It's funny that Corvino hardly talks about sex at all in his opening statement, and the Catholic theologian obsessively STAMPEDES toward the idea of sex right away. It reminds me of when Stephen Fry said, "the only people obsessed with food are bulimics and the morbidly obese. And that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic church in a nutshell."
Miravalle's argument is basically: "People shouldn't be gay because they have the same parts." Lol yeah that's the whole point of being gay! Talk about circular logic, jeez...
If serial killers are to kill and experience the same beauty and fulfillment as heterosexual relationships then I guess its moral according to your argument
Oh my... Miravelle didn't have arguments, he had opinions. He just vomited up a huge amount of stupid claims that he didn't support with facts and examples. I am surprised he didn't catch on fire on the stage.
Miravalle disregards the fact that two men or two women can have a relationship that is just as fulfilling as any straight relationship. Sorry John-Mark, your argument is a complete fail.
I'm a Lesbian and I agree with Dr. Johnte Convin on every level!. We all have our own idea about relationship, and sex. I enjoyed both Dr's view. I still keep my vacation plans in MA. Of course PTown!
Oh Jesus Christ. I thought this would be an interesting, informative debate. So I listened to John Corvino give a rational and well-argued opening. Then I started to listen to the other guy... He first announces that he's a Catholic. Bad start. Then he effectively says that the reason he doesn't want gay marriage is because be believes that homosexual activity is wrong. Really, at that point he should have sat down. Quit while he was ahead. Because the rest was laughable. As a result, even before he had finished, I gave up. Now nobody is forcing religious people to have gay marriage if they think it's wrong, immoral and goes against nature. You are a devout Catholic and gay? You think that your sexuality is wrong? Fine. Don't get married to another person of the same sex. After all, nobody's forcing you. But don't then try and force your beliefs on other people. So let those gay people who don't share your religion have their marriage. I just don't see how having married gay couples can affect my life - or my own marriage - in any way. If believers are right and their god really does find homosexual activity an abomination, then he will doubtless do some smiting (loving, of course) in due course. To me, it all comes back to that old saying : Live and let live. A message that Christians particularly seem to find very difficult to take on board.
"the difference between us is that I CAN determine what is distinctive about SEX and you can't" - the only point at which the crowd applauded and Corvino lost.
Mark, Okay, explain to me what is distinctive about sex. As you clearly think your reasoning powers are superior to mine, please justify that statement. Indeed, I would also like you to go through my post and tell me exactly what I have said is inaccurate. So go ahead...
John Craske "live and let live" is not permissible when society suffers from people's actions. Same sex "marriages" send the message to society that mothers are not important or fathers are not important. This is 100% true and cannot be debated.
John Craske you know that right? Crying "homophobe!" Is a classic attempt to distract people from the facts by attempting to take the higher moral ground
Honestly, Corvino won the DEBATE for actually addressing the debate TOPIC (“same-sex marriage”). Either way, all Miravalle could argue was that ‘the parts don’t fit’ and degraded marriage into just sex. It was simply offensive that Miravalle couldn’t see that love between two people of the same gender is just as valid, holistic, and real as opposite sex love - simply on the basis of “two plugs”! He kept arguing that Corvino’s points were reductionistic where his points where even moreso. I did appreciate how civil their conversation was though, they did that very well.
Funny how when JT moderator introduces each participant JM Miravalle is referred to on basis of some of his qualifications plus lives with wife and three children, professional and personal, whereas J Corvino is referred to only on professional basis, with no reference to life outside of work as opposed to other man married with three children, possibly indicating normality ? Did anyone else notice this ?
Love is an experience of the heart and soul, and it is at this level that heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people are exactly the same. The physicality of how we love may be different, but the integrity, passion and value of the love we feel, is the same.
+Vernal Scott Ditto that here Vernal Scott but, the tenders and adherents of the Heterocentric Doctrine must at all costs DENY this key fact, as you have here highlighted. This supremely wicked way-of-being is taught to us all in a thousand and one ways, beginning immediately from birth. It commands always and in all ways that 'opposites only' are to be allowed the reality of any deep, physically-expressed love, this supposed uniqueness of affection existing for the furtherance of our species solely. As has been demonstrated over a very long while, it teaches and encourages the participating males of the Doctrine to compete, to challenge and way too often (as is quite easy to ascertain), to murder one another with gusty glee, such a thing being a part of their normalcy. (Certain types of sports being controlled training for this.) This Doctrine professes possession of unique goodness and yet encourages such co-mutual desire to do murder . . . such participants and boosters being horrified uniformly, essentially (as I would state it as being, as based upon observation), at the proposition that any and all of the same-sexes might be actually be capable of mutual love. Horrified. Murder one another? YES! Love one another in the tangible way? Never!! That the workers and admirers tending the perpetual machinery of The Doctrine would and do find this acceptable and necessary even, to some displays handily, I believe, an innate perverseness of their very own: the suborning of Evil in the name of what actually is of the truly Good, and thus my charge of this to be put-upon them squarely. These sorts have become SO INURED to their systems of conformance-to and working-for The Doctrine - IT and it's myriads of driven ghastliness and hypocrisies - that they have actually come to believe it all just well-and-good, fine-and-dandy, being not able in the least to see the horrifying mortification that it has had as effect, upon very many onlookers peering-in from outside. No, this is not mistaken. This living hell of sexual misery that The Heterocentric Doctrine intends, and succeeds-at producing wholesale, must be brought to a just, final end and no matter what might be required so as to effect the essential trick. Well onto this task our young people are now. May God bless them to final triumph. When so-done - the stinking rotten Mechanism having been crushed into a billion, billions bits - ALL will go free to love and live as they see fit; the seething, controlling Evil it was having been vanquished. (A project most worthy of doing, so I would assert.) Thank you, Vernal Scott, for providing the seed for this little sprout of growth.
James Miller Just waking up here in London, and what an excellent little sprout of growth to wake up to. James, thank you! I hope that what you've written is available elsewhere for more eyes to see. I have tried to articulate the same and more in my non-fiction book, God's Other Children: A London Memoir. If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look for free at the prologue inside the Kindle version at Amazon. Thank you again for being another wise voice in a world that is beginning to hear you. Slowly, I know. Warmest of wishes.
+Vernal Scott Vernal, Greetings to you! How kind and considerate of you to have written what and as you did, re my little scintillic effusion. It was greatly appreciated. Following the lead of your good suggestion, I am now studying you materials at your website (of your own .com name), and I must say it is all most impressive. (It will take me a little while to get through it, however.) ' Will be in-touch from there directly for an e-mail chat? Kindest Regards, - James
And you are not wrong! And do note that JM Miravalle also says this, implicitly but also explicitly in the outro. But, I think his point is the it's the act itself is lacking (because of the same body part) and thus if you take the loving relationship between two people of the same gender vs people of separate genders - the two of the separate genders have something just a bit more. BUT that's not to take away existing love from the relationship of the same-sex. However, Miravalle wouldn't call that a marriage because it's missing that component. I don't know how he would feel about same-sex, non-sexual (but devoted to each other) relationships.
I'm Gay, and have been in a relationship going on 11 years, I have 2 adopted children "Hence a family". If the "tax breaks are for people that might have kids" should I not be entitled to them as well? Are my children less than in some way? My children were 10 and 11 when we got them and they are now in college. I had to pay more, and can't get benefits for my children because of the very thing you are defending. My family should receive the same resources available to other families. You Agree?
I would say, without hopefully tipping my hand about how I feel about this issue, the following: The topic was "Same-Sex Marriage Debate". If that was, indeed, the topic, then one man debated the topic of Same-Sex Marriage, and one debated the topic of Same-Sex Sex. I'm not saying Miravalle debated badly, just that he seemed to debate the issue of sexual intercourse, not Marriage as a whole. Unless I have the topic wrong, wherein I stand corrected.
There is one place in the video where JM Miravalle explains how same-sex sex ties to his view of why same-sex marriage shouldn't be - I don't recall the minute mark but it goes something like so: Same-sex sex is missing the sexual complementary component (the giving of your fullest self which includes fertility), and if you are unable to give your full self then there is an issue with the relationship, and because there is an issue with the relationship - that means it is unhealthy and it will undermine the whole of the relationship. In this case, relationship can be viewed as marriage.
@@cpawel Being I watched this 7 years ago, I will take your word for it, since I don't wanna watch the whole thing again ;) That said, I will still hold to my opinion that when debating a topic, you debate/address the WHOLE topic, not just one aspect of it. As someone who has never debated in his life (me!), I would simply counter that A) Giving your fullest self means giving everything you ARE, not everything you don't have. And B), as I'm sure was pointed out somewhere in the debate, that if fertility is the issue he is harping on, there are plenty of hetero couples who marry and have intercourse knowing full well they are incapable of producing children, and we do not ban them. But I still appreciate you pointing out where he seemed to cover my criticism.
"the difference between us is that I CAN determine what is distinctive about SEX and you can't" - the only point at which the crowd applauded and Corvino lost.
