For some reason that clip of that old Northern fisherman laying out his positive opinion on gay marriage and saying he loved his brother made me wanna cry.
Haha I do like how Britain is so much more easygoing than America. You had people screaming about it over there, threatening hellfire and damnation and yet in Britain the most strident comment against it in this video was "we're not impressed are we love?" while most people here just greeted it with a big shrug and didn't care at all. I also thought it was sweet what the fisherman said.
We did have this one guy who claimed passing gay marriage caused flooding in Somerset a couple of years later, but aside from that it's been fine really
You know what I don't understand, is why people against gay marriage care about gay people getting married at all, considering that it doesn't affect them or their lives in the absolute slightest. It completely bewilders me
@stephenbrown5045 Because you're only concerned when it affects you. But most people are consistent on that. People that tend to support gay marriage tend to support BLM. As if some druggie in America affects them.
I wonder who's idea it was to have the reporter hold not only a pint but a nearly finished pint of Lager while reporting from inside a gay bar. Yes, you're a heterosexual, we get it. I can't believe how feeble that was. When I used to watch Brass Eye when it first aired I thought it was hilarious absurdism, it's amazing how prophetic and spot on it was.
Nailed it with his "What's all the fuss about?" approach. If one of my guy friends marries another man I completely fail to see how that would impact my own relationship or make me love my partner any less
Rex The AstroDog "I can fit three pebbles up each nostril!" is a retarded statement, pointing out that the UN headquarters is situated in a country that doesn't ratify half of it's treaties and who takes it's moral stance on subjects from a puritan Christian minority is actually pretty close to the mark.
Socially I don't see any problem with same sex marriage. If you want to drag faith into the matter, then with that logic you have to test to see if the two people getting married have legitimate belief that Jesus died to cleanse them from their sins. And then what will you do when you realize other religions exist. The debate has many layers. The sooner people notice this, the sooner it can be resolved. The theological debate about it should only apply to Christians who want a same sex Christian marriage. I don't see why we Christians are forcing a stance on theological interpretation on people who are Agnostic or Atheist.
+scw55 Sadly people who think that they are best mates with the maker of the cosmos who has given humanity a set of perfect laws, there is a good chance that they lose the ability to see difference between theological and legal debate. If only we had more people like you we may actually get back to doing important stuff again. Assuming we ever did.
"Changing the definition of marriage" To 'A unity between two consenting adults who love each other'...Insert scary noises here. Besides, marriage was once a woman and her rapist, to somehow punish the latter. I think the definition of marriage has therefore already changed, and for the better. I don't even know whether these cretins think they're on a moral high ground; letting more types of married couple exist = bad, but denying people equal rights and humanity = good?
Does anyone know the piano theme at the start of the video? I keep hearing it on Screenwipe/Newswipe but I can't seem to find it on Charlie's Spotify playlist.
If you persist in thinking of marriage as “a man and his chosen object” rather than, you know, two people choosing to marry each other, you're part of the problem. Says something about how some people view heterosexual marriage.
***** Ha ha, no thanks! It's because of all the gross stuff they eat and lick, imagine that touching you, ew! Their tongues are like a transport device for all the sort of things people don't even want to look at, never mind have on their skin! :S Yucky.
Tragedy Prismatic If a dog has just finished cleaning it's balls or eating the shit of another dog then I agree, but otherwise a dog's mouth is likely no more unclean than most humans'. Saliva is an antiseptic, with the exception of plaque-causing bacteria most forms of bacteria will die in a mouth, that is why mother's would lick a cut or scratch on their kids. At least they did until the 90's when stupid humans started assuming everyone had HIV or hepatitis.
@Ian Broderick I strongly disagree with what you have written. Read on. 20 States as of June 25th 2014 now permit same sex marriage. Eight more have had their statutes against it struck down and are stayed pending appeal to a district court: Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, and Idaho. As of June 25, it is very likely that five of these shall switch into the “allows same sex marriage” column, with final answer on their status by November of this year. When the pressure on the Supreme Court gets too high for them to run from it anymore, it will mean 25/50 US states allow it, it will mean that eventually some couple somewhere can have their case heard before the highest court in the land, and it would be wise for Britons to remember that the state by state approach is a clever political tactic. On top of that, approval of homosexual relationships has climbed from 25% to 60% since the late nineties and is continuing its trajectory upward, with the highest approval ratings found in those 18-35, many of those citing friends and family as gay or gay themselves. Millennials are leading the charge and are not taking their parents' crap anymore. Sorry kid, but sitting around and waiting for our version of the Tories to have a change of heart was not an option and still isn't. These aren't people who wring their hands at what the neighbors might think. If you would prefer that we sat on our asses and did nothing, that can be arranged, because if we did, America WILL go back to being stuck in 1776 and because of our position in the world unfortunately others will follow!!!!
