CV’s Thomas Peters debates marriage on Russian TV

And his performance is quite impressive.

When you have 24 minutes, give this video a watch. It’ll help you brush up on good answers to tough questions on marriage.

4,468 views

Categories:Uncategorized

104 thoughts on “CV’s Thomas Peters debates marriage on Russian TV

  1. Chris R says:

    Kudos to Thomas Peters. He did a fantastic job representing us.

    1. abadilla says:

      He does and on the sunset of my life, I’m encouraged by young people being so articulate even when others insist on seeing something malevolent in his speech.
      I’m also encouraged with the young people I teach, more open to the faith and more open to understand what it is the Church teaches.

  2. Joe M says:

    According to the logic of the gentleman arguing for gay marriage, the child marriages he brought up should be “validated” by law also. Otherwise, according to him, children will not be being treated equal before the law.

    1. Patrick says:

      What a ridiculous statement. No reasonable person believes that minors can understand what committment means and be bound to marriage or contract. That’s why our laws protect against such events. If that’s where your argument against gay civil marriage lies, then now is the time to bet $$ on its passage.

      1. Joe M says:

        As I clearly pointed out, that is not my logic. That is the logic of the man arguing for your side of this debate. So, you disagree with his argument?

        Legal age to marry varies from state to state and country to country and even on circumstances (if pregnancy is involved for example). At what age do you think people gain the ability to understand what commitment means? Do you think that every person in the state or country that is below your age limit is unreasonable? Do you think that your age limit is absolute and that there is no variation of understanding between people at that age?

        1. Patrick says:

          Um, what??? The age of consent is based upon intellectual and emotional maturity and an undertanding of the consequences of actions. That understanding does not undermine the logic of gay marriage of 2 adults. If anything, it supports it.

          1. Joe M says:

            Then, logically, you must agree with the following:

            A) Laws about marriage can have a moral basis despite some people disagreeing with those morals.
            B) Laws about marriage can be discriminatory.
            C) Marriage laws are not a civil right that over-rules the way a population chooses to define it.

          2. Paulspr says:

            The difference Joe is that children eventually become adults. Gay people don’t eventually become straight.

          3. Joe M says:

            Actually, many gay people do eventually become straight and enter traditional marriages.

          4. Patrick says:

            OK, I’ll bite:
            (A) I believe I agree with this broad statement.
            (B) I’m sure I agree with this statement. And I pretty much subscribe to USSC jurisprudence about how and when a law can discriminate against a person or a class of people.
            (C) I’m still working through this one. It’s a 2-3 part question, but I think I can cut through it by saying that I tend to agree with the USSC that marriage is a fundamental right.

          5. Joe M says:

            A) Then you must disagree with the common gay marriage movement argument that it’s wrong for Catholics to base their preferred definition of marriage on their morals.

            B) Then you must disagree with the common gay marriage movement argument that a traditional definition of marriage is wrong because it is discriminatory.

            C) The USSC’s references to a fundamental right to marriage are in regard to the ability to choose to be married as it is defined. They are not references to the ability for anyone to define marriage for the state in any way they choose. This is made obvious by the discriminatory aspect of marriage law we went over in point B.

          6. Patrick says:

            Um, did you really just say “Actually, many gay people do eventually become straight and enter traditional marriages?” Please tell me that’s the world’s longest typo.

          7. John Resch says:

            It’s actually laughable that he believes that.

          8. Joe M says:

            You doubt that people who have called themselves gay later marry women? Do I really need to prove this?

          9. John Resch says:

            Some have then turned and married woman but they are still gay. They just entered into a sham of a marriage which is not fair to the woman. The only reason some of these men did this is because of you and people like you that STILL can’t accept the fact that its ok to be gay since we are only following what we were naturally created to be.
            You cannot change your sexual orientation and no one ever has.

          10. Joe M says:

            Some have left women to be with men. By your logic those men are straight and being unfair to the man?

          11. John Resch says:

            No, they were always gay. Some were in denial and some where afraid to come out.