+Mark Wilkie LMAO Are you talking about the half of the crowd that applauded because they are Catholic? Then of course they thought Corvino lost in that instance. All the while the other half most likely saw them as jokes. You cannot merit the applause due to the fact that 1. You cannot see how many people actually applauded, we are only going based off of hearing. 2. The crowd was legitimately split between Athiests and Catholics. So yes, one side will always be biased.... so stop posting that as a rebuttal to every comment you disagree with. It has no solid standing. Plus it is childish.
@Alf Maggadan if you were an alien visiting earth and researching the different kinds of relationships that exist among human populations, and discovered that some 2 person relationships are capable of creating new life without the assistance of anything else, you wouldn’t distinguish that type of relationship from others?
"The destructiveness of the gay lifestyle" - well, perhaps the subject experienced this but this cannot be used as a premise for argument in the collective.
If anything this debate really brings to the surface just how utterly vapid the anti-gay marriage stance is. I mean, I listen to Mark Miravalle and I am just so sure that he is a nice guy who I would like if I knew him personally. I am convinced that he did his absolute best to be as fair, unbiased, and sensitive as possible. But his stance in this debate forces him to make statements that are biased and outright insulting. He cannot get around it.
I loved how extremely civil and respectful they were to each other. While I tend to enjoy snark in between debaters in other debates, I love how I truly get the feel both of em are trying to understand each other, and they give me the vibe that they truly are having a consctructive debate which is enriching to both of em. I am totally with gay marraiage rights btw.
I really applaud Miravalle for trying to deliver real arguments. And I really want to listen to him even if I am not agreeing with him. But I stumble on the fact that he disagrees with his own arguments. He will start saying a thing and later he will say the other thing. And I think that makes it very hard for him to win this argument. The examples he gives are either abstract or and I am taking his example here about a teacher and a minor. Which isn't useful in a debate about 2 adult humans wanting to marry. I am not even saying which genders these humans have to be. And he focuses a lot on the sex. Yes it is important, I will not deny that. but a relationship between 2 humans isn't all about sex. And for me he puts too much emphasis on this part of a marriage.
I agree somewhat, except I'm not that amazed at his arguments, I am amazed that he thinks that they are as strong as they are. I am positive that JMM thinks that his argument is not just about physical sex, but it is. He addresses NONE of Corvino's points on legality, social structure and stable families, and only addresses his own perception of physical compatibility and what he thinks it means in a relationship.
All of JMM's arguments are narrow minded on the sex part; it takes the underlying assumption that's all LGB people ever do with their lives. The gift analogy assumed a partner was just another material object like an exact clone; It fails to recognize basic psychological elements between the two people, their personality, perception, emotion and even basic human rights (love, freedom). And he also fails to acknowledge that laws are influenced by morals. And his moral standards are 2000 years outdated.
His real argument is based on the old testament and maybe St. Paul in the NT but that argument does not hold water for most people so he does not use it. And he should not because they do not apply in the 21st Century. Most arguments his church made in prior centuries have been over turned. The earth is not the centre of the universe.Nobody believes in the Adam and Eve myth and so on. Poor guy! He's a real loser!
I agree he has a perverse sense of morality. Lot of emphasise on genitals and less on relationships. I feel sorry for his wife. Imagine being reduced to complementary genitals
John-Mark Miravalle's argument fails because he is trying to impose his definition and perspective of "complementary" on same sex couples. In order to accomplish his task he needs to first understand what they find attractive and complementary which he clearly does not. One minute he says you just can't talk about the pleasure, the next he says sex is about the pleasure. Every argument he made was from an "ultra" straight persons perspective, maybe a little too ultra. How does he know they are not complimentary and what does he mean by unhealthy. He's taking his friend's claim that gay relationships are unhealthy and applying it to all across the board. I'm sure everyone viewing this knows several hetro-couples in unhealthy relationships. Does that mean we should ban all marriage? Wait a minute with hetro-divorce rates exceeding 50% for many years now, we may need to rethink that. Seriously, he kept saying gays have nothing to offer each other, which is bunk. One big thing gay couples offer each other is situationual understanding (perspective) including a more complete understanding wants, needs and desires. A girl knows best what make a girl feel good and a guy knows best what makes a guy feel good. How many females in hetro relationships fail to have satisfactory sex to the point of failure to climax? How many times have we heard people in hetro relationships cry out he/she doesn't understand me. John Corvino was a little light on the guy, but still won hands down.
I like how professional and reasonable this debate is. That being said, I cannot stand Miraville. I cannot understand the application of his perspective with regards to secular law and nonreligious American citizens.
Contrary to the claim made in the debate, we may well appreciate a gift that reduplicates what we already have. If I have $10, I may be quite happy to receive an additional $10 as a present.
John Corvino is a beautiful speaker. I think that Mark Miravelle completely misses the point of everything that John said. Mark focused exclusively on sex and sexual organs the entire time. Just because males have the same organs does not mean that they cannot have intimate relationships and give meaningfully to one another, as John tried to explain--any relationship that is worthwhile is about so much more than the physical anyway whether it be friends or partners.
Dudes, I know I'm 8 years late to this party, but I just gotta say it makes me LIVID when straight people try to argue against gay marriage and the won't bloody well shut up about their goddamned spouses the whole time. It's like the creepy youth pastor "my smoking hot wife" motif, but waaaaaaaaay more insensitive and nauseating. 21:20
I like Corvino's book "What's Wrong With Homosexuality". I am reading it now. He makes a lot of good points. He's clever, and somewhat nice looking - John's partner is very lucky to have him.
Miravalle is utterly unaware of how marriage equality can only increase love, respect and affection in our society. One man doesn't automatically know how to swim in ocean. We learn A LOT from each other, and on many levels. In fact, everything we learn in our lifetimes comes from observation and interaction with others around us.
Miravelle's talk is saturated with analogy constructions leading to non-sequitur pseudo conclusions. He seems to be obsessed with sexuality in marriage and how to 'do IT the right way' which borders embarrassment. No wonder he never published in this field. He probably tried, though.
By the way. It is really really really nice to see a REAL discussion about this for a change. They attack each others arguments without getting angry and becoming overly emotional. which is what you normally see. I am really glad to see this like this. Because it shows that we can talk about it without getting overly angry or so.
That was my favorite part about the whole thing. I could actually try to understand and listen to opposition instead of getting a bunch of angry people talking over each other. =)
1:21h Corvino says it in a very kind way: it's all very abstract. Indeed Miravelle's argumentation is in its greater part gobbledygook. The two parties seem to argue on two different fronts: Corvino talks about that marriage for same sex couples is a completion and institutionalisation (with all its stabilising effects) of same-sex relations assuming that same-sex eelations are acceptable. Miravelle however tries to point out that same-sex relations are sick repeating actually the whole 'why legalise same-sex intercourse'-debate. In lacking any other arguments, M. bangs on the distinctiveness of sexual parts, but fails to conclusively argue its necessity. He claims radical distinctiveness is needed to find fulfillment, reconciling the phenomenological contradiction (after all there are same-sex couples) with a psychological defect of homosexuals to recognise what's really good for them (eating plaster analogy); again turning the clocks back into times where homosexuality was considered as pathological and correctable behaviour. Moreover he fails to prove the inadequacy of the distibctiveness of the two indiviuals taking part in same-sex intercourse: M's DVD parabula reminded me of the joke about the man who gets a book as birthday present saying: But I already have one!
A key characteristic of SEX is that it causes the release of multiple chemicals that activate the 'pleasure centers' of the brain... When those centers are 'activated' in the presence of another person.. the brain forms memories linking that person to pleasure which contribute to the strength of a relationship...
Miravalle didn’t get the point that homosexuality is about the same sex both physical and sexual that complement each other…..he can not distinguish and differentiate the two because he’s not gay
John - Mark simplifies marriage as being about sex, and the ability to procreate and when something is unhealthy you should not promote it. So what about all the unhealthy straight couples? Should their marriage be annulled? All the straight couples that cannot procreate, did the validity of their marriage went down with every try to conceive? I can agree to the argument that Men and Woman were in the early beginnings created to procreate; however we have evolved and the human being has changed their reasons for living. Procreation is not number one anymore, love and happiness is.
I can't believe after 1:23:30 of naked assertions and reification, that man has the audacity to declare himself the winner of the debate. He does the argument a disservice and abandons civil debate when he unilaterally decides that the majority opinion of positive lived homosexual experience is inadmissible.
Dr. Corvino- the more I watch you in these debates (Maggie, John- Mark, Ryan Andersen, etc., the more (particularly, as a homosexual) I enjoy and appreciate your (our) point of view. I appreciate and respect your honesty, common sense, arguments when it comes to defining what marriage and civil unions are, defining and expressing what homosexuals want as far as equal rights and fairness and double standards. I just watched you go head-to-head with John-Mark respectfully and really respected and appreciated your arguments against his. I also enjoy your sense of humor. Respectfully- Danielle
Whatever one's views, this is a real model for debate: despite being a passionate, personal issue, both Dr Corvino and Dr Miravalle argue in a controlled, respectful way and, unlike in many debates, they actually and directly engage with one another's arguments, instead of simply talking past each other. If only every debate were conducted like this!
John Mark gave John Corvino the best debate that I've see anyone give him. The repeated "3 levels" approach made his argument tough to pull apart. Overall I would say Corvino won because he had so many diverse arguments and rebuttal points.
