28 Comments on “Peter D Williams | Gay Rights Debate | Oxford Union”

  1. This is not a new "issue" to mankind.  It has happened before, and the majority opinion on homosexual behavior will continue to swing back and forth.  The best we can all do is is just that: do our best.  I do not agree with homosexuality behavior, but it does not mean I disrespect homosexuals.  Hang in there everyone, god bless. 

  2. Spoke very well, a shame he didn't have much time to respond to the points of information. Would've been interesting to see a discussion about the points. He makes valid arguments, however he talks about evidence and never really gave any about whether it is a negative thing to miss out on these Gender-specific parenting traits. Probably because there is none.

  3. My 'straight' parents didn't turn out that great, everyone is different, therefore all parents are different. So its hard to use case studies because everyone is so different. there's already gay parents and the kids turn out fine. 

  4. Yawn. I can't believe he has the energy and effort to come up with all this… studies and quotes and science and for what? What is this speaker gaining from this? I am so much more interested hearing the first and second proposition speakers who are gay and are passionate about it because it's THEIR lives, not someone else's who they've never met. 

  5. why does this guy give a fuck? yes he might be well educated but seriously what the fuck, if two men are fully prepared to bring up a child in a loving and stable relationship then what has it to do with anyone. surely if more children are brought up within a same sex relationship then they will grow up to be more accepting human beings of whom actually dont care about sexual orientation. As long as the well being of the child is maintained then whats the arguement, who cares. 2 guys can bring up a child just as well as 1 woman or 1 father can. posh cunts

  6. Should be eye-opening for anyone reading the comments on this page to note most criticisms of this speaker are based on his providing more research based and academic points and not enough of the 'feels' in comparison to the other speakers… I for one prefer the position which is more intellectually honest and less reliant on passions and emotional reasoning.

  7. I guess parents who become single better find partners quickly, or else this line of reasoning will take their kids away!
    Even if this was the case, it is obvious that no parents can be perfect. The reality of life is that for many children that come under the care of gay parents, straight parents may not have been the alternative, or the alternative parents, while maybe being hetero, lacked in other significant areas that contribute to the well-being of the child. Even if it is true that a parent couple that has one of each gender (assuming gender is binary, not really the case, as recent investigation shows) brings unique qualities, how much are these qualities worth, when it comes to comparing a potential heterosexual couple to a gay couple? does this supposed value in hetero parenting trump every other benefit that a couple, whom happen to be gay, may be able to give to a child?

    assuming that there was a disadvantage in not having a mother and a father, is it really worth so much that we do not allow gay parents? is it worth all the potential advantages that a gay couple may or may not be able to give? If this trait was true, it must be considered as one of many aspects of what makes parents good parents.

  8. His speech was much better, the other kid just shot off points with no weight or support to them. All in all, I don't quite get why they are arguing about this. Even if someone could prove that children raised in a dual sex environment grow up to be happier, richer and more mentally stable, that still isn't enough reason to prevent same sex marriage. Many children are not brought up in ideal households and just because some children might not be raised better than other children it shouldn't detract from the choice that people have to adopt and care for a child. Is it a better outcome that no family takes in the child?

  9. He nullified his argument by stating that there is not enough evidence to prove that same sex couples are equally good parents, due to inadequate studies, this means also there is not enough evidence to support that same sex couples are unequally good parents.

  10. The first speech out of four that I approve of because it used logic, comparisons, and data rather than emotional bargaining and slightly, blackmailing.

    "if you disapprove then you deny gay and lesbian people equality"
    "I can love just as well as heterosexuals, wait I can love even more"
    I don't doubt that their emotional appeals are genuine, I just don't think that in the course of this debate such speeches were truly able to prove that gay couples can parent better.

    I have thought that gays should be allowed to adopt or have children by surrogacy, but failed to entertain the comparison from the child's point of view. opposition second did a wonderful job here.

  11. This fellow comes across from  the very start as a rude opinionated bigot. "I haven't heard of you either". He didn't need to say anything more. That was his entire address.

  12. This is the first logically argued case in this subject that I have heard. The case for the other side seems to consist of 'look at me, aren't I great'; totally unpersuading.