            Just stop with your nonsense. All of this is basic common knowledge and one does need a degree in human sexuality to know all this.
            Do you even know any gay people?
            I didn’t think so.

          12. Joe M says:

            I think it’s nonsense that you make claims about things that you can not possibly know.

            As I pointed out, many people who once called themselves gay later married women and say that they are happy about it. You have no real basis to claim that they are not happy or are in denial of anything.

          13. John Resch says:

            Answer the question. Do you even know any gay people? Have you ever really sat down and talked to a gay person? I didn’t think so.

            Yes they are in denial and every one of them will eventually revert back to the gay person they truly are.

            And why should someone even try to change the sexual orientation?
            What is so wrong with being gay? I would rather live a 1000 gay lives then live 1 religious, bigoted and hateful life. You must really be miserable to have to concern your self with whom others choose to marry which will in no way effect you.

          14. Joe M says:

            I didn’t think it was a real question since you keep answering it for me. Actually, you are wrong. I have known and still know several gay people. I know of one that once called themselves gay and later married a woman. I find it offensive that you think you know better than him who he should have personal relationships with.

            The study demonstrated that your theory about reverting back to gay behavior didn’t happen in many cases.

            I already answered your question about why people might change their sexual behavior. Don’t ask me. Ask the people who do it. It’s absurd to deny that it happens.

          15. abadilla says:

            “The only reason some of these men did this is because of you and people like you that STILL can’t accept the fact that its ok to be gay since we are only following what we were naturally created to be.”
            How about taking responsibility for one’s actions rather than blaming others for what one does?

          16. Joe M says:

            It’s a statement of fact. Many people have traditional marriages before or after calling themselves gay.

          17. Patrick says:

            JoeM, I should have known that this would be the level of your intelligence. Gonna say goodbye now. You blew ALL your credibility and all your authority when you made the above statement that “many gay people do eventually become straight and enter traditional marriages” and then stood by it. Twice. Good luck.

          18. Joe M says:

            I am standing by a statement of fact. Your hysterical posturing doesn’t change that.

            I should have known that you would eventually make up some excuse in order to avoid confronting the logical scrutiny of your arguments.

          19. John Resch says:

            I stand with Patrick on this. Do you even have any intelligence?

          20. Joe M says:

            I’m not surprised that you also retreat to name-calling.

          21. John Resch says:

            If the shoe fits. You people are just unF…believable.

          22. Joe M says:

            How much can you know about shoes when you don’t have a leg to stand on?

          23. John Resch says:

            Oh don’t worry, us gays and gay supporters have plenty legs to stand on. It is you and the church that is loosing. None of your arguments against gay marriage have held up in court and they will continue to not hold up in court. You and the RCC can continue to fight this all you want but you are wasting your time and money since the RCC is a sorry excuse of what a Christian is supposed to be and the RCC nor any religion do NOT make the laws in this land. We are not a theocracy.
            Yes, you have every right to follow your beliefs, but you have no right to make YOUR beliefs everyone else’s beliefs.

          24. Joe M says:

            That’s the problem John. You want to take away our right to follow our beliefs.

            It’s a shame that you appear to be proud of that.

          25. John Resch says:

            Wow, you still don’t get it. We don’t not want to take away your beliefs. You can have your archaic beliefs. What we are doing is stopping you from making your religious beliefs into the laws on the land. We have freedom of religion which also means freedom OF religion. Go ahead, follow your beliefs, I don’t care, but don’t expect us to follow your beliefs. I don’t want to even hear about your religious beliefs.
            If you belief it’s a sin, fine, I say so what if its a sin. I don’t care if you thinks its a sin. I know, let me repeat, I KNOW that I was born this way.
            Nothing you say of do EVER will change that. And if you don’t believe that then you are being so blinded by a book written by man.

            I almost feel sorry for you.