I agree with you that he gave him the hardest debate. But in its own right, is actually very sad. That this was the best the negative side could give. John Mark's points were littered with fallacies. I could barely breathe. But at least it made Corvino have to think.
I would completely agree. I think he thought of love needing sex in it (which is important a lot of the time) but that excludes asexual people, which are not sexually attracted, but still love each other very must. That is also why it made sense that he shut down the argument that people that aren't in the relationship can see that they are happier with each other rather without.
So by connecting fertility to orgasms, you have to prohibit oral and anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Can't have a baby like that! And then you are also saying sterile people and people unwilling to procreate, (mind you this also includes heterosexuals) shouldn't have sex, and therefore shouldn't marry, because children can't/won't result from that...
***** No. Morals themselves do not dictate that it should be a man and woman of legal age under Gawd and married. Morals dictate that sex is okay as long as both participants are fully aware of what they're doing, how it can impact them, and are still willing to follow through. Your religion brings Gawd into the equation. Not morals. Morals and Gawd are independent of each other.
By Dr Miravalle's reasoning, a heterosexual kiss should be wholly unfulfilling, as both parties bring very similar organs to the process. When he wrapped up with the "marrying yourself" argument, he lost all credibility. Dr Corvino, again, for the win.
It's nice to see such a friendly and decent debate, they give each other a chance to talk and really listen to each other, without visible prejudice. As for the arguments, I have a feeling that Miravalle's only argument was sex biological incompabillity and overall he was focusing on the sex part of somebodies relationship. And he said in a 100 metaphores how you have no value of getting something from somebody if you already have that. Even in the same DVD case - you don't just receive DVD but also DVD represents love, meaning, sign that you mean something to that person, sign of friendship, saying thanks, showing affection. We can't observe and understand gifts of any kind among the people who love each other in that kind of sense. Sex doesn't mean giving the certain parts of body to each other, but sharing what those parts represent and giving the act of sex meaning, Viewing it by just that we take away the "humanity" out of it.
Miravalle's tortured logic is woefully apparent and that is what happens when you argue a case that you understand on an emotional basis using what you believe is logic. Homosexual unions in many cases last for many years and often until death and if couples stay together for that length of time whether they be between people of the same gender or different genders there must be complimentarity or the union would be quickly dissolved. That is the proof of the pudding argument which I find most convincing.
My problem is that religion wants to dictate how everyone lives based on personal beliefs. I don't care about personal beliefs. Atheists and gays don't run into churches or knock on doors telling people religion is bullshit, so human rights are all-inclusive. Religion should be kept to yourself and those that agree. Leave everyone else alone.
It is telling that by deciding to omit *religious* arguments as support for his position John-Mark Miravalle is left with only a dodgy "complementarity" argument. It is also more than just a bit interesting that he insists on debating at an abstract level and objects to John Corvino's mention of how his male partner of 11 years is accepted as part of the Corvino family.
The most annoying part of Miravalle's rebuttals were the points he tried to make that Corvino wasn't using fact when he was using experience. But then when Corvino said yeah okay, let's use fact then. All of a sudden John Mark exclaimed that fact was too much for the audience to handle and that facts don't make an argument.... even though they do.
I've come to the simple conclusion that those who oppose homosexuality merely don't understand it and should just shut the hell up and let us live our lives. "Your beliefs and lifestyle shouldn't be separate" but by telling me my homosexuality is "unhealthy" you're trying to do exactly that. Because I BELIEVE I should be allowed to marry whom I fall in live with, whether man or woman. But arguing against it, is trying to hinder me from living my belief, thus separating my lifestyle from my belief. Also, by saying I can't lovingly have sex with my partner because you can't generate your masculinity to another man... Um, ever heard of tops and bottoms? Maybe you should educate yourself on the homosexual culture before you oppose it.
shannique henty Nope, sorry, but the bible does NOT clearly condemn homosexuality. Read this article and then tell me you're still totally convinced. www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php Then again, even when the average Christian hears the truth and realizes that they don't have to interpret the Bible in the "Traditional" way in order to still believe in it as solid foundation, they still choose to believe as they've always done because, psychologically, it's just more comfortable. Frankly, I'm glad that Christians don't have to interpret the Bible in the Traditional way, because if we did, Slavery would still be practiced and women would still be second-rate citizens (and many other things).
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?" Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful. Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. etc....
shannique henty #1 - Kindly go through the old testament and list for me all the things that are called "an abomination." #2 - It's clear that you didn't read the article I enclosed previously. Otherwise, you would have realized that your other assertions hold no water. Please read that article I attached! #3 - Thirdly, have you ever read ALL of Romans 1&2...together? You Christians seem to make a big deal about Paul saying that homosexuality is unnatural, etc. BUT you forget to put that passage in its entire context. Basically, Paul is listing a lot of things things (not just man with man and woman with woman) including idolatry, gossiping, slander and greed. And then, in the first verse of Romans chapter 2, he lays it down by saying that NONE OF YOU CAN JUDGE ANOTHER FOR YOU ARE ALL GUILTY! You know what you're doing right now, Shanique? You're judging a whole group of human beings and yet you are just as guilty! Paul was NOT listing those things so that the church could take one little part and accuse other people of sinning. No! He was saying that because everyone is at fault, no one can judge another. So read the whole passage please (both chapter 1 & 2). Take note of Rom. 2:12 where Paul said that those who live under the law (which is what you're doing) will be judged by the law. Whereas those without it (for example, homosexuals) will be judged without it. THAT'S what you're scripture says, and if you had any respect for it, you'd keep your mouth shut against making judgments on others and would start caring about the state of your own soul instead!
The huge irony watching these debates in 2023 is that one of the primary arguments against same sex marriage is that 'gay sex' is not natural/complimentary/etc. and that SEX INTEGRAL TO MARRIAGE... now in 2023 we are talking about indoctrination/grooming, and 'sexualizing children'... and in places like Florida with the 'Don' t Say Gay' Law... talking about a same-sex marriage is 'sexualizing' children but talking about a heterosexual marriage to children is not about 'sex' at all... So which is it Conservatives... Is SEX implicit to heterosexual marriage or not ...
What is a person to do that has a born attraction to the same sex? Ignore it and and be miserable and fake an attraction to someone of the opposite sex? -or- Embrace it and have a relationship with a person you are attracted too and love? Seems obvious.
You are so right! What is a gay person who is attracted to the same sex supposed to do for some 75 years of their life. ? Just offer it up to Jesus? Does Jesus really want us to be alone for all of our life? So why did God make gay people then? I would like to hear John Mark Miravalle tell a person what he or she should do if they are attracted to a person of the same sex?
John Miravalle, sweetie, has EVERY single ejaculation of yours been EXPLICITLY for the purpose of procreation? Or have u separated the procreativness from the ejaculation via say........ Natural Family Planning.
Perhaps we need to use a different legal term, such as "same-sex union", and let "marriage" be defined as always, that is, between a man and a woman. Just let both have legal status and retain all rights thereunto. Otherwise, we´ll never get anywhere.
I had to comment after reading your posts.. I have to say, you stated this wonderfully. You have a great mind. I have been in a relationship with my should be husband for 10 years, and I find him to be the most wonderful person that I have had the pleasure of meeting on this journey through life. He is my soul mate and I love him more than anything. To say that my love he has for me, or the love that I have for him has no meaning a is sad statement. Love is love and love has no gender. (IMO)
John-Mark starts off his argument by opposing homosexuality. This a smoke screen. That is NOT the topic of debate. Homosexuality is not illegal, therefore considering it right or wrong is neither here nor there when considering if two men who wish to devote their lives, their finances, their possessions to one another may go through a ceremony. Also the reason we call such activities "sex" is a type of shorthand because we are using the sexual organs for pleasure. We would be just as happy to call it any other name. His specious point about "junk" food is ridiculous. If our eating habits lead us to be obese or unhealthy, yes, but where is the equivalent unhealthy end product for two men or women in a lasting relationship? There are many other false analogies that he uses.
I love how Miravalle's very first argument defeats itself. "Receiving what you already have is meaningless" and that example with the two DVDs. Why would you even want the first DVD? You've already seen the movie, so it's meaningless. Some things you just can't have enaugh of, love is one of those things, sex is too (although to a lesser degree).
Interesting Argument. For me the argument was really well settled for this. If it is that a bad relationship should stop marriage I agree. I am not in a bad relationship; it is a good loving relationship. So I am good for society
There are a lot of situations where women go through their marriage without ever experiencing an orgasm, even though their husband/partner does. It is not an automatic guarantee that a male and female will compliment each other. On the other hand, I have often heard from lesbians (many were married to men prior) that they gained a greater fulfillment from another woman, because a woman know what a woman needs. I think that this is also the same outcome with some men - they gain a greater fulfillment from another man because men know what men like. Having said all that, there are many more bisexuals than gays and straights combined, even though the greater percentage is hidden. So the bottom line is, only a person who enjoys being with a same sex would really know and understand their answer, just as a heterosexual would know and understand theirs. So the final analysis of this debate is 'unrealistic' - both are speaking with limitations - they are making judgements and declarations about something that they don't actually know. I recommend an amazing new book titled Ztingar - that is based on the 'Middle Way' - pure 'common sense'.