Personally i dont care if gays can marry or not it doesnt affect me. But you should have the right to be against it as you do to be for it and you especially shouldnt be villified for thinking differently.
+Jaggybabs You and the people replying to you are getting confused between the concept of Rights, as in legal rights, and what is morally right. Of course, everybody should have the right to any opinion, a right you yourself are freely exercising. But just because we allow each other those rights, should that automatically mean we should not vilify people who use those rights for ends that are, morally, not right? I dont think so. I dont know anything about you so, just for example, let us say you are black, no white - no, you are white, Jewish, and a woman. People in the community in which you live have the right to say that you may not participate in the community in the same way that they do based on the colour of your skin, your religion, or your sex. That is what you are saying... it leads to a lot of sticky questions, but yes, they should ultimately have the right to have that opinion, to say that that is what they think - as long as they dont actively act on their discriminatory opinions, they have a right to have them. But is it morally right for them to go around saying them to the rest of the community? What about if these are not just people but people in positions of considerable power within the community? That is neither morally right, nor healthy for the wider community who might look up to these people in power, in fact it is dangerous as then such prejudice could spread and lead to actions of discrimination rather than simply opinions... and then we have the rise of National Socialism, etc, etc, etc. So, yes, everybody has the right, but do you not think that the community should also have the right to at some point vilify those opinions, when such morally wrong opinions have a danger of leading to active discrimination against individuals based aspects of their identity that are immutable? I'm making a long-winded meal of this: people have right to own opinion, but equally people have right to vilify opinion of other it is morally wrong, i.e. if it is discriminatory toward or exclusive of people for things they cannot control.
Oh okay, and if I think that Western secular democracy is inherently degenerate and I'm for starting a new caliphate governed by strict Wahabi Shariah law would you not vilify me for thinking differently? I'm not saying anyone who supports stupid things is evil and must be shunned, but of course if you support things that mess up somebody else's life for no reason people will call you a dickead for it.
The reason homosexual people want marriage is not because they want the same rights as married people, as they claim. If they wanted that, they would have fought for it within civil partnerships. The agenda is to convince society that homosexuality is normal, and to do that they need the 'marriage' word.
Robert Brynin How do you know the reason of a majority of gay couples? Did Jesus appear in your dreams and just told you so? And even if it was true? What's the problem? There is homosexuality in nature, it is something normal, just not a standart since it affects just a small percentage of people.
How dare you speak for gay people. How would you possibly know what we want? I want the right to get married because I deserve the same rights as every other person and if I meet the right man, I want to be able to marry them in the same way my straight family and friends can marry the people they love.
Michael Hester This is what I find rather depressing about commenting on UA-cam. People reply to what they think I have said, rather than what I have actually said. That is why, I guess, people find it so easy to disagree with each other. They love to talk but hate to listen.
+Robert Brynin I don't see what I have got wrong there. You seemed to imply that gay people should be satisfied with just civil unions and not full marriage equality. As I said, it's about our relationships being seen as having the same value as straight relationships and our marriages being the same as straight marriages. Since civil partnerships were introduced, almost everyone involved in them has called them "marriages" anyway, nobody ever says "will you civil partnership me?" And "this is my civil partner" is never going to compete with "this is my husband/wife". Words have power and this is one of the main reasons why "civil partnerships" just weren't enough. They may well have given gay couples almost all (though not actually exactly the same) rights as married couples, but they still reinforced a notion of separateness. At the time civil partnerships were introduced in the UK, they were the best the government could get away with given political and public opinion at the time and so were great progress. Having marriage equality is the final step in that process.
"Got no Mandate" "Mandate" "Man-date" and this is about gay marriage. There is a pun in there I know
I feel like it was too easy to go with that one
see john oliver
"Ewwwww Bummers I Don't Like It!"
Best bit of the clip 😂😂🤣🤣
I just love the "redefine a spoon" line ;) cracks me up
For some reason that clip of that old Northern fisherman laying out his positive opinion on gay marriage and saying he loved his brother made me wanna cry.
