The reason Joe and Matt are disagreeing here is because they haven't defined the terms properly. There's difference between secular "marriage" and "The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony". "Marriage" has moved into the public arena now, so it is subject to all the many subjective interpretations. Joe is talking about "marriage". Matt is talking about "Holy Matrimony". The term "matrimony" actually means - the making of a Mother. So the two participants have to be a man and woman and they have to be open for reproduction. If they are not, that Sacrament will not be given. A man cannot make another man a "Mother". That's impossible. They can adopt children and be called a "mother", but that is just a name.....that man can never be a Mother.
@@faithbycatholicism1416 bingo, and there in, I believe, marriage should be sepparated from partnership. Even from govermental POV, procreational marriage is a virtue. Its above partnership because its much more sustainable institution longterm.
Did this man say "the church is allowing these divorces to occur?"Under scrutiny, these Walsh type characters crumble everytime. Sounds like Mr Walsh wants a religious theocracy here in America.
This was a fine example of why Joe's podcast has become so popular. Discussing a controversial topic where neither side got emotional or reached a point of insulting the other. A lot of people myself included could take lessons from this conversation.
Matt is obviously wrong here and his idea crashed fromfew basic questions. People being happy that 2 people can have opposing ideas and be civil is cringe. When no one walks away from a discussion with a new perspective what is the point. Matt wont change his mind. But sure be halpy with the low bar of "they were civil."
@@btgkg9639 nah joe Won that debate however I understand where Matt is coming from traditional Christian marriage but that should not be involved in politics nor should wokeness
@@jimwerther ok lets get someone educated to press him on those issues free form like this. Maybe his world view isnt as coherant as those daily wire "documentaries" make out. Maybe matt is actual pretty low iq.
@Peter-ff1tp it seems to me they do, when it comes to children, otherwise there would be no such thing as child support payments when the couple separates.
By the way, this is the way humans are supposed to have conversations. Not lashing out at every little thing just because your ego is to big and you don't like being possibly wrong. From the first second to if you skip 13 minutes ahead, its the same body language. No one is toxic here, they are just men having a talk. Edit: If you really think this is toxic, you are what’s wrong with the current socializing groups.
It is a lot easier for Joe to be calm in this situation since gay marriage is not something Joe is gonna do. If Joe was gay and someone invalidated his rights it'd be harder to remain emotional neutral.
So let's say this was someone advocating against interracial marriage, and that the speaker defined marriage where "two races can't mix". Why is this the model of a good conversation and debate when someone is advocating against human rights?
40 seconds in and I’m realizing how well Joe Rogan simply asks someone a question in order to investigate their beliefs, listen to them, understand them, without intent to agree, disagree, judge, or criticize. He is a mirror to these people and he tries to get honest conversation out of them and challenge them which makes the content so entertaining.
It even feels like he has no emotion or personal bias. He blankly keeps digging to investigate and get everything out of his guests. First instinct is to feel like he’s challenging because it goes against his own beliefs. But once you realize that’s not the case, it’s mind blowing to see how interested he is in all opinion and knowledge and getting that out of people.
Not true at all. Rogan is what would be known as a ‘shill’. He pretends to be a maverick, but is a sellout. From way back, he was always pushing the queer narrative. Same like the ‘pandemic’…him pretending to be ‘challenging’ narratives with talking about “I’ve a make-tin” when he shoulda been talking about the testing and existence of 🦠. He will ALWAYS come up on the side of the handlers. Look back thru his videos how much he jokes about butts and dicks.
@@Lulustucru2393Marriage in the mind and in the soul is about Love. And if your marriage is bound by “I really need to breed a women and have kids” or “my holy book told me to get married “ then we’re no better then animals or robots
While I agree with this sentiment, let's not be naive by saying MOST people see marriage this way. I fully support gay marriage, but Matt does have a compelling argument regarding the roots of marriage - and I suspect there are more people out there that feel this way than we might think.
@aaronledbetter7429 Most people see it this way. That isn't just an opinion it's a fact. Modern marriage is now mostly about romantic partnership. Most people nowadays prioritize personal goals rather than starting a family. You can just look it up as well. And that's because people's values changed. Over 40% of births are before marriage and that is rapidly increasing. If you compare this to when the nuclear family was a thing. That percentage was as low as 18% had children before marriage because people correlated being married with having children. People now look for marriage for financial security. It's hard a pill to swallow but it's ok.
@@aaronledbetter7429 The historical roots of many institutions are not relevant anymore, and should not influence our values and policies. For most of history, marriage was a financial contract (an exchange of resources and services, among which were the managing of the household and the birthting and rearing of children) often stipulated by proxy (think of two families bethroting their young children together for strategic and financial purposes). Today, here in the west, this idea of marriage is completely absurd. We freely choose to marry, and we freely choose it for love and for a life together - this is the fundamental meaning it has for society, and this is what our policies should reflect :-)
@@finnyyy- Where would one go to "look it up"? How can you peer into the minds of every human on the topic? I see statistics about birth and financial motivations - as they relate to marriage. All legitimate, I’m sure. Won't I don't see is a conclusive extrapolation from point a to point b - proving "most people feel xxx", and "it’s not an opinion, it’s fact”. That feels like too much of a blanket statement (in my view). People have varying degrees of values - with likely underlying nuances. I would suspect there are people with traditional religious values that see a marriage as a means to procreate (some may not be religious at all) - and perhaps some of these very people have children outside of marriage. Likewise - I would assume there are tons of folks that never would have gotten married - but after having a surprise child, they tied the knot (and maybe not JUST b/c of financial gain). What number of people feel the way Matt does compared to who disagree (like me), I don’t know (I don’t know how anyone could). Though does I'm not sure it matters really. These folks could very well be in the minority, and perhaps they are not. Though I, for one, appreciate discussions on matters to learn their views and not discredit them as being in the minority of the mainstream thought. We've had enough of that.
@@redcoresuperstar Religion is the main argument. And its a 10,000+ year LONG project, an instruction manual for societies to function around. Thats all religions have ever been.
Usually people who are up against him are just avarage people who are not ready for a difficult conversation, quick questions right after another...and they end up embaressing themselves eventho they might not be in the wrong!
He could have just shut down the debate by simply saying this is only my opinion. But , people like Matt are so sure of their “rightness” they can’t say it.
It's because any reasonable person, consciously or unconsciously, knows that saying, "I'm against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs" sounds ridiculous and insensitive.
@@Ken-zg3ze Lots of non Christians get married and that's no issue. Gay marriage in the church is the bit that is unfair as there are 1000's of places to get married so why should the church go against its beliefs?
@@jg2213 So there can be NO gay Christian's? Christian dogma has been changed and altered during adaptation so many times over the past 3 millennia or so, this is a very strange hill to die on. Especially when most Christian's don't even actually follow the dogma in any way but superficial element's like this which they focus on. Given that many of most prominent members of the anti-gay Christian community have, in fact, turned out to themselves be gay, this doesn't really seem like an issue that stems from real problems. This is a problem with the homophobic element of the Christian community often being . The Pope himself has come out in support of Christian homosexuals, being married in a Church isn't the issue, it's fundamentally down to some people picking and choosing element's of their religious practices to maintain a degree of exclusivity and for various reasons relating to insecurity. Like, it's just irrelevant. If two gay Christian's want to get married in a Church, why is that a problem? It literally effects nobody and impact's nothing. It's just yet another irrational religiously motivated opinion. If people are going to follow everything in the bible, ok, but they won't (because that would be insane in a modern context), they will select part's that are convenient for them and ignore everything else.
@@AveSicarius I actually support gay marriage and think the whole argument against it is stupid, but just like you wouldn't marry 2 Jews in a mosque you can't marry 2 gays in the eyes of the lord. Why aren't we talking about other religions marrying gay people as well?
I'll never understand the need to dictate meaning in someone else's life. Worry about your own marriage. Let people decide where meaning lies in their own lives. And let gay people enjoy a loving marriage and union. Also, very grateful to hear these kinds of conversations. Keep having them. But I just can't stand Walsh's take. My marriage is extremely meaningful to me, I don't care how someone else experiences their's.
I don’t care what they do. But it won’t be in the house of the lord before god. Marriage is a Christian ceremony that doesn’t include homosexuality. Find your own thing.
your talking about it on the personal level where its me me me. What matt is talking about is how breaking down these structures that have a set meaning like marriage would most definitely cause adverse affects in society. when people get married for only love rather, then understanding marriage comes with various duties that marriage is likely to break down and cause a scatter effect onto all of society. Words have meanings marriage has certain criteria and if you don't follow the criteria then what have or had is not a marriage it is something else. Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it marriage because marriage has a is a religious thing and you should follow that definition.
not judging or even necessarily saying he’s wrong, but what was Walsh’s actual argument?? He kept circling back to the idea that alternative marriages somehow damage the overall institution of marriage, but what’s the logic, that straight people are somehow going to stop getting married because gay people are allowed to??
I think it’s not that he is saying people can’t do it. It’s just his opinion, most likely because of his religious beliefs. Just like people are free to do their thing, Matt is free to think that thing is the wrong thing, and others are free to think Matt or Joe are right or wrong in their opinions. I’ve noticed Joe has a certain zeal in trying to make everyone agree with him, but normally it’s just about people who think smoking pot or doing shrooms or micro dose acid is wrong. It seems awkward when Joe and a guest come to an impasse, but it does make for good entertainment ❤
I see your point. I, however, take an extreme approach to marriage. I believe marriage will be a thing of the past. I believe in wearing a ring. I would like to call someone my wife. But why would I sign a paper saying that we are bonded? Can't we just establish our own beliefs without the legal system being involved? I know several men who went through divorces. One sticks out to me because he raised 4 children who weren't his. ,are enough money so she didn't have to work. She cheated on him, filed for divorce and took both houses and 60% of his construction business. And he still has to pay her enough money to sustain a life as if they were together. And I ask again, why would anyone want to get married
Hi argument is that straight people can weaken the institution of marriage because *no reason, just that they are straight*, but gay people can't cus he hates gay people
His argument basically was, marriage is not just about the feelings that you have for each other, but there's a real content to it, which is, to make a life-long commitment of love to each other, which also becomes a proper setting, for children to be born and nurtured by their parents. 'Gay marriage' on the other hand, does not have these natural aspects built into it ,and therefore they should not be allowed by law.
He’s arguing the same way he has done with womanhood that these things have or had concrete definitions. Allowing gay marriage is essentially an oxymoron, because by definition marriage is suppose to be a union between a man and a woman along as other qualities such as being lifelong etc.
This is why this podcast will have more viewers than all major news outlets top shows put together for their time slot. No yelling, no down talking, no interrupting, and no brainwashing.
Just wanted to note my appreciation for your non-clickbait title. You simply and honestly described what the video was without inciting drama like some high school gossip girl. Far too few RUclips channels do that. It's very much appreciated!
There's a problem with the title though, they aren't disagreeing on gay marriage, they are disagreeing on the definition on marriage and why people should get married. They go on a few tangents discussing whether they are allowed to get married based on sexuality, but what Matt is saying which i agree with is, marriage is for all three of the pillars mentioned: Monogamy, procreation, and permanence. P.S Don't believe i'm picking sides here, i've listened to countless hours of JRE where i have agreed with Joe on many 'heated' discussions about controversial topics.
@@samgreen1933 marriage in America is a legal agreement, a contract. The parties involved are entitled to be subjective regarding their terms of an AGREEMENT. If you're understanding of marriage is informed by biblical standards (which I suspect), you have smuggled in monogamy without warrant. If you listened to this discussion and thought that Matt had the more reasonable argument, your mind is presumably immalleable and/or you tuned out during Joe's contribution. If you agree with him on controversial issues in the past I would submit you likely did so because he was able to articulate your already held belief. Matt Walsh was taken to school here in a primarily Socratic fashion and HIS argument was antithetical to freedom and much more aligned with bigotry and totalitarianism. I guess you believe that everyone that is capable of a heterosexual relationship is therefore competent enough to raise children.
@@moderndayheretic Why is it flimsy and vague? Matt's answer was vague if anything, he refused to answer any of Joe's questions directly because he couldn't. It's a union between two consenting adults, where you commit to each other and share your lives, your money, your goals etc. One of the original religious cornerstones of marriage was about procreation but as Joe pointed out, that's not possible for all heterosexual couples, yet that obviously doesn't diminish their marriage in any way. And that is an indisputable fact, one that if you accept, begs the question: Why can't two consenting adults of the same sex have the same thing? If your religion posits that it simply has to be between a man and a woman, then fine. But Walsh was the one who backed himself into the procreation corner, then didn't have an answer when faced with the obvious follow up question about infertile couples. I actually don't mind the guy and a lot of what he says makes sense, but he always ends up looking like a doofus when his religious fundamentalism gets in the way of obvious logic.
@@moderndayheretic it isn't flimsy and vague. love is the only variable that doesn't change in marriage. outside of arranged marriages (which are barbaric and ought to be abolished) all functional marriages have love as the driving force behind them. if that weren't the case people would just marry each other for the tax benefits, and it would be treated as something no different from a friendship.
@@con10001 So by that definition we should allow incest marriages too shoudn't we? Isn't that two consenting adults (what's the logical reasoning for stopping at two)? They don't have to have children. I think that was the only response of Matt's that really hit, it is taking Joe's definition to its logical conclusion.
@@BlackedOutDreams Joe didn't keep changing the question, it was Matt that didn't answer the question at all. So Joe changed the fazing and examples, with it still being the same argument, to try and make Matt actually give an answer. Matt didn't. Matts argument is that marriage is just to produce kids. Well, should infertile people be allowed to get married? Matt says he didn't want to ban it and that they could still adopt. Well, gay couples can adopt to, but he wants that to be banned. What about women who are to old to get pregnant? Should there be an upper limit to when you can get married? Should marriages automatically dissolve once you cannot get children? What about people who stop believing in God? Does the marriage need to be broken up as well? Or what if they are just unsure? What if they do it just because of tradition, and that they do not care about christianity one way or another? The whole point here is to keep it consistent. Matt wasn't and he just tried to talk around it without giving an answer. He could use the bible as an argument, but that opens up another can of worms. If the part about marriage being between man and women needs to be taken literal, does every other part need to be as well? What about women not being allowed to speak up in public, and should rather ask their husband about things at home? Mixing of cloth? What about slavery? Since the bible gives us rules to where to buy slaves and how to treat them, do we need to bring slavery back? His last argument in this clip was that we had already taken away so many "morals" from the bible and just discarded them. Well, is having slaves one of the morals of the bible we have just tossed away and need to bring back? Its no wonder that he can't find a good argument and need to talk around the point without giving an answer. His stance on the matter, is in fact very hollow. It is "I don't like it and therefor it should be banned", but he cannot say that. He need to make up justifications, but when asked about things that his standpoint logically must stand for, he isn't able to defend it.
Yeah, Matt Walsh failed at justifying the traditional sense of marriage, and why, as a constitution, it should be preserved. I've listened to Dr JBP explain what is marriage to such a degree that he could probably answer this question while defending religious dogma on it, unlike Mr Walsh who's a staunch Catholic. The backend of this podcast is unfortunately dissatisfactory.
EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a RUclips comment huh? THIS IS IT! This is EXACTLY why I started watching Joe Rogan. Even Keel, Middle Ground, Non-bias back and forth. Polite but ALWAYS seeing the other side and willing to debate it. It's the only way we can proceed as a society.
Rogan totally whiffed on challenging Matt’s BS “millions of kids are on puberty blockers” comment. Turns out it was a few thousand and he just laughed it off.
Ya this was a great episode. I was glad he had Matt on! They didn’t agree on this point, but I was also surprised to see they agreed on just about everything else.
@@kingdolo23 The absolute irony of calling someone who enjoys the fact that two adults can have a mature, respectful conversation/debate about something a "child"
so basically matt doesn't have an argument, i think he just doesn't want it because it doesnt fit his values. It's not a logical reason, it just doesn't fit his view of the world
They disagree on what marriage is and the function of marriage. The topic of gay marriage doesn't even matter when you can't even agree with what marriage means and the function of marriage.
this was laid out by Matt in the full discussion on this particular topic (which lasted around an hour) but Matt didn't make a good case on why this difference in definition made that big a difference in the first place, Joe poked holes all over it.I was open to Matt's point of view even though I currently do believe gays should be allowed to get married in civil court but he simply didn't make a good case for it. Didn't sound like his argument was very well fleshed out either. He has some homework to do!
@@ShaferHart That was my take as well. I really wanted Matt to present a better argument, as I'm religiously inclined to agree with him. Still, he didn't do so well in explaining why he thinks what he thinks on this matter.
@UCwCgjYObRwdfFJG4FWc6KJA Both institutions exist for the purpose of encouraging lifelong heterosexual monogamy, because these relationships are necessary to be practiced en mass for a functioning civilization.
This conversation kept circling around the same issue for 10 minutes and Matt cant articulate his rationale. I applaud Joe for digging and questioning the "why".
@@andrewwatts8240 Agreed. As a bisexual Christian Deist, I wish people like Walsh would stop relying on the Bible in intellectual discourse. It's not a good look.
@@AppleOfThineEyebecause if marriage is based on love, why cant i marry my family or dog? Christians invented marriage, if you want a union use another term
@@nickxcaliber7991Christians did not invent the term marriage or marriage itself, it predates your Religion. You can marry your friend. No one will stop you. You can't marry a dog because a dog can't consent.
