled throughout our human existence - same-sex, various forms of polygamy/polyamory, 'temporary' marriages and even no marriage at all.
Congratulations on accepting who you are! It took me until I was 30... despite the fact that I has experimented with same sex attraction, I figured that since I preferred women, I was just not quite straight, but straight enough to get by.
Then I found a love that accepts me for me... friends that are family, and the various points of the spectrum of attraction and suddenly, it made sense, and felt normal. I still have scars from that time as I'm sure you do, but accepting ourselves is just as important as accepting other people for who they are.
If the world could be like you, Ben and Matt would be laughed at as they should for their decrepit viewpoints.
Ancient Greece is proud of you.
Not only does Matt think Ben is going to hell, he thinks it is the best thing since velcro.
I clicked on this, after misreading the title. I thought it said, ''Shapiro and Walsh in a gay marriage'', and thought, yeah that checks out.
You didn’t catch their worst point early on: “why does congress have to pass a law when the Supreme Court has ruled on this?”. Ladies and gentlemen I refer you to roe v wade which, if it was legislatively protected, would have remained law in the USA. Frankly the fact congress hasn’t done this already astounds me, and same goes for a lot of other laws and rulings.
"it was legislatively protected, would have remained law in the USA."
I doubt it. The court probably would have just said the law was unconstituional. The Constituion is the highest law in the land, the court ignored that, they can ignore Congress.
@@EBDavis111 incorrect, by their method of interpretation the law would be entirely valid. The current legal framework is based on the historicity of a particular policy. In the United States the majority of states support abortion/gay marriage and have passed laws protecting the practices. In the case of roe v wade the only thing that was holding things up federally was an objectively poorly made legal argument that was incredibly arbitrary for the time. Passing a law which is broadly supported and has legal precedent both federally and states wise would almost certainly be solidly enforceable.
@@camelloy Their "interpretation of the law" is just whatever they want it to be. They're utterly corrupt autocrat tyrants.
@@EBDavis111 if that’s your actual take then I don’t really know what to say besides when are you rioting cause if that’s truly the case thats what you ought to do in order to reverse the course of the system which is unjustly oppressing both you and everyone else in the nation. I would never make that claim cause I’ve not lost the plot but gg I guess
@@camelloy You're brown-nosing serial rapists.
You've absolutely lost the plot.
"The Supreme Court has already determined that same-sex marriage is the law of the land.."
Interesting point Ben, because I seem to recall another matter the Supreme Court had already determined was the law of the land. In fact, at least one, but I'm pretty sure two of those recently appointed conservative Supreme Court justices said in their Senate hearings that it was the law of the land. And would you look at that? As soon as they had a chance they overturned it. Curious.
I was against gay marriage when i was like 17 or 18 (currently 29). Not really religious at that time (i was spiritual)
Because i was studying psychology and my sources were old as f*ck...
I though they were mentally ill, and it was stupid for them to ask such a thing, "destroying traditions" and all of that.
It wasn't untill i got more informed and actually met some gay people that i realized i was wrong. It took a lot of time, it wans't a single argument or anything.
Ah yes, the respect you should treat someone with as a fellow human being should be entirely contingent on their "usefulness" to society. Wonderful take, Matt Walsh.
Yep
sounds awfully... collectivist. mao or stalin could definitely get behind such a sentiment. well they don't call em RED states for nothin
Art is not useful, religion is not useful.
That is how the mind of a "s⁰ci0path" works. Matt needs help.
I've known many same-sex couples whom I'd rather have had as my parents than the man and woman I ended up with.
I liked that you fact checked Shapiro pulling polyandry facts out his ass. I was aware of the polyandrous marriages in the himalayas, Tibet/Nepal. Thanks for the research.
(Also, happy for you and your mum 😊)
All Shapiro does is pull "facts" out of his ass
Hey, we are talking about "Let's say" Ben Shapiro, who probably knows, if he had to fact check and cannot make things up with "let's say", he would not be adored by some people.
Thankfully, my mom raised me to be accepting of others. So, even when I was religious (two decades ago) I still advocated for and supported marriage equality.
I had the privilege of attending a religious ceremony officiating the marriage of two men back in the 90's. Not legally binding at the time, but the exact same ceremony with most of the meeting participating as witnesses. Religions don't have to be homophobic.
My folks taught me nothing about queerness and were religious but the “let people be as long as they harm no one” mentality stuck with me so I can confirm religion, at least my folks flavor of Christian, doesn’t need to be bigoted.
