Marriage Debate | Peter Hitchens | Opposition 

Peter Hitchens says: "it would be nice if we could have continued as a society rather than a collection of people living in the same place" Beautiful line, and so sad.

Amazing last word by Hitchens. He is SO great ❤️

absolutely moral

Fantastic speech. Divorce absolutely should be an option for when the marriage cannot continue for legitimate reasons (infidelity, lack of consummation, violence, intimidation, abuse etc) but divorce as well as state-sponsored has become big business in the legal sector now - this is a nasty, disgusting, exploitative and sad reality

A very moral video tbh.

I'd never thought of marriage as the private authority that the government has gradually infringed on as the public replacement. Was probably taught to me at school and church at some point, but it never sank in until the power of marriage was nullified. You don't know what you have until it's taken away.

The state should have no place in marriage. It should go back to being an entirely private institution in the domain of individuals.

Brevity is the soul of wit. I love how Peter distills his arguments. He wastes no time with pomp. He gets right to the point, and hammers you with truth bombs. All the while, being completely entertaining.

Superb oratory by peter Hitchens. I find his idea that marriage is important, not just to a man and woman, but as a declaration of a small freedom against the considerable power of the state, is impressive. The quotation of D. H. Lawrence's writing was new to me and very thought provoking.

I cannot say that I agree with Mr Hitchens in this video but at lease he can stand up rather civilly and argue a point unlike the opposition.

Fantastic speech, fantastic points. Finally some logical, clear thinking in this entire debate.

Based a s e d

His trademark 'pessimism' at the end.

hes still the only journo who makes any sense.

Excellent. So true. I am Catholic, happily married to my Catholic husband 25 yrs. Our young adult kids all want the stability of a sacramental marriage.

Thanks to the left, for making the right cool again.

“Top Baroness Fiona Shackleton is encouraging schools to talk to children about the importance of marriage” - FAMILY spells Father And Mother I Love You🙏🏼

Yes. Every word the truth.

Marriage is the foundation of society. If the marriage is broken society is broken. We don’t need Phd or rocket science to understand that. Just observe what is the effect of divorce. Anger hate bitterness confusion depression etc. The golden rule is still true today “ love your neighbour as you love yourself” who is your closest neighbour? Its your spouse.

Marriage and Family have been the bedrock of Society for so long. The foundation of decent principles and ethics. And now that it is accepted that this no longer matters co habitation without this has done nothing to improve family life but made it more complex as people have children by several partners. Making way for porn and disrespect of both sexes, with absolutely no effort to surmount problems and work through them by talking with each other resulting in an overall lack of family communication. Children watch their parents and they learn. So many families are in disarray struggling to cope with their fragile relationships that lack commitment. There is no incentive to try and things have changed, not for the better sadly.

Yeah , there's Germaine saying how awful marriage is for women and how , if they leave the marriage, they are so poor . My husband's ex wife got the house ( cos the men are always the ones expected to leave - even if they are the innocent party ) the bigger cut of the money and the kids ( then she turned them against their father , and she was fiddling the tax man so actually , she wasnt doing too bad . He left with his clothes & his cd's .

Proud of this one

Men get killed in a divorce. I friend of mine divorced about six months ago. He lost his home, and his kids, and 2/3 of his income. His wife never worked even though she had a degree in architecture. He always objected to her not working, when the kids started school he objected to home school so she could work. So he will have to rebuild his life from scratch and she will have a paid-for home. The only case I know of the man not getting totally screwed was a friend who is an attorney and he fought the divorce based on contract law. She got the house, but it is in the kid's name. They will get it down the road. He fought for custody because he could afford to support them and she couldn't. She agreed to all his financial concessions to get custody of the children. The court couldn't give her the house because it was always in his and the kid's name. He explained to the judge it was a part of their estate plan that the house belongs to the kids if something ever happened to their parents. The judge couldn't take it from the kids.

Wonderful. The D. H. Lawrence Quote was perfect and is sadly proven day in day out in the part of Western Society that has welfare payments as ist main income.

This man is an amazing intellectual.

This man is a rare soul.Thank goodness for a few people left on this earth like this who speak out actual truth instead of woke rubbish

can we get a transcript of this speech? this was great.