          26. abadilla says:

            “Go ahead, follow your beliefs, I don’t care, but don’t expect us to follow your beliefs. I don’t want to even hear about your religious beliefs.”
            If this is true, and I have no doubt this is the way you really feel about Roman Catholicism, then why are you here in a Catholic forum writing with so much anger and disdain?

          27. Joe M says:

            We just discussed one way in which what you want takes away our ability to live according to our beliefs. It sounds like you need to give more objective thought to the consequences of the law changes you seek.

            Also, if you want respect, you should consider showing it yourself. To engage in bigotry against religion makes you look hypocritical when accusing others of being bigoted.

          28. abadilla says:

            “You can have your archaic beliefs.” This is insulting and not conducive to any type of decent dialogue.

            “What we are doing is stopping you from making your religious beliefs into the laws on the land.”
            I was not aware that it was the Catholic Church who enshrined a law in society that says marriage is between a man and a woman. We are not forcing our religious beliefs, we simply want the law to remain as it is.
            BTW, the Catholic Church is NOT the only religion that believes in heterosexual marriage. The major religions of the world also believe the same thing. Are you going to go after them too?

          29. abadilla says:

            “You and the RCC can continue to fight this all you want but you are wasting your time and money since the RCC is a sorry excuse of what a Christian is supposed to be and the RCC nor any religion do NOT make the laws in this land. We are not a theocracy.”
            If this is true, then why the anger and the belligerence when, in fact, we can’t do anything to stop the homosexual agenda?

          30. John Resch says:

            Please explain to me what is the “homosexual agenda”

          31. abadilla says:

            The homosexual agenda is carried on by homosexual activists. Some of the homosexual agenda agenda is good because it seeks “real” rights to ensure an entire minority can inherit, have property in their name, etc, etc, but also part of the homosexual agenda is to force entire states, and even entire countries to buy into a marriage they claim as a right when not even the Catholic Church believes marriage is a “right” for every Catholic. That is, in short, what a homosexual agenda is. Some of us as Catholics are in agreement with some parts of it, and in disagreement with some parts of it. I hope John, you can understand this. You don’t have to agree with me, you just have to understand where I and millions of Catholics are coming from.

          32. Patrick says:

            I thought the Homosexual Agenda was to destroy the world? Have I been reading all the wrong blogs?

          33. abadilla says:

            Apparently you have. I’m a practicing Catholic and can understand that homosexuals need to fight for their rights and I don’t reject that effort. What I, however reject, is the idea that the homosexual agenda would try to force my Church to accept something which is not morally possible for the Church to accept, now, or ever.

          34. Patrick says:

            I thought the Homosexual Agenda was to redecorate the world. Have I been reading all the wrong blogs?

          35. abadilla says:

            “Do you even have any intelligence?” Is this your idea of dialogue?

          36. John Resch says:

            Wow, and yet they are still gay.

          37. John Resch says:

            Did you even read the study? It does not say that it works, some claim that it works but that’s it. A claim, there is no validation.
            Anyone can pretend to be straight. I have blue eyes, I can put in colored contracts and change me eye color to brown, but my eyes are still blue?

            But let me ask you the bigger question. Why should someone even try to change their sexual orientation? What is so wrong with them being what they were created as? Why is any of this your concern?

          38. Joe M says:

            The people claiming that it works are the people that tried it. On what basis do you claim to know what works for them better than they do?

            Why would someone change their sexual orientation? Maybe they find that a gay lifestyle is unsatisfying and that marrying a woman will be an improvement for them. Maybe they decide that being straight IS what they were created as.

            If it makes them happy, why are you so against it that you deny that it even occurs?

          39. Patrick says:

            …and for what its worth; (A) I disagree with the premise of your statement, (B) I take issue with much of this statement and how it is phrased but can cut through it and say that no important government interest is served by preventing gay people from marrying each other, (C) i dont know what your point is here, but I stand by the belief that our laws determine what is a civil marriage and what is not a civil marriage.

          40. Joe M says:

            A) You already agreed with my premise in the preceding comments. You agreed that marriage laws can have a moral basis. So, how does it not follow that it’s wrong for gay marriage advocates to criticize people for making moral arguments?

