Yep, my wife and I fall into that category. Yet at age 57 we managed to receive a child by the grace of GOD!!! Through much pain and suffering, it was a Blessing! Thanks be to GOD !!!
A couple in our church were in a similar situation. The hidden benefit was that they then had more time and maturity to raise the child, and they were wise enough to understand that.
Congratulations!! Your marriage was different, though, because you wanted children, but could not conceive. Childfree "marriage, on the other hand, is when they refuse to procreate. I do not see how couples like that deserve to get married any more than two dudes do!
The very definition of a rule is that there are exceptions. The chaos of which you speak is at best an illusion and at worst your own projected internal confusion
@@websterlee7708because it the same lame excuse that whites would use if black people where to be freed from slavery in the u.s., without order(white supremacy) there would only be chaos (freed black people)
Rogan asked Walsh earlier in the interview as to how we as a society got to the point where we can't define a man or a woman. He later proceeds to deconstruct the idea of marriage, a concept that has existed across culture for millennia, and fails to see the irony. I love M Walsh, but his inability to draw light to this glaring hypocrisy was a serious miss.
I also fail to see the irony. Being a man or a woman is biological certainty. Marriage is a human created institution, no matter how old it is (and the definitions have always been wildly different throughout different cultures and different times. First same sex marriage dated back to 66AD in Rome). You can always deconstruct man made concepts, but you can't do the same with measurable and objective biology. Rogan's stance isn't hypocritical at all.
From this clip, I don’t see Rogan deconstructing anything. Walsh is the one with the critique of modern marriage. Joe just disagrees, like most people who grow up in our Bourgeois Western ideology.
"He later proceeds to deconstruct the idea of marriage, a concept that has existed across culture for millennia". Honesty humans had lived in nomadic groups far longer than that , ( and I don't believe it was one man to one woman) and we seem to have survived, not only that but flourished. I believe it was the right system for that time. If you didn't live in groups your survival percentage was pretty low.
@@sitka49 This is true. Your comment also points to something that is missing from the OPs argument, IMO: we need to understand historic institutions, such as marriage, for what they are, and what they have been, situated correctly in their proper historical context. Before romantic love, even before the idea of Christian marriage was standardized by the church, _and even before it was standardized in Judaic Law,_ marriage emerged originally as a property exchange (Women in exchange for Dowry/Material Wealth). It seems kind of arbitrary to pick one form of pre-modern marriage (The Christian Rite) and claim it’s “correct.” You can say that it’s the best, and explain why you think it’s the best and why you think we should return to it, but let’s not misconstrue history in the process.
@@dethkon From Mesopotamia to Egypt, women in the ancient world were considered property -- valuable property, but property nonetheless.And it's true of the Bible's view as well. And the custom of a marital "bride price" (money given by the groom's family to the bride's family) reveals that marriages , were to aline tribes and families and at least in some respects, a property transfer, as payment had been made to acquire the bride (Genesis 34:12; Exodus 22:16; 1 Samuel 18:25; Genesis 24:53). Love had nothing to with it! Yes, there were biblical women who flourished in spite of the patriarchy, women like Ruth, Esther, Lydia and Priscilla, but still...
You think he would’ve convinced a non-Christian to accept a completely foreign view of marriage through his cool use of logic and persuasive argument? Let’s not get carried away, lol. I can’t even convince my own Mother and Father of it, lol.
This is just sad, how people will twist things to fit their agenda or view. Most people today have the wrong idea what marriage is. Marriage isn’t about personal happiness, it’s all about loving the other person in a selfless way. It’s all about being a servant to them. Now this only works with 2 people of the opposite gender who are committed to each other. Because God design marriage and He designed the sexes to complement each other. Too often people nowadays are more interested in getting their desires and expectations that person will “MAKE them happy” that’s not how it works. Marriage is about loving selflessly, forgiving the the other and 2 becoming one.
Tell me you don't know any married gay couples without telling me you don't know any married gay couples. My experience is that gay couples are just as likely as straight couples to love each other selflessly, be a servant to each other, and forgive each other.
@@jamiblakeley4300they might have a committed relationship but by definition it cannot be marriage. Marriage by definition is the voluntary union of 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been around for centuries until the alphabets changed it. First they removed man and woman, now they want to change the number 1. Soon we will have a "marriage" of 3, 4, or more. They can change the definition of what marriage means to them, but that does not change what marriage is
@@mattduin7144 The comment to which I was replying was not about nomenclature but about the nature of gay and straight relationships. That comment implied that LGBT people are incapable of truly loving relationships, which is untrue. In this context, making an argument based on nomenclature is a non sequitur. Also, LGBT people are not "the alphabets". We are human beings just like you, who experience the same joys and sorrows. God bless you.
