Ben Shapiro on Gay Marriage, Gun Control, and Piers Morgan


all right so we’ve talked about a lot of stuff that we sort of agree on I haven’t agreed with everything but I’m letting you talk people always yell at me they say you don’t you don’t yell back at your other stuff so the gay-marriage them hmm let’s talk

gay marriage sure you’re not big on gay marriage no I’m not Edie not on a social level I think the government ought to be completely out of the business of marriage I think the government sucks at everything is my is my short message for today the government is

terrible at everything if the government’s goal is to forward traditional marriage uh turley failed obviously as you don’t mind it being out of the business of traditional marriage at all no I think that I think the government should be out of all marriage I think the government stinks

at this you know that now I will say that do I think that the I think the idea of the government subsidizing gay marriage is silly because I don’t think that there’s societal benefit to gay marriage if you’re going to make the argument that government should be involved

in marriage at all there’s not even an argument with which I agree at this point the way it is right now right let’s just go from that okay so that be so before I get there yeah one quick point the reason I want the government out of the

business of marriage is because now that the government has enshrined gay marriage the next step is going to be going to religious people and telling them they have to engage with same-sex weddings so as a religious person this is problematic to me I want a society in which

I can do it I want and I don’t have to care what you think and you can do what you want and you don’t have to care what I think right doesn’t mean you get to come into my synagogue and get married it also doesn’t mean that I

have to go to your gay wedding right see that’s an interesting place to have the discussion because I would argue for gay marriage for the exact reasons I don’t want the government involved in all of these things right and that’s exactly why gay marriage should exist and I

think if Rand Paul had hit that point harder it would have made a sensible libertarian argument unlimited government and you know what you want to marry a dude go ahead and you want to smoke weed oh you you’re right well I tend to agree both of those things

I agree with and by the way I find people who smoke weed unbelievably irritating but that’s not my business I mean this is the beauty of America is you don’t have to give a crap what I think we said this is the end the show by taking the

bong hit oh yeah well but the the the as far as the the secondary argument about let’s let’s take the predicate that government is now involved in marriage yeah should government subsidize gay marriage and straight marriage the same way my answer is no because the only purpose for

the government getting involved in marriage is the procreation of the next generation and the raising of that generation and it’s my belief that a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child and producing children obviously biologically than two men or two women but isn’t

isn’t the child part of it sort of secondary I mean there are plenty of people that may get married gay couples and straight couples that don’t have kids this is i retaining of itself isn’t just about but at a governmental level i don’t care about those people or

meaning like i care that i’m happy that they’re happy but i don’t i don’t really care what they do like it didn’t it doesn’t the the government theoretically has an interest in the production of the next generation right right that’s the only interest in marriage so in fact

you could even make a case that the government ought to be giving you know basically tax benefits for for having kids and no benefit for marriage right but the truth is the reason that this was created in the first place obviously is because before the advent I mean

long before the advent of modern birth control the the fair assumption was that if you were having sex then you were going to get pregnant right at least if you were having straight sex you were going to have pregnant you were going to get pregnant and thus we

wanted to incentivize people to stick around for that because single motherhood is bad for the community and so we’re going to subsidize that with tax benefits by the way there is no there is no marriage benefit there’s a marriage penalty my wife and I pay a significantly higher

tax rate because we have a combined income right so you’re not against so despite coming from some sort of it’s not a religious area so that’s right so that’ll make a religious so that’s what I want to distinguish because of court because we should be for separation of

church and state and I think you are for separation of church so the separation of church and state means I just want to make a quick distinction separation of church and state doesn’t mean that I can’t bring my religious values to bear in how I vote it just

means that I can’t leverage a Jewish ritual on you there’s no establishment of Jewish religion or a Christian religion but I should be able to make a secular argument for why what I’m saying is right is my general rule because otherwise we’re operating in different spheres I cite

the Bible it makes no difference to you you don’t care about the Bible right so right so I’m I’m a secular I would consider I mean I’m an atheist so it doesn’t ISM is is that Nick and irrelevant in every other respect I like curb you like herb

who could be in that cultural Judaism like bagels and matzo balls I don’t care you know pretty good okay so that’s not gonna help with that but so you’re making the the distinction between this isn’t coming from a religious place now I think part of the problem when

it comes to gay marriage is that a huge portion of the Christian Right is trying to impose their religious values on this self isn’t religious but now for the policy can this is where I’m making a distinction yeah the rationale for people voting can still be religious but

if the policy is not religious if there’s a secular ration now this is what Scalia said about it actually if there’s a secular rationale to it then the motivations of the voters don’t matter like I don’t care what the motivation of the voter is in virtually any circumstance

