"I have nothing against black people i love them i have many amazing black friends but here in the bible it says we need slavery." thats how this feels
Dayne Haughton not really. A large majority of them use their fictional book to spread hate. It’s discrimination towards those people in particular, not Christianity altogether. It’s like saying, not liking the KKK is discrimination. Well no. It’s not. They’re awful human beings and so therefore deserve it. The Christians who discriminate against people deserve the hate they get
@@cherylno583 Because Islam does not tolerate homosexuality, nor do they tolerate gay people to live in Islamic countries. My newsfeed is sadly filled with reports of young men and women who have been systematically murdered, executed tortured and incarcerated in muslim countries simply for being born gay.
"It's just a different water fountain, we're both getting water! These black people are asking too much. We'll need to redefine water fountain after this. It's my personal freedom to take away your freedom!"
As a married heterosexual man, I am absolutely sure that neither myself nor my wife now feel that our marriage is defined differently, means less or is worth less because the same sex legislation was brought in. Just a really really bizarre view for anyone to hold. And apparently quite a few do.
James Hinson i am a heterosexual man as well mate but trust me you and your wifes marriage will absolutely be affected because marriage has been redefined. God bless you and your wife mate and i believe your a christian i am a muslim, us conservative religious people are being pressured to accept this redefinition of marriage.
Even if marriage was being "redefined", it would only be to allow gay people to marry. In what way does that affect a heterosexual marriage? Your marriage is still the same. The concept of marriage has been constantly redefining itself for centuries. Compared to those changes, this one is quite minor in regards to affecting heterosexual couples...
@@ibrahimmohamed5313 So a year on! How has your marriage been redefined! It hasn't!! If I marry my long term love and partner it has no affect on you or your marriage it just means you are now living in a more accepting society. I applaud you being a conservative religious person but please remember being Gay is not a choice but being religious is!
Ibrahim Mohamed marriage was not invented by any abrahamic religion and has preexisted all of them and the original definition of marriage served very different purposes to the marriage that exists today. The “original” concept of marriage allowed you to get your daughters married from birth and the purpose was for political, financial and social ties. do your research.
+dddss pd the act of marriage came from religion but almost every country has some sort of benefits for people who are married so, as a gay man, I want that. not some bs civil partnership.
Tom Crawley Here we go again saying "your gay friends don't like you because" bullshit. How do you know they don't agree with him, how do you know that they don't respect his views and empathise with them ? You don't, so stop assuming
iMarley ooo not "someone from the LGBT community" stop virtue signalling, it's embarrassing. I'm gay, and I know people who don't fully agree with it, it's not because they hate gay People they just haven't been exposed to gay people who aren't obnoxious and in your face, it's about time, give it to them and they'll. one to realise it doesn't matter, however berate and ostracise them for it and they'll further hate the idea of it and gays themselves. You're just a Bigot, you fail to recognise the views of anyone who's differ from your own, I hope one day you're less of a bigot, but a shan't hold my breath.
@3d Video Game Architectural Design They're not changing the Bible. There is a separation of the Church and State - they will not change the definition of marriage in the Bible, nor the Quran, nor the Torah.They're changing the state definition of marriage. It's a simple act of equality that is important to the fundamentals of basic human rights. As a wise Sharon Needles once said - "Gay people have just as much right to divorce as straight people".
3d Video Game Architectural Design could you please provide examples to back up your argument? Just curious. Also, by your argument, I’m assuming you’re for gay marriage? Yay equality!
No....it's about re-defining marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women because only a man and a woman can create a life. Marriage is not about pleasing peoples feelings.
Just a note, there were and still are priests and minsters in this world that don't believe an interracial couple has the right to be together. But society managed to swallow that taboo, and say "you can't discriminate" This has to be the same eventually for gay marriage.
Philip Hammond - "this change does now redefine marriage". If I was asked the question what does marriage mean to me, I would say it is the celebration of two people who love each other, who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, who want to share their belongings with each, who want to grow old together. Now tell me how a homosexual couple are unable to commit to the aforementioned?
@@davidmaskey203 Well, we do allow polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting to the relationship. If the government did intervene for such a thing, that comes close totalitarian authority. In terms of incest, that is more of a moral grey spot. Relationships of that type tend to spawn from some sort of abnormality of the situation, and are not typically a norm. I mean, assuming you are a normal person, would you want to fuck your sister, brother, or cousin? I'd imagine not. Most people also feel that way, so you're not that special. Should we allow it? Well, by logic of allowing homosexuality because "love is love", then I suppose yes, it should be allowed - so long as all parties are consenting, and are capable of consent.
The footage of the ranting Christian at the beginning and end is going to be immortalised as textbook bigotry. He has made himself an icon of his own stupidity.
I really dig how open and non-shouty this debate was. Even though they didn't agree, everybody did their best not to get overly offended, or view the opposing side as horrific monsters. Particularly impressed by Chris Bryant, who, despite this obviously being a matter of some personal interest to him, managed to remain composed, even humorous, while strongly arguing for his views. Really impressive. And when he responded to that slightly misguided audience member who referred to a bible he didn't seem to know that much about, Chris made what might have been the strongest come-back in the history of all time by schooling him with some ex-vicar biblical knowledge.
Yeah definitely, and I think so much of being able to have a good debate just comes from people speaking in good faith, even if they don't particularly trust each other.
FUCKing finally someone bothers to point it out. Thank you! You are, of course, absolutely right! This is why it doesn't matter which side has more supporters, I have yet to hear ONE reasonable argument (that was not based on the fact that apparently equality for all love between consenting adults hurts some peoples feelings) against same sex-marriage, therefore it should be allowed.
@@iamservant8016 Blah blah blah When proof of fertility is required to obtain a marriage license and adoption is made illegal, your argument will start to make sense. Even if your position were correct, given gays are not responsible for absentee fatherhood or the high divorce rate or the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the question would still be what RATIONAL reason does the government have to exclude gays from the fundamental right to marry.
@@iamservant8016 marriage is not about bringing a life into the world, plenty of straight couples get married that can't have children, are you saying they don't deserve the right to get married because they can't have children? And plenty of people have children that never get married. You are a fool.
It's incredibly offensive to suggest that same sex marriage in any way undermines the 'institution of marriage', even the argument about the 'purpose' of marriage being primarily for procreation is absurd - given that gay couples can adopt, or benefit from sperm donors, surrogate mothers etc. Moreover, it undermines the love and commitment of married heterosexual couples who are either unable, or have no desire - to have children. Marriage is about the mutual commitment to each other between a loving and exclusively devoted pair of consenting adults, irrespective of their gender. I feel so proud and fortunate to have been born in a country (The U.K.) in which the vast majority of people have fully embraced the notion of same sex marriage, especially considering within my own lifetime, homosexuality was actually illegal and regarded as a mental illness...how far we have progressed both intellectually and culturally and it's absolutely magnificent. I have witnessed my 77 year old mother evolve from the most prejudiced, homophobic, ignorant and hate-fuelled woman - into someone who is now deeply ashamed and regretful of the views that she was once socially conditioned into holding.
+sleepypoodle "given that gay couples can adopt, or benefit from sperm donors, surrogate mothers etc. Moreover, it undermines the love and commitment of married heterosexual couples who are either unable, or have no desire - to have children." A straight couple can have children in principle. Because there exist straight couples who for one reason or another are unable to does not change this; gay couples, however, can never produce children of their own, and so to allow gay couples the right to marry is to change the very principle of the institution itself. I don't particularly care about this issue, it seems largely to be a red herring, given the amount of gay people there are (less than 2% of the population), and the amount of them that actually decide to marry (less than 5% of 2%), I just thought I'd point out the flaws in your argument. Whether or not you disagree with gay marriage is irrelevant, but to claim that it doesn't change the institution of marriage is either naive or willfully misleading.
