Student OUTSMARTS Ben Shapiro! #shorts

Ben Shapiro recently debated college students from Cambridge. One of the students asked him about gay marriage. Shapiro said that men can happily be together but the only subsidizable marriage should be the classic marriage that produces babys. The student then asks whether he is getting a divorce once the children are grown up and out of the house since that is the sole purpose of marriage using Shapiros own logic against him.

[aviolet]

Ben goes on to say that no, you don’t stop being parents when kids move out and in fact it has a devastating destabilizing effect even on adult ‘children’ when their parents divorce. His face says that the comment is absurd, not that he’s been outsmarted.

[jm]

The purpose of marriage is to help the state? Ben's answer reduces people to the utility of breeding stock. Stop answering complex questions like this Ben.

[TeganThrussell]

I think a better question is "if your childred died in an accident, and your wife was unable to have another, should you seek a divorce because you can't fill the "purpose" of marriage?"

[SpielkindFR]

Can we talk about how the "libertarian" argues with the utility to the state here?

[glennchannell]

If you're going to claim that someone gets "outsmarted", you need to at least avoid cutting the clip off before hearing his answer.

[juliangonzales]

I thought they were standing uncomfortably close for a second there

[nathanjay]

It wasn't just for children it was for bringing families together, sharing land and other resources.

[aliquida]

What a ridiculous argument.

"if you define marriage under this narrow scope, then your don't fit in"... why do we need to use that definition of marriage in the first place? Because of the "state" caring about you having babies? BS, the state still gives married heterosexual couples a tax break if they live a life without kids.

30% of married couples don't have kids.

[TheAskingCow]

My question would then be to Ben, “If a gay couple adopts, are they not parents to the future of the state as well? And should they not be treated as such?”

[carlkelrubia]

Except that's not the SOLE PURPOSE of marriage.

[blueeyedbull]

Nice selective edit, now show Shapiros great response to this stupid question. Which was, parenting never ends, even when a child leaves a home.

[alr]

He is wrong. Marriage is a religious ritual, and a contract between 2 individuals. The State should never have been involved in marriage.

[DaraMoore-qi]

Listen. I am almost 30 years old and have found myself in a really bad situation that I wouldn't have been able to get out of if not for my MOTHER. Her role as my parent clearly has not ended for her, as she is helping me, protecting me, and making sure i am okay and doing what i need to. Parents are ALWAYS parents

[sharis]

The divorce question is negating the importance of Grandparents and the village required to raise children.

[renanyt]

That definition of marriage is stupid. Lots of people have kids out of wedlock. Getting married isn't a required condition for people to have kids. Invalid argument against gay marriage.

[nate]

Boo to the selective edit, but it was a good question. Ben's response shouldn't have been editted out, but do give this kid props for a clever and respectfully asked question. This is how we all sharpen our understandings.

[okiepoke]

Love how they make a statement then cut off the response, you lose

[doomoftheend]

So if they can't bear children or don't want to they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[edmonterey]

Marriages weren’t created for the sole purpose of child bearing (you don’t need to be married to do nature’s deeds), it was for trade of property and joining of two families at its earliest roots. Women were almost always simply a method of barter in these situations (and as a comment stated before, rules change).

[realernreeler]

Lol this is how the other side makes their points.. by not showing the response...