@@Daniel-ox1sb personally, if there’s going to be a government-sanctioned pair-bonding recognition, I’d prefer it if gender didn’t matter. Churches are free to recognize relationships however they see fit. If that means Christians/Jews/etc never recognize same sex couples as valid, so be it, not my place since I’m not religious. All of that said, if the government chooses to NOT recognize same sex pairings, I’d find that unfortunate, yes, however it is truly no skin off my bones. I don’t need the government to validate my relationship with my partner. We love each other and that’s good enough for us.
@STriPeZz- I’m confused, what point are you trying to make? I don’t want to be rejected by society because I’m dating another dude, and if the government chooses to recognize marriages I’d prefer it if gender didn’t matter. I spoke nothing of adoption, which I believe to be a separate issue.
No one is saying you should be "cast aside and not treated like a human being" at least no one in the West. Of course, your Palestinian friends in Gaza might take exception.
I'm 60 and hopelessly 100% gay. I didn't disagree with anything I heard JP say. He obviously is making a concerted effort to honestly study each question/issue.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd My advice to you is don’t go out and marry someone of the same sex as yourself. Look, I respect your opinion. It’s ok for you to be who you are, be passionate about what you are passionate about and to like what you like in life. What’s disappointing is that you have allowed the difference of other people’s born ability to Love to become this vial, venomous hatred and disgustment to the point that you miss the entire mark, donate your discriminating hatred instead of being a good human and loving others. The fact that you can’t even remotely put yourself in someone else’s shoes is unfortunate for you. I hope that you can evolve into someone that sees the bigger picture and understands that your actions, intentions and words have the potential to destroy someone’s life instead of help heal their hearts and empower them in the utmost sense. This life isn’t easy John. We need each other.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd as a gay person, I see it as a deviation from nature. But it’s not necessarily a bad thing to deviate from it and you can’t really change it once you have formed your sexuality. The reality is that if you’re not gay, it’s the same as if you’re not autistic or bipolar or schizophrenic. You will never understand it because your brain doesn’t work that way. And it’s natural to feel disgusted at things that go against nature. But at the same time, it’s not really your fault if you are born that way.
Maybe his next book should be about studying adults who were raise by same sex parents. A kind of interview where as an adult they can look back and comment on their childhood.
Wait a minute, would you not consider the fact, that it requires considerable more effort for homosexual parents to put in more effort so that the child felt love and everything is normal. Also raising a child would already be a plus one.
Adults who were adopted & raised by homosexual couples in the past are not strictly comparable to children being adopted today. In the 70’s & 80’s it was generally accepted that mixed race marriages in Britain were far less likely to end in divorce. The argument being that much had to be overcome resulting in a stronger more dedicated couple. Today, mixed race couples children are the fastest growing demographic in Britain. It’s common, resulting in similar divorce statistics.
@Alex Goulias You think that's true eh? As Peterson said, "we don't know". You can site studies that leverage either way. A small study done by Roberto Baiocco, PhD observed the children from homosexual men and women as well as traditional couples and found that there is no difference between the outcomes of children. Now I'm sure you could find some other studies that point in the other direction, but when you get to the bottom of it, we don't know. Further research needs to be done. I think it is worth doing a study of the children of single parents, homosexual men and women, and traditional couples. My theory, which of course is worthless because, it's not backed by any evidence, is that the children of homosexual men and women would be far better off than the children of single parents. I think it's worth giving gay marriage a shot everywhere. I'm not saying this from a post-modernist point of view by the way. I think that it could benefit children who have not been adopted, because homosexual couples are much more likely to adopt. journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2018/09000/Same_Sex_and_Different_Sex_Parent_Families_in.4.aspx
Because they are kids... and kids dont have choices why don't we ask kids who grow up in single family households what they think? This idea that we must constantly seek the opinion of uninformed kids? If you were to ask kids would you rather go to school or play outside with their friends what would they say?
I dont think the children could give you an unbiased opinion. Thats basically impossible. To go with an extreme example, one dude raped literal generations of his family and his grand daughter still loves her grandpa, despite what he has done.
Even the things he states as a given don’t make sense to me. Like that “deterioration of marriage”, doesn’t letting more people get married help? And how does one couple getting married impact others in any way?
When he talks about "deterioration of marriage" he is refferring to the fact that years ago gay marriage was generally disapproved because marriage itself was deteriorating, so those who supported marriage saw in gay marriage a further threat to the institution. Peterson surely understands that letting more people get married should be good, but he also knows that there could be further side effects we don't know of. That's why he doesn't take a strong stance on the topic, because the truth is we still don't know enough and thus the topic has to be addressed carefully. And finally, we are not talking about only "one couple getting married". If gay marriages are definitively approved there could be a lot of them. Hence, potential side effects would actually stack up together leading, in the final analysis, to a much bigger problem. He is particularly referring to unknown consequences in terms of socialization of gender roles. (I know it's not on the same scale, but even with the introduction of women in the workforce people perhaps thought "what could happen if a woman works?". Actually there has been a plethora of consequences, because small things in huge numbers do make a difference). Hope I've cleared things up a bit.
Divorce rates go up, more single parent households, people are giving up on their marriage sooner. The value of being married decreased because people don’t take it as seriously. I’m not saying that’s the case but that’s the deterioration that many people fear.
I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I think the kids question is a little bit trickier. I see no problem with gay couples giving a child with a troubled background a better life. Where I think there could be an issue is very young children becoming confused and asking questions about why they don’t have a mother or father etc when other children do. I could be wrong, I don’t personally know any gay couples with children, it’s just my initial thoughts.
My son is gay. I want him to have equal rights and protections under the law NOW! Peterson seems to be very ambiguous sometimes. Saying we just don't know what the effects are...or the data is just not in yet and such response when questioned about gay marriage. Well I would say this, I'm am absolutely unwilling to say to my child, put your quality of life and pursuit of happiness on hold until we have more data. Peterson is most likely not suggesting that. However I don't hear him clearly suggesting anything and being just non committal on the subject is at the least unhelpful.
He isn't ambiguous at all. Just because he doesn't give a yes or no answer doesn't mean he's ambiguous. He's a clinical psychologist. The whole point in that is to find out every aspect and every detail and everything there is to find out to any question. That's the problem these days. People want a yes or no answer without having to do any further digging. Peterson just understands that when you ask a question, it opens up a million more questions. How can you demand a simple yes or no to complex questions?