I matter what the vote is and if somebody wants to vote for lower taxes I don’t care whether they’re doing it because they’re on principle for lower taxes or whether they personally want lower taxes on their income I just care about the outcome of the vote the outcome

okay so basically you don’t care about gay marry as this country stands right now you simply don’t care your one concern though is that ultimately this will lead to the government forcing gay marriage on synagogues that don’t want to have it or mosques that don’t want to not

ultimately like now in California there they’ve already passed laws that you have to teach them sex marriage in public schools for example like it changes the nature of the teaching my view on that is I don’t know why that I went to public school for elementary and part

of junior high I don’t understand why the government is teaching me anything about this stuff this is for my parents to teach me like this is a values thing right so I guess that’s sort of where it’s just values just get conflated with what we’re taught like well

I’ve sort of said no I mean they’re not values to math right there no back the break but they’re no values to biology they’re no they’re their values to history which is why it’s dicey and it’s and it’s disingenuous what the left is done with the education system

there are multiple perspectives on history and the monopolistic takeover of the liberal arts is a real problem yeah and you can have multiple perspectives on that but we’re not teaching marriage in the context of history or English we’re teaching in the context of science which has nothing to

do with anything so when again you APC comes in I mean when I was when when they’re doing sex ed when I was in junior high they’re making a big deal out of the idea that everybody you know everybody is equally likely do to get aids for example

not true I mean it’s just not true but it’s a behaviorally driven disease or if you know I will never get AIDS right barring a barring a blood transfusion oh that has AIDS I don’t I don’t do intravenous drugs and I don’t have promiscuous acts and I was

a virgin when I married my wife and she was a virgin when she married me so where safe yeah right we’re good we’re about as safe as you can get on this and so I don’t like the again the facts being trumped by what we wish the facts

were so that we could push certain political agendas right so how do you then taking this argument from a secular place how do you then feel being in the same party that of so many people that are taking it from right-wing Christian place because there is an agreement

there just seemingly odd alliance there that I think is really I agree with them on the end point I even agree with them religiously I just don’t think they’re good spokespeople for their cause I mean I think that if you if you are if you’re chief citation to

your opposition to gay marriage is Leviticus 18:22 I don’t think that that’s a solid argument that’s going to convince a lot of people right I think that you know there are better arguments against gay marriage than that room and so you know this is something I talk about

at religious schools and I’ve been asked by you know pastors and rabbis and priests to talk to students about okay you have these religious principles is there any justification outside of the Bible says so for why this is correct and as a religious person who’s actually thought through

his positions I tend to believe there is like I seen as a religious person I believe that God didn’t create stupid rules so if you believed that God didn’t creates stupid rules then you have to come up with some sort of justification for the rules that are being

expressed like there’s something you can’t understand this just an article of faith but but the big ones about human behavior there should be a decent rationale you can explain to people who don’t buy into Revelation sure so there I would just say well you’re basing your belief in

God it’s just a belief not anything that could be proven so anyone that’s basing anything on religion is just basement that’s true on some unproven thing that is right okay I want that nothing to do with my life that which is which is fine and that’s why we

live in America good yeah but but but I will say this every belief system is based on something unproven all of them human rights means nothing where do you get them your basis of human right from a feeling how about that mom exactly objective well right but that’s

a that’s a blend so you’re saying basically we’re the Liberals would say I’m for this because I’m for gay people I want gay people to be able to do what they want to do and right you know pursue happiness like anyone else you would say well just this

new government and whatever so I can’t there’s not a lot of no there’s not a lot of conflict here yeah my governmental policy because I’m basically a libertarian is I don’t care about that yeah I mean I again they come to strengthen that group of people so clearly

we don’t agree it’s getting don’t agree on this thing but I understand your rationale and you’re not trying to stop gay people from getting married I think right now I think right now the next conflict is not going to come from the right it’s gonna come from the