@@jamiblakeley4300 The comment to which you are replying made no mention of sexuality, it was about marriage in general. Also, the alphabets is how they refer to themselves. If you dont refer to yourself that way, i applaud you
Brian, thank you for yet another thought-provoking, inspiring video!! You have more knowledge and common sense than many of our so-called "shepherds" who are silent on all the evil things going on in our world and in our Church and keep sweeping everything under the carpet!!! 😠
Rogan doesn't believe in chastity, so why does marriage even matter to him? Can't those people in love live together and have sex together all they want without marriage?
I think Matt did a horrific job representing conservatism against Rogan there. A lot of people are hungry for a strong foundation to stand on and giving the lukewarm "secular" and "non-religious" answer wasn't going to win anyone over when Rogan was able to suggest that marriage was "socially constructed". Marriage was instituted by God and made a sacrament by Christ, these things cannot be ignored and ultimately will always go back to that. There is only one way to oppose the notion of "social construction" and that's by arguing that uncaused Cause.
Walsh is trying to defend the indefensible! Marriage divorced - pun intended - from God and the purpose He has assigned to it (procreation) cannot be upheld our defended!
The problem is the whole “Do it because I say so” attitude produces a generation full of resentful people. Once someone is no longer a child they need to be told exactly why certain things have to be done in certain ways.
Most of liberalism came from religious agnosticism. It's written in the fundamental documents of the late XVIII century that founded the modern West (that includes the so called "conservatives" that are, in practice, just the wing of liberalism that is not in open war against religion and leave religious people alone more than the other wing). It's possible to overcome this challenge, but it's extremelly difficult and could take multiple generations of continuous work and, of course, the grace of God..
At that point it isn't marriage, it's mutual usury masquerading as marriage. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it a human but at the end of the day it's just a pig with lipstick: trying to hide the grotesque reality of something ugly by associating it with something beautiful.
In Rogans example, no, those things are not the purpose of marriage, but they still seek to imitate a marriage, just like gay marriage does. The origin of marriage is to create a stable family unit for raising children. If not for that, men and woman would not publicly bond together in societies, what would be the reason for it? The reasons he throws out are just products of modern, lucrative societies, just as gay marriage is. If you go to tribal cultures, there are still family units, husbands and wives, but the goal is survival. People in primitive societies didn't get married to travel the world. But even in primitive basic societies, procreation and family is central. as societies become modernized, they can move away from this central purpose, but the draw to have a life partner is still rooted in this primitive need to build strong families. not sure if that makes sense. or if it would convince people we need to have boundaries around marriage in modern societies.
Joe wasn’t doing a deconstruction, he was simply disagreeing with Walsh’s informal Critique of modern bourgeois marriage. And Luther didn’t “deconstruct” Catholicism, he did a critique of it (pre-Kantian obv). It is true that the idea of romantic marriage/love is relatively recent (a product of the renaissance, IIRC), but it’s been the norm here for the past 300 years at least. The fact is, most people in the West are far more familiar with the ideal of Romantic marriage than with Traditional (Biblical) marriage. For us moderns, it seems like you are the one trying to supplant the common definition of marriage with an alien one; the West has kept many of its Judeo-Christian Ideals, but marriage isn’t one of them. I claim that trying to pretend that it is otherwise only serves to confuse people or obfuscate what they believe is common sense. Do you disagree? Does anyone? (I personally believe in traditional/biblical marriage, but I understand that most people-even in my own family- don’t and would have no idea what I’m talking about. We can’t simply pretend that modernity never happened, even if we wish it hadn’t).
People should be forgiving of Matt Walsh. It is not easy debating people about these things these days because we honestly have no common culture or language by which to communicate with each other anymore. Not saying that makes understanding impossible but there are so many extra hurdles one has to go through in order to establish it.
Of all the stoics to follow, Joe is not one. He, if anything, an epicurean who indulges in the special of the day. At least he put a napkin on his lap at the table. Besides, stoicism on its own, leads to pelagianism. It's good to strive for perfection and holiness, but we certainly can't do it on our own without messing up our form.