Cause he’s a sweet man doing a traditional job who loves his brother
Haha I do like how Britain is so much more easygoing than America. You had people screaming about it over there, threatening hellfire and damnation and yet in Britain the most strident comment against it in this video was "we're not impressed are we love?" while most people here just greeted it with a big shrug and didn't care at all. I also thought it was sweet what the fisherman said.
Everyone knew it was coming, U.K. Is the last to party lol, most west Europe nations have already passed it
We have our homophobes, we just luckily don't have the real bible thumping passion of the Yanks.
We did have this one guy who claimed passing gay marriage caused flooding in Somerset a couple of years later, but aside from that it's been fine really
That Man Date thing didn't go where I thought it was going.
Siskin's Bits and Bobs Can't commit to a mandate? Man marriage is a much bigger commitment.
+Siskin's Bits and Bobs - Which was the whole point. The punchline was so obvious that there was no need for it... ;)
im surprised he didn't come up with a cleverer joke about cameron not having a man date
It's misdirection. Not to be confused with "missed-erection", which is what your Mother should have done.
You know what I don't understand, is why people against gay marriage care about gay people getting married at all, considering that it doesn't affect them or their lives in the absolute slightest. It completely bewilders me
The "if it doesn't affect me, it doesn't bother me" logic just suggests you're selfish if you sincerely believe that - which I highly doubt.
@@FyrdmanI'm not sure I understand how that's selfish in this context.
@stephenbrown5045 Because you're only concerned when it affects you. But most people are consistent on that. People that tend to support gay marriage tend to support BLM. As if some druggie in America affects them.
@@FyrdmanI get the feeling you think you're making a really pithy and cogent point.
@@TheValeyard92 Thanks for your pointless input.
I wonder who's idea it was to have the reporter hold not only a pint but a nearly finished pint of Lager while reporting from inside a gay bar. Yes, you're a heterosexual, we get it. I can't believe how feeble that was. When I used to watch Brass Eye when it first aired I thought it was hilarious absurdism, it's amazing how prophetic and spot on it was.
George Mills-Burrows
Aww, diddums.
It was clearly a nearly finished pint of shandy.
you are brass eye was right,
+Man Beadle maybe he just enjoys beer more than cocktails?
Nailed it with his "What's all the fuss about?" approach. If one of my guy friends marries another man I completely fail to see how that would impact my own relationship or make me love my partner any less
United states of America, holding back human progression since 1776, please stop pretending to be the moral arbiters of the world.
***** What's so bad about the Chinese? I feel like these days their government is a lot more humane than everyone makes it out to be.
***** Thanks a lot for letting me know man. I had no idea it was like that in China. No wonder they get so much emigration.
***** lol...you mentioned North Korea and Iran as if they are an actual threat
I would rather have no one running things
Yes, I welcome that idea....
it may seem unorthadox but we shall give it a try for a little bit
Rex The AstroDog "I can fit three pebbles up each nostril!" is a retarded statement, pointing out that the UN headquarters is situated in a country that doesn't ratify half of it's treaties and who takes it's moral stance on subjects from a puritan Christian minority is actually pretty close to the mark.
Socially I don't see any problem with same sex marriage.
If you want to drag faith into the matter, then with that logic you have to test to see if the two people getting married have legitimate belief that Jesus died to cleanse them from their sins. And then what will you do when you realize other religions exist.
The debate has many layers. The sooner people notice this, the sooner it can be resolved.
The theological debate about it should only apply to Christians who want a same sex Christian marriage. I don't see why we Christians are forcing a stance on theological interpretation on people who are Agnostic or Atheist.
You, I like.
+scw55 Well said.
+scw55 Sadly people who think that they are best mates with the maker of the cosmos who has given humanity a set of perfect laws, there is a good chance that they lose the ability to see difference between theological and legal debate. If only we had more people like you we may actually get back to doing important stuff again. Assuming we ever did.
"passing his initiation test by pointing to where God lives" haha!!
2:25 This is the pigeon, this time it's for real...
I thought Diversity was an old old wooden ship, although I could be wrong.
No Ron they don't want more old wooden ships in the work place
"and causing the world to end, which is why you didnt see this" :D
I want a pocket version of that Northern fisherman that I can take around with me to brighten my day. Adorable!
Just play the audio and lip sync your foreskin
Can anyone tell me which episode this was from? I didn't recognise it, and I thought I'd seen all the 'wipe's. Cheers.