@nasachusetts it's not an experiment, it's the lives of two loving people wanting to be able to raise a child, what the hell is wrong with you. What makes you think you have the right to even have an opinion on the subject? Unless you are the child or one of the parents it isn't your business.
@nasachusetts Exactly you aren't the child in question nor either of its parents, so it's not your business. Or should I come over to your house and make sure you are raising your children appropriately? The only time it becomes your business is if someone involved asked for your advice or opinion, just like how I wouldn't get involved in how you raise your children. Also you dont need a mother and a father, many people are raised by a single parent and turn out exactly the same as everyone else. You are just using that as an excuse for you to treat gay people differently, that is unless you run around telling single parents they shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids. And how did I know you were going to say it's all about the child, that's what conservative folks always say when they dont have a legitimate fact based answer.
@nasachusetts I dont know if you noticed but i said immediately beneath that sentence that if you weren't a part of the family it isn't your business. Much like how it isn't my business or any other individuals business how you raise your kids. It's really very simple, I dont get to interfere with you and you dont get to interfere with me. I'm not even gay, this is just common decency. To be clear I am using the definition of conservative as in having conservative beliefs, and not being a member of a conservative political party, and it is clear that you are conservative based solely on what you have said.
Gay people are not responsible for the success or failure of any hetero couple's marriages- Peterson's "possible threat to marriage/society" argument. At the end of the day they're adults and they are responsible for their individual choices like the rest of us. Harass them Peterson. But I am a fan of your thoughtful views.
he's not saying gay people are responsible for the success or failure of hetero marriages. To me gay marriage could be a "possible threat to marriage/society" because it changes what marriage has been traditionally about, just like divorce changed it, the more changes we make to it the weaker the concept becomes. In some cases these changes are necessary, that's why they should be implemented, however if we allow the concept of marriage to change when do we stop?? what if the next step is changing marriage to mean the union between two or more people? that seems like a threat to marriage/society to me. I feel like that's why Jordan (and many more people) don't give a definitive yes to the gay marriage question, it seems like a good path to choose but we just don't know what the consequences to it are and what other ramifications would follow. All of this seems reasonable to me (and I'm in favor of gay marriage)
@@kellyblandon5480 Gay marriages between man are significantly more lasting than straight marriage. Lesbian marriage on the other hand has the highest divorce rate.
@@VNuxionmarriage is an ideal initself. Male and female commited for there sexlife and posibility of children, it takes a male and female to make children it takes a male and female to raise children. So what if some relationships last more than others, that doesnt disprove the ideal. Thats the nuclear household
...He legit just answered their question and they bring up his other answer on the same point. Odd. He is right. We need more testing my because of the movement, testing isnt really done. However, scientific study for heterosexual parenting is done ad nauseam. Same should be done for homosexual parenting.
Well, the scientific community is more confident about gay parenting than he his. Studies conclude that children with gay parents do just as well as children with straight parents. Him saying he’s not sure just means he hasn’t reviewed these studies.
@@plagueday5395 There are quite many and enough samples to say it's conclusive. The only studies that oppose this fact, are made by muslim or christian universities. Who do you think have a bias?
@@Pepe-pq3om RUclips doesn't allow me to give links but as I said. The only institutions that provide data saying otherwise, are religious institutions/universities.
i dont think gay parenting is an issue, i dont even think homosexuality is an issue, the issue is if we dont agree to the perspective that marriage is could be to any sex, even though we keep it to ourselves, some gay people will get absolutely mad. i mean if u dont want to follow the long made social construct for u, why should i follow a social construct made by u for me ? if u wanna be gay, so be it, but dont force me to have the perception that what u're doing is right.
Well if you heard his perspective on kids having a mom and dad and why they need them, you wouldn't ask this question. Both parents are the first role models for their kids. The child needs to see that dynamic to have a certain understanding, to see what makes them similar and what makes them different.
There’s nothing wrong with being gay though. Your feelings of gay people is rooted in bigotry and hate. People are gonna call you out on it. Don’t get surprised when you get called out and start complaining. There’s not a reason to hate gay people so.
Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Period. It is basic human nature. All cultures have a variation. This idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is just sick. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans-who had no problem with homosexual behavior-did not have same sex marriage.
Marriage isn’t natural. It’s an idea and invention from man, it’s not in our nature to marry, it’s simply a way of people entering a formal sexual or romantically relationship recognized by a body of government or religion.
Basic human nature? So you find it sickening when penguins, humans, birds, and apes (which are just a few examples) to have homosexuailty behaviors? And to clarify, I mean performing s€xual activitys.(youtube is strict on what you type).Marriage is not part of human basic nature, meaning it is not biologically in us to get married. It is something that has been made by social system, same how even being gay is partially part of a social system because we have to express how we feel to others. But being gay (homosexuailty) is something that is both biological and social structure.
Gays and lesbians exist since thousands of years before Judaism/Christianity came up and they will still exist thousands of years after Judaism/Christianity will have disappeared and be forgotten. Whenever gays and lesbians where accepted and integrated in a culture they settled in it as normal members of that society or even integrated to build up that society. Reproduction seemed never to be a problem for those societies. If marriage is a symbol of a settled integration in our society, then it should integrate everybody. Those who do not get children surely won’t harm or influence those who prefer to have a family. Creating a family is a deep wish in the majority of women and also in many men, isn’t it? So where should be a danger for that in gay marriage at its side? In my surrounding I see rather a good relation between families, hetero marriages, gay marriages and even gays couples with kids. So yes: give it a try and let the try go on.
Except Judaism and Christianity Will exist until the end of times as God cares of it's people, even gays. Also God exists since the beginning of time 😊
@@AerialView JBP seems to acknowledge the inherent contradiction in utilitarian/consequentialist arguments and notions of justice, logos, and telos. He seems to employ utilitarian prescriptions as the easy way to win the argument. Though he recognizes the pitfalls of low resolution cause/effect analyses; he uses these same analyses. It's always a struggle when communicating between humans.
Utilitarianism, though it cannot stand alone, is our single most rational pathway to truth. Its limit is that we cannot completely comprehend maximal utility or consequence, and those who appeal to it tend to misapply it in pursuit of selfish ends. Its wrongly alleged weakness is that it justifies things that are "just wrong, we can't explain why!" -- in other words, means so unusual and occasional that they are not always culturally accommodated or broadly morally accessible. Here, I suppose you mean that you dislike his justification of "wrong" homosexual marriage, but perhaps you are claiming dislike of his skepticism of "right" homosexual marriage. A reliance on non-utilitarian views here cannot rise above the endless political debate, as there are patently contradictory and irreconcilable definitions of "justice" underlying the different views. A common baseline value is most likely seized elsewhere, and extended consequentially into the murkier subjectivities.