left pushing the ball meaning that it’s gonna come from the case in Oregon with this Baker who you know doesn’t want to service the same-sex wedding doesn’t want to actually have to cater it yeah right as a you know I think that good-hearted people should say fine you

do what you want go across the street to the bakery like who care that’s what I would say and this is the difference you know liberal and a leftist yeah in a nutshell this is the difference between a liberal and a leftist the liberal says your business I

don’t care a leftist says no no I think it’s imperative that you will be made to care right and Erik Erikson’s phrase he’ll be made to care somebody’s gonna a man will come to your house with a gun and he will tell you that if you do not

cater this wedding this is what they they were forced to a $175,000 fine for not catering a lesbian wedding there’s bakery across the street you know the this is this is is really nefarious stuff so this is where you asked where the momentum comes from yeah this is

where the momentum comes from so when I make an argument to conservatives and religious people that the government ought to get out of the business of marriage I’m not saying that because I’m Pro gay marriage I’m very much anti gay marriage in the social sense I don’t think

that that you know homosexual as a religious person I think homosexuality is a sin I think lots of things are sins that people engage in I think they should be free to engage in them but as a religious person that’s not that’s not my thing I don’t think

that gay marriage is is a great massively good thing for society on a social level but on a governmental level if you guys don’t just get out of this business entirely the left has no end point their only endpoint is using the government as a club against use

and now that they’ve got gay marriage it will go – it will go – we’re going to stop accrediting schools that don’t teach gay marriage or hire homosexual employees right and you’ve got Catholic churches they don’t want to pay the health benefits of somebody’s gay partner that’s a

Catholic Church why should it have to right but the left would say no they have to right you will be made to care this is you’re a bad person if you don’t do this and so if so what are my arguments the right is where I’m a sensible

liberal right this is yeah but but this way you’d actually get heavy argument from the not so sensible liberals probably including all the Democratic nominees the the the fact is that what I’m saying is the best argument for the libertarian position on the right here is gonna be

a rearguard action it’s not gonna be it’s better for straight people be and it’s bad for gay marriage to get it out of that realm it’s I think that if you want to fight against gay marriage do it on the social level with your church teach your kids

what you want to teach them but when it comes to when it comes to making this argument to conservatives the real argument is if you don’t take power out of the hands of government if you don’t take that ring away from gollum and throw it into Mount Doom

then it will be used against you there will the the government is just government is the ring so does this I my direct message at the top of the show I was talk about just how stupid our election system is and how everything’s down to sound bites and

everything you know our debate is so nonsensical and all that so everything you just laid out there is a much more clean and clear explanation and where you actually are separating church and state and doing the intellectual rigor to make a sensible argument where if they talk for

a little bit that they’ve talked about gay marriage which I’m glad because I don’t think it should be talked about that much it let it be and that that would be fine in my opinion but nobody you know Marco Rubio will talk about the family but he’s purely

doing it from a religious perspective there’s an identity politics that’s been created on the right in response to the identity politics to the left so if we’re gonna be attacked as religious people we have to talk as religious people right so have to go preach from a pulpit

and if I don’t cite you know if I don’t say Genesis to talk about a man shall leave his man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife if I don’t if I don’t cite that then I haven’t spoken the in code that shows that I care

about the values of people like you and this is the way the political game is played so again I sort of wish that Americans would see through the political game on all sides meaning I wish religious people would just say I agree I understand you’re anti gay marriage

and I also understand what you’re doing here to protect religious people and you don’t have to cite Bible verses at me to prove it and in you end up with IDIA sees like Donald Trump on stage waving around a Bible pretending he gives a damn what’s in it

right after two marriages and several adulterous affairs and all that and bragging about having his experiences with married women standing up there with a Bible and going this is an even better book than the odd of the deals like that if this is this is how you vote

if you’re able to be pandered to that way that’s a sad Terry on American politics and in its way it’s really no different from Hillary Clinton going to the black community and saying you’re the victims you’re the victims and now I’m gonna speak the language you understand here’s

here’s how you know that I care about you yeah I’m not big into caring you know I think that people who personally care about you are generally people who want the power to control your life the only people that that I want power in their lives and they