+NunyVanstta135 It's "incredibly offensive" for the same reason it would be if you said "a black couple getting married undermines the institution of marriage." Because it implies they are a lesser people who not only don't deserve the rights everyone else does, but who, in receiving equal rights, would taint the value of those rights for everyone else. Allowing gay couples to get married doesn't change the nature of anyone else's marriage.
Jareth The Goblin King Actually the figure is nearer 10% - especially since prior to the bigotry being as offensive as racism is considered today, the figures were completely misleading as the majority of gay people worldwide were in the closet - and certainly unlikely to admit their sexuality in a census or if stopped in the street by a researcher. Moreover, marriage is not 'for the purpose of having children', many unmarried couples have them, and many married couples don't - so you have absolutely no viable argument in the 21st century. It is simply a legal acknowledgment and document confirming the loving committed relationship that ANY couple - gay or straight have for each other. Nor is it a religious ritual any more than a secular one.
Congratulations on your anniversary! Also, can confirm that your gay marriage unsurprisingly didn’t impact my straight marriage at all. These bigots are so pathetic.
Romans 1:26-27 “That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.”
Could you consider idea that people feel obliged to begin sentences in this way because if they didn't they are immediately and offen falsely accused of being homophobes (or racists).
It got me when he basically said ‘I’m for gay people having the same rights as straight people, but I don’t think they should have the same rights as straight people when it comes to love’
When women received the right to vote, we did not redefine “voting”. When the black man could break bread with the white man, we did not redefine “eating out”. When two men or two women can get married, the definition of “marriage” did not change; it became more inclusive. Periodt
5:54 Sorry Phil, "vast numbers" of slave-owners were upset with the abolition of slavery, and "vast numbers" of bigoted, racists in the South of the US were upset when the Civil Rights Act was passed. That logic just doesn't work.
Gentleman Gamer You're never mentioned because in this debate you're kind of irrelevant, because if you get married it is either to someone of the same sex (this is homosexual marriage therefore including you) or someone of a different sex (a normal marriage that you are already entitled to). Stop attention seeking
In years to come people will look back at how primitive and backward thinking we were and gawp in awe at our immaturity and child-like opinions and beliefs.
***** I think most of us are thankful that we don't follow a 'God' that punishes people for having a logical opinion. Better to be a lion than a sheep.
***** The bible also says that God "loves you"!! As i said, in years to come, people will look back and gawp in awe at the primitiveness and backward thinking of present day opinions and beliefs.
zoreto climbus Yes and He also said Repent and you will be saved. But not until you do, if you Die before you repent you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. God gave you a mind and you can add 2+2=4 not 3 or 12 .Use your brain for something besides a hatrack.
The annoying thing that gets me is why they call it "Gay Marriage". It's just marriage! The only gay thing about it is the involvement of two gay men or two gay women.
It's so messed up that we live in a world where someone can say "I think everyone is the same, everyone deserves to be happy, and everyone deserves to be treated equally", and there are actually people who have the gall to say "NAHH!"
I went to this episode of Question Time, and was live in the audience asking the panellists questions. The main thing that I took away from it is that the majority of that room alone, which were in effect representatives of the population of the UK, it that people are willing to let gay people get married. Irrespective of whether people from other countries should get married, the British consensus is saying yes to gay marriage. I personally agree, though you are entitled to an opinion. :)
So balanced, so much balance oh if i had a spirit level it would truly be in the middle, the audience is just so damn balanced. Great balancing by the BBC.
The United Kingdom is a secular country now. We separate Church from State. I openly support your right to practice your religion or any religion for that matter. However, your religion is not going to be the basis of law, it doesn't have to govern any person and it won't. You practice if you like, but the rest of us are not compelled to believe.
8 years on and the world still revolves. I think people like Philip Hammond are amazing. What he doesn't tell you is that while he thinks civil partnership was enough for gay people, he also voted against the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004.
@@eligoldie9626 I'm Heterosexual, and I support LGBT people and there's nothing wrong with being LGBT. However, if you ask experts and scholars in Christianity, they will say that for many hundreds of years, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. I'm not religious by the way.
I find it hilarious that this is such a hotly debated issue. Hammond stated that it is not for the government to change the definition of marriage however marriage is a legal union and as such it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the executive to legislate on it and to give every citizen equal opportunity to enter into it. What is not acceptable is for any religious institution to believe it can define what marriage is based upon some book or scripture and think that this should impact the law of this nation.
Then in that sense you could have no objection if they legislate for 12 yr old girls to marry adult males if both parties want to. It happens already in other countries
Phil Stiffy In the UK at least it would violate a whole host of other laws, especially when it comes to consummating the marriage. Personally I think 12 is too young and that there isn't the demand for it which is required in order to make it a logical development of the law.
Phil Stiffy No the demand thing was simply a side note, the legislature of this nation is very appreciative of public demand, sometimes overly so which leads to poorly created legislation. I don't personally see the correlation between letting gay people get married and letting minors marry, one is an equality issue while the other just appears absurd. I think gay marriage would have been right even if the majority didn't want it, when it comes to people's civil rights there is a real danger in simply playing a numbers game.
Steve Cornell So what you are saying under a cloud of delusion is that you have to be a certain age before you qualify for equality ? The irony is you would need to contradict your argument when applying it to two male siblings.
hate when a side can't argue on objective debating points but just on emotion, popularity (making statements which don't actually address the objective argument but gets applauding) and trying to deligitimise somebody else's intentions (in this case imply that they're bigots).. in this case it was surprising seeing that these secular 'progressives' are supposed to be the 'advanced' ones and the religious the 'backwards' ones, the best argument that was made was undoubtedly that of the man at the end, who talked about the difference between equality and uniformity.. Well done to him.
The problem with the inevitable procreation angle from the religious lot is straight couples with fertility problems or no desire for children. Should they butt out of marriage too?
If the government isn't supposed to interfere in peoples beliefs, why was it previously impossible to have a gay union even between two consenting parties and a consenting arbitrator? What is that if not big, oppressive government? Well done America by the way. Top stuff.
"the bible has been around longer than open gay people" LOL I love the way he says "open" gay people because he know gays have been around longer than the bible but weren't allowed to be "out" after 300AD BECAUSE of religious persecution.
I went to this episode of Question Time, and was live in the audience asking the panellists questions. The main thing that I took away from it is that the majority of that room alone, which were in effect representatives of the population of the UK, is that people are willing to let gay people get married. Irrespective of whether people from other countries should get married, the British consensus is saying yes to gay marriage. I personally agree, though you are entitled to an opinion. :)
Watching this as a gay man, it absolutely terrifies me how many people are clearly harbouring blatant hatred and disgust for people like me deep under the surface, hiding behind the pathetic "I've got gay friends/God loves the sinner not the sin" all just ways to try and give your hate filled mistrust and fear some moralistic rationale. Constantly espousing 'deeply held religious views' as some kind of pathetic justification, as if being religious puts you on some higher moral pedestal... why should we continue to show any deference for these bigoted religious opinions that have such a horrible and crushing effect on people's lives? I don't like or trust your disgusting, hate filled books of fairytales but I don't call for them to be banned or to slash your rights based on my prejudices. Afford me and other gay people the same respect.
+NunyVanstta135 If it honestly didn't bother them, they'd have no issue with gay marriage. I'm sorry but none of their arguments hold any real moral weight.
+Alex Bradley-Stocks I'm afraid you're right. Not that everyone has such hatred, but certainly too many. If there was any reasonable argument against gay marriage, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. Certainly "I want an antiquated meaning for something to remain in place so I can have more things than the gays, who are lesser than me" is not an argument.
Adders Dewinter Im glad that I've found another gay person that didn't see the point or necessity of gay marriage, especially when it was originally and still is for many a religious thing. Civil partnerships were the legal part of marriage, and the best part for us as gays. But we don't dare point it out otherwise we're gay homophobes.
beacause have looked forward to my wedding all my life. "Civil partnership" sounds so cold and legal. Marraige sounds warm and loving. I just want to be married like a normal person and not made to be different.