Perhaps the fair middle ground is to be allowed to marry legally so that they can get the legal benefits of marriage, but not under the church, as the Bible is against it.
The problem with same sex marriage is actually quite obvious - it's counter intuitive. In terms of nature, the concept of man, woman and child is eternal. So it doesn't necessarily take a rocket scientist to foresee enormous potential social problems as a result of tinkering with the concept of "marriage."
The argument would hold up if marriage was a phenomenon that occurred in the natural world, but it isn't. It's a human invention. It's like saying "we shouldn't allow people to drive red cars because it's unnatural"
@@trr7fd marriage is a legal or formal union. Marriage isn't just two people working together in a relationship. It is a legal system, designed for the couple to gain certain benefits and establish rules of how the two will be further recognized. I wouldn't call two non-humans raising a child married just like two humans don't have to be married to have a bond of any sort.
this is what bothers me about peterson, for a guy who talks about freedom and tyranny. The answer he gives here is basically "well this might be an ok experiment" and "people who had opposition had a point" they basically are saying that if society and basically the straight white men in congress (who all secretly watch porn" are ok with it and "society consents" then its fine. this is not a value consistent with freedom but with authority, the government is now needing to give us permission for decisions we make and "society" (which almost will naturally mean white american and in his world white american men) has to give consent. Thats called being against freedom.
I am trans and mr peterson I do not need your fucking permission or anyone elses to transition, to date women and marry them, to have a fucking kid with her and let her have two mothers and frankly the consequences of being your kid I imagine far worse then anything a gay couple would represent.
“I said “IF”.....” This illustrates a common rhetorical technique of JP He uses such linguistic constructions in a way that sounds as if he has resonance with a certain view.... but he does so in a way that he can glibly escape accountability for having that view. Moreover, when he says “if” in this context, he is asserting the proposition that “ IF” this view is as poised by cultural marxists as part of their addenda.... then he would oppose it. This is absurd logic. He would never use this sort of logic to say IF cultural Marxists oppose Hitler as part of their agenda... then he must be skeptical about opposing Hitler. You cannot oppose an idea simply because some group that you otherwise dislike has this idea independently from why you dislike them
Not at all, to simplify it, "if" pertains to a possibility. Meaning, if such advances are underlined by marxism, then he would oppose it, but if not, then he wouldn't. It's simple as that.
Franz Ballet Frank... The whole point (intentional or not) of using weasel words is is to expound expansively and with apparent certainty.... all the while throwing in caveats that allow you to evade responsibility for the claims. So, I grant you that what JP said had the actual meaning that you asserted. My claim is that is that there is a different effective impact. After all, why would JP dwell on what would be true “if someone were a Marxist “. If he thought they may well not be a Marxist? Clearly, he was implying the likelihood that he thought it was likely (although they may deny it) that they are marxists withe the motives that he speculated about.... while allowing. For the fact that it is “possible” that they are not marxists..., but if they were.,, then all of the bad things I said about them are true It is like if I say... if Frank is a pedophile.... then he is likely to be raising this sort of rhetorical point because that is what pedophiles do to distract from their crimes.... and aren’t we all outraged by the crimes of pedophilia.... expletive taking advantage of children for their self lustful self satisfaction . After all those are innocent children. How is it possible that we allow pedophiles free reign to abuse our children? And so, in the above example, I only said “if” you are a pedophile.... I made no accusation about you, but now I have associated you with pedoohilia ... while accepting no responsibility to demonstrate that you have any connections to pedophilia
Well, because there isn't a certainty that "All Gay Marriage are driven by cultural Marxism"....now since they are not enclosed in the totality...and there isnt a certainty of Marxism lying behind such Gay Marriages, then it would be pointless to say that "I am against Gay Marriage since it is driven by cultural Marxism", since there isn't certainty that ALL Gay Marriages are driven by Marxism...so there isn't any certainty that such Gay Marriage is driven by marxism, so the assertion in accordance to the possibility that it is driven by such cultures of Marxism is the only logical position to say.....
Yes, to assert that something might be a pedophile, or not, in accordance with the possibility that he might be able to become, there is still the idea that "it is possible that I can be a pedophile"...similarly, if one can say that "If Gay Marriage is cultured by Marxism, then Im against it." then he or she is pertaining to the idea that such possibilities would not be worthy of deference...
Psychologically speaking, JP is trying to become careful in answering the question, because he doesnt want to appeal in certainty that something is associated with such cultures....it's like saying that "If Madam Levi is a Nazi, I will not believe her." It's a possibility, not a belief that Madam Levi is a Nazi...a belief that "she might be a Nazi" is different from considering the possibility that "she is a Nazi"
For those who support gay parents I hope you never fall in my shoes. trust me as a stray male is hard to not have a male figure in your life, it creates a lot of bad sociological problem. if they only knew the damage, they do just to satisfy their need.
The second woman interviewer is so ridiculously away with the faires. I saw the whole interview, she wants to appear smart just by sitting on the fence & speaking posh 🤦🏼♀️
“What do you think might be the adverse effects of same-sex parenting?” JP: well we know 2 is better than 1, and 1 is definitely bad. “No, not single parenting, same-sex parents, point blank: bad or good?” JP: hmm well we have to consider whether gender roles are being properly taught! “That’s... *_sigh_* “
@@sexgensexualidadegenero3094 adoption is fake as hell.its not even your own child. and plus you cant force children to be your child after all...plus you dont even have anything related with the child... dont manipulate kids for your sake of happiness.
@@Light-jo9lp I think adoption is a very humane thing to do. And parenting has nothing to do with blood, you know. Blood doesn't count at all when your (straight) parents send you to an orphanage.
@@sexgensexualidadegenero3094 blood does count. adopted child always questioning their own existence. its hard to make them feel loved or feel like the foster parents are their own kind.kids seek for truth not some fake imposter parents. kids are smart and honest than us adults. ive seen alot of adopted kids being so rebellious..they will always bring that because Im not your child card. and plus, why gay parents want child?? because they actually hoping someone could take care of themselves once they get old. its selfish if you ask me. the kids better stay at orphanage... get educated, money and happiness there with thier friends.