Any man who enters into marriage, a contract that can not only be brocken without penalty, but which if broken can benefit the person breaking it. That is totally contrary to natural justice and as such the marriage contract should be avoided.....esp as it is men who are most often handed the shitty end of the stick.

"Marriage in this country is legally dead - it exists as a ghost." Enter canons 1152, 1153 and 1692 of the Catholic Church.

Life is a jungle as long as you are single. When you become double, you invite trouble.

Thank God for Peter Hitchens. The man is peerless.

"Marriage" is one of those annoying things that everyone has an opinion about, but no one realises there needs to be an agreed *definition* of it before we can debate our opinions.

"destroy the permanency of marriage and the church falls. the church is established on the union of mankind. break it and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the state. "

Reminds me a lot of Dr. Steven Baskerville! - “How no fault divorce empowers the state”. Wake up church, let your pastors know, if they will listen.

Peter Hitchens love him he always runs rings around them very clever man

Thank you Peter Hitchens. Marriage is still alive and well regardless of governments. It has worked for hundreds of years. A marriage between a man and a woman is the best foundation for children that is known in the world. Unfortunately I didn't get that as a child and it took many decades to work though it. Fortunately I have five grandchildren through my oldest son. Jesus said that what God has joined together let no man cast asunder. I think it will survive as it is the best chance that love will endure between a man and a woman during their lives and also to their children.

Ravi Zacharias, Jordan Peterson, Peter Hitchens; God smiled on us when these men were born.....

you can make a little world in marriage

Truly the last of its kind. Proper Christian conservatism could die with him.

Peter does not mention that certain levels of abuse require help from the state. This is probably what caused the state to get involved. But I also assume that most people who are divorced did not really need to divorce for reasons of safety.

wow i never thought of it like that

Interesting and MORAL but I'd argue it's not really the state attacking marriage but women and feminism. Why are nearly all divorces initiated by women?

I am agnostic but find a lot of Peter’s arguments compelling. The ‘society’ we are heading for is quite obviously not a good one so we must return to the good aspects of tradition, one of those being sacramental marriage

Brilliant, Articulate, Lucid, and True!

I like Hitchens very much. It would indeed have been very nice to continue living as a society. Still, let’s get over it on this topic. The onus is on the individual now, and the stakes are well understood.

He is so good, thank God for Peter Hitchens.

So he thinks that a person wh finds themselves miserably unhappy in a marriage should be forced to stay in it. Nonsense.

Thank you, Mr. Hitchens. If I am not mistaken, in his Dred Scott dissent, Justice Curtis made a similar argument regarding the state's duty to **recognize** Scott's marriage. Here is part of that passage: "In my judgment, there can be no more effectual abandonment of the legal rights of a master over his slave than by the consent of the master that the slave should enter into a contract of marriage in a free State, attended by all the civil rights and obligations which belong to that condition. "And any claim by Dr. Emerson, or anyone claiming under him the effect of which is to deny the validity of this marriage and the lawful paternity of the children born from it, wherever asserted, is, in my judgment, a claim inconsistent with good faith and sound reason, as well as with the rules of international law. And I go further: in my opinion, a law of the State of Missouri which should thus annul a marriage, lawfully contracted by these parties while resident in Wisconsin, not in fraud of any law of Missouri, or of any right of Dr. Emerson, who consented thereto, would be a law impairing the obligation of a contract, and within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States."

Peter Hitchens is so right but is there anyway back . I despair

Peter is right: THE INTERMARRIAGE IS GREAT!

For some reason I want whole milk

Nobody dresses like the British, nobody👍🏻👏.

a surprisingly good speech

Eloquent but all he's shown is that marriage is hopelessly ill suited to being a legal contract.

I expected this to be Peter Hitchens arguing with his wife about who was supposed to do the dishes last night.

Although the genius comment "our society has already disappeared up its own contradictions.." may have an impressive vulgar imperative it is nonetheless technically true. The legislating for personal contradiction as opposed to duty and responsibiliy is why we are now living in a state of collective paradigmatic misery as opposed to a flourishing society.

Peter Hitchens . Journalist of the year . 1793

i don't get it. what happens if the state is not involved in marriage and how does them being involved stop this?