To be honest, the ‘man shall not lay with man’ was a mistranslation from thousands of years ago from old Greek dialect and originally stated ‘man shall not lay with boy’. So it’s been a misunderstanding essentially. As for this particular scenario I think it’s simple, everyone should be allowed to have the same rights whether they are gay, straight or bi. It doesn’t undermine the institution of marriage at all, the idea that it does is ridiculous
As an American it is interesting to see how the debate over same-sex marriage has played out in other democratic nations. IMHO Civil marriage is secular and thus the rules about which couples can get married should not be based on any particular religion, sect or denomination.
he was a complete tool. "I believe that an invisible deity that has never been proven - and whose only evidence for existence occurs in a large book of stories (in which he behaves like a completely immoral shit for the first half) - says that two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry if they are the same sex." If you believe in the irrational, then you shouldn't be involved in other peoples' REAL lives. Where real happiness is at stake. Haven't you got it yet? Happy people make a happy society. Marriage is a supposedly joyous occasion - it makes people happy. The more happy people there are, the better.
Got news for you - nothing have ever been proven. If you no anything about science then you know that science cannot "prove" anything. All it can do is "falsify" - that is eliminate things that are not true. So much for the idea of proving something. By the way, what is a "tool?"
***** That's how knowledge is collected - in order to find out if something is true or not, you falsify all the components surrounding it until only those that stand the test remain. What that doesn't mean is that all things that can't be falsified (such as invisible deities) must be true by default! Otherwise EVERYTHING is true if it can't be falsified - which is obviously a nonsense. To give an example - if I think of a mythical being with 14 heads and a monkey's tail - then, because nobody has ever seen it, they can't test whether it exists or not - so it must be real! [clearly ridiculous - and mainstream religion is no different to this silly proposition, but somehow gets more respect]. A `tool` is an English slang for a penis (or dickhead when used in this context).
Sorry, but your are reading things into the posts that are not there. It was never mentioned that a deity may be subject to "falsification." That was the whole point. Scientific falsification can never prove what is absolutely true, just like the existence of a deity cannot be absolutely proven to be true. However, that does not mean that both science and philosophy are not powerful tools for approaching what is true - science in terms of the physical world and philosophy in terms of the metaphysical.
People use their religion as an excuse for discrimination. I feel bad for those people who are basically whipped by a book. Your religion is prohibiting you from having your own opinion. Why are you blindly following some book? Humans can think for themeselves, and if a book tells you ridiculous things, shouldn't you question the credibility of the writer of the book. Let people do what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else.
okay but idk why they thought it was okay to say that letting gay couples marry undermines marriage. that was incredibly wrong and rude and insensitive and only made their awful argument look a lot more stupid. smh, some people are just so deeply bigoted.
to be honest its just fucking ridiculous that people think they should be able to VOTE for or against a right for a group of people! Like what the fuck?! It is really overdue this is changed and even when often chances are people will vote for same sex marriage, the point is that they are not in the position to decide whether others can marry now. Its a basic right EVERYONE should have, without a debate! And now to that "well cant the gays be happy with civil partnership, its the same as marriage". So if its all the same, why cant we just give it to them? "The bible says so" well religion is not a factor that should be put in. Personal beliefs are not of political matter. "It'll ruin my marriage, because it should be between a man and a woman"...? I honestly dont even get why anyone would have a problem with gays marrying, it doesnt affect you. Marriage isnt a Christian thing, its a LAWFUL thing. And the children debate is just..I'm not even gonna talk about it, because its just getting absurd...
This is because NONE of you who agree with twisted deviant ass f*cking marriage and child abuse do not have an faith or MOral high ground so you carry on as you feel fit without any value in your soulless lives... that's easy to do, whats more difficult to do is to follow a moral decent code of marriage in a normal manner between man and woman not dog and man or woman and horse, or man and man or horse and man, you are all twisted deviants who support gay marriage.
This is the longest and most drawn out debate ever held after the very first point removes the need for it. We should all have the same rights. THAT'S IT. FULL STOP.
Niccolo Machiavelli wtf has it got to do with gender roles? Men and women can get married so why not men and men? What’s gender roles got to do with it
@@obiwankenobi687 Because marriage is a specific term defined for the union between a man and a woman and for procreation purposes. Gay couples can't produce children, we're all aware of that. I just look at Marriage purely from a definition standpoint. I know that Gays have had horrible inequalities in the past, and that there is nothing wrong with LGBT, but maybe the word 'marriage' is being too loosely defined now if you include gays in marriage. I'm not a Christian, I'm non-religious, but I'm just seeing it from the point of view of the religions that have marriage like Islam and Christianity, I can see where they're coming from in terms of the definition of marriage being changed too much. All you arguably have to do is give Gay couple Civil Partnerships which have equal legal protections and equal rights as Heterosexual marriage, as a way of fairness instead of changing a religious definition, maybe? It's also odd to see the State change the definition of something that comes from religions. Let's say 'marriage' was a state-made concept, then of course it would be fine for there to be Gay Marriage because Marriage would be the show of love between two people and there's no difference between a straight couple and a gay couple. But the word 'marriage' comes from religion, so maybe we should let the religions do what they want to do.
@@aspiknf you can still procreate without being married therefore marriage is not vital for the purpose of procreation. One persons love should never be less valid than another’s. Religion or not. Gay people can also have children as well and reproduce so that’s not an issue either. We’re not a religious country in the UK, the millions of people getting married aren’t doing so because of religious reasons, they’re just doing it to make their love official in the eyes of the law and commit to a life together. So therefore the only reason to take issue with it is just down to homophobia. Gays being allowed to get married doesn’t take your marriage off you, neither does it invalidate your marriage or you as a person. I don’t see what right people have to say ‘I deserve this but gay people don’t’. It’s bizarre to me. (I’m using the word you as a collective to address people in general rather than you specifically)
its always like this, you have gay friends and u love them but u dont support them. Its simple then, YOU dont have gay friends at all. why say that if u dont have their back? why? you dont even try to understand that it doenst even hurt other people. its like ure backstabbing ur best friend in front of everyone in plain sight. i find it really stupid sometimes...
There's a difference between someone from another country legally vs illegally - I hate defending him, but he has always tried to point out the difference.
SeriouslyNotNormal Yes, when talking about the ones coming here illegally. He's wrong on that, there's no evidence that illegal immigrants commit those acts at a higher rate than our own citizens, but it was still about illegal immigrants and not people who came here from legally from Mexico. "One could say that El Chapo smuggled a billion dollars worth of drugs across the border and we need to secure it so things like that don't keep happening. That's a sign that we need to build a wall. I also went to school with someone who's family immigrated from Mexico legally, I got a long with them fine, and I would say that they are one of my closest friends. I'm against the wall my self, and deporting 12 million illegals is insane. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a contradiction.
Hats off to the Muslim guy. We can all have different beliefs, yet live alongside each other, respecting the differences, unless they cause us to harm one another. The existence of Gay Marriage has zero effect on Heterosexual Marriage. And, God do I miss Charlie Kennedy. And, so does the Liberal Party!
i don't see why people care so much about something so petty as a definition. yes, the definition of marriage in most religions is man and woman. but if you believe that, thats fine and you're going to heaven (lol) for eternity so why would you care what other people are doing
Jesus clearly spoke of Adam and Eve when asked about marriage. Also check out first book of Romans, 1 Corinthians 6 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1 9-10. Jesus calls all of us to repent of our sin, whatever that sin / those sins.
This is an issue that I don't quite understand, and probably never will as a straight man. I don't see a problem with gay marriage, but at the same time, I fail to see a valid reason for it. It's almost as if the gay community simply wish to use the word, marriage, because it makes their relationship a union rather than a partnership. I don't know, but won't lose any sleep over it.