He, as a life long psychologist, has to know the adverse effects and causes of homosexualities in the individual so he has to know the problems of codifying that in a legal institution that normatizes those defects into the culture permanently. The evidence is overwhelming that we’ve made a huge mistake that we shall not recover from. Demographic dead-ends are just that: dead ends. The Holy Trinity of the Postmodern West: Abortion, Homosexuality, and Transgenderism produce no offspring and hence, no future societies. Islam is happily rushing in to fill the void we are creating
He, as a life long psychologist, knows significantly more than you. His opinion is formed a lifetime of study and clinical practice with possibly thousands of patients, articles, and several gay friends/colleagues forms his opinion. Seriously, think about your comment. You’re telling Jordan Peterson to look into this issue more?
No, he isn't lol. He doesn't care for political correctness. If you'd seen the Munk debate you'd know that. He also tries to always speak the truth (one of the rules in his book) so what you said really doesn't make any sense.
Well, would you rather have it be deemed an outrageous social experiment and therefore shunned and banned? Gay marriage is indeed a reasonable social experiment on the effects of same-sex parents on children. Hell I perhaps even hypothesize that same-sex parents will end up having a lower divorce rate on the long run, since the neo-Marxist communist liberals seem to hate the concept of nuclear family and life-long traditional marriage on EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual couples, so the establishment of a nuclear homosexual family will actually be praised by both liberals and conservatives, therefore, they will be more unlikely to divorce, therefore they will raise healthier kids. God you people can't listen. You all just want to see the world accommodate to your neat little boxes instead of opening your minds to the fact that the world exists on a spectrum of greys. I find it so hilarious how the far left is so much more conservative than the far right.
@@RanaKamikaze Would you call it a "reasonable social experiment" if there are no kids involved, aka the two same sex adults marry, but have no children? I think what OP was criticizing was the way Peterson framed his answer. Calling a form of relationship a "reasonable social experiment" is kinda cold, even if it's scientifically accurate. Also, neo-marxists dislike the nuclear family because it reinforces capitalism. That would also happen in a same sex marriage. Rich families have rich kids, poor families have poor kids, doesn't matter what gender the parents are. Were you referring to something else? I also question whether divorces happen due to external social approvals and disapprovals, would love to read a study about that.
Intellectual. meaning: person possessing a highly developed intellect. The “h-index” was introduced in 2005 as a metric for estimating “the importance, significance and broad impact of a scientist’s cumulative contributions.” It takes into account both the number of an individual’s publications and their impact on peers, as indicated by citation counts. Its creator, Jorge Hirsch (UC-San Diego) asserts that a “successful scientist” will have an h-index of 20 after 20 years; an “outstanding scientist” will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a “truly unique individual” will have an index of 60 after 20 years or 90 after 30 years. The h-score essentially gauges your impact on the field of science as a whole. It answers the question: “Have you help move your field forward?” It depends on field but, Average is ~10, successful is 20, outstanding is 40, 60 is the realm of Nobel Laureates. What is Dr. Peterson’s score? As of 2018 Peterson has an h-index of 51 on Google Scholar According to studies, 62 is the average of Nobel Prize winners, which is a number Dr. Peterson is slowly encroaching on. He’s one of the top 50 most cited clinical psychologists of all time with over 11,000 citations. WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?
@@Johnnyfive553 years later: will possibly lose license. So much for a person close to possibly being a Nobel Prize winner. That's what happens when you spread misinformation on social media while trying to use your credentials as a clinical psychologist to do so. Epitome of pseudo-intellectual.
This is a joke, Jordan cannot be honest about his actions. He constantly takes shots against homosexuals and trans people but then walks back saying he SUSPECT things. But this is showing he is trying to coerce his followers to be anti gay and ant trans at every level. It is a terrible joke.
Jordan, you are being very vague on your answer to the question, but the Bible is NOT. THE BIBLE IS UNEQUIVOCAL in it's stance on the question of homosexuality. No matter the many ways you want to argue in support of this perversion, it cannot be justified, there is no redeeming value in participating, or condoning, or supporting such an abominable relationship, none, none whatsoever,according to the scriptures!!!
Frankly as a gay person I just want to be treated like a human being, not cast aside or thrown out just because I’m different. That’s really all.
So you're indifferent to the right to marry?
@@Daniel-ox1sb personally, if there’s going to be a government-sanctioned pair-bonding recognition, I’d prefer it if gender didn’t matter. Churches are free to recognize relationships however they see fit. If that means Christians/Jews/etc never recognize same sex couples as valid, so be it, not my place since I’m not religious.
All of that said, if the government chooses to NOT recognize same sex pairings, I’d find that unfortunate, yes, however it is truly no skin off my bones. I don’t need the government to validate my relationship with my partner. We love each other and that’s good enough for us.
@STriPeZz- I’m confused, what point are you trying to make? I don’t want to be rejected by society because I’m dating another dude, and if the government chooses to recognize marriages I’d prefer it if gender didn’t matter. I spoke nothing of adoption, which I believe to be a separate issue.
No one is saying you should be "cast aside and not treated like a human being" at least no one in the West. Of course, your Palestinian friends in Gaza might take exception.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd the only movement I support in the Middle East is peace. I think most Islamic states are barbaric
I'm 60 and hopelessly 100% gay. I didn't disagree with anything I heard JP say. He obviously is making a concerted effort to honestly study each question/issue.
Jordan Peterson often overanalyzes things. Having two guys marrying is just sick.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd My advice to you is don’t go out and marry someone of the same sex as yourself. Look, I respect your opinion. It’s ok for you to be who you are, be passionate about what you are passionate about and to like what you like in life. What’s disappointing is that you have allowed the difference of other people’s born ability to Love to become this vial, venomous hatred and disgustment to the point that you miss the entire mark, donate your discriminating hatred instead of being a good human and loving others. The fact that you can’t even remotely put yourself in someone else’s shoes is unfortunate for you. I hope that you can evolve into someone that sees the bigger picture and understands that your actions, intentions and words have the potential to destroy someone’s life instead of help heal their hearts and empower them in the utmost sense. This life isn’t easy John. We need each other.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jdIt’s not.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd as a gay person, I see it as a deviation from nature. But it’s not necessarily a bad thing to deviate from it and you can’t really change it once you have formed your sexuality.
