Intellectual Dark Web
Intellectual Dark Web
Out of context: Reply #43
- Started
- Last post
- 199 Responses
- i_monk7
Morning_star,
You're confusing scientific research with pop psych assertions.
Have you seen the video? Here it is:
His argument against gay marriage:
1. If it's "backed by cultural Marxists" he's against it.
2. It must integrate gay people into mainstream society and decrease promiscuity. No mention of promiscuous heterosexuals or married heterosexuals who are otherwise not part of the mainstream.
3. Legalizing it hasn't "decreased the demands of the radical Left" so it lacks merit.
4. The model of marriage he would hold gays to ignores things like divorce and childless straight couples/infertility, and the even more historic and traditional role the extended family plays in raising children. He's basically holding up a postcard of the 1950s Nuclear Family ideal and saying "this is how it's always been" when even 10 minutes of research would demonstrate otherwise, even in the Western tradition.
How you can conclude he's NOT pushing an agenda is absolutely baffling.
- Halfway through he admits his position is confused, meaning he has a conclusion and is trying to justify it. Hardly scientific.i_monk
- For a man who is very careful about what he says, ‘confused’ is an admission that he isn’t clear about what he thinks. How can that possibly be an ‘agenda’.Morning_star
- Also I_monk, thanks for your post.Morning_star
- jp loses me on this issue. two people in love are certainly capable of raising children and being a family, regardless of gender.Gnash
- That’s pretty much what he says in the video I posted.Morning_star
- true, but it takes him so long to get there.Gnash
- so it ends up feeling forced.Gnash
- Two people in love don't need to have a kid (or plan to have one) to justify getting married. He doesn't hold straight people to that standard, ergo he believesi_monk
- homosexuals should be second class.i_monk
- If that’s the conclusion you come to, that’s cool. However I think you’re choosing to represent his view through the lens of your existing prejudice.Morning_star
- peterson fans are blinded by the smug. impossible to convince it's a just a style of debate only achievable by several iterations of climbing up your own holekingsteven
- Haters gonna hate. He provides a well needed alternative narrative. A lot of you guys seem swayed by popular opinion.robthelad
- Existing prejudice? You and he are the ones saying marriage and children must go together because that's traditional.i_monk
- You're the ones saying a historically oppressed group should remain oppressed because that's traditional.i_monk
- Safe bet your rights have never been considered debate-worthy. Prejudice indeed.i_monk
- nothing to do with the narrative rob, how the fuck is it alternative to question the motives of minority groups? there are many people pushing the same pointskingsteven
- Firstly. Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree with it. So don't assume my views are reflective of Petersons or anyone elses for that matter. I...Morning_star
- mush more sensitively... the "grievance study affair" is a populist narrative that shares many of petersons issues with gender/ sexuality but without thekingsteven
- liberal conservative bias.kingsteven
- ... meant, when i said 'existing prejudice', that you come to this with preconceived ideas about what he means. Even he doesn't know what he thinks, so...Morning_star
- ...assuming his views manifest in some kind of oppression is a step I don't think you can make. He tends to focus the family unit around the child and his ...Morning_star
- ...expert opinions based on research both his and others concluded that the optimum family uint is Dad, Mum, Child. If you have Dad, Dad, Child or Mum, Mum...Morning_star
- ...Child then issues can arise surrounding the nurturing benefits from a Male and Female perspective. However he says again and again a loving family unit is...Morning_star
- ...is far better than a Loveless or Disfunctional Family unit. Whether that be Gay, Straight and everything in between. He also doesn't give two fucks about..Morning_star
- ..who is married to who. He looks at marriages as ultimately the most productive environment for a child. For those that aren't considering children...Morning_star
- ...it doesn't matter.Morning_star
- Also, i'd rather you didn't start assuming shit about my personal situation. You know nothing.Morning_star
- @Kingsteven, how about the Ideological Socialists bias, should we ignore that too? Or maybe we listen to both and come to our own conclusions.Morning_star
- His own prejudice tying marriage to making babies, shines through. Now two men are going to produce a baby no matter how often they bang, so why should thati_monk
- factor into whether they should be allowed to marry? And if you're defending him instead of questioning him, yeah, I'll assume you agree.i_monk
- And if you can't see the danger inherent to a populist demagogue telling his followers gay people aren't equal, that's your prejudice on display.i_monk
- i-monk. Can you show me where he says that men shouldn't marry? Can you show me where he says gay people aren't equal? I'm not defending his position, i am...Morning_star
- ...attempting to explain his position rather than, as you seem to be, assuming his conclusions based on a stubborn need for him to be discredited. He clearly...Morning_star
- ...doesn't say what you're claiming.Morning_star