This comment was from a while ago, and my reply isn't an argument at all since you were really respectful, but just my point of view as a gay man (that maybe you've heard before) but maybe it'll help you understand the argument for someone who it's personal for. Yes, it is partly that when I do get married, I get to call it marriage, and it will be looked on as exactly the same as any other marriage. I've got one younger brother (by 10 years) and we were sitting around talking and my mum said to him I can't wait for you to get married, I can't wait to throw a wedding and see the day you tie the knot, so my brother pretty much just looked at her and said go and bother your other son about it, he's older he'll be getting married before me. So my mum said he's not going to get married, he's just going to get one of those partnership things. And she said it completely nonchalantly, not offensively or wrongly, but it just wasn't really a big deal for her, it was just a piece of paper, whereas marriage had more worth. I'm not saying that's the reason it should be legal, but it's just an example of what it's like, that there's this mentality of gays should be separately equal. And I suppose in part the words union and partnership kind of are very different, one is about two things coming together and becoming one and partnership tends to just be putting two things together. They are just words and it's strange to think that there should be this much fuss about them, but when you're told those words can never apply to you because you're in the minority, it can mess with your mind a bit. Sorry for how long-winded this was, and it wasn't because I think you were wrong in your opinion or that you were being hateful (I don't waste time on hate). Just trying to put mine across in response to what you said, and hopefully it can kind of help you understand why it can be important in the heads of some gay people. :)
But the first marriage is depicted in the Bible, the first man and woman made, Adam and eve. GOD intended it that way and not between to people of the same sex! Inwas a homosexual and Jesus saved me 3 years ago. I was "married" to a guy... it was not a marriage in Gods eyes!
Mark White Hmm let me think, am I going to trust reliable accurate REAL sources dating centuries before the Bible or am I going to trust a fictional book written about stories of worldwide floods and dragons and serpents? I’m not disregarding religion and it’s importance to people I get that, however the idea of marriage existed before the bible was written and before christianity was a thing, therefore you don’t own it.
that dude who asked the question is deluded - babbling on about what marriage is and how it is trying to be redefined. divorce used to be illegal, as did adultery! women who had sex before marriage were reviled and even executed! how does this guy even begin to think that a proposal on gay marriage is a single, devastating and unique change to what marriage is? how dare he!
so basically everyone is saying what others want to hear? How is this a debate? everyone is just repeating what the one before him said. This is boring. I like The Big Questions better, a bit more challenging and people form their own opinions instead of appeasing to the popular opinion.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
"I have nothing against black people i love them i have many amazing black friends but here in the bible it says we need slavery." thats how this feels
@@scinformation7229 omg he didn't mean that in a literal sense he just did that to show how absolute idiotic this is and how sick it is
@@scinformation7229 it's just a comparison to show how ridiculous it is
All religion is fiction.
info info he was putting slavery in the place of gay marriage to highlight the ridiculous nature of that argument/opinion
zipZIP what do you mean?
as soon as someone starts their argument with the line "As a christian I believe", they have already moved toward invalidating their argument
Why?
Richard Lane because they’re using a fictional book to defend blatant discrimination
@@obiwankenobi687 that's discriminative towards Christianity
Dayne Haughton not really. A large majority of them use their fictional book to spread hate. It’s discrimination towards those people in particular, not Christianity altogether. It’s like saying, not liking the KKK is discrimination. Well no. It’s not. They’re awful human beings and so therefore deserve it. The Christians who discriminate against people deserve the hate they get
@@obiwankenobi687 the book isn't fictional, the contents may be*
I was pleasantly surprised and rather encouraged by the attitude of the young muslim man in the audience who spoke with such tolerance and maturity.
He was fantastic also very courageous xx
@Red Pilled Fox only if there's 4 witnesses
why surprised l0l
@Charlie Bank wym
@@cherylno583 Because Islam does not tolerate homosexuality, nor do they tolerate gay people to live in Islamic countries. My newsfeed is sadly filled with reports of young men and women who have been systematically murdered, executed tortured and incarcerated in muslim countries simply for being born gay.
2:55
A muslim who supports gay marriage .. now that's a rarity, a brave one indeed
I applaud you SIR !
"It's just a different water fountain, we're both getting water! These black people are asking too much. We'll need to redefine water fountain after this. It's my personal freedom to take away your freedom!"
As a married heterosexual man, I am absolutely sure that neither myself nor my wife now feel that our marriage is defined differently, means less or is worth less because the same sex legislation was brought in. Just a really really bizarre view for anyone to hold. And apparently quite a few do.
James Hinson i am a heterosexual man as well mate but trust me you and your wifes marriage will absolutely be affected because marriage has been redefined. God bless you and your wife mate and i believe your a christian i am a muslim, us conservative religious people are being pressured to accept this redefinition of marriage.
Even if marriage was being "redefined", it would only be to allow gay people to marry. In what way does that affect a heterosexual marriage? Your marriage is still the same. The concept of marriage has been constantly redefining itself for centuries. Compared to those changes, this one is quite minor in regards to affecting heterosexual couples...
@@ibrahimmohamed5313 So a year on! How has your marriage been redefined! It hasn't!! If I marry my long term love and partner it has no affect on you or your marriage it just means you are now living in a more accepting society. I applaud you being a conservative religious person but please remember being Gay is not a choice but being religious is!
Ibrahim Mohamed marriage was not invented by any abrahamic religion and has preexisted all of them and the original definition of marriage served very different purposes to the marriage that exists today. The “original” concept of marriage allowed you to get your daughters married from birth and the purpose was for political, financial and social ties. do your research.
Means a lot to hear that as a gay man
who says that everyone needs to follow YOUR religion
+dddss pd Religion never "created" marriage. It's a 'verb' not a 'noun'.
We will all go to hell If we don't....... Iv been their I found it quiet lovely
+dddss pd the act of marriage came from religion but almost every country has some sort of benefits for people who are married so, as a gay man, I want that. not some bs civil partnership.
***** then even straight people wouldn't need marriage
Infidel ! .... infidel of an infidel is my infidel friend
8:20 "I have a lot of gay friends but..."
No, you think you have a lot of gay friends. Trust me, they don't like you.
Tom Crawley period sis
Tom Crawley Here we go again saying "your gay friends don't like you because" bullshit.
How do you know they don't agree with him, how do you know that they don't respect his views and empathise with them ?
You don't, so stop assuming
@@Lucas-ec5db as somebody from the LGBT community, if I have a 'friend' who doesn't agree with same-sex marriage I wouldn't like them.
iMarley ooo not "someone from the LGBT community" stop virtue signalling, it's embarrassing.
I'm gay, and I know people who don't fully agree with it, it's not because they hate gay People they just haven't been exposed to gay people who aren't obnoxious and in your face, it's about time, give it to them and they'll. one to realise it doesn't matter, however berate and ostracise them for it and they'll further hate the idea of it and gays themselves.
You're just a Bigot, you fail to recognise the views of anyone who's differ from your own, I hope one day you're less of a bigot, but a shan't hold my breath.
@@Lucas-ec5db yeah, bigots like you.
Nice comment by that woman, pointing out that Jesus loved everyone
I don't understand what it means CHANGING THE INSTITUTION. If gays are marrying too in which way will marriage change for a straight couple?!?
Alba Torres That’s the point he was trying to make....
@3d Video Game Architectural Design They're not changing the Bible. There is a separation of the Church and State - they will not change the definition of marriage in the Bible, nor the Quran, nor the Torah.They're changing the state definition of marriage. It's a simple act of equality that is important to the fundamentals of basic human rights. As a wise Sharon Needles once said - "Gay people have just as much right to divorce as straight people".
3d Video Game Architectural Design could you please provide examples to back up your argument? Just curious. Also, by your argument, I’m assuming you’re for gay marriage? Yay equality!