            B) You already agreed that marriage laws being discriminatory does not make them wrong. Are you walking that statement back now?

            C) You were the one who brought up “fundamental right” language. I pointed out that it does not mean what you claim it does, as indicated by standing law. Your statement is basically that “laws are laws.” Yes! They are! However, WE define those laws. Many of the laws we defined are discriminatory in nature, justified on moral grounds and not in conflict with any over-riding civil right concept. You already acknowledged most of this. But, now want to walk it back after seeing that it puts gay marriage arguments in logical limbo.

          41. Patrick says:

            A. Nope you changed teh premise, with your poorly worded complex sentences that force the reader to assume or agree with your premise before getting to the crux of uyour questions. I think you’re out of your league in debate.
            B. i’m not walking abck, i’m saying again, that laws have to discriminate for a good reason and there is no good reasaon to exclude gay people from marriage laws, Do you want me to say it a third time or do you want me to say it in French? I think you’re out of your league in this debate.
            C. it’s not walking back to say that i have a fundamental right to privacy and then say that our laws determine how privacy is defined. same for marriage. again, this isnt fun for me. it’s tedious. I think you’re out of this league in this debate.
            I already went to law school once and hated the socratic menthod there, but i endured it and succeeded at it. And of course, there was something to learn. I conclude that there is little, if anything to learn from you and that you are unwilling to apply logic and reason to this issue.
            Goodbye for now. I may chime in again if – scratch that – WHEN – you post something else that is patently false, but this “exchange” is fruitless.

          42. Joe M says:

            A) If that is true, then it should be easy for you to clarify what the premise originally was and then what I changed it to. Please do so.

            B) That’s not what you said before. And that is not what many gay marriage advocates argue. They often say things like “traditional marriage is wrong because it is discriminatory.” Will you agree with me that those people are wrong when they say that?

            C) It absolutely is walking back by pretending that changing the subject is a counter-argument.

            Sorry to hear that this isn’t fun for you and that you hated law school!

        2. Marvin Derks says:

          People gain the ability to recognize actual cause and effect, defined as full cognition, generally around the age of 16. With women, it generally occurs earlier than in men. It differs somewhat for each person. Next question.

          1. Joe M says:

            So, you think that people should be allowed to marry at age 16?

          2. John Resch says:

            If they want to marry at 16 I really don’t care. It’s not my life and its not my decision to make. Stay out of other people’s life’s. Stay out.

          3. Joe M says:

            We have laws that make it illegal to marry at 16. You are against those laws?

    2. Paulspr says:

      Never underestimate the ability of anti-gays to disrespectfully try to link gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. They stoop to this level because they know that there is no rational reason to ban gay people from getting a marriage license, so they have to resort to red herrings and scare tactics.

      1. abadilla says:

        Did you hear in the video either Mr. Peters or the other gentleman who have the temerity to believe marriage is between a man or a woman say at any time that gay marriage is linked to pedophila and incest? Did I miss something from the video? I thought it was a forcefull and passionate debate about the issue where both sides presented their arguments intelligently.

        1. Paulspr says:

          See comment from joe above. Stop arguing just to argue. You look ridiculous, Tom.

          1. abadilla says:

            Paulspr,
            I’m a bit confused. Are you writing to me or to Tom?

      2. Joe M says:

        Never underestimate the ability of Paulspr to avoid logical scrutiny of arguments he defends by distorting the counter-arguments.

        1. Paulspr says:

          I’m not the on e trying to link gay marriage to pedophilia. You are.

          1. Joe M says:

            That isn’t what I have done. I’m confident that anyone can clearly see that by reading the discussion above between Patrick and I.

        2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. Joe, When I reminded Paulspr of his lack of response to your challenge during the last week that he identify how the Church has changed Her Teaching, he quickly accused me of defending bigots.

          1. FatherTim says:

            I believe that you should consider your speech more.

          2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. I’d love to speak with you, Father.