@@andrewwatts8240Yes, it’s 100% religion. And nothing wrong with religion. I’m Christian myself. But there’s a separation between church and state for a reason. There are places the world that don’t separate religious law and state law, and most of us don’t want to live in those places.
I think one reason this convo was executed so well and peacefully is once Joe pressed Matt a little bit on why he feels what he feels with the “well what’s wrong with etc etc”, Matt never got mad or flustered. He remained in a constant state of calmness and never raised his voice or got rattled about it. Same with Joe. If many people get cornered or questioned too much about their positions, they tend to start getting agitated and the flow of the convo goes to shit very fast. This clip is a great example of how to have meaningful conversations.
I feel sorry for people for whom this type of conversation isn't the norm. It surprises me that people are so blown away by two people who have opposing point of views can have a civilized conversation. It just speaks to where we are in the world.
Joe handles this with class, reason and logic. Matt however just doesn’t want to say “Because I don’t like gay people.” So his rebuttals sound reasonless, illogical, and frankly just dumb.
Man I wish there's a comment on Spotify. In some of the argument in regards to gays and marriage, this guy was really dishonest and kept on dodging and change the subj everytime Joe gave argument towards being open to gay and gay marriage.
They both absolutely handled themselves in a very respectful manner. In this day and age, we live in a world where disagreement is considered “a bad thing”…I think it’s soo refreshing to see a disagreement being handled so calm and collectively like these two gentleman have displayed.
Matt's definition of marriage comes from a Worldview where God is the ultimate authority whereas Joe's definition of marriage comes from one where the individual is the ultimate authority. From such different paradigms we get this cordial and civil discussion which can be summarized as agree to disagree.
I was trying to put my words into Place. You did a great job!!👏👏 Joe comes from his parents hippie background and thats where he get that Individual is “the ultimate authority” Matt should have said that we disagree because God is the ultimate authority.✌️✝️
The final takeaway from this conversation: You can have a conversation without throwing insults, and without resorting to personal attacks. This is why so many watch JRE in the first place.
I dunno. There were many non-selling musicians from the 70s who say I should be a gry about something or another. I dunno if I can support 70s, forgettable music AND JRE... that is a hard thing to reconcile
It’s not personal because joe is married and has kids … if he was telling someone to their face that he believes they shouldn’t have to right to get married would you consider that an insult??
@@jimmy-wf1uo I agree with your definition, but also believe many people equate an argument with a fight, instead of an academic argument which is called a civil discussion. I know an argument is a civil discussion and not necessarily vice versa but it seems to be the conversational definition.
I think the question Joe missed here was, why can a straight couple degrade the sense of marriage by not having kids but Gays can't do the same? Why is freedom good for the straight non traditionally married couple but not for the gay couple who might actually have kids and uphold the rest of what you believe marriage to mean.
I've never felt so refreshed and calm after watching two people disagree with each other about such an important topic. This is conversation and this is how to disagree... Everyone laying out their stance clearly without fear of cancelation then you decide for yourself what is right for you and for your family then we part ways.
The reason Joe is as popular as he is is because you can watch this and he’s using his own logical brain and not trying to win over anyone in particular. He’s real.
As always, Rogan creates an atmosphere and conducts his interviews in a way to promote a respectful and insightful discussion between two people who disagree. Love it.
truee, don't we just love it when two straight men debate *other* people's rights to marriage? it's really easy to not get angry when you're not part of the demographic that are having their basic human right needlessly debated. in my opinion, there was nothing "respectful" about that discussion. towards each other, maybe, but certainly not respectful to anyone who is LGBT.
Matt Walsh is trying to protect/ make an argument for THE IDEAL of marriage. The whole talk lacked the explanation that the Ideal of marriage is what Matt sees value in. As far as I understand Matt's fundamental argument, Matt is not trying to enforce/ punish/ legislate, the idea is to talk through & see if the Ideal of marriage is still Monogamous, Permanent & Procreative. Striving for an Ideal makes us all better humans, no matter what area of human endeavor we are talking about. Good Ideals matter.
This is exactly why I can't get behind Walsh... The conversation was fine, but Joe missed the oppertunity to point out a very simple fact. A legal marraige comes with legal privalges and rights. A religious marriage is a sacrement offered by the church to bind a man and woman together in love and service to God by forming a family. This issue is that in today's society, and legaly, a family means something as well. Two adults that wish to bind themselves together for the purposes of legal protection and rights should be able to do so. If you want to be "married" in a church, than you should follow your church's rules and teachings because it becomes a spiritual matter. Walsh seems to avoid that completely.
Refreshing to hear the boundaries of an argument being tested with relevant questions and hypotheticals rather than attempts to discredit the person or a straw man argument. We desperately need this in our mainstream media.
Please ignore this pathetic incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere. They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married. They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family. This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed. They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic. This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides". They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews. They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke. They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure. Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style. They also claim that I : -Sexually molest Donkeys -eat jewish children -have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews -am a murderer -am a dog -am responsible for the holocaust -am a Nazi -am a religious extremist -adore Hitler and a big fan of him -am a gr00mer/child predator -sleept with a family member -am trans -am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means) But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable. They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic. They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources. They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that. They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy. They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men. They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy. His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me". On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it. I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.❌️
@@LogicCaster Read it if you need a reminder how you compared yourself to the victims of the holocaust or how you called me a nazi while using nazi-rethoric Foolish incel. You don't even have an argument anymore to throw my way. I won, you got nothing anymore. You only can point at me an laught to overshadow you're insecurity. Pathetic.
I'm a gay dude who's been married to the same dude for 30 years. We first met playing volleyball against each other in college in an all-fraternity tournament. We both played for our Pac10 volleyball teams as well. In high school, he was a the captain of his football team and the most eligible bachelor of his class. I was an all-state soccer and tennis player and president of my class for four years. We were both social chairmans and presidents of our college fraternities. We met a year later at a big gay dance club in Portland, Oregon. He started dancing with my friends, he asked if I wanted to get some water, and then we stayed up all night talking until he had to go back to his ride back to college. We did the long-distance thing for 3 months, never being apart for more than three days. We shacked up after he graduated, bought a big house, got a dog, and had a big commitment ceremnoy in 1996. No legal rights, just a big celebration. We quickly hired an attorney and spent over 2K getting our legal shit taken care of, filling out forms, paying lots for legal and notary public fees, and TONS of paperwork and proof for insurance, bank accounts, living wills, DNR wishes, etc. We eventually got domestically partnered in Oregon and finally leagalized in 2015. Having your "basic needs" met from a legal standpoint through marriage means that we could start contributing to society and sharing our wealth of time, money, and energy making the world a better place. I won't bore you with how many programs we started, how many kids we've sponsored, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars we've raised to help victims of wildfire, domestic abuse, floods, abandoned pets, and abused kids. And, the hundreds of LGBTQ kids and adults we've provided support, resources, love, and community. My husband and I have done TONS of great things, which we are very proud of, but we have achieved this with the support and the confidence that comes from having property rights, hospital visitation rights, insurance and inheritance rights securely at our backs. My Lutheran pastor, a woman, married us, and having the support of the church meant the world to us. Not all religions off that. With all the straight divorces, I am now the third-longest married person from my 300 kid senior class, which I am proud of. In terms of having children, please understand that we have a massive shortage of parents in the US. There are roughly half a million kids that are up for adoption and struggling in our current foster care programs. Our married gay and lesbian friends have taken 25 souls out of that system and given them stable homes. Kids that would be forgotten that are now spoiled rotten. :-) They wouldn't take on the challenge and financial burden if they didn't have legal rights. So I argue that gays having legal and civil rights improves the fabric and well-being of our society. Also, gays and lesbians don't "accidentally" get pregnant. The process is complicated and expensive. It involves interviews, screenings, tests, planning, tons of money and usually heartbreak at some point. It often takes months or years before gay couples actually get their kids. If you ever get adopted by a gay couple, you know they have had lots of time to be sure that's what they want. They have passed all the tests, jumped through countless hurdles, have enough money and support to raise kids right, and that they REALLY REALLY want to have you. Finally, lots of couples, both gay and straight, simply don't want kids, and that is becoming way more common now, especially with a dying planet, lack of resources, and abortion care being taken away. And, as Joe mentioned, many straight couples simply can't make a baby, no matter how hard they try. They rely on IVF and fertility care, but again, that is at risk of going away for religious reasons. CRAZY!!!! I really appreciated Joe's point, that if you and your spouse don't want kids and want to travel the world, enjoy your life together, then do it. You're not "less-than" because you don't have kids. Goals should always come up in the dating process. If your date absolutely doesn't want kids and you do OR they want to have 10 kids and you only want one, you can choose to keep dating them. Or, you run away because your goals simply do not match. I really hope that the days of pressuring couples to have children and shaming them if they don't are in the past. Joe, I really appreciated your interview style and temperment, as well as your insights about going against the grain of mainstream society. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else. That is why freedom, choice, and legal standing make America great. What an amazing, thoughtful, and fascinating podcast! I liked and subscribed. Cheers to you, Joe Rogan!
I love how peaceful this conversation was! Nobody raising their voices or getting defensive just two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those beliefs.
If I was gay the idea that my rights are something that's up for debate would be infuriating. It's not like walsh walked away from this convo any less convinced of his bigotry so like why are his abhorrent ideas worthy of respect?
@@silencer1286 I mean maybe you read his comment wrong but he didn't say anything about respecting or agreeing with Matt Walsh's stance. All is he said was that he loves how peaceful the conversation was. That it was two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those opinions without getting defensive or raising their voices. You seem to be against free speech and the sharing of opinions or even the debate of opinions that you don't agree with. And if that were the case that may stem from a place of bigotry based on its definition.
@@chrishuffman6734 Feelings are just feelings. It takes wisdom and responsibility to put feelings in their proper place. Joe made the choice to let respect and his values do the talking.
I watch Joe from time to time and I have gotten asked "why? Isn't he some sort of right winged conspiracy theorist and off his rocker?" Usually my answer is that the reason I listen to his discussions is because he gives people the time and is so level headed and while he does not have a science, law or some other scholarly backing (that I know of) the man has a wealth of patience and common sense. A rare combo to see amongst most these days. And he IS intelligent, and more often than not, makes good points and trys to understand whoever he talks to regardless of if he agrees with them. He is the kind of person we need I'm such a polarized society. And we need more.of that more than ever before
Those “what degree does he have?” Comments usually come from a guy with an art degree that’s now $40,000 in debt making $30,000 a year trying to convince himself he made the right decision
You give those people way too much fucking credit. Ask them to explain themselves instead. Ask them to begin justifying that kind of accusation with any amount of evidence. Watch them fall apart.
Marriage is not just a meaningless status, but as Joe pointed out the legal status it provides is actually very helpful, for instance, when moving abroad, or going to a hospital to one's spouse, or when sharing/inheriting all sorts of possessions or real estate. So gay couples would not be able to have all that unless it was allowed.
And the divorce rate jumping from 2% to above 50% is because we destroyed marriages true purpose, to bond a man and a woman for the sake of procreation.
@@LogicCaster “you people”, got it nice to see you finally have the balls to show what you really think You have no place saying I dont know love and you know it. You know nothing about me, but I know enough about you to know what a complete waste of potential you’ve turned yourself into No, YOU think its all about sexual attraction. No one has spoken more about sexual attractions in this entire comment section than YOU. We (the reasonable people) are advocating for equal treatment and protection under the law. While you babble about sexuality with an archaic worldview. You’re are totally useless
It's so frustrating how some people are convinced their beliefs (in this case, religious beliefs) are absolute truth and therefore everyone should live by the same standard. It's such a self-centered perspective.
How is adhering to a standard outside of oneself selfish? Would it not be more selfish to only adhere to the beliefs that you hold in yourself and no one else?
@@charlessoper3991cause there is absolutely no objective proof of it whatsoever. It’s a fucking fairytale, same as all the other religions that we’ve ever come up with. We fucking made them all up. They’re all bullshit. That’s why it’s called faith, because you can’t prove it’s true, you just have to blindly believe it. That’s not logical at all, as a matter of fact it’s the antithesis of logic itself
What? He genuinely tried to poke at the fact that Matt is religious and tried to find a problem with Matt being Catholic and holding certain beliefs due to his religion.
@@maxadonna6545 No he didn’t, he’s openly explaining why Matt’s beliefs are wrong, harmful, and stupid. He’s also publicly showing Matt’s religion makes him a bigot, and that he’s against freedom because he’s a fucking theocrat.
I have a lot of respect for how civilized they both were in discussing something they disagreed on. If more people were like this, the world would be a better place. If all of us communicated without getting into our feelings, we would be able to understand one another better.
This would require people to know why they believe what they believe, and back it up with logic. Unfortunately most people just take up an opinion without substantially exploring it.
In my opinion, there is really no civil “disagreement” on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. One side says “hey these two people who are consenting adults and love each other should be able to marry” and the other side says that they should NOT have the right to marry. There is nothing “civil” about wanting to take away someones right to marriage.
Freedom doesn't mean I justify sin, Christians know that, just because I'm free doesn't mean I can kill, or rape, or steal, or hit you, I can do all that, but I'm going against God and I will burn in hell Those who become homosexuals, or lesbians, have been raped as children, I know many people who have started families with a proper priest, with the help of God, they understood that what they did was a disease and that they will burn in hell, they confessed with the power of Jesus , Christ, they found their footing.
Matt couldn't articulate a single logical argument against what Joe was saying. The only option for Matt to wing this argument was if he were to bring up Christian morals. But the problem is that not everyone believes in Christianity and this country was made upon Christianity but freedom of speech and religion as well. There has to be a separation of state and religion in able to have a fair government. You either have a Christian country or a free country. If you want both, the only thing leaders can do is to encourage people to follow their ideas. Otherwise is tyranny if we force them. In the eyes of God, gay marriage is wrong but with respect to freedom, gay marriage should be allowed.
Yes, love the way Joe just keeps asking questions rather than just going “yeah” and moving on. Such a great way to come to understand eachother but also to point out where something might not make sense.
You only listened to questions. Matt never was shaken Joe Tried to force him to concede his religious beliefs in a conversation where Matt refused to have a religious debate.,,, Matt Walsh will be known as the greatest debater ever’
Cos he's an agenda. He's changed since going to Spotify. Fence sitting for the most part and trying to score points on issues that he probably doesn't believe in. He comes across as dishonest with no conviction.
@@jeremyvculek3090 Not really - Matt has good ideas when it comes to countering the current nuttery on the left, but his religious views are blinding him to the obvious thruths also. One of them is that marriage has never been about having kinds - in history, ever. They are not linked. And they absolutely have nothing to do with it today or even recent history. And if anything, if he is against unrestricted sexual behavior, he should be in FAVOUR of gay people getting married. But sadly it is about his belief-reinforced hatred of homosexuals as a way of life. I don't care whom people love, and if two or more consenting adults love each-other and want to enter a contract of support, good. Less need of the state to handle any support - it must be done within the family. We should get the state OUT of marriage, not into it more by having laws around it.
@CJ P. Maybe to you. Didn't make sense to me it didn't and clearly didn't to Joe. To me the idea that marriage is only about a man and a woman breeding is pulling a definition out of your ass and calling it sacred. The common denominator of the tradition has always been people wanting their bond recognized by whatever god, government or society they live under. That's it. Everything else is specific to a personal belief and in America the idea is, no one gets to impose theirs on you.
In a world where disagreements are not encouraged and you are forced to pick a side. I am glad for people like you Joe for sharing this platform with others.
So glad Joe shares his platform with people who don't think same sex couples should be legally able to get married. What a great moment for our society
@@ar71498 It is always a good thing to have a civil debate with people who disagree with you. You get to truly learn the different sides of human nature.
@@ar71498 Covenantal marriage upon which modern marriage is founded is fundamentally a Christian covenant between God, man, and woman. That is the Christian belief and foundation upon which all marriage is founded. It wouldn't make sense for a Christian (Matt Walsh) to reject that fundamental worldview. If anything, gay marriage should instead be purely a civic partnership under law, that is not connected with the Christian covenant marriage. Every Christian would support that fully, because it wouldn't be trying to change anything about Christian covenant marriage - it would just be a civil union under man's law.
@dj Kplus there both intelligent people. there definitely not stupid. just because he gets aggressive with other people and didnt here doesn't mean it's because he's afraid of him. if u really watch there actually interested in each other's take on the subject so instead of yelling there talking like civilized adults.
What would be even better is if they were both in agreement with whichever position was correct. Civil disagreement is not, in itself, a good thing if it leads to the promotion of error.
@@monsta2311 it literally does mean he is afraid of him. Why isn't he aggressive in those other situations and not here? Why doesn't he be more polite and civilized there instead of building an entire platform on being condescending? He kinda is stupid here, he has strong position on gay marriage that he clearly hasn't taught about.
@@monsta2311no offense bro, but you telling others about intelligence is hilarious. Figure out the whole “they’re, there, and their” thing before you judge a debate between a moron and a comedian.
If marriage is truly this way, then it shouldn't be a legally binding contract. There should be a separate legal bond that we use by default instead of marriage that isn't based in any religious context.
I do think faith should have something to do with your bond with another person. But I also believe in people having the freedom to bond with whoever they love. And most of the time, two people in love often have similar beliefs.
@@shoff29 Luckily in America, most people already are. And even people who are not religious will very likely concede to having a Christian wedding anyway.