I grew up in a Universalist sect of Hinduism. Though my mother remains slightly uneasy about same sex couples, she always taught me to be open minded and accepting. Since you know, karma and all that lol
@@joelpartee594 Not sure about other countries, but here in Germany, (catholic) pastors bless every kind of things, be it bikers, new roads, new buildings, whatever. But some of them up to today refuse to bless gay couples...
@@joelpartee594 they must not have been believing catholics then. If they were, they wouldnt bless or hold/host same sex marriages. They'd condone what their faith says to not condone.
No wonder people leave their faith when their churches betray them.
people who act like all children need 2 parents has always been insulting to me, but after my mom recently died its hit worse. these people suck.
oh yeah not to mention this also insults:
-infertile women
-single parents
-one parent being abusive and having to escape them
-a parent dies
-children who are in foster care or have to be adopted
and a lot more
marriage isnt about procreating anyway. its about love.
9:45 I agree with your eyebrow ranking, but ben does a better job advertising them. The way he leans forward to always look out from underneath them, it draws your atention and in a "why are you doing that" sort of way. It's hypnotic in its perplexity
My theory is that he's trying to display his kippah.
When somebody insists that marriage is only for procreation what they are asking for is a fertility check before an opposite sex couple IS ALLOWED TO marry. Women above a certain age would be automatically denied that request. If one partner becomes infertile before the couple has children the marriage would have to be dissolved so the fertile partner can find another fertile partner.
It is strange that nobody is actually asking for this model since this is the logical conclusion of what they are asking for.
Plus all the guys shooting blanks would have to become incels.
yeah... i mean they do already shame women for miscarriages (and of course abortion that goes without saying but yeah) involuntary miscarriages are often still considered the mothers fault among religious families its really awful and i hate it. same with children with developmental disabilities. they literally view it as a punishment for sin of the parents (usually the mother only) and/or the child as a demon.
@@williamchamberlain2263 The fertility check would need to apply to both partners. And they could still couple up with an infertile woman, just not getting married.
@@joachimschoder no sex outside marriage though - gotta maintain those traditional family values
@@williamchamberlain2263 Good point. So yeah, incels then.
Any thought I had that Ben Shapiro was honestly voicing his own deeply held beliefs went out the window when started ranting against vaccine mandates. Several years ago he produced the only content I have ever agreed with calling out anti-vax parents, explaining their rights did not entitle them to endanger other people's children. His deeply held beliefs obviosly exist only as far as he can get paid for them.
Whenever I hear "Well it says in the Bible..." my respect for that person takes a hit!
Unless they point out a flaw
@douglasjackoviak1815 any god book is full of flaws!
@@jeffknott1975Same, or if they start pointing out sketchy theories like Alex Jones.
Emma you are a breath of fresh air. Somebody with an excellent vocab. Even handed. Decent sense of humor. I am impressed.
I am 49 almost 50 I was raised by my mom and I have 4 sons 2 of which I raised on my on the oldest is a single father of 3 and is almost 30 the younger is almost 21 and I am very proud to say is gay and I love all 4 equally the second oldest is also a single father of 1 son and is bisexual and the middle son is a happly married father of 2 and I am proud to say I didn't teach them what to think but how to think for themselves
Ah yes, Biblical marriage where one man his wife, his other wife, his other wife, his concubines, and his sex slaves all live happily ever after.
Back when i was in high school me and my mom talked about gay marriage once and said something like "im fine with them getting a civil union" and i asked her what it was she explained and i just said "so its marriage without calling it marriage" and she said that she never thought of it that way
Ah, the only thing more embarrassing than hearing Ben Shapiro talk about religion : hearing him talk about biology. 😁
It might be embarrassing for you but he’s correct about biology.
He ignores the fact that single or lesbian women can get pregnant, so... no.
Roe V Wade was ALSO "settled law" so.....
This is a *very* important point. Justice Clarence Thomas has said he wants to revisit and undo previous rulings. That’s why the bill was introduced in Congress.
I don’t blame Emma for not knowing about US politics of course. No shade for her not mentioning it.
@@mjjoe76 My "also" comment wasn't at Emma it was at the disingenuous arsehat brigade in the video asking but "why do we even need this law because it's already settled law". That is EXACTLY why we need it!
Imagine being stuck for eternity in heaven with those a-holes.