Been with my husband 27 beautiful years, the physical connection is great, never never have we gone to bed angry and we don't feel the need to impose our homosexual values on anyone else and we don't live the gay lifestyle. You mention Gay to someone and immediately they think of effeminate, flamboyant sex driven party animals. To those who still don't know yet, we're everywhere, clergy, medical field, preparing your food, mechanics, etc etc. What's interesting is, Miravalle like Sooo many "straights" seem to be experts on homosexuality more than gay folks do. It's more than the sexual part Mr. Miravalle, it's the same sex energy that a woman or man feels more comfortable and aligned to rather than trying to live a lie just to be accepted! I've gone down the road of being Straight and Bi and I will not live a lie! There are 10 commandments, none of which mention homosexuality and in the bible it is written you are an adulterer if you marry a divorced person, steal or eat pork. So the old saying,"Thou Dost Protest Too Much", especially when it comes to persecuting homosexuals, leaves me wondering if there's something within an individual that they themselves are struggling with? Some will tell us that we weren't born this way but that we made a choice to be a homosexual and to them I say, So when in your life did YOU make a decision to be straight?
I thought I was alone in these feelings. I was raised in a very small country town in a religious family. I was pretty sheltered to the ways of the world. We didn't have a tv and music was picked b4 we could listen to it. I had to move away to find myself which is how I ended up in the city. I met the love of my life 14 yrs ago and we have been together 12 yrs. We adopted teenagers and they now attend college and are pursuing their careers. My daughter was married at 19 contd
I think it was really impressive. Tho I don't agree with him, I was very impressed and I loved too hear a new argument I never heard before. I'll give props too both sides. Both were very original with their arguments. Great debate :) Just cause I don't give John-Mark hate doesn't mean I agree with him. I am for same-sex marriage 100% c:
The bald guy doesn't understand LOVE....Wen Simone and Mark say dey r in LOVE dey don't evaluate or calculate the maleness he shall bring on d bed or the femaleness she shall get... They just LOVE each other regardless of whether or not Simone or Mark is ever going to beget kids... She LOVES him for d man he is and for d women he makes her and vice versa.What I don't understand is what makes d bald guy think that Simon and Mark can't have what Simone and Mark have..
This metaphor about "giving masculinity/femininity" isn't even metaphorically right. It conceptualizes sex as a transaction or a trade. It completely misses the point that sex is about sharing, not trading. Two men or two women having sex don't trade sexualities. They share an experience together. That's what complementarity is, not trading a characteristic with someone else.
I love Miravelle's argument in the Q&A section that personal experience is somehow retreating. I wonder how quickly his tune would change if Dr. Corvino challenged his God. Ultimately that is what the debate always boils down to. I have a personal experience with my God so that proves to me he is real. Yeah well I have a personal experience with my husband that enriches my life. The difference between our personal experiences is the fact that I don't have to have faith my husband exists and that he loves me.
Miravalle's argument is so precariously constructed. Moving from the idea of complementarity as essential to saying that gay marriage is less than hetero marriage because of a lack of certain complementarities is a huge leap. It requires not only some incredible blind spots (there are thousands of ways that heterosexual couples aren't complementary) but also that we as the audience agree to his framework. The framework of complementarity as somehow the only measure of good or the ultimate measure of goodness. This is simply ridiculous and purposefully narrow. Just because he sounds smart doesn't mean that what he's saying has any real value.
John-Mark Miravalle... WTF?! quit circling the airport and land that plane. His entire opening statement has almost zero to do with the subject of the debate.
The sad part is that I think it's actually the best argument I've ever heard from that side. I agree, it's incredibly moronic, but that just says something about the general argument against same-sex marriage. John-Mark's only advantage over others' arguments is that he has reasons that he backs up, however wrong or ridiculous they may be. They are grasping at straws.
I didn't realise, the reason John Mark Miravalle married his partner was because of her genitals. Not because of love, commitment and to care for each other.
i'm sure this has already been expressed better than i'm able to, but, dr. miravalle honestly far surpassed my expectations for non-sequiturs, circular reasoning, and _very_ bad analogies. but at least he didn't quote the bible or invoke god (that i noticed). however, he very obviously alluded to teleological arguments that just needed a phrase like "we were designed for..." proceeding them to be completely exposed as invoking theism. also, dr. corvino really should have more aggressively countered some of the masked insults to "gay" sex and love -- as if they were any different to the heterosexual counterpart. i would love to have seen hitchens or stephen fry take this guy on. there would have been bloody giblets strewn about the room after it was over, hitch brushing a hand through his hair, taking a deep pull of johnny walker and lighting a cigarette. anyway, to sum up my view, i completely reject out-of-hand all of dr. miravalle's presuppositions on what constitutes "complementary" sex and love, to say nothing of the fact he barely even touched marriage -- the supposed topic of debate. leave it to the religious to reduce, pedantically and laboriously, any and all subjects to sex. to everyone who has equally loved people of both genders, and to every other generally reasoning person, that there is no substantive difference between the qualities of said love should be plainly obvious.
Being Gay just isn't about having a sexual desire for the same sex. There is more to it than that, just as there is more to a heterosexual relationship. In my experience, we argue, go shopping, live together, have children, I have pets, we have jobs, we come home to each other. There is a whole life we experiences as a couple. The bedroom isn't the only dynamic in question. We live our lives much as straight people do. The only difference is,we are both male.
Well. John-Mark Miravalle says homosexual activity is not a good thing. For himself I guess not. Has he considered it must be a good thing for other people or they would not behave that way? He says sex is about love. Does he not understand that one man may love another? Of course not; he has never experienced love for another man. His argument about ovulation and ejaculation does not apply to elderly people so presumably elderly people should refrain from sexual activity. A reduced view? But again that is his view. Pleasure? He ignores commitment and relationship which was a core argument of Corvino. Obviously his real objections are biblical. Smoking? A law about smoking is like a law about same-sex marriage. Really?
1:13:43 WRONG! States prohibit marriage between siblings, regardless of whether they are biological or adopted. Also banned are marriages to a parent (biological or adopted), step-parent, aunt, uncle, and first cousins.
I have heard a lot of explanations about gay sex etc (pos and neg) but Johns explanation of sexual complimentary is truly the most outrageously ridiculous that I have ever come across. It's left me gobsmacked to be honest - I kept expecting him to laugh and say he was just kidding.
I had a very difficult time following Miravalle's analogies (especially in his opening statements - potato chips? two plugs?) I also shared Corvino's noticeable "shudder" when summarizing Miravalle's reduction of same-sex relationships as "pleasure touching" - GROSS!
It's funny that Corvino hardly talks about sex at all in his opening statement, and the Catholic theologian obsessively STAMPEDES toward the idea of sex right away. It reminds me of when Stephen Fry said, "the only people obsessed with food are bulimics and the morbidly obese. And that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic church in a nutshell."
If you don't agree with Gay Marriage then don't go to one -Simple.
superstubes exactly, problem solved 👍
What about others?
Miravalle's argument is basically: "People shouldn't be gay because they have the same parts." Lol yeah that's the whole point of being gay! Talk about circular logic, jeez...
Anyone else thinks Miravalle is gayer than Corvino?
Sunny Me too. Corvino is more macho than Miraville even his surname sounds very gay. Better stiil a drag queens name.
Don Lee He makes Corvino look like The Rock.
I think these two Johns would have made a cute couple...maybe the "parts" would work.
Ditto it’s so obvious the tenacity with which he is obsessed with the sex AND glories in his masculinity his poor wife
I was thinking the exact same thing! It is clear that Corvino is the top, Miravelle is the bottom, both in the bed and in the debate.
corvino: homosexuality can be as beautiful and fulfilling as a heterosexual relationship
miravalle: part don’t fit
Miravalle's arguments don't fit.
If serial killers are to kill and experience the same beauty and fulfillment as heterosexual relationships then I guess its moral according to your argument
@@carved6749 Except in this case someone is being harmed (killed)
@@BrazilDan1 its not just physical that constitutes harm
@@carved6749 What could possibly constitute harm in same-sex relationships between consenting adults?
Oh my...
Miravelle didn't have arguments, he had opinions. He just vomited up a huge amount of stupid claims that he didn't support with facts and examples. I am surprised he didn't catch on fire on the stage.
Proof?
Miravalle disregards the fact that two men or two women can have a relationship that is just as fulfilling as any straight relationship. Sorry John-Mark, your argument is a complete fail.
I'm a Lesbian and I agree with Dr. Johnte Convin on every level!. We all have our own idea about relationship, and sex. I enjoyed both
Dr's view. I still keep my vacation plans in MA. Of course PTown!
@@pattyannrienzo2957why?
How fulfilling?
Oh Jesus Christ. I thought this would be an interesting, informative debate. So I listened to John Corvino give a rational and well-argued opening. Then I started to listen to the other guy...
He first announces that he's a Catholic. Bad start. Then he effectively says that the reason he doesn't want gay marriage is because be believes that homosexual activity is wrong.
Really, at that point he should have sat down. Quit while he was ahead. Because the rest was laughable. As a result, even before he had finished, I gave up.