"Changing the definition of marriage"
To 'A unity between two consenting adults who love each other'...Insert scary noises here.
Besides, marriage was once a woman and her rapist, to somehow punish the latter. I think the definition of marriage has therefore already changed, and for the better.
I don't even know whether these cretins think they're on a moral high ground; letting more types of married couple exist = bad, but denying people equal rights and humanity = good?
+Joseph Nunn
*Fox News*
"ITS TEH EVUL LIBRULS TRANA SHOVE GAE MARRIJ DOWN AR THROATS!"
Does anyone know the piano theme at the start of the video? I keep hearing it on Screenwipe/Newswipe but I can't seem to find it on Charlie's Spotify playlist.
If you persist in thinking of marriage as “a man and his chosen object” rather than, you know, two people choosing to marry each other, you're part of the problem.
Says something about how some people view heterosexual marriage.
That's outrageous. Are you telling me I can't marry a car or a dakimakura of an anime waifu?
Vinesauce Obscurities
Your waifu is shit.
5Oblivion Don't talk shit about muh waifu! Fight me!
Thank god this post stopped just before "topical poet ... Tim Key." I love Charlie Brooker, but letting Tim Key under the barbed wire was a mistake.
Anybody got any idea where I can get a copy of the When A Man Loves A Woman instrumental in the background of this?
+Connor Dawson UA-cam would be a good start.
Gay Floodgates ❌
Floodgaytes ✔️
Uploader, you cut Tim Keys' segment!! NOOO!!!! He's brilliant!
Yes, it didn't fit in with the narrative of the piece.
+Tularis ok fair enough mate :-)
Anyone know who does this version of "When a man loves a women"?
"Ya mucky Frenchman"!
I find dog's tongues so offensive. That made me recoil like a hedgehog and clench all my muscles.
Fucking utterly disgusting.
***** Ha ha, no thanks!
It's because of all the gross stuff they eat and lick, imagine that touching you, ew! Their tongues are like a transport device for all the sort of things people don't even want to look at, never mind have on their skin! :S
Yucky.
Tragedy Prismatic If a dog has just finished cleaning it's balls or eating the shit of another dog then I agree, but otherwise a dog's mouth is likely no more unclean than most humans'. Saliva is an antiseptic, with the exception of plaque-causing bacteria most forms of bacteria will die in a mouth, that is why mother's would lick a cut or scratch on their kids. At least they did until the 90's when stupid humans started assuming everyone had HIV or hepatitis.
>MFW when I found out that gay marriage was legal in UK by watching this video just today (January 8)
I'm not familiar with that equation.. Greater than mass farad Watt?
Marriage in medieval times was as simple as two people saying they were married- literally! Many peasants got married in pubs
SeriouslyNotNormal Complete bollocks. You clearly know nothing about the "medieval times".
Ian it is not our fault we have a bunch of overly religious fools.
its ok shes my wife
WHEN A MAAAAAAN LOVES A WOMAN!
1:46. Perfecto.
@Ian Broderick
I strongly disagree with what you have written. Read on.
20 States as of June 25th 2014 now permit same sex marriage. Eight more have had their statutes against it struck down and are stayed pending appeal to a district court: Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, and Idaho. As of June 25, it is very likely that five of these shall switch into the “allows same sex marriage” column, with final answer on their status by November of this year. When the pressure on the Supreme Court gets too high for them to run from it anymore, it will mean 25/50 US states allow it, it will mean that eventually some couple somewhere can have their case heard before the highest court in the land, and it would be wise for Britons to remember that the state by state approach is a clever political tactic. On top of that, approval of homosexual relationships has climbed from 25% to 60% since the late nineties and is continuing its trajectory upward, with the highest approval ratings found in those 18-35, many of those citing friends and family as gay or gay themselves. Millennials are leading the charge and are not taking their parents' crap anymore.
Sorry kid, but sitting around and waiting for our version of the Tories to have a change of heart was not an option and still isn't. These aren't people who wring their hands at what the neighbors might think. If you would prefer that we sat on our asses and did nothing, that can be arranged, because if we did, America WILL go back to being stuck in 1776 and because of our position in the world unfortunately others will follow!!!!
Well if you're going to spend many decades suffering alongside someone you might as well increase your choices
LOL "pointing to where God lives"
He's so funny 😂
Why does Charlie have a bread roll on his table
Speaking of obsolete institutions. Abolish marriage.
I seriously couldn't understand either charlie is in favour of this marriage or not.??