I would suggest, however, that the second part may derive from _moenia_ which can be translated as defensive walls, in this case in a metaphorical sense.
If you listen to the whole interview, Rogan's key argument regarding marriage is that it is a manmade construct of fairly recent invention in this history of humanity and that former understandings no longer correspond to reality in the majority of cases -- e.g. childlessness, contraception, divorce, homosexuality -- therefore it can and ought to be redefined. Going further, he argues that homosexuality is genetic and natural, and therefore homosexual couples ought to be afforded the same rights and benefits (e.g. legal, financial, adoption etc.) as heterosexual couple by being permitted to marry.
I tend to explain marriage more from the standpoint from the family than the individuals. With that perspective I say marriage is a binding union between two individuals that takes them from not being related to being family the sexual union of which is designed to produce the next generation of the family.
And even further than explaining marriage from the standpoint of the family, one should also explain it from the standpoint of society and civilization; of how the family unit is the cornerstone of civilization and that the survival of society/humanity depends upon it.
@@EndTimesHarvest It has been through recorded history. So much so in fact that people have asserted that the power dynamics in the family can predict they types of governments and religions that will be most widely adopted in a culture. Yes family is the foundation and marriage is important to the preservation and succession of family.
Brian, you brought up a good point... BUT you didn't fully explored the point A) God could have given then that cross for grow specific virtues... He could give them a child as happened in the Bible and to hundreds couples years after their marriage... They kept the hope in God and not in their dictirs B) it's Sinful to castrate yourself because selfishness of wanting to travel... They can still travel by being singles... There us a fear to admit it a celebrity that something us sinful and wrong - it's God that chose to whom give life and when after we aceot to get married C) God might chosen some people to adopt a child because the greater glory of whom that child will be and to their salvation and identification
The real issue here is that Matt Walsh is a media provocateur and not really a theologian or educated on rhetoric. He just clings to well established conservative political talking points, but isn't really capable of defending them when challenged. Once you take him out of his one man show where he can have complete control, and put him on the spot with someone like Rogan who will actually ask him tough questions, he is unable to form a cogent and clear rebuttal or explanations. In this interview he badly "fumbled the bag" (as the kids say today), because he can't go any deeper than the surface points of conservative and nominal Catholic thought.
It might help to point out and use the distinction between the "type" of a thing and the "definition" of that thing. Using only the word "definition" education has narrowed thinking in a crippling way. The type of a thing is its purest form, the exemplar from which lesser examples of that thing may vary. The definition of a thing only talks about the edges of the thing, the line which distinguishes this thing from other things which are not this thing. Often it is the type and not the definition which is needed to clarify thinking on a topic. Typifying is a skill we should reclaim.
I'd be as pleased as I would be shocked to see Mr. Rogan have a good priest on his show. It would do him some good as well as his viewers of good will. Is there a way to suggest guests to his show?
It is a pity Mr. Walsh could not come up with the answers at that moment, when put on the spot. All he had to do was look at his faith and the Catechism to see what is says. “What about people that get married that don't want to have kids?”
Our faith teaches us we must be open to procreation. Marriage is a sacrament, an act of faith designed to earn grace. Marriage has two elements to it as defined by our faith. One is the unitive element and the other is the procreative. It is not a case of either/or. Both go together hand-in-hand. They are an integrity. If you don’t believe in our faith or having children, then don’t bother to get married. Have a civil union, but don’t call it a “marriage”. Marriages are sacramental. Civil unions are just that - civil, non-religious. Somehow we always manage to confuse sanctity with equality. “And what about people that are infertile?” The Church makes provisions for those people of faith who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, cannot produce offspring. In this case, it is possible to obtain a dispensation from the Church to marry.Somehow we always manage to confuse sanctity with equality.
It's not that complicated. An infertile couple is still a valid marriage so long as they are open to procreation even if it's not possible. On the other hand, someone who married a woman specifically BECAUSE she is infertile and he just wants sexual access commits a grave sin towards himself and his wife who he is using.
As a member of the living body of our Lord I'd call it an innocent take on marriage. If you have eyes to see with the Love of our Lord. Too bad JoeR does not have a Holy Father of our Lords Church to ask such questions. He is asking for the Truth. God have mercy on this time where all want to take the seat our Lord gives only to His Holy Fathers. God help us.
ok. Everybody has an opinion. Been together 52 years, won't judge others, but will add that searching scriptures for ourselves saved our marriage after 7! Churches have a variety of opinions.