  13. While I come to view this debate with a pretty strong opinion, it is fascinating to hear the arguments put by the opposition, so thank you for uploading it. I think though that, respectfully, the arguments presented here are at best weak and at worst redundant. About 70% of the speech is making the point that there is no evidence that same-sex parents are any better or worse than opposite-sex ones. Indeed many pro same-sex parenting campaigners would completely agree with such a statement – the crucial point is that there is no evidence to say they are any worse, so why should same-sex parenting be barred? The other 30% of the speech argues that men and women, simply due to their biology, bring unique parenting contributions ("a father will throw the child into the air"). This to me is incredibly difficult to quantify. It firstly assumes such contributions are entirely biological, and that a heterosexual man cannot be effeminate or a woman masculine (or that, if so, they should not be allowed to be parents!). It secondly assumes a child's upbringing is entirely insular and parent-driven, and a child of two men would never encounter a female babysitter or female friend of the family during the critical years of their development. Finally, it assumes that, simply, two female parents or double-factor 'X' means a lack of male factor 'Y', and that 'Y' is somehow imperative to being a well-rounded individual. I would say in response that some children spend their entire upbringing in the hometown of their parents, never leaving it until adulthood. Does that mean their character is thus deficient compared to a military brat raised across many different countries or cultures? Do they therefore lack crucial factor 'Z' in creating the ideal human or mind; what is the exact detriment of lacking the contribution of one biological sex? How exactly would this damage a child? The speaker simply cannot back up the claim with any evidence that the lack of a 'unique contribution' has any real detriment. Indeed, the lack of a 'unique contribution' of one biological sex could even be seen a positive thing, a uniqueness factor in its own right by having double-factor X and no factor Y. How can you equate them? We simply do not know, but when no convincing argument is made to the contrary, why should we prevent same-sex parenting when there is a severe lack of potential parents for orphaned children… when everyone agree that parenting is superior to no-parenting when it comes to a child's happiness and development.

  14. In our society, gay parents should be not viewed as worst because they love someone from the same sex. They are no different then other humans. If you have gay parents, you shouldn't wish to have heterosexual parents. This is a debate very active in our society. And will go on for a very long time.

  15. In the whole 11-minute speech he just continuously made one damn boring point that man and woman bring unique qualities to their children by virtue of their sex. If this hypothesis is considered, it makes all other "NON-IDEAL" forms of parenting baseless which in fact is totally absurd. In fact, I feel that in case of same-sex parents or single parents they actually try harder and push their boundaries to give love to their children which in turn is evident enough to tell us that they are better parents and to prove this point I would like to state that there are valid studies that have shown that offsprings of gay parents are equally or sometimes more emotionally mature as their heterosexual counterparts. My second point is that every gay relationship is similar to a straight relationship in the fact that there is a dominant figure( the man in the relationship) and there is a submissive figure ( the woman in the relationship) or vice versa (not being sexist here) just like an "IDEAL" pair of parent as he is mentioning so his whole argument becomes baseless there as well. Homosexual couples by virtue of the nature of their relationship cannot produce children on their own. So when they decide to become parents by surrogacy or adoption or any means that do so after a strict scrutiny and tiresome process and nobody wants to go through such a lengthy procedure if they are not quite sure of doing it. IN THE END, I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE LET SOME FORTUNATE ORPHANS AND CHILDREN OF STATE HAVE A LEGITIMATE PEACEFUL NORMAL CHILDHOOD AND FAMILY WITHOUT QUESTIONING THEIR PARENTS ON SUCH ABSURD GROUNDS BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMANS TOO JUST LIKE YOU AND HAVE THE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE A FAMILY OF THEIR OWN. JACKASS!!!!

  16. I think gay parents can suffice gender equilibrium to their children as well. It is the matter of how each parent cope with raising their children to be healthy both physically and mentally. If you really contribute to your children,gay or straight, you would do everything to make them happy and healthy.I think what we have to argue right now is traditionalism on raising a child and lack of studies regarding gay parenting not speculating the out come without sufficient evidence.

  17. all homosexual behaviour points to a very clear violation of design, no homosexual sexual encounter will ever produce life. it is by far the dumbest concept logically that a gay marriage is equal to a heterosexual marriage. a heterosexual marriage has the ability to produce life. homosexuality is a lie embraced In the modern era.

  18. It's laughable the first speaker's arguement.society's building block from the beginning of time up to now has been built on father mother= kids, has worked out for centuries.

Comments are closed.