"Its not about redefining marriage, it's about opening it up to all people."
PREACH!
No....it's about re-defining marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a women because only a man and a woman can create a life.
Marriage is not about pleasing peoples feelings.
@@iamservant8016
Marriage- the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.
I am servant okay cool so infertile women shouldn’t be able to get married. nice. 🙄 what an asshole.
@@iamservant8016 Marriage isn't about creating life. If it were, a lot of married couples wouldn't be considered married, if that were the case.
@@cowboylikeana the primary purpose of marriage is to create life.
In 2023 its hardly believable that this was even a debate. Did the sky fall in?
Just a note, there were and still are priests and minsters in this world that don't believe an interracial couple has the right to be together.
But society managed to swallow that taboo, and say "you can't discriminate"
This has to be the same eventually for gay marriage.
Philip Hammond - "this change does now redefine marriage".
If I was asked the question what does marriage mean to me, I would say it is the celebration of two people who love each other, who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, who want to share their belongings with each, who want to grow old together. Now tell me how a homosexual couple are unable to commit to the aforementioned?
Victoria Kent but the biiiibleeee!
I'd probably jus say man & woman, soz
Spot on
Why don't we allow polygamy, marriage between siblings etc too then?
@@davidmaskey203 Well, we do allow polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting to the relationship. If the government did intervene for such a thing, that comes close totalitarian authority.
In terms of incest, that is more of a moral grey spot. Relationships of that type tend to spawn from some sort of abnormality of the situation, and are not typically a norm. I mean, assuming you are a normal person, would you want to fuck your sister, brother, or cousin? I'd imagine not. Most people also feel that way, so you're not that special.
Should we allow it? Well, by logic of allowing homosexuality because "love is love", then I suppose yes, it should be allowed - so long as all parties are consenting, and are capable of consent.
I love the fact that I will be able to say that I was alive when Gay marriage was made legal in the UK.
David Evans As do I
And I when they criminalize it in the future.
Well I won't luv that fact, sorry 😕😒
NunyVanstta135 Your entitled to your own opinion, I may not like it but I can't just go round yelling at everyone on the internet.
+David Evans well then sorry for 'yelling' as you put it.
The footage of the ranting Christian at the beginning and end is going to be immortalised as textbook bigotry. He has made himself an icon of his own stupidity.
Wrong (facepalm) 😔😞😠
You need an argument.
*Facepalm*
😝😝😝
I really dig how open and non-shouty this debate was. Even though they didn't agree, everybody did their best not to get overly offended, or view the opposing side as horrific monsters. Particularly impressed by Chris Bryant, who, despite this obviously being a matter of some personal interest to him, managed to remain composed, even humorous, while strongly arguing for his views. Really impressive.
And when he responded to that slightly misguided audience member who referred to a bible he didn't seem to know that much about, Chris made what might have been the strongest come-back in the history of all time by schooling him with some ex-vicar biblical knowledge.
Yeah definitely, and I think so much of being able to have a good debate just comes from people speaking in good faith, even if they don't particularly trust each other.
well its logic that some pple are dont agree with gay marrige but i'm 100%sure that also some pple didnt agree with removing slavery also so !!!!
FUCKing finally someone bothers to point it out.
Thank you! You are, of course, absolutely right! This is why it doesn't matter which side has more supporters, I have yet to hear ONE reasonable argument (that was not based on the fact that apparently equality for all love between consenting adults hurts some peoples feelings) against same sex-marriage, therefore it should be allowed.
Speaking facts
@@iamservant8016 Blah blah blah
When proof of fertility is required to obtain a marriage license and adoption is made illegal, your argument will start to make sense.
Even if your position were correct, given gays are not responsible for absentee fatherhood or the high divorce rate or the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the question would still be what RATIONAL reason does the government have to exclude gays from the fundamental right to marry.
@@iamservant8016 marriage is not about bringing a life into the world, plenty of straight couples get married that can't have children, are you saying they don't deserve the right to get married because they can't have children? And plenty of people have children that never get married. You are a fool.
@@iamservant8016 only thing that is evil is you and that evil monster of a God you worship.
It's incredibly offensive to suggest that same sex marriage in any way undermines the 'institution of marriage', even the argument about the 'purpose' of marriage being primarily for procreation is absurd - given that gay couples can adopt, or benefit from sperm donors, surrogate mothers etc. Moreover, it undermines the love and commitment of married heterosexual couples who are either unable, or have no desire - to have children.
Marriage is about the mutual commitment to each other between a loving and exclusively devoted pair of consenting adults, irrespective of their gender.
I feel so proud and fortunate to have been born in a country (The U.K.) in which the vast majority of people have fully embraced the notion of same sex marriage, especially considering within my own lifetime, homosexuality was actually illegal and regarded as a mental illness...how far we have progressed both intellectually and culturally and it's absolutely magnificent.
I have witnessed my 77 year old mother evolve from the most prejudiced, homophobic, ignorant and hate-fuelled woman - into someone who is now deeply ashamed and regretful of the views that she was once socially conditioned into holding.
+sleepypoodle "given that gay couples can adopt, or benefit from sperm donors, surrogate mothers etc. Moreover, it undermines the love and commitment of married heterosexual
couples who are either unable, or have no desire - to have children."
A straight couple can have children in principle. Because there exist straight couples who for one reason or another are unable to does not change this; gay couples, however, can never produce children of their own, and so to allow gay couples the right to marry is to change the very principle of the institution itself.
I don't particularly care about this issue, it seems largely to be a red herring, given the amount of gay people there are (less than 2% of the population), and the amount of them that actually decide to marry (less than 5% of 2%), I just thought I'd point out the flaws in your argument. Whether or not you disagree with gay marriage is irrelevant, but to claim that it doesn't change the institution of marriage is either naive or willfully misleading.
How the hell is it 'incredibly offensive'??
+NunyVanstta135 It's "incredibly offensive" for the same reason it would be if you said "a black couple getting married undermines the institution of marriage." Because it implies they are a lesser people who not only don't deserve the rights everyone else does, but who, in receiving equal rights, would taint the value of those rights for everyone else. Allowing gay couples to get married doesn't change the nature of anyone else's marriage.
+lapelcelery42 Perfectly stated!
Jareth The Goblin King Actually the figure is nearer 10% - especially since prior to the bigotry being as offensive as racism is considered today, the figures were completely misleading as the majority of gay people worldwide were in the closet - and certainly unlikely to admit their sexuality in a census or if stopped in the street by a researcher.
Moreover, marriage is not 'for the purpose of having children', many unmarried couples have them, and many married couples don't - so you have absolutely no viable argument in the 21st century.
It is simply a legal acknowledgment and document confirming the loving committed relationship that ANY couple - gay or straight have for each other. Nor is it a religious ritual any more than a secular one.
I'm sat watching this after 5 years of (happy) marriage to my husband and feel a sense of smugness when the blusterers get angry over it all.
Congratulations on your anniversary! Also, can confirm that your gay marriage unsurprisingly didn’t impact my straight marriage at all. These bigots are so pathetic.
Romans 1:26-27
“That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.”
Guy at 8:20 I have gay friends but.....
Reminds me racists I have black friends but
neongirluk he lost me at bible
I'm sure by now his friends have abandoned him.
Could you consider idea that people feel obliged to begin sentences in this way because if they didn't they are immediately and offen falsely accused of being homophobes (or racists).
rhys hoffman gay women don't do anything against G-D only against nature SUPER MORON!
It got me when he basically said ‘I’m for gay people having the same rights as straight people, but I don’t think they should have the same rights as straight people when it comes to love’
The guy harping on about the Coalition For Marriage had no argument other than "a few people have signed an online petition". So what?
When women received the right to vote, we did not redefine “voting”.
When the black man could break bread with the white man, we did not redefine “eating out”.
When two men or two women can get married, the definition of “marriage” did not change; it became more inclusive.