@ saying most people in America are truly religious in America is a stretch. Many people that say they are don’t actually believe in their religion. They just say so to sound good. But also, a lot of people don’t think of marriage as a Christian religious ceremony. They just think of it as a wedding and a legal marriage. People are distancing more and more from the religious aspects of it. Even down to having friends or family lead the ceremony instead of a pastor or whatever other religious dude people use.
@shoff29 Well I just looked it up and you are correct. A lot less people are "religious" in the US than I assumed. And the actual definition of a religion varies from person to person. You can go to your town hall and get married non-denominationally, just sign papers and boom. I'm not even religious myself. I think of myself as Agnostic/Spiritual, but not straight up Atheist. Even tho I do not believe in a God, I also do not want others to feel discouraged that they do. And I may even change my mind one day. Anyway. I always felt marriages should have shared values between two people. And having a similar if not identical faith as your partner does help in a relationship. Even if both partners are Atheists, they have that in common. They may marry because they fell in love AND just happened to both be Atheist, but it wasn't the sole reason. That's not to say that a Jew cannot marry a Catholic. They can. But if they are each as devout in their respective faiths as the other, it may cause conflicts in principals, like how they should raise their kids, what ceremonies should they celebrate over others? What practices should take priority? It won't be the turning point to ruin their love, but it will cause a conflict they need to overcome. They would both need to make compromises. And if they do love each other they are willing to do so. To me that's beautiful. So I never meant to say people SHOULD be religious to marry. I simply said it should be a factor.
@@JedirieFTW marriage is an institution. That for the history of ever has been about one mother and one father. It’s an institution for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay couples can’t procreate. Therefore it isn’t “marriage” in the traditional sense. As far as why not, I believe that the parental roles of a mother and father are both necessary to have the best outcome (in general) for a child. Not to say a gay couple can’t raise a kid properly but men and women are in fact different and each bring something that is biologically engrained in them to the table. There’s the non biblical argument. Personally I don’t think government should be in marriage at all but it’s necessary to be above replacement rate. 😊
@@JedirieFTWI recommended re listening with the intent to understand. It was going around in circles because Joe Rogan couldn’t accept the fact that Mat Walsh has a set of opinions that differ from his own. Mat believes that there is an objective meaning to marriage despite the outliers, and that one of the central purposes of marriage is to create a platform for children to enter the stage. That’s his opinion, and whether or not you agree with it he is entitled to it.
@@analisamarieh4119 you misunderstood buddy. It wasn't Joes fault. He was simply bringing up that Walsh had an illogical reason for his opinion. But Walsh couldn't explain himself. He was continuing to push a false reason
This is what all arguments should be. Every single one. This conversation really made me realize how rapidly humanity and dignity is declining: everyone was completely shocked by the civility and understanding. This type of conversation should be the norm.
Political views are often complex, though. Very rarely do open debates change someone’s mind, especially on issues like gay marriage. At some point, having discussions with every idiot isn’t virtuous.
And the resolution would be what exactly? They didn’t solve anything at all. Matt Walsh isn’t going to go home and see that his opinion is silly nor is he going to go home and decide to let people have the freedom to choose how to live their lives. He wants to codify in law the way he views the world and force everyone else to live how he thinks people should live.
Matt Walsh advocates for widespread liberties to be taken away from Americans. The guys against divorce. At what point would it be reasonable to yell at him?
This shouldn’t even be an argument though! Mat’s point is completely irrational and prescriptive, we should be way past these topics and not debating this anymore, makes no sense.
The answer Joe, is this: Matt doesn't think people should have the freedom to live their lives "that way." He thinks all people should, through law and social expectation, be made to only marry heterosexually, to not have the option of no-fault divorce, and to not have the option of choosing not to have children. He wants all of his personally held (and religiously-motivated) beliefs to be applied to all Americans. He's a Christian nationalist, and he's entirely unAmerican for it.
America is funded by Christian nationalists, there is nothing more Americaj than that, whatever is happening today in liberal states, decadence and life of absolute sodomy, is what's un-American
Walsh is trying to get Joe to understand. Joe just keeps repeating the same point. Joe is slow on the uptake about nuance here. It’s not just “are you for or against” personal choice. It’s about “just because it’s a personal choice, does that mean it’s the best?” The answer is no. Sometimes we make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. That’s what Joe is failing to grasp. Walsh is trying to get him to understand how society can get better, not just exist in its current condition.
@@MYWRLDVW LOL did we watch the same video? walsh isnt trying anything, hes just repeating the same igorant, rote argument. its joe who understands. walsh is a dense moron who was probably raised by awful people that forced him into such an archaic way of thinking. marriage is human-invented. thats the beginning and end of the argument. wake up kid
@@MYWRLDVW But the part people like Walsh ALWAYS fail to answer is “best for who?” It’s like when people try to convince other’s to get an electric car because it’s “better” for the environment therefore everyone should get an electric car despite the variables of things such as distance limitations, battery replacements and high initial costs that aren’t realistically achievable for everyone are in place. But who care’s about that because it’s “better” for our society and our environment. Sometimes people make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. And sometimes they make the right choice for themselves and the people around them. It’s situational. This “I don’t think it’s a good idea” mentality simply doesn’t work
Me and my wife have exactly what Joe is describing. I hate to see someone being so boxed in with their ways and then having to invent arguments to justify that mindset. Me and my wife live a wonderful life, we travel, love profoundly each other and having kids is the least of our goals for a myriad of reasons. We’ve chatted about adopting if we ever decide but going for a vasectomy and have the power to decide when this even happens is powerful. Having another human requires a conscientious decision and understanding of life to pass along to another human that will mold into many things even with the best of care and education. Yeah sure natality is declining and mortality raising, but this imposed “NEED” of having to have a kid needs to evolve. And if you believe the same as Matt (which I respect just don’t agree with) then good for you!
THIS is the perfect example of a civil disagreement. They both strongly disagree with eachother on the subject but it's done respectfully and they're still able to dig deep and explore the reason why they each see things so differently. We don't always have to agree on things but this level of understanding and civil discussion would do wonders for the world today.
Your belief is based on a false equivalency that everybody's entitled to have a view. When your view gets in the way of other people's human rights you are basically Criminal.
I doubt that twisting words and putting words into the other person's mouth is part of a "healthy" two way conversation. It's pretty toxic tbh haha. Thankfully Joe is confident enough to know that this other dude is coming off poorly by twisting his words, pushing propaganda and putting a spin on EVERYTHING lol
That's what I thought it's refreshing to hear 2 adults have a normal conversation on the internet no matter what people think about these guys they are intelligent calm and willing to listen something our society has lost
Now some left-wingers are accusing Joe Rogan of being homophobe in podasts? I came her from one of the podcasts, this "Guily by association" got to stop.
@@Boneyard250 But it was civil. Sure it's cringey to watch him flounder about when he runs out of justifications, but the discourse didn't devolve into petulant sourness, infantile name-calling, or threats of violence. I'll take civility every time.
@@Boneyard250 80% of the world believes in institutions. Only America and western Europe have this 20th century invented "do whatever you want" life purpose. And by the way, it's NOT in the interest of your own freedom. It's to make you a dissatisfied money making machine
Walsh believes that marriage being reduced to something "symbolic" is a bad thing, but that's literally all marriage is, even by a Christian or traditional definition. It is symbolic. This idea that it's about procreation is marriage standing as a symbol of procreation -- it's not about whether it's symbolic or not, it's about WHAT it's symbolic OF. You can procreate without marriage.
The primary “fundamental aspect” of marriage has always been alliance. It used to largely be (and in some cultures, still is) a means to secure a profitable alliance between families (or to foster peace between warring families/tribes/ municipalities/countries). Marriage for love is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things. This is why arranged marriages were the norm for millennia, and why they do still make sense in some cases. That being said, the downfall of the institution of marriage was the advent of “no fault” divorces. It made marriage a disposable commodity.
@@blast2686 basically, neither party is responsible for the fact that the marriage did not work out…divorcing for “irreconcilable differences”. It would be the difference between divorcing for reasons like infidelity or domestic violence and divorcing because “we just grew apart”, “we fell out of love”, or “I just don’t like him/her anymore”. With that being said, a lot of people use “irreconcilable differences” as a means to an end to ensure a swift divorce, even in cases of infidelity or abuse. Have I divorced under such terms? Yes, but, we put forth effort to make it work for an additional 10 years after we were both “done” with each other before all attempts at reconciling our differences were fully exhausted. All too often these days, that sort of effort is not put forth.
Well i agree with the alliance aspect but the ceremony and vows we proclaim to each other are strictly religious. Civil marriages are recognized by the state religious marriages are not.
Very true, however I think this was more true of aristocracy, not your average joe. Most people got married for procreation as Matt pointed out. (Farmer needed to have boys to work the land) It's for the security of the children to be, it's a contract between the couple for the sake of creating a family. In many cases fathers would choose a suiter for their daughters to protect and provide for them and the children(not always, there's always been assholes). As for men, it was designed to ensure that women had their children and not someone else. The points Joe brings up are all fine for legal unions, which would provide all the legal benefits that marriage does. Making marriage and union the same has degraded the value of the institution and allows ppl to choose partners poorly. If it's so easy to get married and get divorced, then you choose the first person that sleeps with you. That's a recipe for disaster.
@@jlooox333 Matt Walsh is the embodiment of exactly what's wrong with both sides. No one wants freedom. They want their way to be the only way. Especially religious zealots who claim to be the "freedom party" yet want everyone to be one religion.
@@tristankrager9789 Their way to be the only way? Marriage intrinsically linked to God and our relationship with God. It's people like Joe with the opinion on their way is the only way trying to change this sacred joining of two people to suit their secular worldview.
I totally agree with Joe. That said, I am a Christian and I wrestle with the fact that aspects of my religion contradict how I feel about gay marriage. I think where I stand today is that whilst my faith is vital to me personally, I (or no one really) knows with absolute certainty if God is real or faith is true (hence why it's called faith). But I do see with absolute certainty that my gay neighbours across the street have raised 2 lovely kids and love each other and are wonderful human beings. I think what I'm trying to say is that no matter what I believe, I need to recognise that we could be wrong and therefore let that colour my perspective of other people's life choices.
@@donganger4936 Maybe your view is too absurd for any timeframe. There is nothing wrong with a Christian worldview on marriage. He can’t enforce anything, so let him believe what he wants.
@Black King How can a man be masculine if he accepts red heads? What exactly do you mean by "accept"? They exist, it's a born trait. Every relationship has the dynamic of Dom and Sub btw, and there is nothing insulting about femininity... that is a very immature attitude, like boys being scared of cooties. Being homophobic is weak and lacking of courage and masculinity.
@@mattbeisser3932 I agree that Joe does tend to do this. Once he is set in a mindset he really puts on the blinders and I've seen him bully people he disagrees with. Not saying he did that here as he is getting better at that. I think sometimes when you have a smart guy like Joe they get used to being right and then have a hard time conceding or giving any ground. I personally like to find areas I can agree with someone but doesn't seem like he did that here.
You understand that using the word 'adulting' makes you look pretty childish, right? It's like your admitting you have imposture syndrome about being an adult, lol.
@@FeelmProductions joe wasn't even debating, just asked the most simple questions and walsh didn't have answer for anything. Heavyweight intellectual for sure
I think that's an excellent idea. Still, it's important to remember some if the topics aren't just "opinion". There are right and wrong answers to questions. It's important to call people out when they lie as a standard. Not an exception.
@@jaymann5180 Anyone who wants to pave the way for a moral society where people make fruitfully good decisions tends to be offensive to these libertarians.
I respect people who know they don’t want children and do what is right for them. Better than bringing kids into this world without really wanting them and being a bad or mediocre parent.
THANK YOU! I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS COMMENT! I know a number of people who never should have been parents. They are abusive, manipulative and neglectful. As the saying goes, every child deserves a good parent. But not every parent is deserving of their child.
Yeah i get that totally, however, my mum NEVER wanted kids but then it happened unintentionally and she became the best mother i could have ever wanted and she also says that having children was the best part about her whole life. I think people simply are unable to imagine how it feels to hold your own child in your arms for the first time. That changes everything. And i think that many people will regret their choice to not have children when their older, given they were capable of course.
The government system was based upon marriage of man and woman, both energies needed to advance a species. The system functions on this vital energy so the introduction of a same sex "marriage" might advance the resources of a government but then deviates that government from benefitting under the protection of God ("One nation under God"). Once the government attempts to exist outside these simple requirements, chaos then begins to take hold as God (a pro-life entity) cannot support the institution further. Its literally Mason symbology backfiring on society in the pursuit of perpetual greed.
I think joe needed to ask what makes gay marriage harmful on a societal level, being he keep saying that and joe just said it’s not harmful, without asking him why it was harmful, because it seemed like they just kept repeating themselves. I love how no one yelled, talked over or interrupted, it was a refreshing change.
I think Matt's viewpoint is that gay marriage takes the meaning away from marriage from a societal perspective being that it should be for a man and a woman because they can procreate. This societal perspective he's talking about is obviously from his own point of view as well because I personally don't think the societal perspective of marriage has anything to do with procreation.
@@warzone822 I don't think he mentioned criminals at all. Yes it's an attack on his values (and anti-gay Christian values) but it was more about living a life without sin in the eyes of God and the negative impact he believes that has on society. His values, like any Christian's run parallel to his faith.
Please ignore this pathetic, bigoted and narcissist incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere. They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married. They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family. This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed. They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic. He even saied that he wants segretation so that LGBT+ people are seperated from "normal" people. This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides". They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews. They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke. They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure. Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style. They also claim that I : -Sexually molest Donkeys -eat jewish children -have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews -am a murderer -am a dog -am responsible for the holocaust -am a Nazi -am a religious extremist -adore Hitler and a big fan of him -am a gr00mer/child predator -sleept with a family member -am trans -am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means) But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable. They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic. They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources. They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that. They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy. They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men. They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy. His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me". On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it. I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.💥💥❌️❌️💥
@@LogicCasterbecouse walsh had no answer, he just thumbles out words without a clear line since there is no good reason to be against gay marriage other then your own religious fanaticism and ideology.
@@ZetsubenSama He mentioned societal impact which speaks for its self. Society is and will continue to be impacted by the change in the definition of marriage, obviously. You must be an autist to not acknowledge that, no wonder germany has the history it does.
@@LogicCasterah yes, saying a word without any reasoning behind it speaks for itself. 😂😂😂 You and matt never establishes causation, you both point to it like its a fail safe. The question is not if society will be impacted but how it will impact society. You can build sand castles and say "i impact society" and it will be just as relevant. The definition of marriage has hardly changed. Straight couples feel no change at all just becouse gay people can marry. You just talk absolut nonsence while calling other people autistic 😂 its hillarious as always. Get therapy you narcissist lmfao 😂.
i come from a small country call Singapore and we are suffering from a declining birth rate. We counter that by accepting foreign talents but that got the locals upset. We then counter that with the government paying us to have more babies but it's not fast enough to takeover the percentage of the talents required in the workforce. So i am not in support of gay marriage as it might encourage couples from all around the world that will never make local babies come in and further pushes our declining birth rates even further. So it's more of an economic issue rather than the societal issue.
Yeah... He gives the impression of being interviewing someone while in reality he does not let the interviewed to end a a phrase. It's just a monologue of his thoughts
The reason gay marriage was historically not acceptable is because every society that accepted it was destroyed or died out. Birth rates are falling in the west and the percentage of Americans that identify as LGBT doubles every generation. Enjoy your future!
Great freaking conversation, 2 differing opinions, talked out in a civil manner, need more of this exact thing, you gotta be able to see both sides even if you disagree
@@coughwheezeexplode What the hell is going on? B. Walsh give J. Rogan specific, biological, functional, rational, scientific, technical description of: why the two gays relation is not a marriage. And JR is just...throw away all this and stick with "ooh, let them do what they want". What is wrong with you JR? What happend to your scientific, rational approach? It is a BASIC rule of the civilized world! Definitions! Ok, maybe this you will get it... Let say, there's a guy who has a bicycle. But he always wanted to be a motorcyclist. But he is to small (motorcycles are to heavy for him), he doesn't like the smell of gasoline. But he wants to fill like motocyclist. So he finally force you to call his bicycle - the motorcycle :/ And your approach is "oh, let him call it how he want - it will not hurt anyone", "Why not? Both has two wheels, so it's almost the same thing". NO IT IS NOT! Normal, reasonable people don't change THE MEANING of words, agaist the logic - just to make same people fill better! The WISHES of minority are not the reasons to force MAJORITY to change the definitions of well described...phenomena! You still don't get it? You will be against when some tae-bo practicioners will DEMAND to call their trening as MMA fight! You will be against when KIA owners will force you to call their cars the "muscle cars". Etc., etc. etc., etc. BE REASONABLE! Be logic! Be consistent! Be coherent! Basics of civilization. But no, in this one case, you abandon your common sense, rules, logic...now the only rule is - whim: "I want that, and you all must obey to my whim" And there is a "parasite" behaviour. They don't CREATE their own definitions. They are like parasite - they take our well-functioning definitions - and they DESTROY IT. All this cancel-culture and so on. They are just DESTROYING. They don't create. They are PARASITES.
That is actually a very good question. Marriage. Word that divedes from whatever that is not the same as the definition. Red is never blue. A car is never a house. Msrriqge will never ever be between a gay couple. If marriage is defined as between sex , christians need to find a new word that defines the uniqueness.