Now nobody is forcing religious people to have gay marriage if they think it's wrong, immoral and goes against nature. You are a devout Catholic and gay? You think that your sexuality is wrong? Fine. Don't get married to another person of the same sex. After all, nobody's forcing you.
But don't then try and force your beliefs on other people. So let those gay people who don't share your religion have their marriage. I just don't see how having married gay couples can affect my life - or my own marriage - in any way.
If believers are right and their god really does find homosexual activity an abomination, then he will doubtless do some smiting (loving, of course) in due course.
To me, it all comes back to that old saying : Live and let live. A message that Christians particularly seem to find very difficult to take on board.
"the difference between us is that I CAN determine what is distinctive about SEX and you can't" - the only point at which the crowd applauded and Corvino lost.
Mark, Okay, explain to me what is distinctive about sex. As you clearly think your reasoning powers are superior to mine, please justify that statement. Indeed, I would also like you to go through my post and tell me exactly what I have said is inaccurate. So go ahead...
John Craske "live and let live" is not permissible when society suffers from people's actions. Same sex "marriages" send the message to society that mothers are not important or fathers are not important. This is 100% true and cannot be debated.
John Craske facts don't care about your feelings.
John Craske you know that right? Crying "homophobe!" Is a classic attempt to distract people from the facts by attempting to take the higher moral ground
The fact that this is still an issue shows you how stupid human beings really are.
10 years later its what christians are using now as the end of world prophecies being fulfilled. LOL I too am christian, but also gay. :P
Honestly, Corvino won the DEBATE for actually addressing the debate TOPIC (“same-sex marriage”). Either way, all Miravalle could argue was that ‘the parts don’t fit’ and degraded marriage into just sex. It was simply offensive that Miravalle couldn’t see that love between two people of the same gender is just as valid, holistic, and real as opposite sex love - simply on the basis of “two plugs”! He kept arguing that Corvino’s points were reductionistic where his points where even moreso. I did appreciate how civil their conversation was though, they did that very well.
Is it?
Funny how when JT moderator introduces each participant JM Miravalle is referred to on basis of some of his qualifications plus lives with wife and three children, professional and personal, whereas J Corvino is referred to only on professional basis, with no reference to life outside of work as opposed to other man married with three children, possibly indicating normality ? Did anyone else notice this ?
I did.
Love is an experience of the heart and soul, and it is at this level that heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people are exactly the same. The physicality of how we love may be different, but the integrity, passion and value of the love we feel, is the same.
+Vernal Scott
Ditto that here Vernal Scott but, the tenders and adherents of the Heterocentric Doctrine must at all costs DENY this key fact, as you have here highlighted.
This supremely wicked way-of-being is taught to us all in a thousand and one ways, beginning immediately from birth. It commands always and in all ways that 'opposites only' are to be allowed the reality of any deep, physically-expressed love, this supposed uniqueness of affection existing for the furtherance of our species solely.
As has been demonstrated over a very long while, it teaches and encourages the participating males of the Doctrine to compete, to challenge and way too often (as is quite easy to ascertain), to murder one another with gusty glee, such a thing being a part of their normalcy. (Certain types of sports being controlled training for this.)
This Doctrine professes possession of unique goodness and yet encourages such co-mutual desire to do murder . . . such participants and boosters being horrified uniformly, essentially (as I would state it as being, as based upon observation), at the proposition that any and all of the same-sexes might be actually be capable of mutual love.
Horrified.
Murder one another? YES!
Love one another in the tangible way? Never!!
That the workers and admirers tending the perpetual machinery of The Doctrine would and do find this acceptable and necessary even, to some displays handily, I believe, an innate perverseness of their very own: the suborning of Evil in the name of what actually is of the truly Good, and thus my charge of this to be put-upon them squarely.
These sorts have become SO INURED to their systems of conformance-to and working-for The Doctrine - IT and it's myriads of driven ghastliness and hypocrisies - that they have actually come to believe it all just well-and-good, fine-and-dandy, being not able in the least to see the horrifying mortification that it has had as effect, upon very many onlookers peering-in from outside. No, this is not mistaken.
This living hell of sexual misery that The Heterocentric Doctrine intends, and succeeds-at producing wholesale, must be brought to a just, final end and no matter what might be required so as to effect the essential trick.
Well onto this task our young people are now. May God bless them to final triumph.
When so-done - the stinking rotten Mechanism having been crushed into a billion, billions bits - ALL will go free to love and live as they see fit; the seething, controlling Evil it was having been vanquished. (A project most worthy of doing, so I would assert.)
Thank you, Vernal Scott, for providing the seed for this little sprout of growth.
James Miller Just waking up here in London, and what an excellent little sprout of growth to wake up to. James, thank you! I hope that what you've written is available elsewhere for more eyes to see. I have tried to articulate the same and more in my non-fiction book, God's Other Children: A London Memoir. If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look for free at the prologue inside the Kindle version at Amazon. Thank you again for being another wise voice in a world that is beginning to hear you. Slowly, I know. Warmest of wishes.
+Vernal Scott
Vernal,
Greetings to you!
How kind and considerate of you to have written what and as you did, re my little scintillic effusion. It was greatly appreciated. Following the lead of your good suggestion, I am now studying you materials at your website (of your own .com name), and I must say it is all most impressive. (It will take me a little while to get through it, however.) ' Will be in-touch from there directly for an e-mail chat?
Kindest Regards,
- James
+James Miller Thanks James. Looking forward to hearing from you. Keep well. V
And you are not wrong! And do note that JM Miravalle also says this, implicitly but also explicitly in the outro. But, I think his point is the it's the act itself is lacking (because of the same body part) and thus if you take the loving relationship between two people of the same gender vs people of separate genders - the two of the separate genders have something just a bit more. BUT that's not to take away existing love from the relationship of the same-sex. However, Miravalle wouldn't call that a marriage because it's missing that component. I don't know how he would feel about same-sex, non-sexual (but devoted to each other) relationships.
Two thumbs for John Corvino!! He elegantly shows his class of debating.
I couldn't do it. I debate religious all the time and can't stand they want to tell me how to live based on the Bible.
I'm Gay, and have been in a relationship going on 11 years, I have 2 adopted children "Hence a family". If the "tax breaks are for people that might have kids" should I not be entitled to them as well? Are my children less than in some way? My children were 10 and 11 when we got them and they are now in college. I had to pay more, and can't get benefits for my children because of the very thing you are defending. My family should receive the same resources available to other families. You Agree?
I would say, without hopefully tipping my hand about how I feel about this issue, the following: The topic was "Same-Sex Marriage Debate". If that was, indeed, the topic, then one man debated the topic of Same-Sex Marriage, and one debated the topic of Same-Sex Sex. I'm not saying Miravalle debated badly, just that he seemed to debate the issue of sexual intercourse, not Marriage as a whole.
Unless I have the topic wrong, wherein I stand corrected.
There is one place in the video where JM Miravalle explains how same-sex sex ties to his view of why same-sex marriage shouldn't be - I don't recall the minute mark but it goes something like so:
Same-sex sex is missing the sexual complementary component (the giving of your fullest self which includes fertility), and if you are unable to give your full self then there is an issue with the relationship, and because there is an issue with the relationship - that means it is unhealthy and it will undermine the whole of the relationship.
In this case, relationship can be viewed as marriage.
@@cpawel Being I watched this 7 years ago, I will take your word for it, since I don't wanna watch the whole thing again ;) That said, I will still hold to my opinion that when debating a topic, you debate/address the WHOLE topic, not just one aspect of it. As someone who has never debated in his life (me!), I would simply counter that A) Giving your fullest self means giving everything you ARE, not everything you don't have. And B), as I'm sure was pointed out somewhere in the debate, that if fertility is the issue he is harping on, there are plenty of hetero couples who marry and have intercourse knowing full well they are incapable of producing children, and we do not ban them.
But I still appreciate you pointing out where he seemed to cover my criticism.
Corvino wins. (Like there was ever a question.)
he wins in utterly dismantling marriage as an institution. he cannot determine what marriage really is at all.
"the difference between us is that I CAN determine what is distinctive about SEX and you can't" - the only point at which the crowd applauded and Corvino lost.
+Mark Wilkie LMAO Are you talking about the half of the crowd that applauded because they are Catholic? Then of course they thought Corvino lost in that instance. All the while the other half most likely saw them as jokes. You cannot merit the applause due to the fact that 1. You cannot see how many people actually applauded, we are only going based off of hearing. 2. The crowd was legitimately split between Athiests and Catholics. So yes, one side will always be biased.... so stop posting that as a rebuttal to every comment you disagree with. It has no solid standing. Plus it is childish.
There is no valid argument against gay civil unions. Not one premise against makes any sense. Miravelle, is just grasping at straws.
@Alf Maggadan if you were an alien visiting earth and researching the different kinds of relationships that exist among human populations, and discovered that some 2 person relationships are capable of creating new life without the assistance of anything else, you wouldn’t distinguish that type of relationship from others?
"The destructiveness of the gay lifestyle" - well, perhaps the subject experienced this but this cannot be used as a premise for argument in the collective.