Great person

Liberals: I want the right of gay marriage! Conservatives: Fine. Nobody's stopping you. Liberals: I want the right of gay marriage by religious institutions! Conservatives: wait what...

What an intro! Brilliant.

Spot on. Excellent!

He makes very salient points to defend what he speaks for, unlike his brother,..

One of the few true Conservatives left.

scorecard needed relating every Oxford Union upload

"It is marriage that has given man the best of his freedom," said no married man ever.

Can someone give a link to the DH Lawrence quote on marriage. thanks.

Oh Peter, ...

We are brought up to play a role, fulfilling the demands of the status quo power regime. The existing system is built on exploitation, without which it would collapse. Marriage has provided a sense of purpose, sanctuary and recuperation, thereby ensuring that people are in a position to continue in their role within the exploitative system. The key demand of feminism is not equality but freedom from an exploitative patriarchal system. It is hardly surprising that the traditional institution of marriage in the UK has come under threat but society has not evolved into providing a cohesive way of living built on freedom with responsibility.

Peter Hitchens and Christopher Hitchens have the exact same voice.

Peter is right ❤️ great man who really cares about mankind and our future

This guy is a legend!!

Would be nice, if there was a link to the opposing argument!

The failed argument (as far as I can tell) for gay marriage: P1. Legal marriage is a right. P2. Gay persons should have the same rights as straight persons. P3. Therefore, legal marriage should be available for gay people as much as straight people. Notice that this argument is logically valid: If P1 and P2 are true, then P3 follows inescapably. Are P1 and P2 true? P2 seems true. Even if you deny that objective moral truths exist, you probably still want P2 to be true. What about P1? I don't believe P1 is true. Marriage is a description, not a right. Married persons don't deserve different rights than nonmarried persons. P1 is like saying _being registered as disabled is a right._ Furthermore, notice that if P1 is true, then P2 could be replaced by _Triples and quadruples should have the same rights as pairs._ But this means the state should start dishing out 3-way marriages, which seems absurd.

I like Peter Hitchens what about if someone doesn't think they broke the contract but really did meaning they didn't actually love their spouse even though they promise to love honor and cherish It would be convenient to blame the state and I don't know enough to dispute Peter but it might just be an excuse

Peter Hitchens paints a black-and-white picture. He defines marriage in judicious terms and disregards all good reasons why a marriage might be disbanded, such as abuse and intimidation. No one wants to stay in a marriage of these conditions, but under traditional laws, you were not allowed to divorce. This also impeded on your individual rights to liberty. If he wants the state to recognize a domain of life separate from the state's jurisdiction, then an easy alternative is to introduce a law. But his point is completely false. There are many things which do not fall under the state's control: we have a free press, we are free in what religion we practice, we are free in our taste in music, films, and other media; despite claims to the contrary we have a huge degree of freedom of speech.

The nicer peter tatchell

So the Catholic Church was right all along?

this is so sad

I'd love to get married. The problem is that the girl I want to marry is going to marry a guitar man. I want to have three children, a dog and a happy home. That seems like an impossible dream now.

I swore my marriage oaf before God and witnesses, not before state. Amen.

How have I never heard of him before today?

D.H. Lawrence is a brilliant writer, though. Haven't read Lady Chatterley but some of his short stories - such as the Horse Dealer's Daughter - are mind blowing, imao.

What does he say at the 0:37 mark? 'Jane called for ??? to be allowed to marry in church.'

Gen z human equality act

wouldn't it be nice?

Gen z shouldn't be homeless

Wow, I replaced some of the words with "interracial couple" and there was almost no change.

Gen z let me know you more love me more show us keep us mentally safe not challenged

holy shit

Peter Hitchens is a treasure.

Taking the statement foreword. I am the wronged party so I should receive all the property. No Your honour I didn't pay anything towards the mortgage! I am the wronged party though.

Simply. Peerless.

At 4:50 does anyone have evidence of this I'm curious

>le classy oxford black man

How is a contract, freedom...

Gen z futures of world I am myself

Gen z best intelligent generation

A man, the man?

This is too funny watching this anti gay man who is a big old Queen.