I haven't followed Matt Walsh that much but it seemed like quite of bit of stuff he was saying made sense but saying marriage should primarily be for parents is a really odd stance lol
@@roebenzwart6403 cut it out. Europeans always try to act like y’all are so civilized but y’all’s politicians be literally fist fighting In congressional sessions
@@roebenzwart6403 yeah only here in the USA is where we can’t have any serious conversations without people wanting to kill each-other anymore…you don’t wanna ever try to come here trust me. Stay wherever your living at outside did the us now!!😂🙃
@@roebenzwart6403 while I'm inclined to agree with you, I have to say in defense of my homeland: at least were not Britain or Canada where a controversial tweet can land you in jail or defending yourself from an attacker is punishable by law.
Just wanna say this is exactly what society needs. Calm conversation, it’s something missing especially in media today. Joe Rogan really looked good in this conversation, I tend to lean more conservative but definitely understood Joes stand point! Well done men
I would side with Joe on the point expressing not all married couples need to have children. Though, I agree with Matt that the sanctity of marriage should only be between man and woman.
@@anthonyreed480 His argument came across strong because disappointingly, Matt's came across as weak in the face of Joe's honestly asked challenges. I will re-watch this video, in slower speed because it is so surprising to experience a defensive Matt Walsh. Not that I want to revel in his weakness, but to learn more deeply of my own biases. This conversation is extremely important.
What struck me was that JR could not entertain the idea that there might be anything true or real beyond personal choice and self-fulfilment. At least MW - who does believe that not everything can be reduced to personal choice - was willing to grapple with where personal choice ‘fits’ in this whole debate. Religious people are usually described as fundamentalist. Actually, here JR is the fundamentalist- he can’t see beyond his own worldview.
This is how you debate! You don't have to agree with the person but hearing one another's perspective is healthy . You both showed a lot of integrity and set the bar for how people should talk to one another regardless of what your opinion is.
there is a difference between not agreeing and not pushing back. Matt walsh also never shows this level of decorum when it comes to anything else. Look at his trans comments. He literally calls leftist demons and child molestors. He only holds back here because he cant justify his position.
This is in fact NOT how you debate. This is simply a conversation. Matt is spewing his own personal feelings and beliefs absent facts and reason to back it up. That's NOT a debate.
@@wda2478 you are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion I thought it was a great discussion between two men who had different opinions talking politely to each other without get high rate. Most people having these discussions will yell and scream over the top of one another
Unfortunate Walsh is dry and pedantic making him entirely predictable. Joe and his stupid reasoning is too dense to absorb anything Walsh has to offer. Joe sells childless married couples as an analog for homosexuals. Okay Joe, good thinking.
Matt is a piece of shit that spreads missinformation. He said there were milions of kids transitioning in that podcast and then Joe discovered it was less than 5 thousands in 5 years. Pathetic.
Just following on from Matt Walsh's argument; how many children should a couple have to constitute a fulfilling marriage in his eyes? 1, 2, more? And what of people who are not financially able to support children, should they not get married because they realize they won't have the financial means to support children, or should they get married and have as many children as they can and the state take care of them after all they're fulfilling the "institution of marriage"? Would it give a partner the argument to end a marriage if they discover their partner can't have children? Are all marriages equal in his eyes, a civil ceremony, a Catholic wedding etc? What of a couple that get married and decide not to have children but only foster? Is that 'lesser' in his eyes, despite the overwhelming cumulative good they do?
It just comes down to whether you believe marriage is a government status or a religious celebration. By willingly placing yourself on either side of those ideas, you can understand Walsh and rogan.
Yes, you are correct. If you come from the religious point of view, then you likely believe that redefining marriage has a profound negative impact on society, but you likely also believe that other aspects of society are also suffering the same way (i.e. the further from the Bible's moral foundations and teachings that society gets, the farther from God it also becomes). If you are secular, then it really does boil down to benefits and legal contracts. The issue here is what impact will this approach have to society as a whole in the long run? I think that the divorce rate is a straw man argument that does not in itself refute the institution of marriage. I'd consider myself a Christian to the best of my ability, and I struggle at times to reconcile my more libertarian viewpoints with my religious ones, but at the end of the day, you have to decide what kind of society you want to live in. I'd personally rather live in one in which the people around me share my moral foundation and ethics. Which should win out? The "freedom" as Joe says it, at the expense of societal moral and ethical norms? This is a tough question if you are a liberty minded, faithful person.
Imagine 2 people disagreeing but listening to each other’s opinion and actually having a conversation. And more importantly not hating someone and trying to silence someone with a different opinion.
It's not that. It's that his guest would usually be belligerent and 'dunk' on the person saying they support gay marriage but they are afraid of being too wacky and losing access to his giant platform. If it was anybody else saying what Joe was saying, he'd call him a woke cuck.
Actually there probably never was a formal debate where one debater was won over by his opponent. It's just a kind of entertainment. So, we should not debate things, instead we should discuss things, like in this video.
People like Matt Walsh are more self-centered than people who don't want to have children. Absolutely refusing to put yourself in other people's shoes and believing the way you think should be the way everyone should think is the most self-centered thing of all.
I disagree with Joe. Matt Walsh is saying that the idea of marriage was created for the sole purpose of a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. That's a marriage, that's the point of calling yourself "married". If you're only together because you love each other, then you can call it whatever you like: a relationship, a union, a permanent bond, etc. but it's not a "marriage" by the definition I mentioned above. This argument is one puzzle piece from the massive puzzle of destroying the definition of words and to make everything so confusing and nonsensical. It starts with something small but grows into something massive, which is why we need to address it RIGHT NOW, during it's infancy.
That's a conversation between two adults without yelling, insulting, or trying to cancel each other. This is how it should be debating with an open mind.
"If you don't have kids when you get married you're a bad person and if two consenting unrelated adults get married then they'll legalise incest!" doesn't really sound like an adult mindset but whatever. It's very clear Matt's mind is closed.
@@MagcargoMan nah bro that's not what Matt was saying at all but regardless with whether or not you disagree with him, the conversation was civil each dude gave the other a good chance to voice his opinion without speaking over one another or getting emotional.
@@MagcargoMan ''bad person''? let me show you an analogy real quick. Imagine we talk about games and i say: if you havent played call of duty, you are not a gamer because i think that you dont care about elaborate and realistic games and the amount of emotions and adrenalite you can get from call of duty. when I said it was badnot to have played call of duty? This is what matt said regarding marriage, when tf did he say it was bad? One of the most incredible feelings you get is when you have kids with the person you love and how you become the best version of yourself
@@rypsterhc8673 maybe YOU needed to have children to become your best self. Other people don’t need this. This shows how YOUR mind is closed to other possibilities.
I loved this debate. They are so calm and chill about it. I think Joe is so intimidating sometimes by asking questions over and over because he wants you to reveal your real shit 😂 and he puts you on the spot.
@@tonytouch145 the times that he had trouble with that or had heated conversations was because of the guest. Like the girl who didnt "believe" in climate change🤣
He doesn't want an answer, he wants a concession. He wants Matt to say nothing matters and yet it does, but just however you want it to matter at the moment, and to your convenience - when and how you want it, and that nothing is right or wrong because what if you choose to do that.
@@jameseverett4976 the subject of "nothing matters everything is about a personal choice " is what Matt discuss in his movie What is a Woman. But marriage is not that big of a deal, as he wants it to be, actually it doesnt change anything besides legal matters. But he has a speech and as a egocentrical person he doesnt want to admit when hes wrong and the subject Just goes round and round...
Matt looked so uncomfortable. He had no idea he would be challenged for once. Bottom line is Matt just doesn't want gays to have a love based relationship that is officially recognized, i.e. he hates gays. This same mindset is revealed in his hateful attitude towards transpeople .
@@VladTissescu Let me burst your bubble. In the name of God, I, _____, take you, _____, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until parted by death. This is my solemn vow No where in there douse it state anything about kids or procreation
I love that they knew they would never change each others mind but knows it’s very important to have a civil conversation where we can really hear out both sides and make our own decision on what we agree with
You have to go into any conversation with the possibility that your mind could be changed. Otherwise you aren't actually considering what the other person is saying and there's no possibility for growth.
Whats even the point of talking then? So jre fans can soy about how civil the chat was. Matt looked like an actual idiot here from a few basic questions that someone in his position should have coherant answers too.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Just imagine if two politicians could discuss an issue without talking over each other and insulting each other. Bravo guys.
The reason Joe and Matt are disagreeing here is because they haven't defined the terms properly. There's difference between secular "marriage" and "The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony". "Marriage" has moved into the public arena now, so it is subject to all the many subjective interpretations. Joe is talking about "marriage". Matt is talking about "Holy Matrimony". The term "matrimony" actually means - the making of a Mother. So the two participants have to be a man and woman and they have to be open for reproduction. If they are not, that Sacrament will not be given. A man cannot make another man a "Mother". That's impossible. They can adopt children and be called a "mother", but that is just a name.....that man can never be a Mother.
@@faithbycatholicism1416 bingo, and there in, I believe, marriage should be sepparated from partnership. Even from govermental POV, procreational marriage is a virtue. Its above partnership because its much more sustainable institution longterm.
Did this man say "the church is allowing these divorces to occur?"Under scrutiny, these Walsh type characters crumble everytime. Sounds like Mr Walsh wants a religious theocracy here in America.
@@woodlandgangsta3931 i bieve he was refering to sacramental divorces.
@@woodlandgangsta3931 tbh most conservatives do. Thats why they impose Christian ideologies into their policies
This was a fine example of why Joe's podcast has become so popular. Discussing a controversial topic where neither side got emotional or reached a point of insulting the other. A lot of people myself included could take lessons from this conversation.
Matt is obviously wrong here and his idea crashed fromfew basic questions. People being happy that 2 people can have opposing ideas and be civil is cringe. When no one walks away from a discussion with a new perspective what is the point. Matt wont change his mind. But sure be halpy with the low bar of "they were civil."
@@thumbeast3130
Matt has had better moments. But he's correct nonetheless on the larger issue.
@@thumbeast3130 No he wasn’t, Joe was completely wrong. Don’t be stupid all your life.
@@btgkg9639 nah joe Won that debate however I understand where Matt is coming from traditional Christian marriage but that should not be involved in politics nor should wokeness
@@jimwerther ok lets get someone educated to press him on those issues free form like this. Maybe his world view isnt as coherant as those daily wire "documentaries" make out. Maybe matt is actual pretty low iq.
Two dudes disagreeing without swearing, insulting and abusing each other. Refreshing in 2022
Is it? Thats mostly what i see, you must watch a lot of trash
This!!!
Walsh is a liar and Rogan is too stupid to call him out on it.
Yea just need to take the stupid out of it
What is a Dude?🤣
Newsflash: People have children without getting married and have the same legal responsibilities.
@Peter-ff1tp it seems to me they do, when it comes to children, otherwise there would be no such thing as child support payments when the couple separates.
Jamie pull up 2 male bears getting married
😂
lol
Matt: "Oh yeah I think I've seen this one before"
Define what you mean by bears
Jamie pull up Donald Trump’s multiple divorces.
By the way, this is the way humans are supposed to have conversations. Not lashing out at every little thing just because your ego is to big and you don't like being possibly wrong. From the first second to if you skip 13 minutes ahead, its the same body language. No one is toxic here, they are just men having a talk.
Edit: If you really think this is toxic, you are what’s wrong with the current socializing groups.
Joe was attacking Walsh
It is a lot easier for Joe to be calm in this situation since gay marriage is not something Joe is gonna do. If Joe was gay and someone invalidated his rights it'd be harder to remain emotional neutral.
You can't learn with your mouth open.
So let's say this was someone advocating against interracial marriage, and that the speaker defined marriage where "two races can't mix". Why is this the model of a good conversation and debate when someone is advocating against human rights?
Still , Matt is right
40 seconds in and I’m realizing how well Joe Rogan simply asks someone a question in order to investigate their beliefs, listen to them, understand them, without intent to agree, disagree, judge, or criticize. He is a mirror to these people and he tries to get honest conversation out of them and challenge them which makes the content so entertaining.
It even feels like he has no emotion or personal bias. He blankly keeps digging to investigate and get everything out of his guests. First instinct is to feel like he’s challenging because it goes against his own beliefs. But once you realize that’s not the case, it’s mind blowing to see how interested he is in all opinion and knowledge and getting that out of people.
And yet completely destroys their BS. He's good.......
He's great at what he does, for sure.
Joe's getting better all the time but he still has some bias which are shedding slowly and he's turning into a proper interviewer.
Not true at all. Rogan is what would be known as a ‘shill’. He pretends to be a maverick, but is a sellout. From way back, he was always pushing the queer narrative. Same like the ‘pandemic’…him pretending to be ‘challenging’ narratives with talking about “I’ve a make-tin” when he shoulda been talking about the testing and existence of 🦠. He will ALWAYS come up on the side of the handlers. Look back thru his videos how much he jokes about butts and dicks.
Marriage is not owned by religion.
Yes it is
@@Lulustucru2393Marriage in the mind and in the soul is about Love. And if your marriage is bound by “I really need to breed a women and have kids” or “my holy book told me to get married “ then we’re no better then animals or robots
@@Lulustucru2393Marriages existed way before Christianity you know?
@Captain_Shipwreck THANK YOU, so many delusional Christians in the comments.
Indeed but it was formed by religion over 6000 years ago.
Problem is Matt, most people see marriage as a union of love and not for procreation
Procreation is a bonus within marriage if u can afford it
While I agree with this sentiment, let's not be naive by saying MOST people see marriage this way. I fully support gay marriage, but Matt does have a compelling argument regarding the roots of marriage - and I suspect there are more people out there that feel this way than we might think.
@aaronledbetter7429 Most people see it this way. That isn't just an opinion it's a fact. Modern marriage is now mostly about romantic partnership. Most people nowadays prioritize personal goals rather than starting a family. You can just look it up as well. And that's because people's values changed. Over 40% of births are before marriage and that is rapidly increasing. If you compare this to when the nuclear family was a thing. That percentage was as low as 18% had children before marriage because people correlated being married with having children. People now look for marriage for financial security. It's hard a pill to swallow but it's ok.
@@aaronledbetter7429 The historical roots of many institutions are not relevant anymore, and should not influence our values and policies. For most of history, marriage was a financial contract (an exchange of resources and services, among which were the managing of the household and the birthting and rearing of children) often stipulated by proxy (think of two families bethroting their young children together for strategic and financial purposes). Today, here in the west, this idea of marriage is completely absurd. We freely choose to marry, and we freely choose it for love and for a life together - this is the fundamental meaning it has for society, and this is what our policies should reflect :-)
@@finnyyy- Where would one go to "look it up"? How can you peer into the minds of every human on the topic? I see statistics about birth and financial motivations - as they relate to marriage. All legitimate, I’m sure. Won't I don't see is a conclusive extrapolation from point a to point b - proving "most people feel xxx", and "it’s not an opinion, it’s fact”. That feels like too much of a blanket statement (in my view). People have varying degrees of values - with likely underlying nuances. I would suspect there are people with traditional religious values that see a marriage as a means to procreate (some may not be religious at all) - and perhaps some of these very people have children outside of marriage. Likewise - I would assume there are tons of folks that never would have gotten married - but after having a surprise child, they tied the knot (and maybe not JUST b/c of financial gain). What number of people feel the way Matt does compared to who disagree (like me), I don’t know (I don’t know how anyone could). Though does I'm not sure it matters really. These folks could very well be in the minority, and perhaps they are not. Though I, for one, appreciate discussions on matters to learn their views and not discredit them as being in the minority of the mainstream thought. We've had enough of that.
It's nice to see Matt Walsh actually go against someone who can generate strong, critical follow-up questions.
What where you watching jo is just repeating himself
And basically failing to form an argument that doesn't involve religion.
@@redcoresuperstar
Religion is the main argument. And its a 10,000+ year LONG project, an instruction manual for societies to function around. Thats all religions have ever been.
Usually people who are up against him are just avarage people who are not ready for a difficult conversation, quick questions right after another...and they end up embaressing themselves eventho they might not be in the wrong!
He could have just shut down the debate by simply saying this is only my opinion. But , people like Matt are so sure of their “rightness” they can’t say it.
Matt does not want to just say that his view of marriage is religious more than social
It's why religion is so backwards
It's because any reasonable person, consciously or unconsciously, knows that saying, "I'm against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs" sounds ridiculous and insensitive.
@@Ken-zg3ze Lots of non Christians get married and that's no issue. Gay marriage in the church is the bit that is unfair as there are 1000's of places to get married so why should the church go against its beliefs?
@@jg2213
So there can be NO gay Christian's? Christian dogma has been changed and altered during adaptation so many times over the past 3 millennia or so, this is a very strange hill to die on. Especially when most Christian's don't even actually follow the dogma in any way but superficial element's like this which they focus on. Given that many of most prominent members of the anti-gay Christian community have, in fact, turned out to themselves be gay, this doesn't really seem like an issue that stems from real problems.
This is a problem with the homophobic element of the Christian community often being . The Pope himself has come out in support of Christian homosexuals, being married in a Church isn't the issue, it's fundamentally down to some people picking and choosing element's of their religious practices to maintain a degree of exclusivity and for various reasons relating to insecurity.
Like, it's just irrelevant. If two gay Christian's want to get married in a Church, why is that a problem? It literally effects nobody and impact's nothing. It's just yet another irrational religiously motivated opinion. If people are going to follow everything in the bible, ok, but they won't (because that would be insane in a modern context), they will select part's that are convenient for them and ignore everything else.