@@lesparks126 As a priest, posting a list of complaints on the door of a church is not the correct way to change the Church's practices, whether those are or are not the right way to do things
I think people are ends in themselves, so I reject the legitimacy of any view that sees them as a means to an end. So, any institution (marriage in this case) that sees people as instruments for achieving a particular goal is wrong. As far as I can tell Matt walshes view is that marriage is for procreation and to bond families together. This is a view that sees the institution of marriage as one that is there to serve a social purpose or goal. My view is that people are ends in themselves and traditions and institutions, in their proper form, are established because we've noticed a pattern or way of being that we value and would like to perpetuate. When one person decides to make a vow to another person, that decision is infused with a tremendous amount of courage and devotion and that's why marriage should be honoured, not because it serves certainsoc8al ends. But yes, when two people vow to be with each other they do bring their entire human self along, so there probably will be children and society probably will be more stable, but that is not what is essentially valued in marriage. The thing of significance is the personal vow made, that's the thing that establishes the stability results. Its not "marriage" that creates more stable societies and environments for kids, it's the vow that was made between two people. I see no in principle reason why two gay people should not make vows of that kind to each other (I think its a beautiful thing actually). The arguments against it are either arguments from authority (the pope says so or the book says so etc) or arguments that have an instrumental view of human beings.
I got pretty mad at Joe Rogan for acting like the exact people he allegedly is against. He's a liberal with a conservative mask to look way cooler and counterculture than he is.
I would answer with a question: How do those exceptions disprove the rule? And then go into Brian's example. The concept of marriage is universal - it's a license to reproduce, because we all know it's the best arrangement for the flourishing of children. Those exceptions don't change that. There are always exceptions, to every rule. It's the rule that homosexual couples are more unstable, more prone to domestic violence. Yet they focus on exceptions.
@@loreman7267 The fact that people talked about it doesn't make it right. I may as well talk about Flat Earth or Lizard people. And we debate about such topics doesn't mean that they are factual or worthy of a conversation, only that we deemed them worthy of a conversation.
The state has no use for childless marriages, and they should all be annulled after a certain grace period. However, if a man and a woman did not know that one of them was infertile beforehand, then their marriage should be exempt from that!
I respect Joe, but this is such a fail that it seems unworthy of him! "Childless marriage" is NOT a checkmate argument! Had I been there I would have simply said " Yes, childfree marriages are stupid and useless. End of discussion!"
I have to say, one of my biggest problems with the Catholic Church is their teaching on marriage and annulment. I'll probably be able to get an annulment for several reasons, and I don't think I'll be charged for it. However, that's not the problem. The problem is the teaching that there's no such thing as divorce. Before I was "married" (I might not have actually had a wedding, let alone a marriage), I was leaning more towards the Catholic belief, with the exception of abuse and cheating. I wasn't sure if remarriage was Biblical (as a Protestant). After being married, however, the idea that you're united in flesh and spirit to someone who... let's just say has made themselves physically and/or spiritually unclean, and the idea that your flesh now also shares a bond with an outside body is actually really disgusting to me. I can't believe that this is God's definition of a marriage. This my biggest disagreement on the Catholic teachings of marriage. This is more of a side-note, but the Church teaches that marriage is for this life only and that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. So it doesn't make sense that someone can't remarry when they're unable to have kids because their spouse is dangerous to be around. If it's impossible to fulfill the calling of marriage, which is on earth only, why be married? Like I said, my biggest concern is the idea that you can't divorce. I don't even think divorce is man-made. I think God supernaturally grants it when man decides to break the union with his or her spouse. I agree with the Tewadu Church teaching on that. So, "let no man break apart" is a warning to the cheating spouse, who is the one breaking it apart. I think divorce essential in many cases, so that the marriage doesn't cause people to be "unclean".
I hope this was coherent!😅 I would appreciate your take on annulment. It troubles me that, according to a pew poll, more people are concerned with getting their birth control than about whether divorced people can take communion. They're also just as supportive of divorce as they are gay marriage. So, basically they think divorce and being gay are equally sinful? And they're more concerned with their own birth control and having their own fun than other people being treated fairly? It's just a spiritual red flag to me. It seems like they enjoy fornicating, and then judging people who try to do it the right way and then it doesn't work out for them. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have low divorce rates, but the Orthodox Church still has a fraction of the divorces that the Catholic Church does. They allow divorce. Do you want to have less divorces or a hold to a certain ideology? To me, if not having divorce was important, I would copy what the Orthodox Church was doing, so there would be less divorce. The Orthodox Church seems to be more focused on premarital sex, rather than divorce as a sin.