Periodt
Yes ma'am
I was in the audience for this episode of Question Time in Ipswich. It was a very interesting programme.
5:54 Sorry Phil, "vast numbers" of slave-owners were upset with the abolition of slavery, and "vast numbers" of bigoted, racists in the South of the US were upset when the Civil Rights Act was passed. That logic just doesn't work.
wow I like how there is no arguments and fights breaking out here. I like this show
+SolidSnake013Duds In comparison to 'The Big Questions'.
How is it even a debate ??? Everyone should have the same rights !!!
Exactly
However I am saddened that bisexual people (like myself) are never mentioned in these debates at all for some reason
Gentleman Gamer You're never mentioned because in this debate you're kind of irrelevant, because if you get married it is either to someone of the same sex (this is homosexual marriage therefore including you) or someone of a different sex (a normal marriage that you are already entitled to).
Stop attention seeking
@@Lucas-ec5db Well said.
It’s always the same. People always oppose change, but deep down we all no that the change will come. We see this everyday. Time is a great healer ✌🏻💕
❤️
In years to come people will look back at how primitive and backward thinking we were and gawp in awe at our immaturity and child-like opinions and beliefs.
*****
LoL! Burning in hell for... loving somebody? That's some weird freaky god you believe in.
*****
I think most of us are thankful that we don't follow a 'God' that punishes people for having a logical opinion. Better to be a lion than a sheep.
Well it is stated in the Bible, the ones that lies Man with Man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, and their is only one other place to go.
***** The bible also says that God "loves you"!!
As i said, in years to come, people will look back and gawp in awe at the primitiveness and backward thinking of present day opinions and beliefs.
zoreto climbus Yes and He also said Repent and you will be saved. But not until you do, if you Die before you repent you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. God gave you a mind and you can add 2+2=4 not 3 or 12 .Use your brain for something besides a hatrack.
The annoying thing that gets me is why they call it "Gay Marriage". It's just marriage! The only gay thing about it is the involvement of two gay men or two gay women.
Ah 2019 is nice we don’t have to deal with this issue anymore, move on, and just love eachother for who they are, and marry regardless of gender.
I know right, it's so eye opening to see how silly people were.
It's so messed up that we live in a world where someone can say "I think everyone is the same, everyone deserves to be happy, and everyone deserves to be treated equally", and there are actually people who have the gall to say "NAHH!"
You’ve missed the issue here big time? It’s not about everyone being happy, treated equally etc however it’s about marriage and what that consists of.
@@mrr4975 If you have a reason why two people of the same sex can't get married, I'm sure that it'll be easily rebutted.
What a gem we lost with Charles. Truly an honest and caring man.
Yeh that Tim Farron is one bland sorry pussy fart of man. And don't get me started on Chris Bryant...
And a religious nutter at that. Lib Dem are as irrelevant as loopy UKIP and the hippy Greens.
Peter Bazalgette solves entire issue in first 50 seconds, video goes for another 14 minutes.
Wow Philip Hammond was really out of touch with the people on this
I went to this episode of Question Time, and was live in the audience asking the panellists questions. The main thing that I took away from it is that the majority of that room alone, which were in effect representatives of the population of the UK, it that people are willing to let gay people get married. Irrespective of whether people from other countries should get married, the British consensus is saying yes to gay marriage. I personally agree, though you are entitled to an opinion. :)
So balanced, so much balance oh if i had a spirit level it would truly be in the middle, the audience is just so damn balanced. Great balancing by the BBC.
Oh gosh he used “I have a gay friend card”
The United Kingdom is a secular country now. We separate Church from State. I openly support your right to practice your religion or any religion for that matter. However, your religion is not going to be the basis of law, it doesn't have to govern any person and it won't. You practice if you like, but the rest of us are not compelled to believe.
Despite the bitter, divided nature of many of these TH-cam comments, I truly appreciate how (mostly) open, respectful and nuanced this debate was.
Remember when everyone thought the world would end when gays could get married? xD
I know right, people were so stupid lmaooo
@@Skyler_Momoko were? Still are. Now they think the coronavirus is a curse from God 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Chris Bryant laying it down with the figures. Came across really well.
2:33 20th century? Wow
oh no the homophobes will not be protected 😔😢
8 years on and the world still revolves. I think people like Philip Hammond are amazing. What he doesn't tell you is that while he thinks civil partnership was enough for gay people, he also voted against the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004.
I still don't see why government should recognize any marriage, straight or gay.
because how do they decide who is granted inheritance when someone dies.
656,000 is about 1.5% of the population of voters. Come back with 20,000,000
Even though the bill got passed 5 years ago
Discrimination is a hard sell. Give it up already! Stop advocating HATE and UNFAIRNESS as virtues. It's offensive!
Nobody on this show showed hate or unfairness.
"It changes what marriage means".....riiight
Right
Yes, it does.
@@aspiknf it hasn't lol
@@eligoldie9626 I'm Heterosexual, and I support LGBT people and there's nothing wrong with being LGBT. However, if you ask experts and scholars in Christianity, they will say that for many hundreds of years, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. I'm not religious by the way.
@@aspiknf most people who get married aren't religious. And I really couldn't care what you support lol
I find it hilarious that this is such a hotly debated issue. Hammond stated that it is not for the government to change the definition of marriage however marriage is a legal union and as such it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the executive to legislate on it and to give every citizen equal opportunity to enter into it. What is not acceptable is for any religious institution to believe it can define what marriage is based upon some book or scripture and think that this should impact the law of this nation.
Then in that sense you could have no objection if they legislate for 12 yr old girls to marry adult males if both parties want to.
It happens already in other countries
Phil Stiffy In the UK at least it would violate a whole host of other laws, especially when it comes to consummating the marriage. Personally I think 12 is too young and that there isn't the demand for it which is required in order to make it a logical development of the law.
So your argument is if enough people 'demand ' it....then it's okay.
After all it's the very argument that led to gay marriage.
Phil Stiffy No the demand thing was simply a side note, the legislature of this nation is very appreciative of public demand, sometimes overly so which leads to poorly created legislation. I don't personally see the correlation between letting gay people get married and letting minors marry, one is an equality issue while the other just appears absurd. I think gay marriage would have been right even if the majority didn't want it, when it comes to people's civil rights there is a real danger in simply playing a numbers game.
Steve Cornell So what you are saying under a cloud of delusion is that you have to be a certain age before you qualify for equality ?
The irony is you would need to contradict your argument when applying it to two male siblings.
Best thing Cameron ever did👍
hate when a side can't argue on objective debating points but just on emotion, popularity (making statements which don't actually address the objective argument but gets applauding) and trying to deligitimise somebody else's intentions (in this case imply that they're bigots).. in this case it was surprising seeing that these secular 'progressives' are supposed to be the 'advanced' ones and the religious the 'backwards' ones, the best argument that was made was undoubtedly that of the man at the end, who talked about the difference between equality and uniformity.. Well done to him.
Marriage is the right for everyone one in the words of maklemore damn right I support it. Everyone has the right to get married Jesus loved everyone
C'mon guys, let's just move on and love each other, it is the 20th century after all!
The problem with the inevitable procreation angle from the religious lot is straight couples with fertility problems or no desire for children. Should they butt out of marriage too?
If the government isn't supposed to interfere in peoples beliefs, why was it previously impossible to have a gay union even between two consenting parties and a consenting arbitrator? What is that if not big, oppressive government?
Well done America by the way. Top stuff.
"the bible has been around longer than open gay people" LOL I love the way he says "open" gay people because he know gays have been around longer than the bible but weren't allowed to be "out" after 300AD BECAUSE of religious persecution.
it's also not true. accient greece had many openly gay communities. spartans would often times engage in homosexual relations whilst out at war.
Exactly 😂
That was hilarious. Keep up the comedy.
How can they get on with their lives when Christians are always bullying them!!!!
