Related Posts

‘You Are The Worst Human Being’

“True stud” Elliot Page and “heartthrob” Mae Martin reunite after both coming out

Will the Biden administration retract a Trump-era policy harming LGBTQ refugees?

45 Comments on “Jordan Peterson – Gay Marriage”

  1. Dr. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, who felt passionately about freedom of speech, expression, and not being bound arbitrary laws made by the minority. In his more clinical work, he helps all individuals by promoting responsibility, finding meaning in life, and developing competence. Why the fuck do people need to get crazy about this and that, and bring their own traumas, pathologies, and lens, and not only put words in this poor intellectual's mouth, but also drag him into all these political debates? He's a psychologist, and he's entitled to his own personal views on anything and everything. Why does it matter so much what he thinks of gay marriage? He's not gay. He does not have the lived experience of a gay person, and he only his "traditional" views to compare it with. If you want to know more about gay marriage, just do the research on why it is beneficial, or not beneficial, without a strong hypothesis already in mind, and whether or not the "left" have anything to do with it. If you arbitrarily disagree with gay marriage simply because the "left" is in favour of pushing it, but they may have something there, then you're contradicting the very essence of what Dr. Peterson initial championed that caused him all this grief and fame at the same time.

  2. Shouldn't gay marriage be an individual choice though? As much as I agree on Peterson's ideas, I think he generalizes the gay community quite strongly which I disagree on

  4. Humans are not bond to reproduction now. At least a fraction of people don't have to reproduce for human species to survive. So it boils down to with whom one wants to spend life with. If the other one is of the same sex, and they even want to commit, be good people, and carry more social responsibilities on their shoulders such as raising and educate children together. Why not

  6. Marriage is a word in whatever language or cultural society means the coming togethet or OPPOSITE. halfs in irder to become one . Obvioysly in Judea Christian societu it would go back to god taking a rib to make Eve. BUT. the concept is far far older . It is the melding of two into one in order yo provide a solud basis for procreation . Thus one has a penis the ither a vagina & they fit together
    Two penisis or vaginas do not . so IF lesbians or homosrxual men choose yo commut yo each other fine BUT. it is NOT in the traditional meaning of marriage . Why when so proud of who uou are you need yo call it by a heyrtosecual tetm is whay O find dumbffoundung. Why not a new word . It is as with GAY which is actually a derogatory word used on the I nelueve 1600s for the way homisexual men .moved . Beating in mond often they are anything but lught hearted once more am astounded also growing ip with ( & hete I am atheistic) the rhyme ending & the child tgat is botn on the Sabbeth Day is. ……goid & GAY. JUust a traditionalists Have discussed this with homosexual friends of both genders & they agree only requiring that government allow them to have a legal commitment . It coukd be sanctified but not called marriage.

  8. Agree with you JP. It's against nature. We are doing a wonderful job at fu*king everything up in society and we will be sorry for the consequences. God help us. It took thousands of years to get where we are and now we start to destroy everything with our so called freedom.

  12. The question about gay marriage is easy: NO!!! It's not good. Homosexuality is satanic. It's a sin. Read your Bible man! Romans 1.

  14. Assuming that a person being gay automatically precludes them engaging in a monogamous relationship is rather ignorant and quite insulting I think. Also, the extremely erroneous statement that 'gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexuals', is prejudicial and just highlights the fact that you spend far too much time in your mother's basement in front of a screen listening to the sound of your own voice and not nearly enough time out and about in the world gaining real-life experience.

  16. Jordan Peterson: “I could support gay marriage, but I’ll nicely say it doesn’t help traditional relationships and undermines marriage. Between a man and a woman, the only way to have stable children.”

    Ah.
    So he’s against gay marriage because he believes it will destroy the homes of children of straight people.
    Good to know.

  17. So he went from rejecting pronouns to struggling seeing individuals having the right to their choices and freedom as valid

  20. I'm sorry, but I don't see gay marriage as a marxist issue. I could see how it could be experienced "eff you" to tradition. But at the same time; some things kinda need that "eff you" mentality.
    Burn off the unnecessary shiet so that we can move forward. I get that you don't want to burn off too much, but keeping a bs law because we don't want to rock the boat IS bullshit.

  21. Jordan Peterson…homosexuality is only understandable in terms of habit, addiction, and compulsion. In that sense, it has the same category as alcoholism and substance abuse…and the drug of choice is the pain relieving capacity of orgasm…the pain is emotional. As one psychiatrist put it "Gay is a false place…a place of hiding".

  23. Meanwhile you've got straight people out here undermining the sanctity of marriage through divorces and sham weddings and cheating more than any poor gay couple wanting to get married ever could. Leave us alone.

  26. Translation: I'm a conservative and I have no real arguments against gay marriage other than I don't like it and god told me so in private.

  28. Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

    The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

    While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars. But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

    The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

    The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

    Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

    None of us has a right to other people's approval.

    – "Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage" by Thomas Sowell

  29. I understand his struggle to give an straight out answer. Because if your answer is negative for gays they'll character assassinate you and destroy your career. But i can hear between the lines.

  34. Remember, it's not the ideology, it's the intrinsic values and moral foundation behind the ideology if anything. If it doesn't and it causes further suffering and illness and destroys truth, love, peace, wellness, etc. then yep I'd be against it too, regardless of what the ideology is whether it's gay marriage, equality of race (whilst disregarding dangerous intentions and behaviours), etc… tree-hugging if that's such a thing (whilst it allows abuse towards other living creatures who oppose tree hugging, etc.) – it can be whatever it is.

  35. Bye bye Peterson. I loved your views because they sounded Christian to me. I’ve seen gays being changed by Christ. If that’s not your view . May God help you

  36. I find it weak to say … I disagree with X cause my enemy supports it. Either you support the idea for the sake of the idea that it is correct. Who else decides to support it does not make it more or less true.

  37. Bishop Barron: ? Thank God only about 4% of the World is gay, and spreading their deviant behavior and bad example to other people that are weak like them. Before the 70’s gay behavior was classified as a form of mental illness and many people still think it is and it is treatable. Sad ? but all true. Remember gay Priests another clergy took advantage of young boys and girls and cost the Catholic Church $billions$ of dollars in litigation. They all belong in jail. Gay marriage is against God‘s law. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

  41. Your comments are all over the place, Jordan.You emphasize nonsense like "being opposed to cultural Marxism" as somehow being connected to gay marriage. You don't acknowledge the obvious. Gay people want to get married because they want to live happy lives with the people that they love.

  44. As much as I agree with the idea that a mother and father provide optimal guidance in terms of raising a child, I know married couples where the father fights with his wife and 19 year old daughter to the point the daughter stays away from home. I know gay couples more than happy and committed to each other that (I do not know) may one day decide to adopt a child. I'd support their decision to marry/parent children more than I support that scumbag drunk bastard (even though he 'raised' two kids without a divorce from his wife)

  45. I do want to correct him on one thing ….its not the gay person them selves that permisuase because of the theory you have of no workman or man can bind them ……..its the sexual experience of anyone in there childhood …..like as in say was it a good home with both parents …were the siblings from both parents …were there siblings and parents kind to them …was there some kinda abuse in or out of the home ….were there only single parents and not yet found love and joy in another partner …were they the same sex partners whom adapted .was there. Any kind of religion in valved….there are many factors that go into that statement alone ……its not even funny ….its the individuals them selves ….may you all have a good day.

Comments are closed.