          3. FatherTim says:

            And I, with you.

          4. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, I get the feeling he is no longer with us in the forum because I tried to answer to a message he sent me, and I see “This comment was deleted.”

          5. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Yes, Abadilla, whoever he is came and went within a few hours.

          6. abadilla says:

            Well, I was surprised because there are others who are as rude as him, yet they’re here, so I can only think that he used profanity and that was enough for moderators to end the nonesense.

          7. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. And now, Abadilla, it appears that Paul and Marvin Derks are also gone.

          8. abadilla says:

            Wow! I did enjoy writing to both even when they irritated me to no end, but I guess the moderators are beginning to use the ax to take care of folks.

          9. abadilla says:

            Father, “I believe that you should consider your speech more.”
            Would you say that applies to all of us, including you since, in the heat of a conversation, we may not always come across as charitable?

          10. FatherTim says:

            I do consider my speech. Thank you.

          11. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            +J.M.J.+ Thank you, Abadilla. Given the anti-ecclesial comments of “Father Tim,” I’d be very surprised that he is a Catholic priest. I suspect that we know “Father Tim” by another name. He only started posting this morning, having posted 13 comments in 5 hours.

          12. abadilla says:

            Hi. Monsignor, I don’t know what to make of Father Tim either, and frankly, I don’t want to disrespect him, but his messages do not seem to be in accord with church teaching and that’s what I find weird, to say the least.
            Is he a troll posting as a priest or is he a real priest who happens to dissent from church teaching? That, I don’t know, yet.

          13. Joe M says:

            Of course he did. Though, I doubt that it influenced anyone that isn’t already convinced.

  3. abadilla says:

    “I couldn’t agree with you less.”
    Gee, what a surprise! I bet Mr. Peters will immediately delete this video so Paul won’t be in disagreement anymore.

    1. Marvin Derks says:

      When responding to another individual’s entry, there’s a reply button just below that entry. Perhaps you forgot.

      1. abadilla says:

        Thank you Mr. Condescending, but I know exactly “how” the system works.
        One can choose to “reply” or one can choose to answer in a general way. The choice, since you like “choice” is up to all of us.

        1. Paulspr says:

          Odd how you believe choice is OK with a message board, but not when a gay person wants to marry the person that they love.

          1. abadilla says:

            I don’t know what gay marriage has to do with this message. Talk about being obsessed with it.
            However, on a message board “choice” is of no great consequence for society, the type of union you describe is.

        2. Marvin Derks says:

          Very true indeed. When it becomes obvious that someone is replying in such a way so that his post is placed in a position that is not only out of sequence but also in a location where it can’t be missed, one can only assume that that person is looking for attention.

          1. abadilla says:

            No, one can also assume the person writing , in that particular instance, does not want to answer directly.
            Obviously one does not need attention.One already has it on this board or people would ignore what one writes.

          2. Marvin Derks says:

            Nice try.

  4. Paulspr says:

    I couldn’t agree with you less. Regardless of what he said (which I didn’t find compelling at all), he came off as rude. And the other guy that supported banning gays from marriage could barely keep any of his prejudices against any minority contained. Guilty by association.

    1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

      J.M.J. Please don’t be unkind, Paul.

      1. Paulspr says:

        I’m not being unkind. I actually failed to mention how Mr. Peters outright lied. He said on the program that he supported rights for gay couples. But Mr. Peters failed to mention that he works against civil unions for gay couples, that his employer lobbied just days ago to defeat a civil union bill in Wyoming, and how Mr. Peters himself tweeted in celebration when the Wyoming billed failed and gay couples were denied the legal rights that he claims to support.

        Why did Mr. Peters lie on that television program?

        1. Joe M says:

          Can you give us the time from the video where he said that he supports civil unions?

          I heard him say that he was “interested in looking at legal protections for gay couples.” That is not the same thing as saying that you support civil unions. But, maybe I missed a different quote…

          1. Paulspr says:

            Oh, I assumed he meant legal protections like survivors benefits, ability to visit loved ones in the hospital, and ability to file joint state tax returns, all things contained within the bill that he fought against.

