Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Jordan Peterson Struggles To Support Gay Marriage During Qu0026A" video.

  1. JP: What has happened to respect for the individual? Also JP: People can only have their rights if they assimilate into standard society.
    209
  2. Probably the same as Stefan Molyneux's: mommy issues.
    11
  3. Not to mention how toxic it is to force two people to remain together who do not want to be together and who might be better human beings and parents if they were allowed to be with other people or even just be by themselves—all for the sake of the children. Can't tell if George is trying to argue against same-sex married couples having children or not, but research so far has been pretty much in agreement that those children are at no disadvantage. Also, "marriage" masquerades as so many other variables, like how children perceive themselves and their families (Am I accepted by my community/peers? Is it "normal" for parents to be married?), income (two people working have more money), whether or not they have an extended family to assist them, and so on. It's certainly possible to have those things and not be married.
    9
  4. Sometimes, when my commute is not painful enough, I like to turn to one of the Christian radio channels. About a month ago there was an interview on one of those channels with some evangelical guy who's trying to advocate for conversion therapy. Really exasperating. And creepy. But even that guy had to openly admit that they'd lost the battle on same-sex marriage.
    8
  5. Being gay and getting married isn't an act of hate against anyone. The swastika is a hate symbol. Not even close to the same thing. Try again.
    4
  6. So if a white and black, unmarried couple had gone to a bakery before and were served, but not served when they went there to order a wedding cake, on the explicit grounds that the baker found their mixed-race marriage morally/religiously objectionable, that would be okay? Because they weren't discriminated against those other times? I feel like I'm just rehearsing the Jim Jeffries interview, but why is it wrong in this case (I just assume we all accept it's wrong) but in your view okay in the case of the gay couple?
    2
  7. Marx, however, married his childhood sweetheart and they stayed together until his death. You'd think Peterson'd be applauding that.
    2
  8. Answer the question I put to you. Why is it wrong to discriminate against a mixed-race couple but not a gay couple? Don't give yourself a hernia thinking too hard, The court didn't address hate symbols because the case wasn't about swastikas. I was just responding to You Can't Handle by showing how his example isn't comparable. At all. And a baker as an artist? A bit of a stretch.
    1
  9. Oh really? https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042/ https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4708 http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/ Miscegenation laws, like other forms of racial discrimination, were motivated and justified in part by religious beliefs. The Supreme Court didn't overturn marriage bans until 1967. That wasn't that long ago. The LDS church didn't change its opinion on the sinfulness of interracial marriage until 2013. Remember 2013? Five years ago? I'm sure you can find in America some yahoo who holds a "sincere religious belief" that miscegenation is a crime against God and nature. Why aren't there more people like that now? It probably has something to do with laws that say you can't discriminate against people based on their skin color, etc. @Robert I'm not a legal expert, but I'd have to guess that since race is a protected class, discriminating based on race would be both wrong and illegal.
    1
  10. "forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation." It really isn't. Requiring schools to serve white and black children was definitely NOT worse than black children being denied a equitable education with their peers. Having black people eat at the same lunch counter as whites was NOT worse than denying blacks service. Anyone who gets their feelings hurt because they have to share air with people of other races can promptly go fuck themselves, and that goes for their apologists, too. "That gay couple could have went elsewhere but didn't" Why do people feel vindicated saying, "Maybe that gay couple was discriminated against, but they could have gone elsewhere," as if it's their responsibility, as consumers, to navigate their way through discriminatory practices, as if non-discriminatory behavior were itself a commodity to be sought out, like a half-off sale or buy one get one free? By the way, this logic seldom gets applied to the other side. No one says that if Jack Phillips wasn't able to provide his services to all people as required by Colorado law then HE should have done something else, something that did not make such extraordinary claims on his moral compass. But somehow, strangely, wonder why, the onus for moral behavior redounds upon the people who are discriminated against. The logic of "Don't like it; go somewhere else" can apply to either party, and so it's not really helpful at all. Social problems aren't going to be solved—perhaps never have been solved—by some correct distribution of people. It's the solution that always seems like the best and easiest but is always the most utopian, far-fetched, and in the end unhelpful. Look at how people like Lincoln approached slavery before the Civil War. The best thing to do was to deport the slaves and have them live in their own colony in Africa; then America could wipe its hands of black people entirely. That would have been a monumental undertaking, and one that had no moral vision; it was by design an abdication of moral vision. The real solution, the one that seemed impossible but became imminent, was the integration of former slaves and their descendants into society, an ongoing project. Perhaps there are parallels also to the current discourse on immigration, with one side, the side of President Trump, calling for the mass deportation of millions of immigrants to their proper place, which undoubtedly would not only create huge problems for the US financially, but also for all the people being deported, local economies in the US that have suddenly had their workforce reduced, and for countries receiving all these deportees. You can't wish problems away, or pass them along to the next person; they have to be confronted, synthesized, transformed. "the fascist route" Yes, one remembers well the fascists' love for...the gays. You know, those pillars of "traditional modes of being." Can we all collectively agree not to take seriously anyone who uses "fascist" as a slur for "stuff the gubment does"? Please do everyone a favor and actually learn what that word means. If not for the "fascist route" of "forced integration" (which has the same fish-smell as "reverse racism"), what are we supposed to do? Wait around, laissez-faire this bitch, maybe eventually bigoted people will humanize themselves, or, hey! why not allow the market to crack its knuckles and work some magic? In a case like this, the failure to produce any solution is a vote for the status quo, and that's what you're offering. Several states are either contemplating or have already put in place laws permitting the refusal of service to homosexuals for religious reasons—that's really precious isn't it: religious reasons. We know the Troglodytes feel emboldened by Trump; they scamper out of their dens to find a world that wants to accommodate them. "If every business is discriminating then sure, it is necessary to enforce anti-discrimination laws. But that is not happening" That not how laws work. You can't decide to enforce laws only because more than x number of people are violating them. A company's polluting? Well heck, we can't do anything if there aren't 2,000 more companies polluting, too! Someone committed murder in your city? Sorry, we can't do anything unless every other person is a murderer, including me—BANG! Your granny was abused in her old folks home? Doesn't matter: we haven't received complaints from all the old people. The car dealer sold you a....I think you get the point. "You would be hard pressed to find businesses turning away people for being gay or black or whatever." You might be. Because you don't want to look. How about trying to find some information on housing discrimination, to start. Or how about these cases: https://www.eater.com/2015/4/1/8325219/indiana-pizza-parlor-public-deny-service-lgbt-gay-law-discrimination https://www.outsports.com/2015/3/27/8303925/christian-indiana-business-gay-refuse-service That took me 1 search and 10 seconds. Hard pressed indeed. And I wonder why you don't see more businesses overtly turning away black people. I mean, it's not like we've had laws against that for decades. Right?
    1
  11. Why do straight people want to get married rather than have a civil partnership? Bearing in mind that not all straight people are religious or want to or can have children, and yet they are free to marry. Also, asexual people marry, so it's not even about sex. So why do straight people want to marry? For the same reasons gay people do. None of that separate but equal crap.
    1
  12. I'm not a fan of marriage either. But that doesn't mean I get to dictate what other people can and can't do. There's no reason why gay people can't marry. It doesn't harm anyone. It won't destroy civilization. Marriage is a social construct. It can mean whatever we want it to mean. I think we've actually gotten a pretty good idea of who you are on this issue. If you don't like that, that's your problem.
    1