The reality is that if you’re not gay, it’s the same as if you’re not autistic or bipolar or schizophrenic. You will never understand it because your brain doesn’t work that way. And it’s natural to feel disgusted at things that go against nature. But at the same time, it’s not really your fault if you are born that way.
I think you should disagree, I don't need societies consent on what the fuck I do with my life.
Maybe his next book should be about studying adults who were raise by same sex parents.
A kind of interview where as an adult they can look back and comment on their childhood.
Wait a minute, would you not consider the fact, that it requires considerable more effort for homosexual parents to put in more effort so that the child felt love and everything is normal. Also raising a child would already be a plus one.
But we have those studies. Also JBP is not a Sociologist.
Adults who were adopted & raised by homosexual couples in the past are not strictly comparable to children being adopted today.
In the 70’s & 80’s it was generally accepted that mixed race marriages in Britain were far less likely to end in divorce. The argument being that much had to be overcome resulting in a stronger more dedicated couple. Today, mixed race couples children are the fastest growing demographic in Britain. It’s common, resulting in similar divorce statistics.
@Alex Goulias You think that's true eh? As Peterson said, "we don't know". You can site studies that leverage either way. A small study done by Roberto Baiocco, PhD observed the children from homosexual men and women as well as traditional couples and found that there is no difference between the outcomes of children. Now I'm sure you could find some other studies that point in the other direction, but when you get to the bottom of it, we don't know. Further research needs to be done. I think it is worth doing a study of the children of single parents, homosexual men and women, and traditional couples. My theory, which of course is worthless because, it's not backed by any evidence, is that the children of homosexual men and women would be far better off than the children of single parents. I think it's worth giving gay marriage a shot everywhere. I'm not saying this from a post-modernist point of view by the way. I think that it could benefit children who have not been adopted, because homosexual couples are much more likely to adopt.
journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2018/09000/Same_Sex_and_Different_Sex_Parent_Families_in.4.aspx
Alex Goulias life is suffering , the truth is people who had parents together while they were growing have had more success, in General
Why aren't the children being brought up in a gay household asked what they think? I mean if you are honestly interested in the children.
Because they are kids... and kids dont have choices why don't we ask kids who grow up in single family households what they think? This idea that we must constantly seek the opinion of uninformed kids? If you were to ask kids would you rather go to school or play outside with their friends what would they say?
Because it doesn’t matter what kids think, they don’t know any different
I dont think the children could give you an unbiased opinion. Thats basically impossible.
To go with an extreme example, one dude raped literal generations of his family and his grand daughter still loves her grandpa, despite what he has done.
Even the things he states as a given don’t make sense to me. Like that “deterioration of marriage”, doesn’t letting more people get married help? And how does one couple getting married impact others in any way?
When he talks about "deterioration of marriage" he is refferring to the fact that years ago gay marriage was generally disapproved because marriage itself was deteriorating, so those who supported marriage saw in gay marriage a further threat to the institution.
Peterson surely understands that letting more people get married should be good, but he also knows that there could be further side effects we don't know of. That's why he doesn't take a strong stance on the topic, because the truth is we still don't know enough and thus the topic has to be addressed carefully.
And finally, we are not talking about only "one couple getting married". If gay marriages are definitively approved there could be a lot of them. Hence, potential side effects would actually stack up together leading, in the final analysis, to a much bigger problem. He is particularly referring to unknown consequences in terms of socialization of gender roles. (I know it's not on the same scale, but even with the introduction of women in the workforce people perhaps thought "what could happen if a woman works?". Actually there has been a plethora of consequences, because small things in huge numbers do make a difference).
Hope I've cleared things up a bit.
Divorce rates go up, more single parent households, people are giving up on their marriage sooner. The value of being married decreased because people don’t take it as seriously.
I’m not saying that’s the case but that’s the deterioration that many people fear.
I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I think the kids question is a little bit trickier. I see no problem with gay couples giving a child with a troubled background a better life. Where I think there could be an issue is very young children becoming confused and asking questions about why they don’t have a mother or father etc when other children do. I could be wrong, I don’t personally know any gay couples with children, it’s just my initial thoughts.
My son is gay. I want him to have equal rights and protections under the law NOW!
Peterson seems to be very ambiguous sometimes. Saying we just don't know what the effects are...or the data is just not in yet and such response when questioned about gay marriage.
Well I would say this, I'm am absolutely unwilling to say to my child, put your quality of life and pursuit of happiness on hold until we have more data. Peterson is most likely not suggesting that. However I don't hear him clearly suggesting anything and being just non committal on the subject is at the least unhelpful.
He isn't ambiguous at all. Just because he doesn't give a yes or no answer doesn't mean he's ambiguous. He's a clinical psychologist. The whole point in that is to find out every aspect and every detail and everything there is to find out to any question.
That's the problem these days. People want a yes or no answer without having to do any further digging. Peterson just understands that when you ask a question, it opens up a million more questions. How can you demand a simple yes or no to complex questions?
we just don't know, we can't say yes or no. that's dishonesty.
@nasachusetts it's not an experiment, it's the lives of two loving people wanting to be able to raise a child, what the hell is wrong with you.
What makes you think you have the right to even have an opinion on the subject? Unless you are the child or one of the parents it isn't your business.
@nasachusetts Exactly you aren't the child in question nor either of its parents, so it's not your business. Or should I come over to your house and make sure you are raising your children appropriately?
The only time it becomes your business is if someone involved asked for your advice or opinion, just like how I wouldn't get involved in how you raise your children.
Also you dont need a mother and a father, many people are raised by a single parent and turn out exactly the same as everyone else. You are just using that as an excuse for you to treat gay people differently, that is unless you run around telling single parents they shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids.
And how did I know you were going to say it's all about the child, that's what conservative folks always say when they dont have a legitimate fact based answer.
@nasachusetts I dont know if you noticed but i said immediately beneath that sentence that if you weren't a part of the family it isn't your business. Much like how it isn't my business or any other individuals business how you raise your kids. It's really very simple, I dont get to interfere with you and you dont get to interfere with me.
I'm not even gay, this is just common decency.
To be clear I am using the definition of conservative as in having conservative beliefs, and not being a member of a conservative political party, and it is clear that you are conservative based solely on what you have said.
where is the first clip from?