            Exactly which “legal protections” does Mr. Peters support for gay people? I’ve seen him argue right here that the military should fire gays, that bakeries should be allowed to refuse to serve them cupcakes, and that employers should be allowed to fire someone if they turn out to be gay.

            Waiting for Mr. Peters to show me one single legal protection for gays that he supports and for him to put any effort into getting it passed into law.

          2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Paulspr, you weren’t honest in several posts of the last few days when you said that the Church had changed her Teaching during ghe last week. Various persons confronted you, but you never responded. So, the question for you: Will you apologize for that?

          3. Paulspr says:

            When you don’t have any response to the issue being discussed, attack the messenger instead. Do you think that makes Jesus proud? You can do a search on this site. Thomas Peters actually did write an article saying that bakeries should be able to refuse to serve gay people cupcakes. Prejudice and hate is wrong Msgr. Why do you continue to defend and protect those that harbour it?

          4. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Prejudice and hate are wrong, yes, but so is lying. You can’t think that makes Jesus proud. During the last week, you misrepresented the Church’s Teaching. Will you apologize?

          5. Frantastic1 says:

            Thomas did write all of those things.

          6. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. My reply to Paulspr was in regard to his deception.

          7. Frantastic1 says:

            You are trying to slander someone in order to disprove his points instead of talking about his actual comment. I find it quite uncharitable. Again, Thomas did say all those things, in writing. What Paul said on another board is not relevant.

          8. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. No slander at all. Paul wishes a reply but won’;t give one when confronted.

          9. Frantastic1 says:

            What is your intent on this board, Msgr?

          10. Marvin Derks says:

            Do you want Paul to apologize for a non-response? If so, that’s silly. I don’t respond to a lot of posts because I recognize that any response of mine would not advance the discussion. I also don’t respond at times because it’s obvious to me that the other person simply wants attention. I don’t respond at times because the other person’s post makes no sense to me. I don’t respond at times because I recognize that I’m angry and don’t want to say something that’s not appropriate. I don’t respond at times when I recognize that the other person’s intent is not good. It’s really important, in my opinion, to recognize that a question does not create an obligation to respond. If I am “confronted” I am not obligated to respond. It’s my choice whether or not to respond. And reading into someone elses non-response is anything but forward moving because it’s not based on actual data but rather on assumption.

          11. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. I think that Paul should apologize for his continual misrepresentation of he Teaching of the Church, not for his lack of response. When at least three persons in the last week called him on it, he didn’t respond. Yes, he doesn’t have to reply. But he shows his disdain when others don’t reply to him.

          12. Marvin Derks says:

            So?

          13. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Marvin, it really is about honesty.

          14. Marvin Derks says:

            Do you want Paul to apologize for a non-response? If so, that’s silly. I
            don’t respond to a lot of posts because I recognize that any response
            of mine would not advance the discussion. I also don’t respond at times
            because it’s obvious to me that the other person simply wants attention.
            I don’t respond at times because the other person’s post makes no sense
            to me. I don’t respond at times because I recognize that I’m angry and
            don’t want to say something that’s not appropriate. I don’t respond at
            times when I recognize that the other person’s intent is not good. It’s
            really important, in my opinion, to recognize that a question does not
            create an obligation to respond. If I am “confronted” I am not obligated
            to respond. It’s my choice whether or not to respond. And reading into
            someone elses non-response is anything but forward moving because it’s
            not based on actual data but rather on assumption.

          15. Patrick says:

            agreed.

          16. Joe M says:

            If the thing that you claim he lied about is based on your assumption and not what he said, doesn’t that clearly discredit your claim?

        2. abadilla says:

          “Why did Mr. Peters lie on that television program?” If you feel he did not tell the truth, why don’t you ask him yourself? His e-mail is there for all of us to see, but given your constant “personal” attacks against him, I doubt he will reply to you. I wouldn’t!

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            You already did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.