want power in my life or my immediate family that’s it you know my parents my sister’s my wife my children and they’re independent human beings too right so caring caring is the is the way that caring is the way that the left controls like they never they don’t

come with the jackboots first they first come and they say we care so much about you we have to do these things for you and by the way we brought some guns to help out right so it shows sort of the the beauty or the scariness of identity

politics because it sounds really good I guess what that’s why they always say socialism oh come with this big smile right yeah exactly this is john glover explaining liberal fascism yeah yeah all right so we only have a couple minutes left but let’s just knock out a couple

other things so I saw when you were on Piers Morgan with that whole gun thing we went and I watched it again in preparation for this and I never liked Piers Morgan I thought he was doing a talk show the wrong way I hope people don’t view me

in that way but what you did with him in the argument was really kind of brilliant and it goes it goes to some of the eleven I like land and before but before I even ladies anything I I don’t really agree with your with your stance on guns

so can you sort of recap what happened well sure well first of all like Trump now that you’ve complimented me like what happened in that debate is that Piers Morgan had basically been doing a lot of the things we’re talking about from weeks he’d been saying after Sandy

Hook that anybody who disagreed with him on gun control the only possible reason to disagree with him is because you don’t care about what happened on gun control and you stopped Barack Obama do this you know after the after the last mass shooting right after I’m quote community

college and and he got up there and he did the teary-eyed routine and I don’t like tears stop like just just give me your policy so what so what I said he can fake the tears we’re saying this I in a weird way I don’t need his peering

out over here I think Obama and I think Obama is in unusually skilled politician and I think himself up to tears I think that I think that good actors can I think that you know the idea that the emotion is fake is I don’t think the emotions fake

but the emotion of actors isn’t fake either if you talk to actors who work themselves up to tears they actually feel sad when they are crying that’s how you get yourself to cry right right I think Obama worked himself up there otherwise otherwise you’d be crying every other

press conference I mean he’s talking about all sorts of crap that goes on in the country that’s terrible like how many every time he gets out there and he talks about the economy be crying I mean you’d be completely emotionally unstable it’s one of the two so it’s

so so what I said to Piers Morgan as I said you’re a bully and the way that you bully people is you stand on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook to push your political agenda and he didn’t know how to come back from that because that

was his entire strategy and now it had been unmasked and actually during the break he had planned to bring in a kid who’d been shot and was in a wheelchair and say well you’ve said it to me now say it’s this small pool child and he couldn’t do

it because if you’d done that I immediately would have said first you stood on the graves of the kids and now you’re standing on this poor guys wheelchair it’s terrible yeah but it’s so so that was sort of the content of the argument he tried to he tried

to throw the the Ronald Reagan was in favor of banning assault weapons at me I don’t care as I’ve said what Ronald Reagan had to say he was a guy sometimes he’s right sometimes he’s wrong yeah so he wasn’t a god is that yes affirming that as a

religious person I only have one and you got him yeah okay so that’s not the one we knew that was right it’s just not Reagan this is not Reagan okay got it and I know because he’s not back right he could be weird so it’s so my feelings

on the gun thing is that basically I because I believe in the Second Amendment people should have access to guns I as you clear it’s clear after an hour together I’m not a huge fan of the government so I do believe people should be able to protect themselves

and all of those things what I think is that we’re we should be able to control it a little bit more than we are I think that the NRA does wield too much power and then I would say at the same time as I was like to say

two things could be true at the same time we have a massive mental health problem in this country so and that’s the part that we’re not talking about because every commercial for every cable news channel is for some other drug that it turns out that some crazy percentage

of these shooters are hot right so when it comes to gun violence there’s two problems there’s inner-city violence which really is a matter of gang violence and people shooting each other unfortunately because they’re because they’re involved in gangs and this is what’s happening every day in Chicago but

we but never a man Los Angeles and Washington DC and all the major cities I mean this is all the heavily gun controlled areas Democratic areas these are the places where people are getting killed on mass and then you have the mass shooting issue and the mass shooting

issue is largely because in the 1960s and 1970s this is the one area where I think the government actually should be involved in the 1960s and 1970s there was a decision that was made basically all across the country to empty out all the mental facilities because there was