@@AveSicarius I actually support gay marriage and think the whole argument against it is stupid, but just like you wouldn't marry 2 Jews in a mosque you can't marry 2 gays in the eyes of the lord. Why aren't we talking about other religions marrying gay people as well?
I'll never understand the need to dictate meaning in someone else's life. Worry about your own marriage. Let people decide where meaning lies in their own lives. And let gay people enjoy a loving marriage and union. Also, very grateful to hear these kinds of conversations. Keep having them. But I just can't stand Walsh's take.
My marriage is extremely meaningful to me, I don't care how someone else experiences their's.
Do you think that any two (or more) people should be allowed to get married?
@@eshoosca yes? why shouldn't they?
I don’t care what they do. But it won’t be in the house of the lord before god. Marriage is a Christian ceremony that doesn’t include homosexuality. Find your own thing.
your talking about it on the personal level where its me me me. What matt is talking about is how breaking down these structures that have a set meaning like marriage would most definitely cause adverse affects in society. when people get married for only love rather, then understanding marriage comes with various duties that marriage is likely to break down and cause a scatter effect onto all of society. Words have meanings marriage has certain criteria and if you don't follow the criteria then what have or had is not a marriage it is something else. Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it marriage because marriage has a is a religious thing and you should follow that definition.
@@eshooscaI think two people should be allowed to get married as long as they are consenting adults. Period.
not judging or even necessarily saying he’s wrong, but what was Walsh’s actual argument?? He kept circling back to the idea that alternative marriages somehow damage the overall institution of marriage, but what’s the logic, that straight people are somehow going to stop getting married because gay people are allowed to??
I think it’s not that he is saying people can’t do it. It’s just his opinion, most likely because of his religious beliefs. Just like people are free to do their thing, Matt is free to think that thing is the wrong thing, and others are free to think Matt or Joe are right or wrong in their opinions.
I’ve noticed Joe has a certain zeal in trying to make everyone agree with him, but normally it’s just about people who think smoking pot or doing shrooms or micro dose acid is wrong. It seems awkward when Joe and a guest come to an impasse, but it does make for good entertainment ❤
I see your point. I, however, take an extreme approach to marriage. I believe marriage will be a thing of the past. I believe in wearing a ring. I would like to call someone my wife. But why would I sign a paper saying that we are bonded? Can't we just establish our own beliefs without the legal system being involved? I know several men who went through divorces. One sticks out to me because he raised 4 children who weren't his. ,are enough money so she didn't have to work. She cheated on him, filed for divorce and took both houses and 60% of his construction business. And he still has to pay her enough money to sustain a life as if they were together. And I ask again, why would anyone want to get married
Hi argument is that straight people can weaken the institution of marriage because *no reason, just that they are straight*, but gay people can't cus he hates gay people
His argument basically was, marriage is not just about the feelings that you have for each other, but there's a real content to it, which is, to make a life-long commitment of love to each other, which also becomes a proper setting, for children to be born and nurtured by their parents.
'Gay marriage' on the other hand, does not have these natural aspects built into it ,and therefore they should not be allowed by law.
He’s arguing the same way he has done with womanhood that these things have or had concrete definitions. Allowing gay marriage is essentially an oxymoron, because by definition marriage is suppose to be a union between a man and a woman along as other qualities such as being lifelong etc.
This is why this podcast will have more viewers than all major news outlets top shows put together for their time slot. No yelling, no down talking, no interrupting, and no brainwashing.
You just described The View. 😂
@@paintbynumbermonalisa4187 you need to stop watching the view.
What about mainstream media interviews? 60 minutes? Their interviews on many famous people are very civil.
Duhhhhhhhhh sure about all that?
@@falkerwyscray9067 mostly famous child preditors, of course they’re welcoming.
Just wanted to note my appreciation for your non-clickbait title. You simply and honestly described what the video was without inciting drama like some high school gossip girl. Far too few RUclips channels do that. It's very much appreciated!
There's a problem with the title though, they aren't disagreeing on gay marriage, they are disagreeing on the definition on marriage and why people should get married.
They go on a few tangents discussing whether they are allowed to get married based on sexuality, but what Matt is saying which i agree with is, marriage is for all three of the pillars mentioned: Monogamy, procreation, and permanence.
P.S Don't believe i'm picking sides here, i've listened to countless hours of JRE where i have agreed with Joe on many 'heated' discussions about controversial topics.
yh
@@samgreen1933 marriage in America is a legal agreement, a contract. The parties involved are entitled to be subjective regarding their terms of an AGREEMENT.
If you're understanding of marriage is informed by biblical standards (which I suspect), you have smuggled in monogamy without warrant.
If you listened to this discussion and thought that Matt had the more reasonable argument, your mind is presumably immalleable and/or you tuned out during Joe's contribution. If you agree with him on controversial issues in the past I would submit you likely did so because he was able to articulate your already held belief.
Matt Walsh was taken to school here in a primarily Socratic fashion and HIS argument was antithetical to freedom and much more aligned with bigotry and totalitarianism.
I guess you believe that everyone that is capable of a heterosexual relationship is therefore competent enough to raise children.
@@samgreen1933 they’re also disagreeing on gay marriage, as Walsh was eluding the question for 15 minutes.
Ever heard of joe rogan?
i love how joe is just asking questions and matt is stuttering, and trying so hard not to say "because i don't want gay people to get married!!" lmao
Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Period.
@@johngalt60 Marriage is between any two or more consenting people. PeRiOd.
@@AppleOfThineEye Incorrect. Between a man and women who can bring forth life. God said so 👍🏼
@@ralphangel561 Marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity. You are incorrect. 👍👍
Nice casual bigotry against infertile people btw 😬
@@ralphangel561 only valid if you can prove god is real, so do it.
Matt: "what is a woman?"
Joe: "what is a marriage?"
extremely under rated comment
Matt had a way better answer than Joe. Joe basically just said “it’s a relationship with love” which is flimsy and vague.
@@moderndayheretic Why is it flimsy and vague? Matt's answer was vague if anything, he refused to answer any of Joe's questions directly because he couldn't. It's a union between two consenting adults, where you commit to each other and share your lives, your money, your goals etc. One of the original religious cornerstones of marriage was about procreation but as Joe pointed out, that's not possible for all heterosexual couples, yet that obviously doesn't diminish their marriage in any way. And that is an indisputable fact, one that if you accept, begs the question: Why can't two consenting adults of the same sex have the same thing?
If your religion posits that it simply has to be between a man and a woman, then fine. But Walsh was the one who backed himself into the procreation corner, then didn't have an answer when faced with the obvious follow up question about infertile couples.
I actually don't mind the guy and a lot of what he says makes sense, but he always ends up looking like a doofus when his religious fundamentalism gets in the way of obvious logic.
@@moderndayheretic it isn't flimsy and vague. love is the only variable that doesn't change in marriage. outside of arranged marriages (which are barbaric and ought to be abolished) all functional marriages have love as the driving force behind them. if that weren't the case people would just marry each other for the tax benefits, and it would be treated as something no different from a friendship.
@@con10001 So by that definition we should allow incest marriages too shoudn't we? Isn't that two consenting adults (what's the logical reasoning for stopping at two)? They don't have to have children. I think that was the only response of Matt's that really hit, it is taking Joe's definition to its logical conclusion.
Joe provides very logical arguments. This is the first time I have seen Matt backpedaling and stuttering a bit lol
Usually everyone does who promotes their ideas from a script instead of live civil discourse.
because Joe kept changing the question and didnt let Matt have a chance to fully articulate his point
First time? Has to be the first time he has had the question brought to him without just letting him talk in a figure eight and let it be then.
@@BlackedOutDreams Joe didn't keep changing the question, it was Matt that didn't answer the question at all. So Joe changed the fazing and examples, with it still being the same argument, to try and make Matt actually give an answer. Matt didn't.
Matts argument is that marriage is just to produce kids. Well, should infertile people be allowed to get married? Matt says he didn't want to ban it and that they could still adopt. Well, gay couples can adopt to, but he wants that to be banned.
What about women who are to old to get pregnant? Should there be an upper limit to when you can get married? Should marriages automatically dissolve once you cannot get children?
What about people who stop believing in God? Does the marriage need to be broken up as well? Or what if they are just unsure? What if they do it just because of tradition, and that they do not care about christianity one way or another?
The whole point here is to keep it consistent. Matt wasn't and he just tried to talk around it without giving an answer. He could use the bible as an argument, but that opens up another can of worms.
If the part about marriage being between man and women needs to be taken literal, does every other part need to be as well? What about women not being allowed to speak up in public, and should rather ask their husband about things at home? Mixing of cloth? What about slavery? Since the bible gives us rules to where to buy slaves and how to treat them, do we need to bring slavery back?
His last argument in this clip was that we had already taken away so many "morals" from the bible and just discarded them. Well, is having slaves one of the morals of the bible we have just tossed away and need to bring back?
Its no wonder that he can't find a good argument and need to talk around the point without giving an answer. His stance on the matter, is in fact very hollow. It is "I don't like it and therefor it should be banned", but he cannot say that. He need to make up justifications, but when asked about things that his standpoint logically must stand for, he isn't able to defend it.
Yeah, Matt Walsh failed at justifying the traditional sense of marriage, and why, as a constitution, it should be preserved.
I've listened to Dr JBP explain what is marriage to such a degree that he could probably answer this question while defending religious dogma on it, unlike Mr Walsh who's a staunch Catholic.
The backend of this podcast is unfortunately dissatisfactory.
EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a RUclips comment huh?
THIS IS IT! This is EXACTLY why I started watching Joe Rogan. Even Keel, Middle Ground, Non-bias back and forth. Polite but ALWAYS seeing the other side and willing to debate it. It's the only way we can proceed as a society.
Oh hush excited child
Non bias? Joe believes everyone should do whatever the fuck they want, and was very adamant on that point.
Rogan totally whiffed on challenging Matt’s BS “millions of kids are on puberty blockers” comment. Turns out it was a few thousand and he just laughed it off.
Ya this was a great episode. I was glad he had Matt on! They didn’t agree on this point, but I was also surprised to see they agreed on just about everything else.
@@kingdolo23 The absolute irony of calling someone who enjoys the fact that two adults can have a mature, respectful conversation/debate about something a "child"
so basically matt doesn't have an argument, i think he just doesn't want it because it doesnt fit his values. It's not a logical reason, it just doesn't fit his view of the world
Maybe you should actually listen next time
@creepycooter8370 maybe you should actually understand his views next time
@@creepycooter8370 did u lissen?😂
They disagree on what marriage is and the function of marriage. The topic of gay marriage doesn't even matter when you can't even agree with what marriage means and the function of marriage.
Joes definition is the correct one
this was laid out by Matt in the full discussion on this particular topic (which lasted around an hour) but Matt didn't make a good case on why this difference in definition made that big a difference in the first place, Joe poked holes all over it.I was open to Matt's point of view even though I currently do believe gays should be allowed to get married in civil court but he simply didn't make a good case for it. Didn't sound like his argument was very well fleshed out either. He has some homework to do!
One believes in God and the other one doesn’t, you can’t really talk to people who got their heart closed to God.
@@ShaferHart That was my take as well. I really wanted Matt to present a better argument, as I'm religiously inclined to agree with him. Still, he didn't do so well in explaining why he thinks what he thinks on this matter.
@UCwCgjYObRwdfFJG4FWc6KJA Both institutions exist for the purpose of encouraging lifelong heterosexual monogamy, because these relationships are necessary to be practiced en mass for a functioning civilization.
This conversation kept circling around the same issue for 10 minutes and Matt cant articulate his rationale. I applaud Joe for digging and questioning the "why".
You can tell he’s hiding his why and it’s purely because of biblical reasoning and general disgust of homosexuality.
@@andrewwatts8240 Agreed. As a bisexual Christian Deist, I wish people like Walsh would stop relying on the Bible in intellectual discourse. It's not a good look.
@@AppleOfThineEyebecause if marriage is based on love, why cant i marry my family or dog? Christians invented marriage, if you want a union use another term
@@nickxcaliber7991Christians did not invent the term marriage or marriage itself, it predates your Religion.
You can marry your friend. No one will stop you. You can't marry a dog because a dog can't consent.
@@andrewwatts8240Yes, it’s 100% religion. And nothing wrong with religion. I’m Christian myself. But there’s a separation between church and state for a reason. There are places the world that don’t separate religious law and state law, and most of us don’t want to live in those places.
I think one reason this convo was executed so well and peacefully is once Joe pressed Matt a little bit on why he feels what he feels with the “well what’s wrong with etc etc”, Matt never got mad or flustered. He remained in a constant state of calmness and never raised his voice or got rattled about it. Same with Joe. If many people get cornered or questioned too much about their positions, they tend to start getting agitated and the flow of the convo goes to shit very fast. This clip is a great example of how to have meaningful conversations.
I feel sorry for people for whom this type of conversation isn't the norm. It surprises me that people are so blown away by two people who have opposing point of views can have a civilized conversation. It just speaks to where we are in the world.
matt was rattled the whole time his argument was stupid.
Joe handles this with class, reason and logic. Matt however just doesn’t want to say “Because I don’t like gay people.” So his rebuttals sound reasonless, illogical, and frankly just dumb.
@@SENATORPAIN1 You think? He seemed pretty calm/grounded to me
Man I wish there's a comment on Spotify. In some of the argument in regards to gays and marriage, this guy was really dishonest and kept on dodging and change the subj everytime Joe gave argument towards being open to gay and gay marriage.
They both absolutely handled themselves in a very respectful manner. In this day and age, we live in a world where disagreement is considered “a bad thing”…I think it’s soo refreshing to see a disagreement being handled so calm and collectively like these two gentleman have displayed.
Matt's definition of marriage comes from a Worldview where God is the ultimate authority whereas Joe's definition of marriage comes from one where the individual is the ultimate authority. From such different paradigms we get this cordial and civil discussion which can be summarized as agree to disagree.
Exactly
There is no God though.
I was trying to put my words into
Place. You did a great job!!👏👏
Joe comes from his parents hippie background and thats where he get that Individual is “the ultimate authority”
Matt should have said that we disagree because God is the ultimate authority.✌️✝️
Matt's is sex is for family formation, Joe's is sex is for love.
Individuals can, and do, worship different gods. So god cannot be the ultimate authority in a free society.
The final takeaway from this conversation: You can have a conversation without throwing insults, and without resorting to personal attacks. This is why so many watch JRE in the first place.
Cue the JRE Crowder weed debate.
Couldn’t have said it any better.
I dunno. There were many non-selling musicians from the 70s who say I should be a gry about something or another.
I dunno if I can support 70s, forgettable music AND JRE... that is a hard thing to reconcile
@@fearanarchy 70s had some of the best music ever.
It’s not personal because joe is married and has kids … if he was telling someone to their face that he believes they shouldn’t have to right to get married would you consider that an insult??
Joe Rogan at his best being a normal person analysing an argument
@Easily Impressed Old Man LOL Good one.
@JustARandomCitizen yes. They are arguing. Walsh believes one thing and Rogan another, and they are discussing their disagreement. Arguing.
@@jimmy-wf1uo I agree with your definition, but also believe many people equate an argument with a fight, instead of an academic argument which is called a civil discussion. I know an argument is a civil discussion and not necessarily vice versa but it seems to be the conversational definition.
@@jeffreyepstein9641 Great point Jeffery Epstein
@Easily Impressed Old Man Cope
I think the question Joe missed here was, why can a straight couple degrade the sense of marriage by not having kids but Gays can't do the same? Why is freedom good for the straight non traditionally married couple but not for the gay couple who might actually have kids and uphold the rest of what you believe marriage to mean.
I've never felt so refreshed and calm after watching two people disagree with each other about such an important topic. This is conversation and this is how to disagree... Everyone laying out their stance clearly without fear of cancelation then you decide for yourself what is right for you and for your family then we part ways.
“Important topic” 🤣 that’s laughable
Lmao but all that means nothing if nothing is learned…
@@Napoleanbp You don't think the institution of marriage and family is important?
“Without fear of cancelation”?? How about without fear of violence?! You know those Trumpers after all.
Yeah its great the way they are disagreeing, but walsh’s view is ridiculous
The reason Joe is as popular as he is is because you can watch this and he’s using his own logical brain and not trying to win over anyone in particular. He’s real.
"he's using his own logical brain"
Truly a man of words.
@@benharris144 lol
rogan says alot of dumb shit
Careful. You're giving him too much credit. He isnt as authentic as he might have you to believe
@@Senorzilchnzero and people should believe you because you say so?
As always, Rogan creates an atmosphere and conducts his interviews in a way to promote a respectful and insightful discussion between two people who disagree. Love it.
truee, don't we just love it when two straight men debate *other* people's rights to marriage?
it's really easy to not get angry when you're not part of the demographic that are having their basic human right needlessly debated.
in my opinion, there was nothing "respectful" about that discussion. towards each other, maybe, but certainly not respectful to anyone who is LGBT.
Matt Walsh deserves no respect.
Matt Walsh is trying to protect/ make an argument for THE IDEAL of marriage.
The whole talk lacked the explanation that the Ideal of marriage is what Matt sees value in.
As far as I understand Matt's fundamental argument, Matt is not trying to enforce/ punish/ legislate, the idea is to talk through & see if the Ideal of marriage is still Monogamous, Permanent & Procreative.
Striving for an Ideal makes us all better humans, no matter what area of human endeavor we are talking about. Good Ideals matter.