Gay people are not responsible for the success or failure of any hetero couple's marriages- Peterson's "possible threat to marriage/society" argument. At the end of the day they're adults and they are responsible for their individual choices like the rest of us. Harass them Peterson. But I am a fan of your thoughtful views.
he's not saying gay people are responsible for the success or failure of hetero marriages. To me gay marriage could be a "possible threat to marriage/society" because it changes what marriage has been traditionally about, just like divorce changed it, the more changes we make to it the weaker the concept becomes. In some cases these changes are necessary, that's why they should be implemented, however if we allow the concept of marriage to change when do we stop?? what if the next step is changing marriage to mean the union between two or more people? that seems like a threat to marriage/society to me. I feel like that's why Jordan (and many more people) don't give a definitive yes to the gay marriage question, it seems like a good path to choose but we just don't know what the consequences to it are and what other ramifications would follow. All of this seems reasonable to me (and I'm in favor of gay marriage)
haha@@kellyblandon5480
@@kellyblandon5480 Gay marriages between man are significantly more lasting than straight marriage. Lesbian marriage on the other hand has the highest divorce rate.
@@kellyblandon5480 By the way, marriage isn't a christian thing only.
@@VNuxionmarriage is an ideal initself. Male and female commited for there sexlife and posibility of children, it takes a male and female to make children it takes a male and female to raise children.
So what if some relationships last more than others, that doesnt disprove the ideal. Thats the nuclear household
Does anyone knows where the first clip was from? I mean he was on which show?
Yeah I'd also like to know
@@hajar7893 my comment was 5 days age but now I know. He was on the show called “Room for Discussion ” you can find the full interview on RUclips
@@chiggywiggy524 oh thank you that's awesome
...He legit just answered their question and they bring up his other answer on the same point. Odd.
He is right. We need more testing my because of the movement, testing isnt really done. However, scientific study for heterosexual parenting is done ad nauseam.
Same should be done for homosexual parenting.
Well, the scientific community is more confident about gay parenting than he his. Studies conclude that children with gay parents do just as well as children with straight parents. Him saying he’s not sure just means he hasn’t reviewed these studies.
@@binaryvoid0101Or maybe such studies are inconcludent or too superficial to be trusted.
@@plagueday5395 There are quite many and enough samples to say it's conclusive.
The only studies that oppose this fact, are made by muslim or christian universities. Who do you think have a bias?
@@VNuxionCould you point me to such studies?
@@Pepe-pq3om RUclips doesn't allow me to give links but as I said. The only institutions that provide data saying otherwise, are religious institutions/universities.
His reasoning seems purposefully vague. God’s Word, the Bible is not. It should be our source of truth.
Why are you sure it is not?
i dont think gay parenting is an issue, i dont even think homosexuality is an issue, the issue is if we dont agree to the perspective that marriage is could be to any sex, even though we keep it to ourselves, some gay people will get absolutely mad. i mean if u dont want to follow the long made social construct for u, why should i follow a social construct made by u for me ? if u wanna be gay, so be it, but dont force me to have the perception that what u're doing is right.
you're not obliged to marry another guy. live and let live.
Well if you heard his perspective on kids having a mom and dad and why they need them, you wouldn't ask this question. Both parents are the first role models for their kids. The child needs to see that dynamic to have a certain understanding, to see what makes them similar and what makes them different.
Not fair on the kid
There’s nothing wrong with being gay though. Your feelings of gay people is rooted in bigotry and hate. People are gonna call you out on it. Don’t get surprised when you get called out and start complaining. There’s not a reason to hate gay people so.
@@yuan713no one chooses to be homosexual. It is a biological phenomenon across the entire animal kingdom.
who are these interviewers? they sound familiar
in the first part
Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Period. It is basic human nature. All cultures have a variation. This idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is just sick. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans-who had no problem with homosexual behavior-did not have same sex marriage.
Marriage isn’t natural. It’s an idea and invention from man, it’s not in our nature to marry, it’s simply a way of people entering a formal sexual or romantically relationship recognized by a body of government or religion.
Basic human nature? So you find it sickening when penguins, humans, birds, and apes (which are just a few examples) to have homosexuailty behaviors? And to clarify, I mean performing s€xual activitys.(youtube is strict on what you type).Marriage is not part of human basic nature, meaning it is not biologically in us to get married. It is something that has been made by social system, same how even being gay is partially part of a social system because we have to express how we feel to others. But being gay (homosexuailty) is something that is both biological and social structure.
Gays and lesbians exist since thousands of years before Judaism/Christianity came up and they will still exist thousands of years after Judaism/Christianity will have disappeared and be forgotten.
Whenever gays and lesbians where accepted and integrated in a culture they settled in it as normal members of that society or even integrated to build up that society. Reproduction seemed never to be a problem for those societies.
If marriage is a symbol of a settled integration in our society, then it should integrate everybody. Those who do not get children surely won’t harm or influence those who prefer to have a family.
Creating a family is a deep wish in the majority of women and also in many men, isn’t it? So where should be a danger for that in gay marriage at its side? In my surrounding I see rather a good relation between families, hetero marriages, gay marriages and even gays couples with kids.
So yes: give it a try and let the try go on.
Except Judaism and Christianity Will exist until the end of times as God cares of it's people, even gays.
Also God exists since the beginning of time 😊
Im neither Christian or Jewish but what a stupid comment of yours
This is revisionist history. Very VERY few cultures across history accepted homosexuality, it's not just a Judeo-Christian thing by any means.
@@nicholascasale1225 "Very VERY few cultures across history accepted homosexuality"
🤔
I like Jordan Peterson. I wish he wouldn't rely so much on utilitarian arguments.
what do you mean?
@@AerialView JBP seems to acknowledge the inherent contradiction in utilitarian/consequentialist arguments and notions of justice, logos, and telos. He seems to employ utilitarian prescriptions as the easy way to win the argument. Though he recognizes the pitfalls of low resolution cause/effect analyses; he uses these same analyses. It's always a struggle when communicating between humans.
It's a good catch
@@apyruite8493 He's full of contradictions. But most of us are.
Utilitarianism, though it cannot stand alone, is our single most rational pathway to truth. Its limit is that we cannot completely comprehend maximal utility or consequence, and those who appeal to it tend to misapply it in pursuit of selfish ends. Its wrongly alleged weakness is that it justifies things that are "just wrong, we can't explain why!" -- in other words, means so unusual and occasional that they are not always culturally accommodated or broadly morally accessible.
