You should not get married and not have kids, unless you actually want to. Don't feel pressured by Judeo-Christian ethics into some 'duty' that will turn your life into a dull, tepid, uninspiring series of chores, one after another after another.
Two most abused words in the English language—–LOVE and GAY.Calling sodomy love or gay is like putting lipstick on a pig—–you still have a pig!Sodomy is not love just as sexual relations with a 9 year old is not love.Sodomy is a dysfunctional and depraved activity and not worthy of public pandering, embracement, or sanctioning.The anus is a exit point, not a entry point.
I want him to talk about the scientific fact that atheists (on average) has a higher IQ than religious people. Meaning…the smarter you are the more likely it is that you don’t beleive in the bullshit called religion. How is that?
I have three distinct opinions (1 with a bonus round), that don’t contradict each other in regards to homosexual “marriage.”
1. As a Christian I emphatically agree with the Biblical doctrine that homosexual “marriage” is a sin and I on a personal level, condemn such behavior. 1a. Science also agrees with my Biblical worldview regarding homosexuality as well and I will link a couple articles below to illustrate that point.
2. Constitutionally speaking, people should be able to live their lives any way they so desire, unmolested by our government. Our government should stay out of any relationship status as marriage is of a personal nature and need not be convoluted or intruded by bureaucracy.
3. The homosexual community should have simply created a new term that they could have coined to include or at least stand apart from the word, “marriage.” The word, “marriage” has always been defined as a man and a women agreeing to an interpersonal union.
Its weird hes against abortion and yet doesn't want gays getting married and adopting, where are all these unwanted kids gonna go
If you can find any genetic test by which one can identify a particular 'race,' in a blind test, you might be able to, at least, reasonably assert that such a thing as 'racism,' as currently defined, exists. The truth is that no such test exists because no such distinction exists. (Of one blood, God created all nations of men). People with varying shades of the same color (melanin) do not establish a basis to sub-divide the 'knowing' human species. You might just as well sub-divide on the basis of which television programs people watch. In fact, until the modern age of stupidity, 'race' was universally a description of 'national' identity. If, in fact, one CAN identify so-called substantive distinctions between strains of human breeds, or so-called evolutionary development, what rational objection can one have to establishing legal impediments to the propagation of detrimental distinctions? What rational basis is asserted for a community not having an interest in the proliferation of disease, deformity, mental retardation, or other disabilities that both burden society and the individual bearing the trait? How, rationally, does a society that asserts the legitimacy of in utero infanticide to assure that 'every child is wanted, every life meaningful,' and thereby legally endorses the 'choice' to execute those individuals, in utero, who possess deficiency in this respect, how does this society then malign the effort to impede these same deficiencies in society on the basis of demonstrable characteristics that just happen to correspond to skin color? If evolution is true, unless the absurd assertion that all humans derive from a single serendipitous simian mutation unmolested to the present day, then breeds of humans are just as distinguishable as dogs or any other animal. The eradication of harmful 'strains' would then be unquestionably in the interest of society. Therefore, what, Ben, is 'wrong' about so-called 'racism' beyond your own personal aversion to it?
Watch Ben just say "gay"
The government sucks at capital punishment too, which Benny Shap is a full supporter of.
Guys who love seeing Ben DESTROY people are the same guys – and there are many of them – who watch porn and cheer on the actor's massive phallus while they hold their own with tweezers
Did you know that if you study the entire painting of the Sistine Chapel, you'll find Ben Shapiro in the painting, like where's Waldo
the discussion at the end was very good. both being respectful. just good people.
They should absolutely have the right to say "I do" and other people should absolutely also have the right to say "I don't"
Wouldn't it be something if people understood that if you honestly felt what you are doing, saying, how you are acting/behaving, whether you are a conformist or non-comformist if whatever the actions that a person is doing that they would not need or even desire to have the approval from another person or from society?? If you are truly Ok with what your actions are then approval will never be a requirement or desired, however if what you truly want is approval for what you are doing due to some internal need for reaffirmation and self confidence building then quite possibly the issue isn't with society the true issue is within. It is not the job of society to cater to a person needs, Is it your job to make everyone happy NO then it is not society's job to make you happy!! If you can't make yourself happy and confident no one else can do that for you then, that's a you issue.. Sorry I'm not happy either, I have a whole list of wants and needs, just like you do and everyone else does, your not special neither am I. No I lied I did find happiness, it happened when I quit caring about what people that don't know me and who don't care about me thought and felt about me, their opinion and remarks don't have a value or meaning WHY because I don't require their approval or need their support for social or self confidence I am me you are you if I don't like you I don't socialize with you, If you don't like me, fine OK look the other way and go on with your day and have a nice day!! I will!!