@@elektrotehnik94 I personally think the "ideal" of marriage should have nothing to do with one's sexuality
Joe had no respect when I was there
This is exactly why I can't get behind Walsh... The conversation was fine, but Joe missed the oppertunity to point out a very simple fact. A legal marraige comes with legal privalges and rights. A religious marriage is a sacrement offered by the church to bind a man and woman together in love and service to God by forming a family. This issue is that in today's society, and legaly, a family means something as well. Two adults that wish to bind themselves together for the purposes of legal protection and rights should be able to do so. If you want to be "married" in a church, than you should follow your church's rules and teachings because it becomes a spiritual matter. Walsh seems to avoid that completely.
Refreshing to hear the boundaries of an argument being tested with relevant questions and hypotheticals rather than attempts to discredit the person or a straw man argument.
We desperately need this in our mainstream media.
This!!!
Mainstream is unfortunately just "Fear fear fear obey obey obey propaganda 24/7"
Joe is mainstream believe it or not, 10x more mainstream than whatever news channel you’re talking about
It is an argument and I agree with Rogan, however, it's good to see an argument play out as a conversation rather than being shouted down
TOO MUCH LEFT TOO MUCH RIGHT!! Not enough common ground
Walsh doing everything he can to not say, "Because God said it."
Rogan agreed with walsh in a recent video posted 5 days ago. I posted the link in a recent comment if you want to watch
@@LogicCaster Whether or not a podcast host agrees does not make "God said it" any less ridiculous as justification for an argument.
Please ignore this pathetic incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere.
They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married.
They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family.
This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed.
They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic.
This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides".
They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews.
They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke.
They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure.
Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style.
They also claim that I :
-Sexually molest Donkeys
-eat jewish children
-have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews
-am a murderer
-am a dog
-am responsible for the holocaust
-am a Nazi
-am a religious extremist
-adore Hitler and a big fan of him
-am a gr00mer/child predator
-sleept with a family member
-am trans
-am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means)
But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable.
They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic.
They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources.
They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that.
They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy.
They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men.
They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy.
His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me".
On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it.
I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.❌️
@@ZetsubenSama
^ read that crap if you want to laugh at a stupid german
@@LogicCaster
Read it if you need a reminder how you compared yourself to the victims of the holocaust or how you called me a nazi while using nazi-rethoric
Foolish incel.
You don't even have an argument anymore to throw my way.
I won, you got nothing anymore.
You only can point at me an laught to overshadow you're insecurity.
Pathetic.
I'm glad Joe is capable of challenging his guests when necessary, even when he agrees with them on 90% of their views
Typically more so when they are conservative.
@@AUZlE I'm a Conservative myself doesn't mean I have to conform the every view held by other Conservatives
@@yumyum723 woaahhhhh!!! Ohhh no you didn’t!
@@yumyum723 cap
Joe and Matt do not agree on 90% of their views lmfao
I'm a gay dude who's been married to the same dude for 30 years. We first met playing volleyball against each other in college in an all-fraternity tournament. We both played for our Pac10 volleyball teams as well. In high school, he was a the captain of his football team and the most eligible bachelor of his class. I was an all-state soccer and tennis player and president of my class for four years. We were both social chairmans and presidents of our college fraternities. We met a year later at a big gay dance club in Portland, Oregon. He started dancing with my friends, he asked if I wanted to get some water, and then we stayed up all night talking until he had to go back to his ride back to college. We did the long-distance thing for 3 months, never being apart for more than three days. We shacked up after he graduated, bought a big house, got a dog, and had a big commitment ceremnoy in 1996. No legal rights, just a big celebration. We quickly hired an attorney and spent over 2K getting our legal shit taken care of, filling out forms, paying lots for legal and notary public fees, and TONS of paperwork and proof for insurance, bank accounts, living wills, DNR wishes, etc. We eventually got domestically partnered in Oregon and finally leagalized in 2015. Having your "basic needs" met from a legal standpoint through marriage means that we could start contributing to society and sharing our wealth of time, money, and energy making the world a better place. I won't bore you with how many programs we started, how many kids we've sponsored, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars we've raised to help victims of wildfire, domestic abuse, floods, abandoned pets, and abused kids. And, the hundreds of LGBTQ kids and adults we've provided support, resources, love, and community. My husband and I have done TONS of great things, which we are very proud of, but we have achieved this with the support and the confidence that comes from having property rights, hospital visitation rights, insurance and inheritance rights securely at our backs. My Lutheran pastor, a woman, married us, and having the support of the church meant the world to us. Not all religions off that. With all the straight divorces, I am now the third-longest married person from my 300 kid senior class, which I am proud of. In terms of having children, please understand that we have a massive shortage of parents in the US. There are roughly half a million kids that are up for adoption and struggling in our current foster care programs. Our married gay and lesbian friends have taken 25 souls out of that system and given them stable homes. Kids that would be forgotten that are now spoiled rotten. :-) They wouldn't take on the challenge and financial burden if they didn't have legal rights. So I argue that gays having legal and civil rights improves the fabric and well-being of our society. Also, gays and lesbians don't "accidentally" get pregnant. The process is complicated and expensive. It involves interviews, screenings, tests, planning, tons of money and usually heartbreak at some point. It often takes months or years before gay couples actually get their kids. If you ever get adopted by a gay couple, you know they have had lots of time to be sure that's what they want. They have passed all the tests, jumped through countless hurdles, have enough money and support to raise kids right, and that they REALLY REALLY want to have you.
Finally, lots of couples, both gay and straight, simply don't want kids, and that is becoming way more common now, especially with a dying planet, lack of resources, and abortion care being taken away. And, as Joe mentioned, many straight couples simply can't make a baby, no matter how hard they try. They rely on IVF and fertility care, but again, that is at risk of going away for religious reasons. CRAZY!!!! I really appreciated Joe's point, that if you and your spouse don't want kids and want to travel the world, enjoy your life together, then do it. You're not "less-than" because you don't have kids. Goals should always come up in the dating process. If your date absolutely doesn't want kids and you do OR they want to have 10 kids and you only want one, you can choose to keep dating them. Or, you run away because your goals simply do not match. I really hope that the days of pressuring couples to have children and shaming them if they don't are in the past. Joe, I really appreciated your interview style and temperment, as well as your insights about going against the grain of mainstream society. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else. That is why freedom, choice, and legal standing make America great. What an amazing, thoughtful, and fascinating podcast! I liked and subscribed. Cheers to you, Joe Rogan!
you need Jesus
I love how peaceful this conversation was! Nobody raising their voices or getting defensive just two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those beliefs.
If I was gay the idea that my rights are something that's up for debate would be infuriating. It's not like walsh walked away from this convo any less convinced of his bigotry so like why are his abhorrent ideas worthy of respect?
@@silencer1286 I mean maybe you read his comment wrong but he didn't say anything about respecting or agreeing with Matt Walsh's stance. All is he said was that he loves how peaceful the conversation was. That it was two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those opinions without getting defensive or raising their voices. You seem to be against free speech and the sharing of opinions or even the debate of opinions that you don't agree with. And if that were the case that may stem from a place of bigotry based on its definition.
Really? I felt tension, especially from Joe.
@@chrishuffman6734 Feelings are just feelings. It takes wisdom and responsibility to put feelings in their proper place. Joe made the choice to let respect and his values do the talking.
@@chrishuffman6734 Tension, sure but they didn't get disrespectful with each other which is rare.
I watch Joe from time to time and I have gotten asked "why? Isn't he some sort of right winged conspiracy theorist and off his rocker?" Usually my answer is that the reason I listen to his discussions is because he gives people the time and is so level headed and while he does not have a science, law or some other scholarly backing (that I know of) the man has a wealth of patience and common sense. A rare combo to see amongst most these days. And he IS intelligent, and more often than not, makes good points and trys to understand whoever he talks to regardless of if he agrees with them. He is the kind of person we need I'm such a polarized society. And we need more.of that more than ever before
Anyone who assumes he's a right winged conspiracy theorist you should probably cut out of your life
Those “what degree does he have?” Comments usually come from a guy with an art degree that’s now $40,000 in debt making $30,000 a year trying to convince himself he made the right decision
You give those people way too much fucking credit. Ask them to explain themselves instead. Ask them to begin justifying that kind of accusation with any amount of evidence. Watch them fall apart.
Rogan is cool but Sam Harris is a more intellectual version
I don't think Joe Rogan is right wing, or are you talking about Matt walsh?
Marriage is not just a meaningless status, but as Joe pointed out the legal status it provides is actually very helpful, for instance, when moving abroad, or going to a hospital to one's spouse, or when sharing/inheriting all sorts of possessions or real estate. So gay couples would not be able to have all that unless it was allowed.
And the divorce rate jumping from 2% to above 50% is because we destroyed marriages true purpose, to bond a man and a woman for the sake of procreation.
@@LogicCaster nope, its a bond of love, not procreation. If you get married just to make babies, you live a soulless life. Incapable of love
@@Druid75 ruclips.net/video/EraAt07CtoA/видео.html
@@Druid75
You don’t even know what love is.
You people think its sexual attraction lmfao
@@LogicCaster “you people”, got it nice to see you finally have the balls to show what you really think
You have no place saying I dont know love and you know it. You know nothing about me, but I know enough about you to know what a complete waste of potential you’ve turned yourself into
No, YOU think its all about sexual attraction. No one has spoken more about sexual attractions in this entire comment section than YOU. We (the reasonable people) are advocating for equal treatment and protection under the law. While you babble about sexuality with an archaic worldview. You’re are totally useless
I strongly agree with Joe on this topic. He said it all: ,,there are some people who find a fulfilling life in just reading books and traveling"
Can 8 billion people marry each other?
It's so frustrating how some people are convinced their beliefs (in this case, religious beliefs) are absolute truth and therefore everyone should live by the same standard. It's such a self-centered perspective.
it's obeying life is precios
That's what the terms far right and far left suggest
you’re spot on - Matt is perpetuating what he thinks is ‘fact’ when it’s actually just his opinion and/or beliefs.
How is adhering to a standard outside of oneself selfish? Would it not be more selfish to only adhere to the beliefs that you hold in yourself and no one else?
@@charlessoper3991cause there is absolutely no objective proof of it whatsoever. It’s a fucking fairytale, same as all the other religions that we’ve ever come up with. We fucking made them all up. They’re all bullshit. That’s why it’s called faith, because you can’t prove it’s true, you just have to blindly believe it. That’s not logical at all, as a matter of fact it’s the antithesis of logic itself
And this is why Joe Rogan is the phenomenon he is. Honest, pragmatic, compassionate, free thinking. Thanks Joe.
What? He genuinely tried to poke at the fact that Matt is religious and tried to find a problem with Matt being Catholic and holding certain beliefs due to his religion.
@@maxadonna6545 Oh I didn’t see that. He definitely has his issues but he has a good heart
@@caseyoutside for sure man
@@maxadonna6545 No he didn’t, he’s openly explaining why Matt’s beliefs are wrong, harmful, and stupid. He’s also publicly showing Matt’s religion makes him a bigot, and that he’s against freedom because he’s a fucking theocrat.
@@maxadonna6545 nothing wrong with criticising someone's religion
Typical Christian persecution complex
I have a lot of respect for how civilized they both were in discussing something they disagreed on. If more people were like this, the world would be a better place. If all of us communicated without getting into our feelings, we would be able to understand one another better.
This would require people to know why they believe what they believe, and back it up with logic. Unfortunately most people just take up an opinion without substantially exploring it.
That is excellent point, thank you. Very truthful!
Yep, gotta agree with that one 👍
In my opinion, there is really no civil “disagreement” on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. One side says “hey these two people who are consenting adults and love each other should be able to marry” and the other side says that they should NOT have the right to marry. There is nothing “civil” about wanting to take away someones right to marriage.
Freedom doesn't mean I justify sin, Christians know that, just because I'm free doesn't mean I can kill, or rape, or steal, or hit you, I can do all that, but I'm going against God and I will burn in hell Those who become homosexuals, or lesbians, have been raped as children, I know many people who have started families with a proper priest, with the help of God, they understood that what they did was a disease and that they will burn in hell, they confessed with the power of Jesus , Christ, they found their footing.
Matt couldn't articulate a single logical argument against what Joe was saying. The only option for Matt to wing this argument was if he were to bring up Christian morals. But the problem is that not everyone believes in Christianity and this country was made upon Christianity but freedom of speech and religion as well. There has to be a separation of state and religion in able to have a fair government. You either have a Christian country or a free country. If you want both, the only thing leaders can do is to encourage people to follow their ideas. Otherwise is tyranny if we force them. In the eyes of God, gay marriage is wrong but with respect to freedom, gay marriage should be allowed.
He articulated the entire point
Yes, love the way Joe just keeps asking questions rather than just going “yeah” and moving on. Such a great way to come to understand eachother but also to point out where something might not make sense.
As slow as Walsh is Joe is trolling himself with the comparisons. Would Joe be okay with groin shots? That's just a rule, in a sport.
You only listened to questions. Matt never was shaken Joe
Tried to force him to concede his religious beliefs in a conversation where Matt refused to have a religious debate.,,, Matt Walsh will be known as the greatest debater ever’
Cos he's an agenda. He's changed since going to Spotify. Fence sitting for the most part and trying to score points on issues that he probably doesn't believe in. He comes across as dishonest with no conviction.
@@jeremyvculek3090 Not really - Matt has good ideas when it comes to countering the current nuttery on the left, but his religious views are blinding him to the obvious thruths also. One of them is that marriage has never been about having kinds - in history, ever. They are not linked. And they absolutely have nothing to do with it today or even recent history. And if anything, if he is against unrestricted sexual behavior, he should be in FAVOUR of gay people getting married. But sadly it is about his belief-reinforced hatred of homosexuals as a way of life. I don't care whom people love, and if two or more consenting adults love each-other and want to enter a contract of support, good. Less need of the state to handle any support - it must be done within the family. We should get the state OUT of marriage, not into it more by having laws around it.
@CJ P. Maybe to you. Didn't make sense to me it didn't and clearly didn't to Joe. To me the idea that marriage is only about a man and a woman breeding is pulling a definition out of your ass and calling it sacred. The common denominator of the tradition has always been people wanting their bond recognized by whatever god, government or society they live under. That's it. Everything else is specific to a personal belief and in America the idea is, no one gets to impose theirs on you.
In a world where disagreements are not encouraged and you are forced to pick a side. I am glad for people like you Joe for sharing this platform with others.
So glad Joe shares his platform with people who don't think same sex couples should be legally able to get married. What a great moment for our society
@@ar71498 It is always a good thing to have a civil debate with people who disagree with you. You get to truly learn the different sides of human nature.
@@ar71498 booooo
@@ar71498 the majority of the world would argue openly gay couples are a detriment to society, just sayin.
@@ar71498 Covenantal marriage upon which modern marriage is founded is fundamentally a Christian covenant between God, man, and woman. That is the Christian belief and foundation upon which all marriage is founded. It wouldn't make sense for a Christian (Matt Walsh) to reject that fundamental worldview. If anything, gay marriage should instead be purely a civic partnership under law, that is not connected with the Christian covenant marriage. Every Christian would support that fully, because it wouldn't be trying to change anything about Christian covenant marriage - it would just be a civil union under man's law.
It's so refreshing to have people disagree without being disagreeable.
hes not afraid ....this is how intelligent people talk about differences.
@dj Kplus there both intelligent people. there definitely not stupid. just because he gets aggressive with other people and didnt here doesn't mean it's because he's afraid of him. if u really watch there actually interested in each other's take on the subject so instead of yelling there talking like civilized adults.
What would be even better is if they were both in agreement with whichever position was correct. Civil disagreement is not, in itself, a good thing if it leads to the promotion of error.
@@monsta2311 it literally does mean he is afraid of him. Why isn't he aggressive in those other situations and not here? Why doesn't he be more polite and civilized there instead of building an entire platform on being condescending? He kinda is stupid here, he has strong position on gay marriage that he clearly hasn't taught about.
@@monsta2311no offense bro, but you telling others about intelligence is hilarious. Figure out the whole “they’re, there, and their” thing before you judge a debate between a moron and a comedian.
If marriage is truly this way, then it shouldn't be a legally binding contract. There should be a separate legal bond that we use by default instead of marriage that isn't based in any religious context.
I do think faith should have something to do with your bond with another person. But I also believe in people having the freedom to bond with whoever they love. And most of the time, two people in love often have similar beliefs.
@ but this would require everyone who wants to bond with another person to be religious.
@@shoff29 Luckily in America, most people already are. And even people who are not religious will very likely concede to having a Christian wedding anyway.
@ saying most people in America are truly religious in America is a stretch. Many people that say they are don’t actually believe in their religion. They just say so to sound good.
But also, a lot of people don’t think of marriage as a Christian religious ceremony. They just think of it as a wedding and a legal marriage.
People are distancing more and more from the religious aspects of it. Even down to having friends or family lead the ceremony instead of a pastor or whatever other religious dude people use.
@shoff29 Well I just looked it up and you are correct. A lot less people are "religious" in the US than I assumed. And the actual definition of a religion varies from person to person. You can go to your town hall and get married non-denominationally, just sign papers and boom.
I'm not even religious myself. I think of myself as Agnostic/Spiritual, but not straight up Atheist. Even tho I do not believe in a God, I also do not want others to feel discouraged that they do. And I may even change my mind one day.
Anyway. I always felt marriages should have shared values between two people. And having a similar if not identical faith as your partner does help in a relationship. Even if both partners are Atheists, they have that in common. They may marry because they fell in love AND just happened to both be Atheist, but it wasn't the sole reason.