Heaven for the atmosphere, hell for the company, as they say.
I don’t think that’s where they are going…
30:14 "society has no interest in who you pair up with and have sex with" WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT THEN?!?!?
I grew up without knowing my father and I always preferred this situation to that of some friends with a horrible father. Later I became a single dad and my son and daughter turned both out great. (Emma reminds me a bit of my daughter btw😎)
*rolls up sleeves* Okey-dokey, Ben and Matt: Allow me to give you my firsthand story about the benefits of no-fault divorce. In 1973, my uncle and his wife grew apart, but their divorce was a courtroom $#!+show, with family members being begged to lie about each party on the witness stand, to the detriment of their kids. A few years later, my no-fault divorce consisted of “irreconcilable differences, with $$/week in child support and visitation as convenient to both parties.” And the ex and I were great co-parents, with no trauma to our child (who freely tells people the same). The End.
When New York legalized no fault divorce I volunteered for a pro bono program to help speed the flood of cases through the courts. Some couples have been waiting decades. I've never had so many joyful clients and never been hugged by my clients before. And I do asylum law!
My parents managed to achieve a de facto amicable divorce in California in 1971, but they essentially had to conspire against the judge and their own lawyers, inventing "grounds" and "custody arrangements" and "child support" between themselves and figuring out how to satisfy the legal requirements. They were and are remarkable people who never wavered in wanting the best for their kids, but they had to trust each other completely and fool the authorities like they were Ocean's Eleven, and it's no surprise that my story is very much the exception.
It kind of boggles my mind they have the mental fortitude to get their own pants on in the morning without injuring themselves.
😂😂
Well we only see their top halves, so who knows?
There are a million great arguments against gay marriage that aren't based on religion.
Such as:
Oh
as a questioning Christian....
yup
"the Supreme Court already settled this"
yeah, they also settled Roe too
THIS. Yup the Supreme Court makes a choice until they decide to change it. The Equality Act prevents the court from deciding tomorrow or next week or next month or whenever to change their mind. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws they uphold and determine if laws agree with the the Constitution. These morons prove once more they don't understand shit (morons in question being Mulch and Shapepo. lol)
Odd how when it's something they aren't currently arguing against, the Supreme Court settling an issue and upholding it for 40 years isn't good enough, but shift the argument just one step, and voila, the Supreme Court decisions settle matters, isn't it?
Good job Editing Emma! The MOMENT Ben said that about there was NEVER any evidence of polyandrous marriage, I knew that was false. I watched a show years ago now (so I unfortunately don't remember the exact location and names of the people) about literally a polyandrous society. It's a community that lives on farming and the land is passed down through the woman's side. She takes on multiple husbands who share the cultivation of the land as well as paternity of her children.
I wish I could remember the details. And I don't have time at the moment to research them again. But yeah, glad Editing Emma hopped in here. Thank you.
I bet there were polycules too
I learned about polyandry in a western civ class. But I doubt Ben has even that basic level of education.
Edit: Child of a single parent here and she gave me and my brother everything she could. I'll always miss her.
Also, polygamous people DO exist in our society. I've spoken with a few.
I have a relative who was a Mormon. She became a polygamous FLDS "sister wife." She abandoned polygamy and briefly became a Seventh Day Adventist. Now, she is married to a Messianic Jew. She seems happy, but I could't convince her to become an atheist like me. Ironically, I have been married once and for 45 years. She has been a staunch proponent of marriage and is anti-gay, anti-atheist, etc., yet my one marriage lasted until death do us depart, hopefully me first since I'm three years older than she is.
"Also, polygamous people DO exist in our society. I've spoken with a few."
Can confirm, on behalf of me and my partners.
It exists of course, but it isnt going to be normalized for most people in western culture, and isn't even a good idea for most people. Even in the cultures that it was traditionally practiced in, it was mostly because of an overabundance of women, or practical due to economic and survival concerns. Ie a tribal African father wanting their daughters to marry a wealthy man, with an abundance of food, and being a landowner. Obviously in western society, things are bit different, but it should be obviously to you that historical practice of it is quite different. Then obviously some of it was done as a luxury, or hedonistic expression, perversion, or sexual excess, ie harems, concubines, mormon child wives, etc.
@@triumphant39 Citation fucking needed. I ask you not to call non monogamous relationships between consenting adults hedonistic, or associate them with pedophilia. Historical monogamous relationships had all the same problems. So, I await all your big juicy sources friend.