this guy just pushed that lady into a corner
I hear "future generations" all I can think about is overpopulation on this damn earth. We don't need more babies right now, let's just take a moment and chill. Also nothing is unnatrual or natural, what we see as natural or the "normal" way of doing things is what society has taught us. If we were to grow up with everyone being taught you SHOULD marry the same sex and you SHOULDN'T marry the opposit sex, that'd be "normal". I say you do you, you be whoever you are and whoever you want to be, you like whoever you like and that's what's normal. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone who cares. We are the ones to set limits and decide what's normal and not. But love is love, and I strongly belive you fall in love with a person, not the gender or the body.
He destroyed liberals with facts and logics
But why male models?
BEN DOES IT AGAIN
Freedom means gays can get married Freedom also means that if you don't want to cater, host, or arrange flowers for a gay wedding you don't have to. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Where are the parents of these delusional kids? Or has the corrupt education system brainwashed these kids to think retardedly?
Why is the girl at the end branded a lunatic? That was totally uncalled for. She was just expressing a different viewpoint. And she did so politely and respectfully. Do you want a society where noone is allowed to question things that you think are right? Because I sure as hell don't.
Ben Shapiro's opening statement is highly hypocritical if he really does consider himself libertarian. It can be hard to catch everything that Shapiro says because he has a terrible habit of rambling. If you know what he's talking about, you immediately know that Ben has a traditional religious point of view on gay rights. This is in stark contrast with the majority of Libertarians who supported equal rights for LGBTQ people. Shapiro stated a typical ultra-conservative point of view by stating that the government should stay out of it. Thus allowing individual states to either support or infringe upon gay rights as they saw fit. That part is important. Few Libertarians feel there should be no regulation and/or recognition on a governmental basis at all. The reason for that, is its not at all feasible where spousal and parental rights are concerned. Most Libertarians go with the party guideline; Section 1.3 "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships." That would explicitly eliminate any possibility of having allowed states to create their own bans. As for ending federal/state marital status recognition altogether, as stated before, one runs into major problems in the Spousal/Parental rights departments. Sections 1.6 and 3.5 of the party statement underline a clash with Ben's stance. The sections are respectively as followed. "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect." "Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions."
I don't believe in same sex marriage but I do support it for being legal in the united states. This is America you should be allowed to to marry if your gay, I'm still pissed of that it wasn't legal years before. Like seriously how can gay marriage hurt anyone.
So he knows that racist behaviour is evil So he would not agree with refusing a black person service But thinks that it's ok to refuse homosexuals service hmmmmm, sounds like a closeted homophobe in denial
Its legal now who gives a shit. Shapiro is like most of us commenting-pretty liberterian. Literally none of our business govt stay out of it whoever can marry whoever
I don't agree with it but if two gay people wanna live together and get married, I couldn't care less. I just don't think they should force people to do things that they don't want to do.
Gay marriage is not marriage. It's a legal union between two same sex partners. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Simply…
What if I’m a white baker but my ideology is against blacks… do I have the constitutional freedom to refuse service to a black person? Because if people are allowed to refuse service based on orientation/beliefs then I should be allowed that same right when it comes to race/beliefs… especially since both are argued that they’re born black and born homosexual…. how do you answer that Ben?
Sorry Ben. When you decide to run your business in the Public Forum, taking advantage of taxpayer-funded infrastructure such as plumbing, roads and highways, bridges, the electrical grid, police and fire protection, etc. then you also must serve ALL citizens equally. You don't get to pick and choose who you serve while taking advantage of a system supported by ALL citizens tax dollars. If you want to bake your cake in your church on Sunday, good for you! Nobody will make you kiss a man while you eat your cake.
This guy has inspired multiple terrorists to vandalize and murder Muslims and Jews. He's a white supremacist and doesn't deserve to be listened to.
The government sucks at everything. True??.
Okay let me tell you something scientifically gay people is the way of thinning out the population since we are procreating to the point of we're destroying our planet since you know you can't take it from a everybody gets their own kind of fucking rights point of view you get to take it from a science point of view and let people fucking love to love is that simple man the beetle said it in the 60s why can't you say it now?
Marriage is just ugly people trying to lock hot people into a contract
https://youtu.be/IJ8ruA3QPmg
You should not get married and not have kids, unless you actually want to. Don't feel pressured by Judeo-Christian ethics into some 'duty' that will turn your life into a dull, tepid, uninspiring series of chores, one after another after another.