Here, I suppose you mean that you dislike his justification of "wrong" homosexual marriage, but perhaps you are claiming dislike of his skepticism of "right" homosexual marriage. A reliance on non-utilitarian views here cannot rise above the endless political debate, as there are patently contradictory and irreconcilable definitions of "justice" underlying the different views. A common baseline value is most likely seized elsewhere, and extended consequentially into the murkier subjectivities.
Perhaps the fair middle ground is to be allowed to marry legally so that they can get the legal benefits of marriage, but not under the church, as the Bible is against it.
Every church can marry or refuse to marry anyone they want.
The problem with same sex marriage is actually quite obvious - it's counter intuitive. In terms of nature, the concept of man, woman and child is eternal. So it doesn't necessarily take a rocket scientist to foresee enormous potential social problems as a result of tinkering with the concept of "marriage."
it is eternal but not the only concept there is.
So is divorce but that's fine.
The argument would hold up if marriage was a phenomenon that occurred in the natural world, but it isn't. It's a human invention. It's like saying "we shouldn't allow people to drive red cars because it's unnatural"
@@colethompson8962 Well said, that's exactly what I was thinking!
@@trr7fd marriage is a legal or formal union. Marriage isn't just two people working together in a relationship. It is a legal system, designed for the couple to gain certain benefits and establish rules of how the two will be further recognized. I wouldn't call two non-humans raising a child married just like two humans don't have to be married to have a bond of any sort.
this is what bothers me about peterson, for a guy who talks about freedom and tyranny. The answer he gives here is basically "well this might be an ok experiment" and "people who had opposition had a point" they basically are saying that if society and basically the straight white men in congress (who all secretly watch porn" are ok with it and "society consents" then its fine.
this is not a value consistent with freedom but with authority, the government is now needing to give us permission for decisions we make and "society" (which almost will naturally mean white american and in his world white american men) has to give consent. Thats called being against freedom.
I am trans and mr peterson I do not need your fucking permission or anyone elses to transition, to date women and marry them, to have a fucking kid with her and let her have two mothers and frankly the consequences of being your kid I imagine far worse then anything a gay couple would represent.
“I said “IF”.....”
This illustrates a common rhetorical technique of JP
He uses such linguistic constructions in a way that sounds as if he has resonance with a certain view.... but he does so in a way that he can glibly escape accountability for having that view.
Moreover, when he says “if” in this context, he is asserting the proposition that “ IF” this view is as poised by cultural marxists as part of their addenda.... then he would oppose it. This is absurd logic. He would never use this sort of logic to say IF cultural Marxists oppose Hitler as part of their agenda... then he must be skeptical about opposing Hitler. You cannot oppose an idea simply because some group that you otherwise dislike has this idea independently from why you dislike them
Not at all, to simplify it, "if" pertains to a possibility. Meaning, if such advances are underlined by marxism, then he would oppose it, but if not, then he wouldn't. It's simple as that.
Franz Ballet
Frank...
The whole point (intentional or not) of using weasel words is is to expound expansively and with apparent certainty.... all the while throwing in caveats that allow you to evade responsibility for the claims.
So, I grant you that what JP said had the actual meaning that you asserted. My claim is that is that there is a different effective impact. After all, why would JP dwell on what would be true “if someone were a Marxist “. If he thought they may well not be a Marxist? Clearly, he was implying the likelihood that he thought it was likely (although they may deny it) that they are marxists withe the motives that he speculated about.... while allowing. For the fact that it is “possible” that they are not marxists..., but if they were.,, then all of the bad things I said about them are true
It is like if I say... if Frank is a pedophile.... then he is likely to be raising this sort of rhetorical point because that is what pedophiles do to distract from their crimes.... and aren’t we all outraged by the crimes of pedophilia....
expletive taking advantage of children for their self lustful self satisfaction . After all those are innocent children. How is it possible that we allow pedophiles free reign to abuse our children?
And so, in the above example, I only said “if” you are a pedophile.... I made no accusation about you, but now I have associated you with pedoohilia ... while accepting no responsibility to demonstrate that you have any connections to pedophilia
Well, because there isn't a certainty that "All Gay Marriage are driven by cultural Marxism"....now since they are not enclosed in the totality...and there isnt a certainty of Marxism lying behind such Gay Marriages, then it would be pointless to say that "I am against Gay Marriage since it is driven by cultural Marxism", since there isn't certainty that ALL Gay Marriages are driven by Marxism...so there isn't any certainty that such Gay Marriage is driven by marxism, so the assertion in accordance to the possibility that it is driven by such cultures of Marxism is the only logical position to say.....
Yes, to assert that something might be a pedophile, or not, in accordance with the possibility that he might be able to become, there is still the idea that "it is possible that I can be a pedophile"...similarly, if one can say that "If Gay Marriage is cultured by Marxism, then Im against it." then he or she is pertaining to the idea that such possibilities would not be worthy of deference...
Psychologically speaking, JP is trying to become careful in answering the question, because he doesnt want to appeal in certainty that something is associated with such cultures....it's like saying that "If Madam Levi is a Nazi, I will not believe her." It's a possibility, not a belief that Madam Levi is a Nazi...a belief that "she might be a Nazi" is different from considering the possibility that "she is a Nazi"
From the Biblical perspective...no not right !
From an archaic cultural perspective in the Old Testament.
Not a teaching of Jesus...
Some Christians are so unChrist like
Meanwhile Bible said to genocide a entire group, including their infants and women
For those who support gay parents I hope you never fall in my shoes. trust me as a stray male is hard to not have a male figure in your life, it creates a lot of bad sociological problem. if they only knew the damage, they do just to satisfy their need.
I was raised by narcissistic hetro parents, you dont want to be me....
@@frenchwithCorbin YOU MEAN YOU WJERE RAISE BY A REAL MAN
I hear someone making excuses for their own bad life choices.
@@jonathanmcvay4499 let me quest your super gay rigth
"It's been around forever" So did incest
Your point is?
@@VNuxion That the fact something was practiced across history doesn't necessary make it moral
@@Antarah525 Yeah, like religions for example...
@@VNuxion I agree for most religions
@@Antarah525 There's also marriage...
The second woman interviewer is so ridiculously away with the faires. I saw the whole interview, she wants to appear smart just by sitting on the fence & speaking posh 🤦🏼♀️
"I suspect that two parents are better than one... I don't know"
"One parent is definitely worse than two, we know that"
Dude is just talking lol
Genius
Gay parents 150% better than most of the straight parents that I know.