an idea that went around the country and gained a lot of traction that mental illness was basically One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest nobody was seriously crazy everybody was just eccentric right and this is why you have a mass growth in homeless people in 1960 there how many

people do you think in 1960 were in mental institutions in the United States I mean I can’t imagine I would guess half a million half a million people half a million people right and we had half the population then right today there’s 25,000 people in mental facilities so

you’ve got a lot of violent people on the streets and so you have a lot of violent people on the streets you’re going to end up with more mass shootings and that’s why every time there’s a mass shooting almost invariably it’s somebody who is crazy and we’ve known

they’re crazy and involuntary commitment laws are really really difficult because you have to show that the person is a threat to themselves or others as opposed to the old standard which was they’re incapable of caring for themselves one of the big problems with paranoid schizophrenia which is afflicted

a lot of these shooters is that you you have you have a condition where you literally can’t even recognize that you have the condition so you won’t take your drugs if we let you out you’ll just go off the drugs and you’ll go right back to doing what

it was that you were doing in the first but even the drugs often is part of it it’s people that are off the drugs and it’s people that are on most of the people most of the people who are committing these acts are not on heavy medication most

of the people who are committing these acts are people who’ve gone off their medication and they have significant mental illness and they need to be medicated so you know this is an area where the mental health system is dramatically underfunded the laws are complete when it comes to

people who legitimately cannot take care of themselves I’m talking and I’m speaking as somebody whose grandfather was was a schizophrenic who went into a mental hospital they gave him lithium and then he spent the rest of his life as a happy productive human being right these these are

things that might not have been possible now and and this is you know this is an area where I actually you know think that there’s there there is a role for the government in this because this is John Locke would have thought the same John Locke said this

in in in his writings he said that you know the problem of mental illness is one that sort of falls on society as a whole because you have a group of people who can’t take care of themselves that’s the real problem with mass shootings you know taking my

guns away from me or taking another law-abiding persons gun away from them that’s not going to to stop the mass shooter in fact you know it’s probably going to create more mass shootings because now I can’t defend myself so would you say the NRA is a problem at

all in within this I think the NRA is an incredibly valuable organization because it’s pushing against people on the other side I don’t have to agree with everything the NRA says to think that they’re an incredibly valuable organization that’s channeling the the legal hopes of a lot of

Americans to protect the Second Amendment and we’re about one vote away on the Supreme Court from the Second Amendment disappearing entirely so yeah let’s just do some stuff in that that’s how this so with this whole thing with Scalia right now and this spot where do you stand

on this it seems to me that Obama has to nominate someone that’s his job he’s the president are you with me so far he’s the president right now he can’t he doesn’t have to of course he right okay and now that it’s a I don’t care if he

does that’s as you say he has the capacity to do it it’s one of the only things that he’s actually allowed to do as president that he’s doing as opposed to all the other things he’s doing which he’s not allowed to do but we got to finish up

you have to focus on this one so all right so we’re in agreement on that and then they say it’ll be up to the Senate to either confirm this person or not they don’t have to give them an up or down vote though right right and whatever they

want so what do you make of the you know Mitch McConnell and the rest of these guys that are like you know he shouldn’t even nominate anybody and all that idiotic line of argument I mean I think a really dumb line of argument listen I wrote my I

went to Harvard Law School and I wrote my third-year paper at Harvard Law School on the idea that Marbury versus Madison was wrongly decided I don’t think that the Supreme Court should have the capacity to decide for everyone like for conservatives to think that the entire future of

the Constitution rests on school one guy not dying is really sad right and and and the reason for that is because the Supreme Court has now been seen as this great moral arbiter I don’t think it is I think that the Supreme Court has been responsible for some

of the worst decisions in in human history I mean the Supreme Court is responsible for Roe which is a disaster the Supreme Court was responsible for Plessy versus Ferguson everybody always wants to talk about Brown versus Board if they’ve gotten Plessy right in the first place you know

need Brown versus Board and segregation ends in 1900 so this so the Supreme Court is a serious problem there nine unelected people which I don’t even care about the unelected but there there are nine people who are given the power to control everybody’s life in the name of

a document that most of them don’t even take seriously so is that the irony with the Supreme Court that they’re supposed to be above partisan politics and yet the whole system to get them there is partisan and they’re then their party themselves I mean Elena Kagan is a