If anything this debate really brings to the surface just how utterly vapid the anti-gay marriage stance is. I mean, I listen to Mark Miravalle and I am just so sure that he is a nice guy who I would like if I knew him personally. I am convinced that he did his absolute best to be as fair, unbiased, and sensitive as possible. But his stance in this debate forces him to make statements that are biased and outright insulting. He cannot get around it.
How
I loved how extremely civil and respectful they were to each other. While I tend to enjoy snark in between debaters in other debates, I love how I truly get the feel both of em are trying to understand each other, and they give me the vibe that they truly are having a consctructive debate which is enriching to both of em.
I am totally with gay marraiage rights btw.
I really applaud Miravalle for trying to deliver real arguments. And I really want to listen to him even if I am not agreeing with him. But I stumble on the fact that he disagrees with his own arguments. He will start saying a thing and later he will say the other thing. And I think that makes it very hard for him to win this argument. The examples he gives are either abstract or and I am taking his example here about a teacher and a minor. Which isn't useful in a debate about 2 adult humans wanting to marry. I am not even saying which genders these humans have to be. And he focuses a lot on the sex. Yes it is important, I will not deny that. but a relationship between 2 humans isn't all about sex. And for me he puts too much emphasis on this part of a marriage.
It’s to procreate
I'm really amazed about how awful Miravelle's arguments are... That's really all he's got?
I agree somewhat, except I'm not that amazed at his arguments, I am amazed that he thinks that they are as strong as they are. I am positive that JMM thinks that his argument is not just about physical sex, but it is. He addresses NONE of Corvino's points on legality, social structure and stable families, and only addresses his own perception of physical compatibility and what he thinks it means in a relationship.
He has soooo much fun personality. He even said "ejaculate". -.-
All of JMM's arguments are narrow minded on the sex part; it takes the underlying assumption that's all LGB people ever do with their lives. The gift analogy assumed a partner was just another material object like an exact clone; It fails to recognize basic psychological elements between the two people, their personality, perception, emotion and even basic human rights (love, freedom). And he also fails to acknowledge that laws are influenced by morals. And his moral standards are 2000 years outdated.
His real argument is based on the old testament and maybe St.
Paul in the NT but that argument does not hold water for most people so he does not use it. And he should not because they do not apply in the 21st Century. Most arguments his church made in prior centuries have been over turned. The earth is not the centre of the universe.Nobody believes in the Adam and Eve myth and so on. Poor guy! He's a real loser!
Adam and Eve a Myth... Explain.
John-Mark Miravalle. There's something very wrong with this mans thinking.
Alex Adam He's Catholic. That explains a lot.
He's "religious." That in itself explains a lot!
I agree he has a perverse sense of morality. Lot of emphasise on genitals and less on relationships. I feel sorry for his wife. Imagine being reduced to complementary genitals
how is he going to control heterosexual couples engaging in non vaginal-penile inteecourse
John-Mark Miravalle's argument fails because he is trying to impose his definition and perspective of "complementary" on same sex couples. In order to accomplish his task he needs to first understand what they find attractive and complementary which he clearly does not. One minute he says you just can't talk about the pleasure, the next he says sex is about the pleasure. Every argument he made was from an "ultra" straight persons perspective, maybe a little too ultra. How does he know they are not complimentary and what does he mean by unhealthy. He's taking his friend's claim that gay relationships are unhealthy and applying it to all across the board. I'm sure everyone viewing this knows several hetro-couples in unhealthy relationships. Does that mean we should ban all marriage? Wait a minute with hetro-divorce rates exceeding 50% for many years now, we may need to rethink that. Seriously, he kept saying gays have nothing to offer each other, which is bunk. One big thing gay couples offer each other is situationual understanding (perspective) including a more complete understanding wants, needs and desires. A girl knows best what make a girl feel good and a guy knows best what makes a guy feel good. How many females in hetro relationships fail to have satisfactory sex to the point of failure to climax? How many times have we heard people in hetro relationships cry out he/she doesn't understand me. John Corvino was a little light on the guy, but still won hands down.
I like how professional and reasonable this debate is. That being said, I cannot stand Miraville. I cannot understand the application of his perspective with regards to secular law and nonreligious American citizens.
Contrary to the claim made in the debate, we may well appreciate a gift that reduplicates what we already have. If I have $10, I may be quite happy to receive an additional $10 as a present.
John Corvino is a beautiful speaker. I think that Mark Miravelle completely misses the point of everything that John said. Mark focused exclusively on sex and sexual organs the entire time. Just because males have the same organs does not mean that they cannot have intimate relationships and give meaningfully to one another, as John tried to explain--any relationship that is worthwhile is about so much more than the physical anyway whether it be friends or partners.
Agreed.
Dudes, I know I'm 8 years late to this party, but I just gotta say it makes me LIVID when straight people try to argue against gay marriage and the won't bloody well shut up about their goddamned spouses the whole time. It's like the creepy youth pastor "my smoking hot wife" motif, but waaaaaaaaay more insensitive and nauseating. 21:20
ding-ding! Corvino wins! lets all get some fries
I like Corvino's book "What's Wrong With Homosexuality". I am reading it now. He makes a lot of good points. He's clever, and somewhat nice looking - John's partner is very lucky to have him.
That’s gay
Miravalle is utterly unaware of how marriage equality can only increase love, respect and affection in our society. One man doesn't automatically know how to swim in ocean. We learn A LOT from each other, and on many levels. In fact, everything we learn in our lifetimes comes from observation and interaction with others around us.
All in all, i think both sides were eloquent and respectful. I wish more dialogues on topics such as this would be as respectful and open
Miravelle's talk is saturated with analogy constructions leading to non-sequitur pseudo conclusions. He seems to be obsessed with sexuality in marriage and how to 'do IT the right way' which borders embarrassment. No wonder he never published in this field. He probably tried, though.
By the way. It is really really really nice to see a REAL discussion about this for a change. They attack each others arguments without getting angry and becoming overly emotional. which is what you normally see. I am really glad to see this like this. Because it shows that we can talk about it without getting overly angry or so.
That was my favorite part about the whole thing. I could actually try to understand and listen to opposition instead of getting a bunch of angry people talking over each other. =)
Miravalle's arguments seem to be addreseed to himself, to justify the fact that he married a woman and not another man.
1:21h Corvino says it in a very kind way: it's all very abstract. Indeed Miravelle's argumentation is in its greater part gobbledygook. The two parties seem to argue on two different fronts: Corvino talks about that marriage for same sex couples is a completion and institutionalisation (with all its stabilising effects) of same-sex relations assuming that same-sex eelations are acceptable. Miravelle however tries to point out that same-sex relations are sick repeating actually the whole 'why legalise same-sex intercourse'-debate. In lacking any other arguments, M. bangs on the distinctiveness of sexual parts, but fails to conclusively argue its necessity. He claims radical distinctiveness is needed to find fulfillment, reconciling the phenomenological contradiction (after all there are same-sex couples) with a psychological defect of homosexuals to recognise what's really good for them (eating plaster analogy); again turning the clocks back into times where homosexuality was considered as pathological and correctable behaviour. Moreover he fails to prove the inadequacy of the distibctiveness of the two indiviuals taking part in same-sex intercourse: M's DVD parabula reminded me of the joke about the man who gets a book as birthday present saying: But I already have one!
I love this : two people having a civilized discussion. why cant all people be like this and not get heated.
because a lot of us come from a place of hurt from people who blindly hate.
"Marrying yourself"? That doesn't make even the slightest sense legally. Now I've heard every straw man position.
Very civil, but an absolute train wreck of irrationality from the right.
A key characteristic of SEX is that it causes the release of multiple chemicals that activate the 'pleasure centers' of the brain... When those centers are 'activated' in the presence of another person.. the brain forms memories linking that person to pleasure which contribute to the strength of a relationship...
Can't be sexual give and take in a gay relationship? I'd have to disagree there...
Miravalle didn’t get the point that homosexuality is about the same sex both physical and sexual that complement each other…..he can not distinguish and differentiate the two because he’s not gay
John - Mark simplifies marriage as being about sex, and the ability to procreate and when something is unhealthy you should not promote it. So what about all the unhealthy straight couples? Should their marriage be annulled? All the straight couples that cannot procreate, did the validity of their marriage went down with every try to conceive? I can agree to the argument that Men and Woman were in the early beginnings created to procreate; however we have evolved and the human being has changed their reasons for living. Procreation is not number one anymore, love and happiness is.
I can't believe after 1:23:30 of naked assertions and reification, that man has the audacity to declare himself the winner of the debate. He does the argument a disservice and abandons civil debate when he unilaterally decides that the majority opinion of positive lived homosexual experience is inadmissible.
Dr. Corvino- the more I watch you in these debates (Maggie, John- Mark, Ryan Andersen, etc., the more (particularly, as a homosexual) I enjoy and appreciate your (our) point of view. I appreciate and respect your honesty, common sense, arguments when it comes to defining what marriage and civil unions are, defining and expressing what homosexuals want as far as equal rights and fairness and double standards. I just watched you go head-to-head with John-Mark respectfully and really respected and appreciated your arguments against his. I also enjoy your sense of humor. Respectfully- Danielle
Miravalle lied. His reason is because "God said no" and didn't express that. He lied to everyone.