I went to this episode of Question Time, and was live in the audience asking the panellists questions. The main thing that I took away from it is that the majority of that room alone, which were in effect representatives of the population of the UK, is that people are willing to let gay people get married. Irrespective of whether people from other countries should get married, the British consensus is saying yes to gay marriage. I personally agree, though you are entitled to an opinion. :)
650,000 people against... Lets see how many people are for it... there are more gay/lesbian/bisexual people than 650,000
It's not "gay marriage" it's "marriage equality. Stop using segregating wording!
2:33 mate... it’s the 21st century not the 20th
desperately want to know what Marie Hullis was going to say!!
Watching this as a gay man, it absolutely terrifies me how many people are clearly harbouring blatant hatred and disgust for people like me deep under the surface, hiding behind the pathetic "I've got gay friends/God loves the sinner not the sin" all just ways to try and give your hate filled mistrust and fear some moralistic rationale. Constantly espousing 'deeply held religious views' as some kind of pathetic justification, as if being religious puts you on some higher moral pedestal... why should we continue to show any deference for these bigoted religious opinions that have such a horrible and crushing effect on people's lives? I don't like or trust your disgusting, hate filled books of fairytales but I don't call for them to be banned or to slash your rights based on my prejudices. Afford me and other gay people the same respect.
The people on here that disagree don't hate gay people, they jus don't believe in gay marriage, there's a difference.
+NunyVanstta135 If it honestly didn't bother them, they'd have no issue with gay marriage. I'm sorry but none of their arguments hold any real moral weight.
+Alex Bradley-Stocks I'm afraid you're right. Not that everyone has such hatred, but certainly too many. If there was any reasonable argument against gay marriage, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. Certainly "I want an antiquated meaning for something to remain in place so I can have more things than the gays, who are lesser than me" is not an argument.
+lapelcelery42
It IS an argument... an argument defending bigotry.
Aeroldoth3 It doesn't have enough factual or logical basis to be an argument. I'd call it... an opinion?
As a gay man, I understood the legal argument but I did not care about the Gay marriage agenda, cival partnerships did the trick.
Adders Dewinter Im glad that I've found another gay person that didn't see the point or necessity of gay marriage, especially when it was originally and still is for many a religious thing.
Civil partnerships were the legal part of marriage, and the best part for us as gays.
But we don't dare point it out otherwise we're gay homophobes.
beacause have looked forward to my wedding all my life. "Civil partnership" sounds so cold and legal. Marraige sounds warm and loving. I just want to be married like a normal person and not made to be different.
I want to get married and adopt kids and I think God is happy with my marriage
You are gay, 100%, totally not a poor internet troll
0:19 Only when you reach an absolute majority mate. A bit far off at the moment.
To be honest, the ‘man shall not lay with man’ was a mistranslation from thousands of years ago from old Greek dialect and originally stated ‘man shall not lay with boy’. So it’s been a misunderstanding essentially. As for this particular scenario I think it’s simple, everyone should be allowed to have the same rights whether they are gay, straight or bi. It doesn’t undermine the institution of marriage at all, the idea that it does is ridiculous
3:06 had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
What a hero
Queen
As an American it is interesting to see how the debate over same-sex marriage has played out in other democratic nations. IMHO Civil marriage is secular and thus the rules about which couples can get married should not be based on any particular religion, sect or denomination.
The Christian gentleman at the end of the video was the most articulate of all of the participants in this debate. Well done sir.
he was a complete tool.
"I believe that an invisible deity that has never been proven - and whose only evidence for existence occurs in a large book of stories (in which he behaves like a completely immoral shit for the first half) - says that two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry if they are the same sex."
If you believe in the irrational, then you shouldn't be involved in other peoples' REAL lives. Where real happiness is at stake.
Haven't you got it yet? Happy people make a happy society.
Marriage is a supposedly joyous occasion - it makes people happy. The more happy people there are, the better.
Got news for you - nothing have ever been proven. If you no anything about science then you know that science cannot "prove" anything. All it can do is "falsify" - that is eliminate things that are not true. So much for the idea of proving something. By the way, what is a "tool?"
*****
That's how knowledge is collected - in order to find out if something is true or not, you falsify all the components surrounding it until only those that stand the test remain.
What that doesn't mean is that all things that can't be falsified (such as invisible deities) must be true by default!
Otherwise EVERYTHING is true if it can't be falsified - which is obviously a nonsense. To give an example - if I think of a mythical being with 14 heads and a monkey's tail - then, because nobody has ever seen it, they can't test whether it exists or not - so it must be real! [clearly ridiculous - and mainstream religion is no different to this silly proposition, but somehow gets more respect].
A `tool` is an English slang for a penis (or dickhead when used in this context).
Sorry, but your are reading things into the posts that are not there. It was never mentioned that a deity may be subject to "falsification." That was the whole point. Scientific falsification can never prove what is absolutely true, just like the existence of a deity cannot be absolutely proven to be true. However, that does not mean that both science and philosophy are not powerful tools for approaching what is true - science in terms of the physical world and philosophy in terms of the metaphysical.
Nonsense. Science is just one of many form of inquiry. Have you never studied philosophy?
People use their religion as an excuse for discrimination. I feel bad for those people who are basically whipped by a book. Your religion is prohibiting you from having your own opinion. Why are you blindly following some book? Humans can think for themeselves, and if a book tells you ridiculous things, shouldn't you question the credibility of the writer of the book. Let people do what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else.
okay but idk why they thought it was okay to say that letting gay couples marry undermines marriage. that was incredibly wrong and rude and insensitive and only made their awful argument look a lot more stupid. smh, some people are just so deeply bigoted.
Religion is a choice sexuality isnt! Well done England and Wales Ireland needs SSM next!
Ireland got it in 2015😍😍😍😍sadly secondary schools are still homophobic 😒😒😒
BEST. THUMBNAIL. EVER.
to be honest its just fucking ridiculous that people think they should be able to VOTE for or against a right for a group of people! Like what the fuck?! It is really overdue this is changed and even when often chances are people will vote for same sex marriage, the point is that they are not in the position to decide whether others can marry now. Its a basic right EVERYONE should have, without a debate! And now to that "well cant the gays be happy with civil partnership, its the same as marriage". So if its all the same, why cant we just give it to them? "The bible says so" well religion is not a factor that should be put in. Personal beliefs are not of political matter. "It'll ruin my marriage, because it should be between a man and a woman"...? I honestly dont even get why anyone would have a problem with gays marrying, it doesnt affect you. Marriage isnt a Christian thing, its a LAWFUL thing. And the children debate is just..I'm not even gonna talk about it, because its just getting absurd...
***** you are a pathetic person and i fell very sorry for you
This is because NONE of you who agree with twisted deviant ass f*cking marriage and child abuse do not have an faith or MOral high ground so you carry on as you feel fit without any value in your soulless lives... that's easy to do, whats more difficult to do is to follow a moral decent code of marriage in a normal manner between man and woman not dog and man or woman and horse, or man and man or horse and man, you are all twisted deviants who support gay marriage.
When he went 20th century I felt bad when yah on question time it’s hard to say what you want to say without being flustered
you can love gay people but disagree with gay marriage
arsenal sneakerhead Please be correct.
do paedophiles have a right to prey on children?
+gunner kicks wtf does that have to do with anything?
+Millie Wood calm down millie
gunner kicks you don't love gay people if you're opposed to them getting married
This is the longest and most drawn out debate ever held after the very first point removes the need for it. We should all have the same rights. THAT'S IT. FULL STOP.
How can something be fundamental if it's a social construct (gender)?
+DioSgommone Absolutely agree. I wonder if the lions and other mammals "constructed" their apparent gender roles. Liberal poison at its worst.