Two most abused words in the English language—–LOVE and GAY.Calling sodomy love or gay is like putting lipstick on a pig—–you still have a pig!Sodomy is not love just as sexual relations with a 9 year old is not love.Sodomy is a dysfunctional and depraved activity and not worthy of public pandering, embracement, or sanctioning.The anus is a exit point, not a entry point.
I want him to talk about the scientific fact that atheists (on average) has a higher IQ than religious people. Meaning…the smarter you are the more likely it is that you don’t beleive in the bullshit called religion. How is that?
I have three distinct opinions (1 with a bonus round), that don’t contradict each other in regards to homosexual “marriage.”
1. As a Christian I emphatically agree with the Biblical doctrine that homosexual “marriage” is a sin and I on a personal level, condemn such behavior.
1a. Science also agrees with my Biblical worldview regarding homosexuality as well and I will link a couple articles below to illustrate that point.
2. Constitutionally speaking, people should be able to live their lives any way they so desire, unmolested by our government. Our government should stay out of any relationship status as marriage is of a personal nature and need not be convoluted or intruded by bureaucracy.
3. The homosexual community should have simply created a new term that they could have coined to include or at least stand apart from the word, “marriage.” The word, “marriage” has always been defined as a man and a women agreeing to an interpersonal union.
DC Clotheslines–http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/07/04/medical-consequences-homosexual-sexual-behaviors/
DePaul University– https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1325&context=law-review
NCBI–https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2762461
Family Research Institute–http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/
Its weird hes against abortion and yet doesn't want gays getting married and adopting, where are all these unwanted kids gonna go
If you can find any genetic test by which one can identify a particular 'race,' in a blind test, you might be able to, at least, reasonably assert that such a thing as 'racism,' as currently defined, exists. The truth is that no such test exists because no such distinction exists. (Of one blood, God created all nations of men). People with varying shades of the same color (melanin) do not establish a basis to sub-divide the 'knowing' human species. You might just as well sub-divide on the basis of which television programs people watch. In fact, until the modern age of stupidity, 'race' was universally a description of 'national' identity. If, in fact, one CAN identify so-called substantive distinctions between strains of human breeds, or so-called evolutionary development, what rational objection can one have to establishing legal impediments to the propagation of detrimental distinctions? What rational basis is asserted for a community not having an interest in the proliferation of disease, deformity, mental retardation, or other disabilities that both burden society and the individual bearing the trait? How, rationally, does a society that asserts the legitimacy of in utero infanticide to assure that 'every child is wanted, every life meaningful,' and thereby legally endorses the 'choice' to execute those individuals, in utero, who possess deficiency in this respect, how does this society then malign the effort to impede these same deficiencies in society on the basis of demonstrable characteristics that just happen to correspond to skin color? If evolution is true, unless the absurd assertion that all humans derive from a single serendipitous simian mutation unmolested to the present day, then breeds of humans are just as distinguishable as dogs or any other animal. The eradication of harmful 'strains' would then be unquestionably in the interest of society. Therefore, what, Ben, is 'wrong' about so-called 'racism' beyond your own personal aversion to it?
Watch Ben just say "gay"
The government sucks at capital punishment too, which Benny Shap is a full supporter of.
Guys who love seeing Ben DESTROY people are the same guys – and there are many of them – who watch porn and cheer on the actor's massive phallus while they hold their own with tweezers
Did you know that if you study the entire painting of the Sistine Chapel, you'll find Ben Shapiro in the painting, like where's Waldo
the discussion at the end was very good. both being respectful. just good people.
They should absolutely have the right to say "I do" and other people should absolutely also have the right to say "I don't"
Wouldn't it be something if people understood that if you honestly felt what you are doing, saying, how you are acting/behaving, whether you are a conformist or non-comformist if whatever the actions that a person is doing that they would not need or even desire to have the approval from another person or from society?? If you are truly Ok with what your actions are then approval will never be a requirement or desired, however if what you truly want is approval for what you are doing due to some internal need for reaffirmation and self confidence building then quite possibly the issue isn't with society the true issue is within. It is not the job of society to cater to a person needs, Is it your job to make everyone happy NO then it is not society's job to make you happy!! If you can't make yourself happy and confident no one else can do that for you then, that's a you issue.. Sorry I'm not happy either, I have a whole list of wants and needs, just like you do and everyone else does, your not special neither am I. No I lied I did find happiness, it happened when I quit caring about what people that don't know me and who don't care about me thought and felt about me, their opinion and remarks don't have a value or meaning WHY because I don't require their approval or need their support for social or self confidence I am me you are you if I don't like you I don't socialize with you, If you don't like me, fine OK look the other way and go on with your day and have a nice day!! I will!!