Whatever one's views, this is a real model for debate: despite being a passionate, personal issue, both Dr Corvino and Dr Miravalle argue in a controlled, respectful way and, unlike in many debates, they actually and directly engage with one another's arguments, instead of simply talking past each other. If only every debate were conducted like this!
John Mark gave John Corvino the best debate that I've see anyone give him. The repeated "3 levels" approach made his argument tough to pull apart. Overall I would say Corvino won because he had so many diverse arguments and rebuttal points.
I agree with you that he gave him the hardest debate. But in its own right, is actually very sad. That this was the best the negative side could give. John Mark's points were littered with fallacies. I could barely breathe. But at least it made Corvino have to think.
. . . Miravalle is stuck on the Carousel of physical parts and not the entire human experience of Love, Care, Respect and Intimacy . . .
😎
I would completely agree. I think he thought of love needing sex in it (which is important a lot of the time) but that excludes asexual people, which are not sexually attracted, but still love each other very must. That is also why it made sense that he shut down the argument that people that aren't in the relationship can see that they are happier with each other rather without.
So by connecting fertility to orgasms, you have to prohibit oral and anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Can't have a baby like that! And then you are also saying sterile people and people unwilling to procreate, (mind you this also includes heterosexuals) shouldn't have sex, and therefore shouldn't marry, because children can't/won't result from that...
***** I don't believe in any god(s) so that was a complete waste of a comment.
***** No. Morals themselves do not dictate that it should be a man and woman of legal age under Gawd and married. Morals dictate that sex is okay as long as both participants are fully aware of what they're doing, how it can impact them, and are still willing to follow through. Your religion brings Gawd into the equation. Not morals. Morals and Gawd are independent of each other.
By Dr Miravalle's reasoning, a heterosexual kiss should be wholly unfulfilling, as both parties bring very similar organs to the process. When he wrapped up with the "marrying yourself" argument, he lost all credibility.
Dr Corvino, again, for the win.
Miravelle's view is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on this issue.
It's nice to see such a friendly and decent debate, they give each other a chance to talk and really listen to each other, without visible prejudice. As for the arguments, I have a feeling that Miravalle's only argument was sex biological incompabillity and overall he was focusing on the sex part of somebodies relationship. And he said in a 100 metaphores how you have no value of getting something from somebody if you already have that. Even in the same DVD case - you don't just receive DVD but also DVD represents love, meaning, sign that you mean something to that person, sign of friendship, saying thanks, showing affection. We can't observe and understand gifts of any kind among the people who love each other in that kind of sense. Sex doesn't mean giving the certain parts of body to each other, but sharing what those parts represent and giving the act of sex meaning, Viewing it by just that we take away the "humanity" out of it.
Well said :)
Procreation
Miravalle's tortured logic is woefully apparent and that is what happens when you argue a case that you understand on an emotional basis using what you believe is logic. Homosexual unions in many cases last for many years and often until death and if couples stay together for that length of time whether they be between people of the same gender or different genders there must be complimentarity or the union would be quickly dissolved. That is the proof of the pudding argument which I find most convincing.
My problem is that religion wants to dictate how everyone lives based on personal beliefs. I don't care about personal beliefs. Atheists and gays don't run into churches or knock on doors telling people religion is bullshit, so human rights are all-inclusive. Religion should be kept to yourself and those that agree. Leave everyone else alone.
It is telling that by deciding to omit *religious* arguments as support for his position John-Mark Miravalle is left with only a dodgy "complementarity" argument. It is also more than just a bit interesting that he insists on debating at an abstract level and objects to John Corvino's mention of how his male partner of 11 years is accepted as part of the Corvino family.
It's really hard to hear John Miravalle, his wedding ring is making too much noise.
So in other words, what John Miravalle is saying in his opening "argument" is that his wife is replaceable.
Nothing wrong with polygamy as long as the woman gets to have multiple husbands as well, they are all consenting adults.
Mark doesn't see that people can love each without procreative sex. That in itself is a sad outlook on romantic love.
The most annoying part of Miravalle's rebuttals were the points he tried to make that Corvino wasn't using fact when he was using experience. But then when Corvino said yeah okay, let's use fact then. All of a sudden John Mark exclaimed that fact was too much for the audience to handle and that facts don't make an argument.... even though they do.
this Miravalle just embarased himself. i hope straight people sees this.
Corvino has that Jordan Peterson voice pitch 😂
hear the speech on 2012, John Mark M , i belive he was a medieval monk .. caught in a time machine of a 900 years future journey..
"traditional dude" Dr. Miravalle has a very VERY rigid, very narrow defintion of sex.
I've come to the simple conclusion that those who oppose homosexuality merely don't understand it and should just shut the hell up and let us live our lives. "Your beliefs and lifestyle shouldn't be separate" but by telling me my homosexuality is "unhealthy" you're trying to do exactly that. Because I BELIEVE I should be allowed to marry whom I fall in live with, whether man or woman. But arguing against it, is trying to hinder me from living my belief, thus separating my lifestyle from my belief. Also, by saying I can't lovingly have sex with my partner because you can't generate your masculinity to another man... Um, ever heard of tops and bottoms? Maybe you should educate yourself on the homosexual culture before you oppose it.
You can site the bible when it is a credible source. And as far as logic is concerned; it's not. So all you did was waste your time.
shannique henty
Nope, sorry, but the bible does NOT clearly condemn homosexuality. Read this article and then tell me you're still totally convinced. www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
Then again, even when the average Christian hears the truth and realizes that they don't have to interpret the Bible in the "Traditional" way in order to still believe in it as solid foundation, they still choose to believe as they've always done because, psychologically, it's just more comfortable.
Frankly, I'm glad that Christians don't have to interpret the Bible in the Traditional way, because if we did, Slavery would still be practiced and women would still be second-rate citizens (and many other things).
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"
Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. etc....
shannique henty #1 - Kindly go through the old testament and list for me all the things that are called "an abomination."
#2 - It's clear that you didn't read the article I enclosed previously. Otherwise, you would have realized that your other assertions hold no water. Please read that article I attached!
#3 - Thirdly, have you ever read ALL of Romans 1&2...together? You Christians seem to make a big deal about Paul saying that homosexuality is unnatural, etc. BUT you forget to put that passage in its entire context. Basically, Paul is listing a lot of things things (not just man with man and woman with woman) including idolatry, gossiping, slander and greed. And then, in the first verse of Romans chapter 2, he lays it down by saying that NONE OF YOU CAN JUDGE ANOTHER FOR YOU ARE ALL GUILTY!
You know what you're doing right now, Shanique? You're judging a whole group of human beings and yet you are just as guilty! Paul was NOT listing those things so that the church could take one little part and accuse other people of sinning. No! He was saying that because everyone is at fault, no one can judge another. So read the whole passage please (both chapter 1 & 2). Take note of Rom. 2:12 where Paul said that those who live under the law (which is what you're doing) will be judged by the law. Whereas those without it (for example, homosexuals) will be judged without it. THAT'S what you're scripture says, and if you had any respect for it, you'd keep your mouth shut against making judgments on others and would start caring about the state of your own soul instead!
so because am saying its wrong, am judging u. Thats what u all say when ppl telling u the truth. Am not judging a soul
Miravalle scolds Corvino for lack of evidence when he's offered none.
Jhon-Mark Miravalle is just talking about parts not fitting in a more elegant way... hahahahaha, you're doing it wrong Mark!!!
The huge irony watching these debates in 2023 is that one of the primary arguments against same sex marriage is that 'gay sex' is not natural/complimentary/etc. and that SEX INTEGRAL TO MARRIAGE... now in 2023 we are talking about indoctrination/grooming, and 'sexualizing children'... and in places like Florida with the 'Don' t Say Gay' Law... talking about a same-sex marriage is 'sexualizing' children but talking about a heterosexual marriage to children is not about 'sex' at all... So which is it Conservatives... Is SEX implicit to heterosexual marriage or not ...
The bald dude triggered my gaydar a lot through his maneurisms.
What is a person to do that has a born attraction to the same sex? Ignore it and and be miserable and fake an attraction to someone of the opposite sex? -or- Embrace it and have a relationship with a person you are attracted too and love? Seems obvious.
You are so right! What is a gay person who is attracted to the same sex supposed to do for some 75 years of their life. ? Just offer it up to Jesus? Does Jesus really want us to be alone for all of our life? So why did God make gay people then? I would like to hear John Mark Miravalle tell a person what he or she should do if they are attracted to a person of the same sex?
when John mark mentioned he has the "richness of masculinity" I burst out laughing. I am sure he would "take it like a man".
John Miravalle, sweetie, has EVERY single ejaculation of yours been EXPLICITLY for the purpose of procreation? Or have u separated the procreativness from the ejaculation via say........ Natural Family Planning.
Perhaps we need to use a different legal term, such as "same-sex union", and let "marriage" be defined as always, that is, between a man and a woman. Just let both have legal status and retain all rights thereunto. Otherwise, we´ll never get anywhere.
That's not going to happen, at least not in the U.S.A. because they're are far too many assholes that would fight it to no end.