Niccolo Machiavelli wtf has it got to do with gender roles? Men and women can get married so why not men and men? What’s gender roles got to do with it
@@obiwankenobi687 Because marriage is a specific term defined for the union between a man and a woman and for procreation purposes. Gay couples can't produce children, we're all aware of that. I just look at Marriage purely from a definition standpoint. I know that Gays have had horrible inequalities in the past, and that there is nothing wrong with LGBT, but maybe the word 'marriage' is being too loosely defined now if you include gays in marriage.
I'm not a Christian, I'm non-religious, but I'm just seeing it from the point of view of the religions that have marriage like Islam and Christianity, I can see where they're coming from in terms of the definition of marriage being changed too much.
All you arguably have to do is give Gay couple Civil Partnerships which have equal legal protections and equal rights as Heterosexual marriage, as a way of fairness instead of changing a religious definition, maybe? It's also odd to see the State change the definition of something that comes from religions.
Let's say 'marriage' was a state-made concept, then of course it would be fine for there to be Gay Marriage because Marriage would be the show of love between two people and there's no difference between a straight couple and a gay couple. But the word 'marriage' comes from religion, so maybe we should let the religions do what they want to do.
@@aspiknf you can still procreate without being married therefore marriage is not vital for the purpose of procreation. One persons love should never be less valid than another’s. Religion or not. Gay people can also have children as well and reproduce so that’s not an issue either. We’re not a religious country in the UK, the millions of people getting married aren’t doing so because of religious reasons, they’re just doing it to make their love official in the eyes of the law and commit to a life together. So therefore the only reason to take issue with it is just down to homophobia. Gays being allowed to get married doesn’t take your marriage off you, neither does it invalidate your marriage or you as a person. I don’t see what right people have to say ‘I deserve this but gay people don’t’. It’s bizarre to me. (I’m using the word you as a collective to address people in general rather than you specifically)
Is Bryant still advertising for Gay Sex on the Internet ?? Is he really an MP ?
Love is love
Charlotte Greenway But not all marriage is gay
preach!!
No one has ever been able to explain how allowing same sex marriage undermines opposite sex marriage.
its always like this, you have gay friends and u love them but u dont support them. Its simple then, YOU dont have gay friends at all. why say that if u dont have their back? why? you dont even try to understand that it doenst even hurt other people. its like ure backstabbing ur best friend in front of everyone in plain sight. i find it really stupid sometimes...
true. Its like donald trumps saying he has mexican friends
+SeriouslyNotNormal maybe he has mexican "friends". XD
There's a difference between someone from another country legally vs illegally - I hate defending him, but he has always tried to point out the difference.
+DH1986 But he said lets build a wall. Loads of "illegals" (btw i find that dehumanising) actually apply for citizenship after being in the US
SeriouslyNotNormal Yes, when talking about the ones coming here illegally. He's wrong on that, there's no evidence that illegal immigrants commit those acts at a higher rate than our own citizens, but it was still about illegal immigrants and not people who came here from legally from Mexico.
"One could say that El Chapo smuggled a billion dollars worth of drugs across the border and we need to secure it so things like that don't keep happening. That's a sign that we need to build a wall.
I also went to school with someone who's family immigrated from Mexico legally, I got a long with them fine, and I would say that they are one of my closest friends.
I'm against the wall my self, and deporting 12 million illegals is insane. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a contradiction.
Hats off to the Muslim guy. We can all have different beliefs, yet live alongside each other, respecting the differences, unless they cause us to harm one another.
The existence of Gay Marriage has zero effect on Heterosexual Marriage.
And, God do I miss Charlie Kennedy. And, so does the Liberal Party!
i don't see why people care so much about something so petty as a definition. yes, the definition of marriage in most religions is man and woman. but if you believe that, thats fine and you're going to heaven (lol) for eternity so why would you care what other people are doing
OOOOOOOFFFFF HE WRECKED THAT PHILIP DUDE OOF LITERALLY
Jesus clearly spoke of Adam and Eve when asked about marriage. Also check out first book of Romans, 1 Corinthians 6 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1 9-10. Jesus calls all of us to repent of our sin, whatever that sin / those sins.
This is an issue that I don't quite understand, and probably never will as a straight man. I don't see a problem with gay marriage, but at the same time, I fail to see a valid reason for it. It's almost as if the gay community simply wish to use the word, marriage, because it makes their relationship a union rather than a partnership. I don't know, but won't lose any sleep over it.
This comment was from a while ago, and my reply isn't an argument at all since you were really respectful, but just my point of view as a gay man (that maybe you've heard before) but maybe it'll help you understand the argument for someone who it's personal for. Yes, it is partly that when I do get married, I get to call it marriage, and it will be looked on as exactly the same as any other marriage. I've got one younger brother (by 10 years) and we were sitting around talking and my mum said to him I can't wait for you to get married, I can't wait to throw a wedding and see the day you tie the knot, so my brother pretty much just looked at her and said go and bother your other son about it, he's older he'll be getting married before me. So my mum said he's not going to get married, he's just going to get one of those partnership things. And she said it completely nonchalantly, not offensively or wrongly, but it just wasn't really a big deal for her, it was just a piece of paper, whereas marriage had more worth. I'm not saying that's the reason it should be legal, but it's just an example of what it's like, that there's this mentality of gays should be separately equal. And I suppose in part the words union and partnership kind of are very different, one is about two things coming together and becoming one and partnership tends to just be putting two things together. They are just words and it's strange to think that there should be this much fuss about them, but when you're told those words can never apply to you because you're in the minority, it can mess with your mind a bit.
Sorry for how long-winded this was, and it wasn't because I think you were wrong in your opinion or that you were being hateful (I don't waste time on hate). Just trying to put mine across in response to what you said, and hopefully it can kind of help you understand why it can be important in the heads of some gay people. :)
MARRIAGE EXISTED BEFORE THE BIBLE SAY IT WITH ME
But the first marriage is depicted in the Bible, the first man and woman made, Adam and eve. GOD intended it that way and not between to people of the same sex! Inwas a homosexual and Jesus saved me 3 years ago. I was "married" to a guy... it was not a marriage in Gods eyes!
Mark White Hmm let me think, am I going to trust reliable accurate REAL sources dating centuries before the Bible or am I going to trust a fictional book written about stories of worldwide floods and dragons and serpents? I’m not disregarding religion and it’s importance to people I get that, however the idea of marriage existed before the bible was written and before christianity was a thing, therefore you don’t own it.
Mark White I mean not everything in the bible is bang up to date, we don’t stone people to death anymore 🤷♀️
Ellen Sugden not to mention the bible was written post the existence of the traditional concept of marriage.
She brings up Jesus like jesus had gay friends lol😂
I LOVE MY CAT. WHY CAN'T WE GET MARRIED?? I'M BEING OPPRESSED!
and being human I can actually take a joke.
fair enough. I think it's because I am a cunt. Sorry.
splinterbyrd Not everyone.
Tempest Storms you're not a canine lover are you??
because your cat doesn't want to get married as he/she can't give consent.
that dude who asked the question is deluded - babbling on about what marriage is and how it is trying to be redefined. divorce used to be illegal, as did adultery! women who had sex before marriage were reviled and even executed! how does this guy even begin to think that a proposal on gay marriage is a single, devastating and unique change to what marriage is? how dare he!
What's the difference between marriage and a civil partnership
This is like posh Points of View with a live audience whom clap if anyone gets a fully formed sentence.
so basically everyone is saying what others want to hear? How is this a debate? everyone is just repeating what the one before him said. This is boring. I like The Big Questions better, a bit more challenging and people form their own opinions instead of appeasing to the popular opinion.
God U.K. politics are so much more polite than American politics.
What is wrong with changing the definition, is shouldn't negatively effect the institution unless you are homophobic which is wrong and old fashioned
I miss Charlie Kennedy. He was a good person, shame he went the way he did.
4:47 What that knobhead is saying: "My expensive Mercedes is only worth half it´s actually worth when my neigbour has one too".