That's not to say that a Jew cannot marry a Catholic. They can. But if they are each as devout in their respective faiths as the other, it may cause conflicts in principals, like how they should raise their kids, what ceremonies should they celebrate over others? What practices should take priority? It won't be the turning point to ruin their love, but it will cause a conflict they need to overcome. They would both need to make compromises. And if they do love each other they are willing to do so.
To me that's beautiful. So I never meant to say people SHOULD be religious to marry. I simply said it should be a factor.
These are the type of conversations that made me a fan of the JRE so many years ago. This convo took me back!
Joe Rogan is the very guy who has the ability to argue with civility coupled with a lot of patience and fortitude.
@Cody 😂 the irony right?
This is literally the most circling conversation I have probably ever heard.
@@JedirieFTW marriage is an institution. That for the history of ever has been about one mother and one father. It’s an institution for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay couples can’t procreate. Therefore it isn’t “marriage” in the traditional sense. As far as why not, I believe that the parental roles of a mother and father are both necessary to have the best outcome (in general) for a child. Not to say a gay couple can’t raise a kid properly but men and women are in fact different and each bring something that is biologically engrained in them to the table.
There’s the non biblical argument. Personally I don’t think government should be in marriage at all but it’s necessary to be above replacement rate. 😊
He's ducking the question better than Sarah Palin 😅
@@JedirieFTWI recommended re listening with the intent to understand. It was going around in circles because Joe Rogan couldn’t accept the fact that Mat Walsh has a set of opinions that differ from his own. Mat believes that there is an objective meaning to marriage despite the outliers, and that one of the central purposes of marriage is to create a platform for children to enter the stage.
That’s his opinion, and whether or not you agree with it he is entitled to it.
@@analisamarieh4119 you misunderstood buddy. It wasn't Joes fault. He was simply bringing up that Walsh had an illogical reason for his opinion. But Walsh couldn't explain himself. He was continuing to push a false reason
@@SplitGooseseems this flew way over yo ur head
This is what all arguments should be. Every single one.
This conversation really made me realize how rapidly humanity and dignity is declining: everyone was completely shocked by the civility and understanding. This type of conversation should be the norm.
Political views are often complex, though. Very rarely do open debates change someone’s mind, especially on issues like gay marriage. At some point, having discussions with every idiot isn’t virtuous.
And the resolution would be what exactly? They didn’t solve anything at all. Matt Walsh isn’t going to go home and see that his opinion is silly nor is he going to go home and decide to let people have the freedom to choose how to live their lives. He wants to codify in law the way he views the world and force everyone else to live how he thinks people should live.
Matt Walsh advocates for widespread liberties to be taken away from Americans. The guys against divorce. At what point would it be reasonable to yell at him?
That is because you have 2 rational people talking with each other.
This shouldn’t even be an argument though! Mat’s point is completely irrational and prescriptive, we should be way past these topics and not debating this anymore, makes no sense.
The answer Joe, is this: Matt doesn't think people should have the freedom to live their lives "that way." He thinks all people should, through law and social expectation, be made to only marry heterosexually, to not have the option of no-fault divorce, and to not have the option of choosing not to have children. He wants all of his personally held (and religiously-motivated) beliefs to be applied to all Americans. He's a Christian nationalist, and he's entirely unAmerican for it.
America is funded by Christian nationalists, there is nothing more Americaj than that, whatever is happening today in liberal states, decadence and life of absolute sodomy, is what's un-American
My god. This is THE example of how all two people with differing opinions should converse with each other.
to be fair, matt couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.
Matt is a pedophile, if that's not obvious you're completely blind.
@@stone33 you dont have civilized conversations with people who reject human rights
@@jinglebells223 you’re part of the problem.
@@jinglebells223 Zuckerberg was in another video
This is the most I’ve seen Walsh struggle for words. 😂
Cause he's got nothing to say. Let's be real, he's trying to defend a point he can't form a single argument in favour of.
Walsh is trying to get Joe to understand. Joe just keeps repeating the same point. Joe is slow on the uptake about nuance here. It’s not just “are you for or against” personal choice. It’s about “just because it’s a personal choice, does that mean it’s the best?” The answer is no. Sometimes we make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. That’s what Joe is failing to grasp. Walsh is trying to get him to understand how society can get better, not just exist in its current condition.
@@MYWRLDVW LOL did we watch the same video? walsh isnt trying anything, hes just repeating the same igorant, rote argument. its joe who understands. walsh is a dense moron who was probably raised by awful people that forced him into such an archaic way of thinking. marriage is human-invented. thats the beginning and end of the argument. wake up kid
that's what happens when your argument has no legs except "i don't like it, so it shouldn't happen"
@@MYWRLDVW But the part people like Walsh ALWAYS fail to answer is “best for who?”
It’s like when people try to convince other’s to get an electric car because it’s “better” for the environment therefore everyone should get an electric car despite the variables of things such as distance limitations, battery replacements and high initial costs that aren’t realistically achievable for everyone are in place.
But who care’s about that because it’s “better” for our society and our environment.
Sometimes people make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. And sometimes they make the right choice for themselves and the people around them. It’s situational.
This “I don’t think it’s a good idea” mentality simply doesn’t work
A marriage is about buying a dining table and assembling it together. Couples that don't have a dining table are not really married.
that's exactly what this argument sounded like lmao
Sounds like a quote from the intro of Solar Opposites
I can't imagine putting something together with my wife. We wouldn't be married by the end of it. Especially if it's from IKEA.
Funny, but silly.
Creepy Christian breeding program
Me and my wife have exactly what Joe is describing. I hate to see someone being so boxed in with their ways and then having to invent arguments to justify that mindset. Me and my wife live a wonderful life, we travel, love profoundly each other and having kids is the least of our goals for a myriad of reasons. We’ve chatted about adopting if we ever decide but going for a vasectomy and have the power to decide when this even happens is powerful. Having another human requires a conscientious decision and understanding of life to pass along to another human that will mold into many things even with the best of care and education. Yeah sure natality is declining and mortality raising, but this imposed “NEED” of having to have a kid needs to evolve. And if you believe the same as Matt (which I respect just don’t agree with) then good for you!
THIS is the perfect example of a civil disagreement. They both strongly disagree with eachother on the subject but it's done respectfully and they're still able to dig deep and explore the reason why they each see things so differently. We don't always have to agree on things but this level of understanding and civil discussion would do wonders for the world today.
It was ok.
Joe couldn't understand Matt who in turn understood joe and even found other ways of explaining the same thing.
Ok we get it.
@@father3dollarbill matt is a homophobe
There is nothing "civil" about denying others rights. I don't think those with beards should be able to get married. That isn't civil it's nutz!
@@PeaceIsBetter you are what’s wrong with society.
Having a healthy 2 way conversation is actually a skill. These guys are pros at it and it takes lots of practice
Your belief is based on a false equivalency that everybody's entitled to have a view. When your view gets in the way of other people's human rights you are basically Criminal.
I doubt that twisting words and putting words into the other person's mouth is part of a "healthy" two way conversation. It's pretty toxic tbh haha. Thankfully Joe is confident enough to know that this other dude is coming off poorly by twisting his words, pushing propaganda and putting a spin on EVERYTHING lol
Neither talked about tax incentives and next of kin responsibilities as spouses.
That's what I thought it's refreshing to hear 2 adults have a normal conversation on the internet no matter what people think about these guys they are intelligent calm and willing to listen something our society has lost
Matt Walsh is a fool. Hiding his bigotry behind what ever nonsense that came out of his mouth there.
Excellent job by both Joe and Matt in showing how civil discourse is supposed to be done.
Dude’s argument fell apart several times, and fell back on “but the institution” lol. Nicely done.
Now some left-wingers are accusing Joe Rogan of being homophobe in podasts? I came her from one of the podcasts, this "Guily by association" got to stop.
@@Boneyard250 But it was civil. Sure it's cringey to watch him flounder about when he runs out of justifications, but the discourse didn't devolve into petulant sourness, infantile name-calling, or threats of violence. I'll take civility every time.
@@Boneyard250 80% of the world believes in institutions. Only America and western Europe have this 20th century invented "do whatever you want" life purpose.
And by the way, it's NOT in the interest of your own freedom. It's to make you a dissatisfied money making machine
Matt's argument makes no sense, but I can appreciate how civil the conversation is
Walsh believes that marriage being reduced to something "symbolic" is a bad thing, but that's literally all marriage is, even by a Christian or traditional definition. It is symbolic. This idea that it's about procreation is marriage standing as a symbol of procreation -- it's not about whether it's symbolic or not, it's about WHAT it's symbolic OF.
You can procreate without marriage.
The primary “fundamental aspect” of marriage has always been alliance. It used to largely be (and in some cultures, still is) a means to secure a profitable alliance between families (or to foster peace between warring families/tribes/ municipalities/countries).
Marriage for love is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things. This is why arranged marriages were the norm for millennia, and why they do still make sense in some cases.
That being said, the downfall of the institution of marriage was the advent of “no fault” divorces. It made marriage a disposable commodity.
wdym by ‘no fault’ divorces?
@@blast2686 basically, neither party is responsible for the fact that the marriage did not work out…divorcing for “irreconcilable differences”.
It would be the difference between divorcing for reasons like infidelity or domestic violence and divorcing because “we just grew apart”, “we fell out of love”, or “I just don’t like him/her anymore”.
With that being said, a lot of people use “irreconcilable differences” as a means to an end to ensure a swift divorce, even in cases of infidelity or abuse.
Have I divorced under such terms? Yes, but, we put forth effort to make it work for an additional 10 years after we were both “done” with each other before all attempts at reconciling our differences were fully exhausted. All too often these days, that sort of effort is not put forth.
Excellent comment.
Well i agree with the alliance aspect but the ceremony and vows we proclaim to each other are strictly religious. Civil marriages are recognized by the state religious marriages are not.
Very true, however I think this was more true of aristocracy, not your average joe. Most people got married for procreation as Matt pointed out. (Farmer needed to have boys to work the land) It's for the security of the children to be, it's a contract between the couple for the sake of creating a family. In many cases fathers would choose a suiter for their daughters to protect and provide for them and the children(not always, there's always been assholes). As for men, it was designed to ensure that women had their children and not someone else. The points Joe brings up are all fine for legal unions, which would provide all the legal benefits that marriage does. Making marriage and union the same has degraded the value of the institution and allows ppl to choose partners poorly. If it's so easy to get married and get divorced, then you choose the first person that sleeps with you. That's a recipe for disaster.
I love the conversation between these two. Very respectful and unfortunately not common these days
Because this is the only thing they disagree on.
If someone is saying I don’t believe in gay marriage.. and you’re a gay person in a relationship.. why would you want that to be a “conversation”
@@jlooox333 Matt Walsh is the embodiment of exactly what's wrong with both sides. No one wants freedom. They want their way to be the only way. Especially religious zealots who claim to be the "freedom party" yet want everyone to be one religion.
@@tristankrager9789 Their way to be the only way? Marriage intrinsically linked to God and our relationship with God. It's people like Joe with the opinion on their way is the only way trying to change this sacred joining of two people to suit their secular worldview.
@@jlooox333 so others can hear how stupid the others point of view is. It's not for you, it's for the listeners
I totally agree with Joe. That said, I am a Christian and I wrestle with the fact that aspects of my religion contradict how I feel about gay marriage. I think where I stand today is that whilst my faith is vital to me personally, I (or no one really) knows with absolute certainty if God is real or faith is true (hence why it's called faith). But I do see with absolute certainty that my gay neighbours across the street have raised 2 lovely kids and love each other and are wonderful human beings. I think what I'm trying to say is that no matter what I believe, I need to recognise that we could be wrong and therefore let that colour my perspective of other people's life choices.
Two grown folks having a discussion. Not getting offended, not acting soft, no yelling, Beautiful!
Rare we see that nowadays
Yeah even though this dude’s take is absurd in 2022. Maybe in 1950 it would’ve made more sense.
@@donganger4936 America is feminizing while China is literally focused on making their men more masculine. Get ready to be invaded goof.
@@donganger4936 Maybe your view is too absurd for any timeframe. There is nothing wrong with a Christian worldview on marriage. He can’t enforce anything, so let him believe what he wants.
@@donganger4936 One man's absurd is another's common sense
If all debates were like this, the world would be a better place.
@Black King
Stop commenting this evrywhere
@@kangaroo3708 his right tho
@Arshia Mirani
Ya but he’s typing the same thing over and over
At least be original
@Black King How can a man be masculine if he accepts red heads? What exactly do you mean by "accept"? They exist, it's a born trait. Every relationship has the dynamic of Dom and Sub btw, and there is nothing insulting about femininity... that is a very immature attitude, like boys being scared of cooties. Being homophobic is weak and lacking of courage and masculinity.
@Black King you're submissive
Joe has gotten good at this whole interview thing
hes been good
@@mattbeisser3932 I agree that Joe does tend to do this. Once he is set in a mindset he really puts on the blinders and I've seen him bully people he disagrees with. Not saying he did that here as he is getting better at that. I think sometimes when you have a smart guy like Joe they get used to being right and then have a hard time conceding or giving any ground. I personally like to find areas I can agree with someone but doesn't seem like he did that here.
Not everyone is meant to have children… the stats on child abuse/neglect/SA are so high… so what about that?!
I love this conversation. This is how REAL discussions happen. We don't have to always agree, we just have to stay civil and polite.
Than how tf you get anything done U dummy
Sure you can have a civil conversation with someone who’s hateful. No doubt. But calling them hateful doesn’t make you wrong and uncivilized for it.
There’s always at least one “what a great and respectful conversation” comment whenever somebody is openly spreading bigotry on a podcast lol
@@randommaskguy and your attitude about it is part of the problem
Matt dodged the question left and right. Joe had to restate the question so many times. Matt's a coward.
This is what adulting looks like. So many so called adults these days don't even know how to have a conversation and be in amicable disagreement
You understand that using the word 'adulting' makes you look pretty childish, right? It's like your admitting you have imposture syndrome about being an adult, lol.
"adulting"... go back to reddit.
@@AcidicMentality 🤣🤣
Do you mean acting like an adult?
These 2 people aren't gay so the issue doesn't strike their identity. Once an issue does, then amicable disagreement can't happen.
So nice to hear two people debate a point without getting too hot headed about things
Gabriel Owles, 1 chipp court dingley village Victoria
I had listened to a couple Piers Morgan interviews lately and I was super surprised when there was no interruptions in this
Joe was debating, Matt was mumbling on about nothing.
@@FeelmProductions joe wasn't even debating, just asked the most simple questions and walsh didn't have answer for anything. Heavyweight intellectual for sure
Yeah isn't it? Very refreshing.
3:35 it's not a union for 1000s of years it was for politics socal standing and wealth so idk what your talking about
Honest, open conversations that most people are afraid of having. We should all have these conversation, especially people that have opposite ideas.
I don’t know what kind of friends you hang out with but me and friends we talk about this stuff all the time.
@@vitorfernandes651 You're the exception, not the rule
@@vitorfernandes651 That's great. Happy to hear it!
I think that's an excellent idea. Still, it's important to remember some if the topics aren't just "opinion".
There are right and wrong answers to questions. It's important to call people out when they lie as a standard. Not an exception.
I love getting into an educated debate with someone who has different beliefs.. and in going to marry her one day
I just appreciate the fact they didn’t start yelling at each other. They disagreed, and had a civil discussion about their disagreements.
Welcome to the JRE
I think Matt expected joe to be the right wing guy they say he is in the media. Pushed back on key logical points.
Wait until Matt starts speaking against pot. Joe won't have it.
It's called debate. Healthy civilised debate.
@@jaymann5180 Anyone who wants to pave the way for a moral society where people make fruitfully good decisions tends to be offensive to these libertarians.
When did "we" say that marriage is a procreative union? It's not mentioned in the Christian marriage vows. Neither is family
I respect people who know they don’t want children and do what is right for them. Better than bringing kids into this world without really wanting them and being a bad or mediocre parent.
THANK YOU! I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS COMMENT! I know a number of people who never should have been parents. They are abusive, manipulative and neglectful. As the saying goes, every child deserves a good parent. But not every parent is deserving of their child.
I agree.
@Chad 007 I’m assuming this is a chess joke I’m too smooth brained to understand
Yeah i get that totally, however, my mum NEVER wanted kids but then it happened unintentionally and she became the best mother i could have ever wanted and she also says that having children was the best part about her whole life. I think people simply are unable to imagine how it feels to hold your own child in your arms for the first time. That changes everything. And i think that many people will regret their choice to not have children when their older, given they were capable of course.
The government system was based upon marriage of man and woman, both energies needed to advance a species. The system functions on this vital energy so the introduction of a same sex "marriage" might advance the resources of a government but then deviates that government from benefitting under the protection of God ("One nation under God"). Once the government attempts to exist outside these simple requirements, chaos then begins to take hold as God (a pro-life entity) cannot support the institution further. Its literally Mason symbology backfiring on society in the pursuit of perpetual greed.
I think joe needed to ask what makes gay marriage harmful on a societal level, being he keep saying that and joe just said it’s not harmful, without asking him why it was harmful, because it seemed like they just kept repeating themselves. I love how no one yelled, talked over or interrupted, it was a refreshing change.
I'll try to say it as politely as I can, Matt Walsh views non traditional acts as an attack on his values and a path to criminal Degenerecy.