this guy just pushed that lady into a corner
I hear "future generations" all I can think about is overpopulation on this damn earth. We don't need more babies right now, let's just take a moment and chill. Also nothing is unnatrual or natural, what we see as natural or the "normal" way of doing things is what society has taught us. If we were to grow up with everyone being taught you SHOULD marry the same sex and you SHOULDN'T marry the opposit sex, that'd be "normal". I say you do you, you be whoever you are and whoever you want to be, you like whoever you like and that's what's normal. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone who cares. We are the ones to set limits and decide what's normal and not. But love is love, and I strongly belive you fall in love with a person, not the gender or the body.
He destroyed liberals with facts and logics
But why male models?
BEN DOES IT AGAIN
Freedom means gays can get married
Freedom also means that if you don't want to cater, host, or arrange flowers for a gay wedding you don't have to.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Where are the parents of these delusional kids? Or has the corrupt education system brainwashed these kids to think retardedly?
Why is the girl at the end branded a lunatic? That was totally uncalled for. She was just expressing a different viewpoint. And she did so politely and respectfully. Do you want a society where noone is allowed to question things that you think are right? Because I sure as hell don't.
Ben Shapiro's opening statement is highly hypocritical if he really does consider himself libertarian. It can be hard to catch everything that Shapiro says because he has a terrible habit of rambling. If you know what he's talking about, you immediately know that Ben has a traditional religious point of view on gay rights. This is in stark contrast with the majority of Libertarians who supported equal rights for LGBTQ people. Shapiro stated a typical ultra-conservative point of view by stating that the government should stay out of it. Thus allowing individual states to either support or infringe upon gay rights as they saw fit. That part is important. Few Libertarians feel there should be no regulation and/or recognition on a governmental basis at all. The reason for that, is its not at all feasible where spousal and parental rights are concerned. Most Libertarians go with the party guideline; Section 1.3 "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships." That would explicitly eliminate any possibility of having allowed states to create their own bans. As for ending federal/state marital status recognition altogether, as stated before, one runs into major problems in the Spousal/Parental rights departments. Sections 1.6 and 3.5 of the party statement underline a clash with Ben's stance. The sections are respectively as followed. "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect." "Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions."
I don't believe in same sex marriage but I do support it for being legal in the united states. This is America you should be allowed to to marry if your gay, I'm still pissed of that it wasn't legal years before. Like seriously how can gay marriage hurt anyone.
So he knows that racist behaviour is evil
So he would not agree with refusing a black person service
But thinks that it's ok to refuse homosexuals service
hmmmmm, sounds like a closeted homophobe in denial
Its legal now who gives a shit. Shapiro is like most of us commenting-pretty liberterian. Literally none of our business govt stay out of it whoever can marry whoever
I don't agree with it but if two gay people wanna live together and get married, I couldn't care less. I just don't think they should force people to do things that they don't want to do.
Gay marriage is not marriage. It's a legal union between two same sex partners. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Simply…
What if I’m a white baker but my ideology is against blacks… do I have the constitutional freedom to refuse service to a black person? Because if people are allowed to refuse service based on orientation/beliefs then I should be allowed that same right when it comes to race/beliefs… especially since both are argued that they’re born black and born homosexual…. how do you answer that Ben?
Sorry Ben. When you decide to run your business in the Public Forum, taking advantage of taxpayer-funded infrastructure such as plumbing, roads and highways, bridges, the electrical grid, police and fire protection, etc. then you also must serve ALL citizens equally. You don't get to pick and choose who you serve while taking advantage of a system supported by ALL citizens tax dollars. If you want to bake your cake in your church on Sunday, good for you! Nobody will make you kiss a man while you eat your cake.
This guy has inspired multiple terrorists to vandalize and murder Muslims and Jews. He's a white supremacist and doesn't deserve to be listened to.
The government sucks at everything. True??.
Okay let me tell you something scientifically gay people is the way of thinning out the population since we are procreating to the point of we're destroying our planet since you know you can't take it from a everybody gets their own kind of fucking rights point of view you get to take it from a science point of view and let people fucking love to love is that simple man the beetle said it in the 60s why can't you say it now?