I had to comment after reading your posts.. I have to say, you stated this wonderfully. You have a great mind. I have been in a relationship with my should be husband for 10 years, and I find him to be the most wonderful person that I have had the pleasure of meeting on this journey through life. He is my soul mate and I love him more than anything. To say that my love he has for me, or the love that I have for him has no meaning a is sad statement. Love is love and love has no gender. (IMO)
John-Mark starts off his argument by opposing homosexuality. This a smoke screen. That is NOT the topic of debate. Homosexuality is not illegal, therefore considering it right or wrong is neither here nor there when considering if two men who wish to devote their lives, their finances, their possessions to one another may go through a ceremony.
Also the reason we call such activities "sex" is a type of shorthand because we are using the sexual organs for pleasure. We would be just as happy to call it any other name.
His specious point about "junk" food is ridiculous. If our eating habits lead us to be obese or unhealthy, yes, but where is the equivalent unhealthy end product for two men or women in a lasting relationship?
There are many other false analogies that he uses.
John Corvino at his best: fantastic.
I love how Miravalle's very first argument defeats itself. "Receiving what you already have is meaningless" and that example with the two DVDs. Why would you even want the first DVD? You've already seen the movie, so it's meaningless. Some things you just can't have enaugh of, love is one of those things, sex is too (although to a lesser degree).
Interesting Argument. For me the argument was really well settled for this. If it is that a bad relationship should stop marriage I agree. I am not in a bad relationship; it is a good loving relationship. So I am good for society
the fact that he used The Onion as a valid news source...the clownery
Well, it seems that he just used it to lighten up the mood with the audience
There are a lot of situations where women go through their marriage without ever experiencing an orgasm, even though their husband/partner does. It is not an automatic guarantee that a male and female will compliment each other. On the other hand, I have often heard from lesbians (many were married to men prior) that they gained a greater fulfillment from another woman, because a woman know what a woman needs. I think that this is also the same outcome with some men - they gain a greater fulfillment from another man because men know what men like. Having said all that, there are many more bisexuals than gays and straights combined, even though the greater percentage is hidden. So the bottom line is, only a person who enjoys being with a same sex would really know and understand their answer, just as a heterosexual would know and understand theirs. So the final analysis of this debate is 'unrealistic' - both are speaking with limitations - they are making judgements and declarations about something that they don't actually know. I recommend an amazing new book titled Ztingar - that is based on the 'Middle Way' - pure 'common sense'.
Been with my husband 27 beautiful years, the physical connection is great, never never have we gone to bed angry and we don't feel the need to impose our homosexual values on anyone else and we don't live the gay lifestyle. You mention Gay to someone and immediately they think of effeminate, flamboyant sex driven party animals. To those who still don't know yet, we're everywhere, clergy, medical field, preparing your food, mechanics, etc etc. What's interesting is, Miravalle like Sooo many "straights" seem to be experts on homosexuality more than gay folks do. It's more than the sexual part Mr. Miravalle, it's the same sex energy that a woman or man feels more comfortable and aligned to rather than trying to live a lie just to be accepted! I've gone down the road of being Straight and Bi and I will not live a lie! There are 10 commandments, none of which mention homosexuality and in the bible it is written you are an adulterer if you marry a divorced person, steal or eat pork. So the old saying,"Thou Dost Protest Too Much", especially when it comes to persecuting homosexuals, leaves me wondering if there's something within an individual that they themselves are struggling with? Some will tell us that we weren't born this way but that we made a choice to be a homosexual and to them I say, So when in your life did YOU make a decision to be straight?
I thought I was alone in these feelings. I was raised in a very small country town in a religious family. I was pretty sheltered to the ways of the world. We didn't have a tv and music was picked b4 we could listen to it. I had to move away to find myself which is how I ended up in the city. I met the love of my life 14 yrs ago and we have been together 12 yrs. We adopted teenagers and they now attend college and are pursuing their careers. My daughter was married at 19 contd
I'm kind of speechless at Miravalle's argument. Absolutely pathetic.
I think it was really impressive. Tho I don't agree with him, I was very impressed and I loved too hear a new argument I never heard before. I'll give props too both sides. Both were very original with their arguments. Great debate :)
Just cause I don't give John-Mark hate doesn't mean I agree with him. I am for same-sex marriage 100% c:
The bald guy doesn't understand LOVE....Wen Simone and Mark say dey r in LOVE dey don't evaluate or calculate the maleness he shall bring on d bed or the femaleness she shall get... They just LOVE each other regardless of whether or not Simone or Mark is ever going to beget kids... She LOVES him for d man he is and for d women he makes her and vice versa.What I don't understand is what makes d bald guy think that Simon and Mark can't have what Simone and Mark have..
This metaphor about "giving masculinity/femininity" isn't even metaphorically right. It conceptualizes sex as a transaction or a trade. It completely misses the point that sex is about sharing, not trading. Two men or two women having sex don't trade sexualities. They share an experience together. That's what complementarity is, not trading a characteristic with someone else.
It was so painful to listen to Miravalle's "pleasure touching speech of giving sex."
I love Miravelle's argument in the Q&A section that personal experience is somehow retreating. I wonder how quickly his tune would change if Dr. Corvino challenged his God. Ultimately that is what the debate always boils down to. I have a personal experience with my God so that proves to me he is real. Yeah well I have a personal experience with my husband that enriches my life. The difference between our personal experiences is the fact that I don't have to have faith my husband exists and that he loves me.
What John miravallev essentially argued for was for polygamy, and he didn't even realize it.
My pleasure Alex - I highly recommend that you read the whole book Ztingar, as it's lessons are absolutely amazing!
I will for sure tyamada21
Miravalle's argument is so precariously constructed. Moving from the idea of complementarity as essential to saying that gay marriage is less than hetero marriage because of a lack of certain complementarities is a huge leap. It requires not only some incredible blind spots (there are thousands of ways that heterosexual couples aren't complementary) but also that we as the audience agree to his framework. The framework of complementarity as somehow the only measure of good or the ultimate measure of goodness. This is simply ridiculous and purposefully narrow. Just because he sounds smart doesn't mean that what he's saying has any real value.
John-Mark Miravalle... WTF?! quit circling the airport and land that plane. His entire opening statement has almost zero to do with the subject of the debate.
The sad part is that I think it's actually the best argument I've ever heard from that side. I agree, it's incredibly moronic, but that just says something about the general argument against same-sex marriage. John-Mark's only advantage over others' arguments is that he has reasons that he backs up, however wrong or ridiculous they may be. They are grasping at straws.
The Q&A segment was very enjoyable.
I didn't realise, the reason John Mark Miravalle married his partner was because of her genitals. Not because of love, commitment and to care for each other.
i'm sure this has already been expressed better than i'm able to, but, dr. miravalle honestly far surpassed my expectations for non-sequiturs, circular reasoning, and _very_ bad analogies. but at least he didn't quote the bible or invoke god (that i noticed). however, he very obviously alluded to teleological arguments that just needed a phrase like "we were designed for..." proceeding them to be completely exposed as invoking theism. also, dr. corvino really should have more aggressively countered some of the masked insults to "gay" sex and love -- as if they were any different to the heterosexual counterpart. i would love to have seen hitchens or stephen fry take this guy on. there would have been bloody giblets strewn about the room after it was over, hitch brushing a hand through his hair, taking a deep pull of johnny walker and lighting a cigarette.
anyway, to sum up my view, i completely reject out-of-hand all of dr. miravalle's presuppositions on what constitutes "complementary" sex and love, to say nothing of the fact he barely even touched marriage -- the supposed topic of debate. leave it to the religious to reduce, pedantically and laboriously, any and all subjects to sex. to everyone who has equally loved people of both genders, and to every other generally reasoning person, that there is no substantive difference between the qualities of said love should be plainly obvious.
+TMA2 Fully agree.
Being Gay just isn't about having a sexual desire for the same sex. There is more to it than that, just as there is more to a heterosexual relationship. In my experience, we argue, go shopping, live together, have children, I have pets, we have jobs, we come home to each other. There is a whole life we experiences as a couple. The bedroom isn't the only dynamic in question. We live our lives much as straight people do. The only difference is,we are both male.
Well. John-Mark Miravalle says homosexual activity is not a good thing. For himself I guess not. Has he considered it must be a good thing for other people or they would not behave that way? He says sex is about love. Does he not understand that one man may love another? Of course not; he has never experienced love for another man. His argument about ovulation and ejaculation does not apply to elderly people so presumably elderly people should refrain from sexual activity. A reduced view? But again that is his view. Pleasure? He ignores commitment and relationship which was a core argument of Corvino. Obviously his real objections are biblical. Smoking? A law about smoking is like a law about same-sex marriage. Really?
1:13:43 WRONG!
States prohibit marriage between siblings, regardless of whether they are biological or adopted. Also banned are marriages to a parent (biological or adopted), step-parent, aunt, uncle, and first cousins.
I have heard a lot of explanations about gay sex etc (pos and neg) but Johns explanation of sexual complimentary is truly the most outrageously ridiculous that I have ever come across. It's left me gobsmacked to be honest - I kept expecting him to laugh and say he was just kidding.
I had a very difficult time following Miravalle's analogies (especially in his opening statements - potato chips? two plugs?) I also shared Corvino's noticeable "shudder" when summarizing Miravalle's reduction of same-sex relationships as "pleasure touching" - GROSS!