@@warzone822 well hate to burst your bubbles. But that's not at all what he said. Did you even listen?
I thought that Joe interrupted Matt way too much. let him finish a sentence/thought without trying to interject with a new question.
I think Matt's viewpoint is that gay marriage takes the meaning away from marriage from a societal perspective being that it should be for a man and a woman because they can procreate. This societal perspective he's talking about is obviously from his own point of view as well because I personally don't think the societal perspective of marriage has anything to do with procreation.
@@warzone822 I don't think he mentioned criminals at all. Yes it's an attack on his values (and anti-gay Christian values) but it was more about living a life without sin in the eyes of God and the negative impact he believes that has on society. His values, like any Christian's run parallel to his faith.
Wow matt was stunned how joe always comes up with questions every moment 🤣🤣🤣
Stunned that joe didn’t get the answers
Please ignore this pathetic, bigoted and narcissist incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere.
They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married.
They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family.
This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed.
They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic.
He even saied that he wants segretation so that LGBT+ people are seperated from "normal" people.
This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides".
They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews.
They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke.
They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure.
Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style.
They also claim that I :
-Sexually molest Donkeys
-eat jewish children
-have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews
-am a murderer
-am a dog
-am responsible for the holocaust
-am a Nazi
-am a religious extremist
-adore Hitler and a big fan of him
-am a gr00mer/child predator
-sleept with a family member
-am trans
-am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means)
But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable.
They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic.
They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources.
They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that.
They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy.
They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men.
They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy.
His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me".
On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it.
I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.💥💥❌️❌️💥
@@LogicCasterbecouse walsh had no answer, he just thumbles out words without a clear line since there is no good reason to be against gay marriage other then your own religious fanaticism and ideology.
@@ZetsubenSama
He mentioned societal impact which speaks for its self.
Society is and will continue to be impacted by the change in the definition of marriage, obviously. You must be an autist to not acknowledge that, no wonder germany has the history it does.
@@LogicCasterah yes, saying a word without any reasoning behind it speaks for itself. 😂😂😂
You and matt never establishes causation, you both point to it like its a fail safe.
The question is not if society will be impacted but how it will impact society. You can build sand castles and say "i impact society" and it will be just as relevant.
The definition of marriage has hardly changed. Straight couples feel no change at all just becouse gay people can marry.
You just talk absolut nonsence while calling other people autistic 😂 its hillarious as always. Get therapy you narcissist lmfao 😂.
i come from a small country call Singapore and we are suffering from a declining birth rate. We counter that by accepting foreign talents but that got the locals upset. We then counter that with the government paying us to have more babies but it's not fast enough to takeover the percentage of the talents required in the workforce. So i am not in support of gay marriage as it might encourage couples from all around the world that will never make local babies come in and further pushes our declining birth rates even further. So it's more of an economic issue rather than the societal issue.
This is a reminder of why Joe Rogan became so popular
Yeah... He gives the impression of being interviewing someone while in reality he does not let the interviewed to end a a phrase. It's just a monologue of his thoughts
talking to bigots?
@@koker59 Joe’s pretty good at not interrupting but he does when it comes to certain topics that he feels strongly about.
@@danielshepard2315 lol
The reason gay marriage was historically not acceptable is because every society that accepted it was destroyed or died out. Birth rates are falling in the west and the percentage of Americans that identify as LGBT doubles every generation. Enjoy your future!
Great freaking conversation, 2 differing opinions, talked out in a civil manner, need more of this exact thing, you gotta be able to see both sides even if you disagree
nah lol matt Walsh is a giant dork
It's a seemingly lost form. You took the words out of my mouth.
Exactly!! Let’s all agree that we can disagree✌🏼
@@minipoopuu12340 we can be on the right or left but can we agree a man is a man and a woman is a woman ?
💯
Can’t wait for Matt Walsh’s next hit documentary: ‘What is a Marriage?’
Better if he did what is Religion; as he follows a cult that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of “God”
words man, we made em up!
@@coughwheezeexplode idk man... that sounds made up.
@@coughwheezeexplode What the hell is going on? B. Walsh give J. Rogan specific, biological, functional, rational, scientific, technical description of: why the two gays relation is not a marriage. And JR is just...throw away all this and stick with "ooh, let them do what they want". What is wrong with you JR? What happend to your scientific, rational approach? It is a BASIC rule of the civilized world! Definitions! Ok, maybe this you will get it... Let say, there's a guy who has a bicycle. But he always wanted to be a motorcyclist. But he is to small (motorcycles are to heavy for him), he doesn't like the smell of gasoline. But he wants to fill like motocyclist. So he finally force you to call his bicycle - the motorcycle :/ And your approach is "oh, let him call it how he want - it will not hurt anyone", "Why not? Both has two wheels, so it's almost the same thing". NO IT IS NOT! Normal, reasonable people don't change THE MEANING of words, agaist the logic - just to make same people fill better! The WISHES of minority are not the reasons to force MAJORITY to change the definitions of well described...phenomena! You still don't get it? You will be against when some tae-bo practicioners will DEMAND to call their trening as MMA fight! You will be against when KIA owners will force you to call their cars the "muscle cars". Etc., etc. etc., etc. BE REASONABLE! Be logic! Be consistent! Be coherent! Basics of civilization. But no, in this one case, you abandon your common sense, rules, logic...now the only rule is - whim: "I want that, and you all must obey to my whim" And there is a "parasite" behaviour. They don't CREATE their own definitions. They are like parasite - they take our well-functioning definitions - and they DESTROY IT. All this cancel-culture and so on. They are just DESTROYING. They don't create. They are PARASITES.
That is actually a very good question. Marriage. Word that divedes from whatever that is not the same as the definition. Red is never blue. A car is never a house. Msrriqge will never ever be between a gay couple. If marriage is defined as between sex , christians need to find a new word that defines the uniqueness.
I haven't followed Matt Walsh that much but it seemed like quite of bit of stuff he was saying made sense but saying marriage should primarily be for parents is a really odd stance lol
Here folks is a demonstration of how to appropriately apply civil discourse to a topic. Fantastic discussion guys
@Maximos Martinson this interview changed my opinion of Matt Walsh
Yeah Matt takes about 47 losses here
Good healthy conversation we need more of this, no one is right or wrong, opinions need to be expressed this is the only way to make progress
@@burnstv280 like answering questions how is that a loss?
@@crackaddict3977 because his answers are not really thought out. He just doesn’t like gay people and doesn’t want to just come out and say it.
I've not heard two people disagree so civilly for a loooooong time. This is how a disagreement should play out.
You must be living in the US then. Elsewhere in the western world we get along fine.
@@roebenzwart6403 cut it out. Europeans always try to act like y’all are so civilized but y’all’s politicians be literally fist fighting In congressional sessions
@@roebenzwart6403 yeah only here in the USA is where we can’t have any serious conversations without people wanting to kill each-other anymore…you don’t wanna ever try to come here trust me. Stay wherever your living at outside did the us now!!😂🙃
@@chloeknight1245 yeah I know, Matt Walsh is screaming on his show about predators
@@roebenzwart6403 while I'm inclined to agree with you, I have to say in defense of my homeland: at least were not Britain or Canada where a controversial tweet can land you in jail or defending yourself from an attacker is punishable by law.
Just wanna say this is exactly what society needs. Calm conversation, it’s something missing especially in media today. Joe Rogan really looked good in this conversation, I tend to lean more conservative but definitely understood Joes stand point! Well done men
Yes, this was my experience, too, watching this interview. While I side more with Matt's position, Joe definitely came out ahead with his arguments.
@@FakeCrisRealTyranny What? What strong argument do you think he made lol?
Matt held up equally well in this conversation. Kind of amazing how civil they were considering how strongly they feel about their side.
I would side with Joe on the point expressing not all married couples need to have children. Though, I agree with Matt that the sanctity of marriage should only be between man and woman.
@@anthonyreed480 His argument came across strong because disappointingly, Matt's came across as weak in the face of Joe's honestly asked challenges. I will re-watch this video, in slower speed because it is so surprising to experience a defensive Matt Walsh. Not that I want to revel in his weakness, but to learn more deeply of my own biases. This conversation is extremely important.
What struck me was that JR could not entertain the idea that there might be anything true or real beyond personal choice and self-fulfilment. At least MW - who does believe that not everything can be reduced to personal choice - was willing to grapple with where personal choice ‘fits’ in this whole debate. Religious people are usually described as fundamentalist. Actually, here JR is the fundamentalist- he can’t see beyond his own worldview.
Well is that what Matt Walsh is doing. He can’t see beyond his own worldview.
This is how you debate! You don't have to agree with the person but hearing one another's perspective is healthy . You both showed a lot of integrity and set the bar for how people should talk to one another regardless of what your opinion is.
there is a difference between not agreeing and not pushing back. Matt walsh also never shows this level of decorum when it comes to anything else. Look at his trans comments. He literally calls leftist demons and child molestors. He only holds back here because he cant justify his position.
This is in fact NOT how you debate. This is simply a conversation. Matt is spewing his own personal feelings and beliefs absent facts and reason to back it up. That's NOT a debate.
@@wda2478 absent facts and reason? You have a twisted and false view of facts and reason.
@@leepreston9637 So awesome how you can just remove your thumb like that and then pull out words without meaning from your backside.
@@wda2478 you are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion I thought it was a great discussion between two men who had different opinions talking politely to each other without get high rate. Most people having these discussions will yell and scream over the top of one another
I love watching two people debate their differences peaceably. The media and the two party system hate this.
Unfortunate Walsh is dry and pedantic making him entirely predictable. Joe and his stupid reasoning is too dense to absorb anything Walsh has to offer. Joe sells childless married couples as an analog for homosexuals. Okay Joe, good thinking.
Matt is a piece of shit that spreads missinformation. He said there were milions of kids transitioning in that podcast and then Joe discovered it was less than 5 thousands in 5 years. Pathetic.
I know. When I see Carlson or Ingram literally shout over opposing opinions it's cringeworthy to the 25th power!!
This is how two logical, rational MEN debate......no emotions, just pure ideologies.
@@tomtorres7093 dude said Matt is "logical" 💀
Ahh. So this is what a conversation looks like? Thanks for the reminder, guys.
Just following on from Matt Walsh's argument; how many children should a couple have to constitute a fulfilling marriage in his eyes? 1, 2, more? And what of people who are not financially able to support children, should they not get married because they realize they won't have the financial means to support children, or should they get married and have as many children as they can and the state take care of them after all they're fulfilling the "institution of marriage"? Would it give a partner the argument to end a marriage if they discover their partner can't have children? Are all marriages equal in his eyes, a civil ceremony, a Catholic wedding etc? What of a couple that get married and decide not to have children but only foster? Is that 'lesser' in his eyes, despite the overwhelming cumulative good they do?
It just comes down to whether you believe marriage is a government status or a religious celebration. By willingly placing yourself on either side of those ideas, you can understand Walsh and rogan.
Religion should never dictate other peoples life's.
Yes, you are correct. If you come from the religious point of view, then you likely believe that redefining marriage has a profound negative impact on society, but you likely also believe that other aspects of society are also suffering the same way (i.e. the further from the Bible's moral foundations and teachings that society gets, the farther from God it also becomes).
If you are secular, then it really does boil down to benefits and legal contracts. The issue here is what impact will this approach have to society as a whole in the long run? I think that the divorce rate is a straw man argument that does not in itself refute the institution of marriage.
I'd consider myself a Christian to the best of my ability, and I struggle at times to reconcile my more libertarian viewpoints with my religious ones, but at the end of the day, you have to decide what kind of society you want to live in. I'd personally rather live in one in which the people around me share my moral foundation and ethics. Which should win out? The "freedom" as Joe says it, at the expense of societal moral and ethical norms?
This is a tough question if you are a liberty minded, faithful person.
Yet, rogan couldn't do that; place himself in Mat's place.
But Mat really run circles around rogan.
And never got a tone or overtalked, unlike rogan.
This is exactly where I think they both were having the "disagreement". I personally I get both of their viewpoints.
Im on both sides and Walsh was wrong
Imagine 2 people disagreeing but listening to each other’s opinion and actually having a conversation. And more importantly not hating someone and trying to silence someone with a different opinion.
C-O-P-E
It's not that. It's that his guest would usually be belligerent and 'dunk' on the person saying they support gay marriage but they are afraid of being too wacky and losing access to his giant platform. If it was anybody else saying what Joe was saying, he'd call him a woke cuck.
Unlike the folks at infowars.
you mean having an argument.
well thats the point of debate.
There's a difference between an argument and a debate. This is a debate. Well done.
debates consist of arguments
And moderators. This is a discussion.
So much class on both sides!!!
Joe was a little more opinionated than usual in this debate. It should have been a conversation, thats what we all subscribed to joe for.
Actually there probably never was a formal debate where one debater was won over by his opponent. It's just a kind of entertainment. So, we should not debate things, instead we should discuss things, like in this video.
People like Matt Walsh are more self-centered than people who don't want to have children. Absolutely refusing to put yourself in other people's shoes and believing the way you think should be the way everyone should think is the most self-centered thing of all.
This conversation is so refreshing. Civil discourse without emotions taking over
That because Joe Roegan is an old school liberal (not leftist) and Walsh is a conservative. Both support freeedom of speech
I disagree with Joe. Matt Walsh is saying that the idea of marriage was created for the sole purpose of a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.
That's a marriage, that's the point of calling yourself "married".
If you're only together because you love each other, then you can call it whatever you like: a relationship, a union, a permanent bond, etc. but it's not a "marriage" by the definition I mentioned above.
This argument is one puzzle piece from the massive puzzle of destroying the definition of words and to make everything so confusing and nonsensical.
It starts with something small but grows into something massive, which is why we need to address it RIGHT NOW, during it's infancy.
@@VladTissescu damn bro, infertile people can’t ever be married😩😩
@@VladTissescu Stop copy pasting your bullshit
@@TestTest-ei4gi it's so awesome Joe chose to platform a homophobe
That's a conversation between two adults without yelling, insulting, or trying to cancel each other. This is how it should be debating with an open mind.
"If you don't have kids when you get married you're a bad person and if two consenting unrelated adults get married then they'll legalise incest!" doesn't really sound like an adult mindset but whatever. It's very clear Matt's mind is closed.
They did not really have an open mind though. They did not advance the conversation in any direction in any meaningful manner.
@@MagcargoMan nah bro that's not what Matt was saying at all but regardless with whether or not you disagree with him, the conversation was civil each dude gave the other a good chance to voice his opinion without speaking over one another or getting emotional.
@@MagcargoMan ''bad person''? let me show you an analogy real quick. Imagine we talk about games and i say: if you havent played call of duty, you are not a gamer because i think that you dont care about elaborate and realistic games and the amount of emotions and adrenalite you can get from call of duty. when I said it was badnot to have played call of duty?
This is what matt said regarding marriage, when tf did he say it was bad? One of the most incredible feelings you get is when you have kids with the person you love and how you become the best version of yourself
@@rypsterhc8673 maybe YOU needed to have children to become your best self. Other people don’t need this. This shows how YOUR mind is closed to other possibilities.
I love how guys like Matt seem really smart until you ask them very obvious follow up questions.
I loved this debate. They are so calm and chill about it. I think Joe is so intimidating sometimes by asking questions over and over because he wants you to reveal your real shit 😂 and he puts you on the spot.
He's actually quite talented at it, and smarter than he gives himself credit for.
That is definitely his specialty. He doesn’t let people slip by without answering a question in its entirety. He makes them explain in detail.
@@tonytouch145 the times that he had trouble with that or had heated conversations was because of the guest. Like the girl who didnt "believe" in climate change🤣
He doesn't want an answer, he wants a concession. He wants Matt to say nothing matters and yet it does, but just however you want it to matter at the moment, and to your convenience - when and how you want it, and that nothing is right or wrong because what if you choose to do that.
@@jameseverett4976 the subject of "nothing matters everything is about a personal choice " is what Matt discuss in his movie What is a Woman. But marriage is not that big of a deal, as he wants it to be, actually it doesnt change anything besides legal matters. But he has a speech and as a egocentrical person he doesnt want to admit when hes wrong and the subject Just goes round and round...
This is great seeing two people who do not agree have an actual dialogue
@@VladTissescu awesome you're just copy pasting your novel onto everyone's comment you disagree with lol
@@Big_Dip1 its funny that offends you. when you yourself are literally just name calling and acting like a child on so many of these threads. 🤡
@@bustacap3791 it doesn't offend me, but you want it to offend me and thats truly funny
Matt looked so uncomfortable. He had no idea he would be challenged for once. Bottom line is Matt just doesn't want gays to have a love based relationship that is officially recognized, i.e. he hates gays. This same mindset is revealed in his hateful attitude towards transpeople .
@@VladTissescu Let me burst your bubble.
In the name of God, I, _____, take you, _____, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until parted by death. This is my solemn vow
No where in there douse it state anything about kids or procreation
I love that they knew they would never change each others mind but knows it’s very important to have a civil conversation where we can really hear out both sides and make our own decision on what we agree with
Unfortunately one of those dudes wants to take away rights from millions of Americans. Nice try tho 👍
You have to go into any conversation with the possibility that your mind could be changed. Otherwise you aren't actually considering what the other person is saying and there's no possibility for growth.
Yeah and one side is based in oppression..
@@jamesosborne1286 true
Whats even the point of talking then? So jre fans can soy about how civil the chat was. Matt looked like an actual idiot here from a few basic questions that someone in his position should have coherant answers too.