Your Arguments for this please? Based on what?
Can’t stand him!! Why do we give him a platform!! Why he keeps appearing on my list! Just not interested!!!
“What do you think might be the adverse effects of same-sex parenting?”
JP: well we know 2 is better than 1, and 1 is definitely bad.
“No, not single parenting, same-sex parents, point blank: bad or good?”
JP: hmm well we have to consider whether gender roles are being properly taught!
“That’s... *_sigh_* “
weird.. gays wanted to have child.. but they can't even make one. haha
they can adopt.
@@sexgensexualidadegenero3094 adoption is fake as hell.its not even your own child.
and plus you cant force children to be your child after all...plus you dont even have anything related with the child... dont manipulate kids for your sake of happiness.
@@Light-jo9lp I think adoption is a very humane thing to do. And parenting has nothing to do with blood, you know. Blood doesn't count at all when your (straight) parents send you to an orphanage.
@@sexgensexualidadegenero3094 blood does count. adopted child always questioning their own existence. its hard to make them feel loved or feel like the foster parents are their own kind.kids seek for truth not some fake imposter parents.
kids are smart and honest than us adults.
ive seen alot of adopted kids being so rebellious..they will always bring that because Im not your child card.
and plus, why gay parents want child??
because they actually hoping someone could take care of themselves once they get old.
its selfish if you ask me.
the kids better stay at orphanage... get educated, money and happiness there with thier friends.
@@Light-jo9lp
AMAZING ALL OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS BULLSHIT!
He, as a life long psychologist, has to know the adverse effects and causes of homosexualities in the individual so he has to know the problems of codifying that in a legal institution that normatizes those defects into the culture permanently. The evidence is overwhelming that we’ve made a huge mistake that we shall not recover from. Demographic dead-ends are just that: dead ends. The Holy Trinity of the Postmodern West: Abortion, Homosexuality, and Transgenderism produce no offspring and hence, no future societies. Islam is happily rushing in to fill the void we are creating
LGBTQ people are born, not “created”. Your idea that a relationship has to bear children in order to be valid belongs and worthy is archaic.
Your comment is loaded with shame and the need to shame. The last sentence is as delusional as it gets.
No, it is not.
He, as a life long psychologist, knows significantly more than you. His opinion is formed a lifetime of study and clinical practice with possibly thousands of patients, articles, and several gay friends/colleagues forms his opinion.
Seriously, think about your comment. You’re telling Jordan Peterson to look into this issue more?
The suicide statistics tell the story.
He is being politically correct, it's obvious.
No, he isn't lol. He doesn't care for political correctness. If you'd seen the Munk debate you'd know that. He also tries to always speak the truth (one of the rules in his book) so what you said really doesn't make any sense.
Well it's just your belief
"Reasonable social experiment"
Lol. What a pseudo-intellectual. Not to mention he talks like an effin politician.
Well, would you rather have it be deemed an outrageous social experiment and therefore shunned and banned? Gay marriage is indeed a reasonable social experiment on the effects of same-sex parents on children. Hell I perhaps even hypothesize that same-sex parents will end up having a lower divorce rate on the long run, since the neo-Marxist communist liberals seem to hate the concept of nuclear family and life-long traditional marriage on EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual couples, so the establishment of a nuclear homosexual family will actually be praised by both liberals and conservatives, therefore, they will be more unlikely to divorce, therefore they will raise healthier kids.
God you people can't listen. You all just want to see the world accommodate to your neat little boxes instead of opening your minds to the fact that the world exists on a spectrum of greys. I find it so hilarious how the far left is so much more conservative than the far right.
@@RanaKamikaze Would you call it a "reasonable social experiment" if there are no kids involved, aka the two same sex adults marry, but have no children?
I think what OP was criticizing was the way Peterson framed his answer. Calling a form of relationship a "reasonable social experiment" is kinda cold, even if it's scientifically accurate.
Also, neo-marxists dislike the nuclear family because it reinforces capitalism. That would also happen in a same sex marriage. Rich families have rich kids, poor families have poor kids, doesn't matter what gender the parents are. Were you referring to something else? I also question whether divorces happen due to external social approvals and disapprovals, would love to read a study about that.
Intellectual. meaning: person possessing a highly developed intellect.
The “h-index” was introduced in 2005 as a metric for estimating “the importance, significance and broad impact of a scientist’s cumulative contributions.” It takes into account both the number of an individual’s publications and their impact on peers, as indicated by citation counts.
Its creator, Jorge Hirsch (UC-San Diego) asserts that a “successful scientist” will have an h-index of 20 after 20 years; an “outstanding scientist” will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a “truly unique individual” will have an index of 60 after 20 years or 90 after 30 years.
The h-score essentially gauges your impact on the field of science as a whole. It answers the question: “Have you help move your field forward?”
It depends on field but, Average is ~10, successful is 20, outstanding is 40, 60 is the realm of Nobel Laureates.
What is Dr. Peterson’s score? As of 2018 Peterson has an h-index of 51 on Google Scholar
According to studies, 62 is the average of Nobel Prize winners, which is a number Dr. Peterson is slowly encroaching on.
He’s one of the top 50 most cited clinical psychologists of all time with over 11,000 citations.
WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?
It's sad you won't allow yourself to learn from this guy.
@@Johnnyfive553 years later: will possibly lose license. So much for a person close to possibly being a Nobel Prize winner. That's what happens when you spread misinformation on social media while trying to use your credentials as a clinical psychologist to do so. Epitome of pseudo-intellectual.
This is a joke, Jordan cannot be honest about his actions. He constantly takes shots against homosexuals and trans people but then walks back saying he SUSPECT things. But this is showing he is trying to coerce his followers to be anti gay and ant trans at every level. It is a terrible joke.
Why take so long to answer a question? Gosh.
Wesley EVC he uses his brain before using his mouth..... think about it just a lil bit
Cause he not your average man . He uses his brain and take time to process things betterly. that's y
Jordan, you are being very vague on your answer to the question, but the Bible is NOT.
THE BIBLE IS UNEQUIVOCAL in it's stance on the question of homosexuality.
No matter the many ways you want to argue in support of this perversion, it cannot be justified, there is no redeeming value in participating, or condoning, or supporting such an abominable relationship, none, none whatsoever,according to the scriptures!!!
So gay men should marry women and vice versa?
He really doesn’t take well to any rebuttal wtf