34 Comments on “Jordan Peterson vs Noam Chomsky on Gay Marriage”

  1. Can somebody explain to me what his definition of a "cultural Marxist" is? He goes on and on about them as he is frothing at the mouth, but never explains what they actually are. Lol he talks about them as if they're having secret meetings under a mountain and are plotting their next attack on freedom. What the fuck is he talking about? Lol

  2. gay marriage is not possible because marriage is the combination of two energies male and female. This cannot happen in a gay situation.Two energies of opposite signature are need to create life and are required to create a balanced and healthy person.These two energies do not exist in a gay situation in a normal and natural way.

  3. lets put it simply for all ; you put two people male one, the other female on a desert island they can create a third life .Two gays cant.

  4. I've actually never heard Chomsky proffer an opinion on gay marriage at all. And he doesn't in this clip either. He just talks about the views of Obama and the masters of mankind. And I agree with him: I also don't know what to think of gay marriage. Mostly because I don't understand what homosexuality is. What is it for? What does it do? Why even is it? I believe in being tolerant of people who are different, but supporting gay marriage seems to elevate homosexuality to the level of heterosexuality, and it's not clear to me at all that is actually true.

  5. What a fucking joke. Backed by “cultural Marxism” you mean “cultural Bolshevism” that ever-wieldy Nazi propaganda term? How lackluster of an academic are you if your argument is “muh me no like cultural Marxism”?

  6. … Abolish the institution of marriage altogether for everyone. It's a social contract of ownership, a smaller social hierarchy which imitates our global one, that perpetuates dominate/subordinate positions of hierarchy within the family structure. Homosexuals shouldn't want to conform to the ideology that marriage is an institutional good which they are excluded from, because it obscures the reality of what marriage is and always has been, an institutional system of social control against the masses so that they conform more easily to their own exploitation needed by the dominate system to function as it does

  7. JBP wins again! What started as a way of commiting to another and to progress the human kind, has been perverted into a social/political wedge issue. That is not the purpose of marriage. …but then again, I dont believe that government should be involved at all.

  8. Nobody has the authority to tell others who they can or can't share their life or bed with. Of course, children. i.e., minors, and animals or non-consensual relationships are off limits.

  9. Within seconds JP reveals himself to be an ass. If the people I disagree with support it, I'm against it, no matter what the idea is! Really, JP? When did that become a reasonable form of argument? Attack on traditional modes of being? Here's an update, JP, homosexuality has existed since Ancient Greece and earlier. How's that for traditional modes of being? The fact that this man is considered an intellectual is an embarrassment.

  10. I know Jordan Peterson likes to read and hold a degree in psychology but he’s very confused about so many subjects. Not that I am the expert though things that are unique in my own world he has been so far out from understanding. Initially when I discovered him I thought he was very clever and wished I could’ve had him as a psych prof. Now I see the follies of his know it all attitude. I think he just loves to talk, and think out loud. Ones whole lifetime can be spent sifting through the data. Good luck to you all developing wisdom.

  11. Gay rights is a class issue, in the vein that women's rights and racial civil liberties are. Is an economic analysis more fundamental, and better explains class antagonism and social control? Yes. But Women's rights, racial civil liberties, and gay rights are literally right behind it. While gay rights, women's rights, racial civil liberties can be idpol, they aren't necessarily idpol in the way, social issues, religions, politics, and international relations are: those are truly secondary, while gay rights, women's rights, and racial civil liberties are primary. You ignore primary issues at your own demise. Also, JBP's thinking is confused. Gay marriage doesn't destroy or harm straight marriage: the straights have been harming it themselves, all this time, without our help. Jonathan Rauch has a great book about how gay marriage is a net positive and civilizing force for gay people.

  12. I love him and yet again i see him being a coward fool. Just say you are against gay marriage, period. And men are bind by women ?? Like really ? He needed to be quiet for ones or just honest and pass to the next question. Gay men are promiscuous ??? And by the way kids have been raised by gay people for milleniums; kids from straight marriages arent more stable, its a matter of people nor gender.

  13. Yes I'm against homosexuality because this world is already in worst condition than ancient cities of " sodom and Gomorrah"

    I don't want to face God's wrath because of some morally corrupt morons.

  14. Definitely Gay …something…but in most divorce debates we are told that ''Marriage is only a piece of paper''…recognition of life commitment and stability for the mutual good of the partners and society deserves recognition.

  15. As a lesbian, i don't think it's good idea to have marriages that are being controlled by governments. Why can't they just leave marriages alone and focus on capitalist economy? I don't care if there's straight or gay marriage. All I want is capitalism and money.

  16. I like Peterson normally but this take is dumb as fucking shit. Legalizing Gay marriage is not about “a leftist assault on society’s traditional mode of being.” It is an extension of a societal tradition to people who have been historically excluded from it. That being said, marriage is a social construct that governments have simply adopted. Governments should have no bearing on who can be married to one another(excluding children and people who can’t or won’t consent).

  17. Jordan Peterson is a weak pussy he's not a man he's a fuckin nerd he has no masculinity I think he's a fuckin. Dufus and he's dumb and his arugumrnts don't hold up

  18. Obviously this is not the main focus of Jordan Peterson's arguments or whatever, but I am so confused about him and the person who asked him the question on why would they oppose an idea they agree if it's proposed by a "Marxist"? I think Lenin was a dictator but he did raise literacy rate, allowed homosexual relationships and made it easier for women to divorce. Those are things that I personally agree and praise him for if I would have to write an essay on the good and bad things he had done. I find it silly that he talks about identity politics=bad but he opposes an idea because of the identity of the person proposing. Why? Can someone explain this to me?

  19. There was no "Vs" here … Choamsky just evaluated the issue in the frame that it was asked in… no psychological evaluation just a "why Obama puts that forth and why it's no problem to do so… ".

  20. what a fuckin Child. theatrical actor. he is against something just because some other people support it .. is this what intellectual does nowadays ? what kills me is his theatrical facial reaction. what an actor.

Comments are closed.