I love Brooker but he nicked the same sex joke from Robin Williams
Which one?
The pudding was fine. It was only smells.
I don't agree with Gay marriage, I don't agree with conventional marriage either.
Watch the truth watch the attack of tolerance on UA-cam
I thought they like diversity lol!
Missed an easy man date joke
Mr Banana I love your picture but sadly allergic to the edible form of you
Brooker is so edgy... Lol
you can see his "banter" coming a mile away
Personally i dont care if gays can marry or not it doesnt affect me. But you should have the right to be against it as you do to be for it and you especially shouldnt be villified for thinking differently.
+Jaggybabs Being against gay marriage is vilification of homosexuality. Stop it.
What about people who don't believe 2 different races should marry. should they not be criticised?
+kingda117 i never said i was against it
+Jaggybabs You and the people replying to you are getting confused between the concept of Rights, as in legal rights, and what is morally right. Of course, everybody should have the right to any opinion, a right you yourself are freely exercising. But just because we allow each other those rights, should that automatically mean we should not vilify people who use those rights for ends that are, morally, not right? I dont think so. I dont know anything about you so, just for example, let us say you are black, no white - no, you are white, Jewish, and a woman. People in the community in which you live have the right to say that you may not participate in the community in the same way that they do based on the colour of your skin, your religion, or your sex. That is what you are saying... it leads to a lot of sticky questions, but yes, they should ultimately have the right to have that opinion, to say that that is what they think - as long as they dont actively act on their discriminatory opinions, they have a right to have them. But is it morally right for them to go around saying them to the rest of the community? What about if these are not just people but people in positions of considerable power within the community?
That is neither morally right, nor healthy for the wider community who might look up to these people in power, in fact it is dangerous as then such prejudice could spread and lead to actions of discrimination rather than simply opinions... and then we have the rise of National Socialism, etc, etc, etc. So, yes, everybody has the right, but do you not think that the community should also have the right to at some point vilify those opinions, when such morally wrong opinions have a danger of leading to active discrimination against individuals based aspects of their identity that are immutable?
I'm making a long-winded meal of this: people have right to own opinion, but equally people have right to vilify opinion of other it is morally wrong, i.e. if it is discriminatory toward or exclusive of people for things they cannot control.
Oh okay, and if I think that Western secular democracy is inherently degenerate and I'm for starting a new caliphate governed by strict Wahabi Shariah law would you not vilify me for thinking differently?
I'm not saying anyone who supports stupid things is evil and must be shunned, but of course if you support things that mess up somebody else's life for no reason people will call you a dickead for it.
So he tells lame jokes and doesn't respect marriage, so he wants to change it why? Faux issue.
Speegs23 It's called being sarcastic.
The reason homosexual people want marriage is not because they want the same rights as married people, as they claim. If they wanted that, they would have fought for it within civil partnerships. The agenda is to convince society that homosexuality is normal, and to do that they need the 'marriage' word.
Robert Brynin How do you know the reason of a majority of gay couples?
Did Jesus appear in your dreams and just told you so?
And even if it was true? What's the problem? There is homosexuality in nature, it is something normal, just not a standart since it affects just a small percentage of people.
Robert Brynin Except Homosexuality IS normal in society
How dare you speak for gay people. How would you possibly know what we want? I want the right to get married because I deserve the same rights as every other person and if I meet the right man, I want to be able to marry them in the same way my straight family and friends can marry the people they love.
Michael Hester This is what I find rather depressing about commenting on UA-cam. People reply to what they think I have said, rather than what I have actually said. That is why, I guess, people find it so easy to disagree with each other. They love to talk but hate to listen.
+Robert Brynin I don't see what I have got wrong there. You seemed to imply that gay people should be satisfied with just civil unions and not full marriage equality. As I said, it's about our relationships being seen as having the same value as straight relationships and our marriages being the same as straight marriages. Since civil partnerships were introduced, almost everyone involved in them has called them "marriages" anyway, nobody ever says "will you civil partnership me?" And "this is my civil partner" is never going to compete with "this is my husband/wife". Words have power and this is one of the main reasons why "civil partnerships" just weren't enough. They may well have given gay couples almost all (though not actually exactly the same) rights as married couples, but they still reinforced a notion of separateness. At the time civil partnerships were introduced in the UK, they were the best the government could get away with given political and public opinion at the time and so were great progress. Having marriage equality is the final step in that process.