hardcore Democrat Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for for Barack Obama come on I mean I went to she was the Dean when I was at Harvard Law School she was a hardcore leftist then you know the idea that people are free of politics and what they call

legal realist I believe that that that virtually everybody is is has their perspective on life and that comes out in how they and how they adjudicate and you have to work very hard to remove yourself from that I think most judges don’t I think most judges rule based

on what they feel like Anthony Kennedy you can’t tell them regardless what you think about same-sex marriage you cannot tell me that the Constitution of the United States or the Fourteenth Amendment there to which was ratified in 1868 was demanding that the states not passed laws in favor

of traditional marriage that’s absurd well sir no but he but equal protection he was using that on protection area that we should all be treated equally as munch of crap because equal protection does not mean that that that everybody that a law should have an equal effect on

everyone no law has an equal effect on everyone the question is whether the law itself whether the law itself discriminates against someone on the basis of an immutable characteristic and one of the problems with with the whole gays are blacks is that gays are not blacks I mean

the fact is that a gay person who never has sex with another man is not going to manifest their homosexuality in a way that society cares about they may be gay they may have a sex advertisers gonna shoot up a place well maybe maybe he will maybe he

won’t I mean I assume there I assume that for the last couple of hundred couple of thousand years when gays were not treated well in Western society that not all the the squirrely gay people were going and killing folks you know gay people have the same self-control that

straight people do I don’t think they’re any better I don’t think they’re any worse in terms of their sexual self-control mmm-hmm I will say that I think men in general are less good in terms of sexual assault control than women so which explains why I agree oh yeah

I mean which is why gay men have sex with more people than then straight men because women don’t want to have sex with men as much as men wanna have sex with men have strong sex drives right yeah but that’s well off topic back to the Scalia for

a second yeah the the problem here is that the Republican Party when they say things like it’s the time line it isn’t the time line okay if somebody replaces Justice Scalia who’s over the left and I don’t care when this is if Hillary gets elected if we’re if

we’re twenty years from now one more vote on the Supreme Court and the leftist on the court do not see the Constitution as a piece of law right to be interpreted like the Sherman Antitrust Act or like Obamacare they see that they see the Constitution is a piece

of poetry to be interpreted as their feelings dictate and this is the point that I’m making about sanity through line through sort of everything we’re talking that’s right and this is the point that I’m making about Kennedy specifically in the gay marriage decision there is not one iota

of evidence that the law that when it was written meant anything to this effect or that it meant to leave an open space for the Supreme Court to come in and leverage down on States same-sex marriage laws mean what they mean when they’re written they don’t mean what

they’re what they mean 200 years from now if somebody picks up this interview in two hundred years and starts to read into my perspective that I’m super pro homosexual behavior I would be a little bit surprised right but that’s essentially what happened in 1868 he’s taking a clause

that was written by a bunch of people who were very much not in favor of even for forget homosexual marriage who criminalized sodomy right and saying to them okay well those people really meant what they really meant here was Pro same-sex marriage if you want to make same-sex

marriage legal make it legal you know that’s that’s what you can do through the ballot box is the beauty of a republic but you don’t get to have nine on the left two judges who are these special moral people who’ve been dinged by the hand of God I

don’t believe I believe all human beings are capable of good I believe all human beings are capable of evil I believe all human beings are selfish and all they are capable of altruism I don’t believe that there are nine perfect human beings who sit on the Supreme Court

and rule us is a magical angelic Oleg Archy I think that’s a pretty solid ending to this what do you think sounds good to me yeah I mean well I think what we did here was exactly what I want this to be that we don’t have to agree

on everything but I do sense a sort of new center coming together with people that are on the right that was my left but on the right that there’s a way where you can be moral and it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion or you can

be moral and it has to do with religion but that’s not how you want to be governed I think that’s gonna be my takeaway from no I think that’s that’s exactly right I mean as I say to people who disagree with me the beauty of the countries that

you don’t have to care what I think the minute you bring the government into saying that I have to care what you think then we’re at odds yeah so as long as the government’s out of it we can have these discussions all day long and it’s just good

fun the minute you bring the gun to the party or the fascist

Gay - Tags:

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of