> the Church teaches that marriage is for this life only and that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. The Catholic Church does not teach that marriage is _just_ "to have kids". Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1601: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature *ordered toward the good of the spouses* and the procreation *and education of offspring;* this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
He fulfilled the map He created as the Word spoke in Genesis 1:1, reiterated in John 1:1-3. For example, here's Matthew 19:1-9 & 13:51-52, preferably read in that order. Jesus, the Way, clearly did not change the Way, He only repaved it and rebuilt the bridge from Earth to Heaven with His Holy Cross.
@@NoSoupForYouu exactly! And look how denominations chose their own path to take! Heathens and heretics the whole lot. The only real Christians are Catholics
It's ironic how Brian critiques Joe (and other people who are just theoretical) for not providing a definition of marriage, when this video doesn't provide a definition of marriage.
The truth is, for our wonderful Creator, there is no "can't" when it comes to the gift of love and life. Our sisters and brothers who do not naturally concieve together have a heavy cross, but it is in God's power to heal all wounds, and to refrain from healing this side of the grave. In all humility we must seek his perfect will, and for his glory do our very best to serve it. Even if that means forgoing IVF and the chance of a "miracle child", at the risk of our souls with all the destruction of innocent unborn that path entails.
I'm sorry, but this video makes no sense. It's attempting to argue against something that didn't happen in the original video. Joe isn't attempting to get rid of definitions or create empty words. He basically lays out a definition in the original video and it's similar to this "Mariage - The state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." It would be disingenuous to state, or imply, that because Joe's definition differs from Matt's bad definition that it mean Joe is throwing away the institution of marriage or breaking down its foundations. That would be complete nonsense. In the video, Joe was supporting the foundation of marriage by arguing for and encouraging more kinds of people to get married. In doing so, he would not be breaking marriage down. Instead, he would be attempting to build it up and creating greater societal ties / support systems. An important part of marriage. Next, you're acting like Matt's definition, that wasn't included in the video, didn't directly state procreate as the primary purposes of marriage. Therefore, Joe asking Matt if couples that get married and don't have children are "really married." That's not being pedantic or trying to deconstruction words it's just asking a very simple follow-up question. Finally, Matt's definition of marriage is anything BUT traditional. It's a modern spin of the past that's fundamentally at odds with what traditional marriage actually was. Traditional marriage, for almost everyone in history, was purely for survival. Which is probably why Matt doesn't use it. Traditional marriage was about acquiring land, live stock, money, influence, consolidating power, and finally the ability / possibility to produce labor / heirs. That's it. Sure, it worked but at the expense of freedom, happiness, self-fulfillment, and love. Let's also not forget that because something works doesn't mean it's good or beneficial.
Well thought out philosophy does not mean you have the 'truth'. Science trumps any philosophical position you make, because it checks with reality. Definitions can change. A dictionary today has a different definition of 'marriage' or 'gender' than it did 100 years ago. I don't understand how you can ignore exceptions to a 'rule' that is now outdated. Your 'map' analogy is only accurate if it is a general map. But including 'procreation' is too precise, not general.
"Science trumps any philosophical position you make, because it checks with reality." As I said in the video, people have been using philosophy to advance the claim that science is superior to philosophy.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Yep, my wife and I fall into that category. Yet at age 57 we managed to receive a child by the grace of GOD!!! Through much pain and suffering, it was a Blessing! Thanks be to GOD !!!
A couple in our church were in a similar situation. The hidden benefit was that they then had more time and maturity to raise the child, and they were wise enough to understand that.
You’re wife was 57 when she got pregnant? That’s amazing if yes
@@belabiscotti8474 No we adopted
@@jameskearney4100LOL
Congratulations!!
Your marriage was different, though, because you wanted children, but could not conceive. Childfree "marriage, on the other hand, is when they refuse to procreate. I do not see how couples like that deserve to get married any more than two dudes do!
So many want to cave in to exceptions rather than sticking to the rule. It creates chaos.
The very definition of a rule is that there are exceptions. The chaos of which you speak is at best an illusion and at worst your own projected internal confusion
@@matthewpopp1054 How about rather than simply insulting a person. Clarify and support your argument with some examples of what you mean.
@@websterlee7708because it the same lame excuse that whites would use if black people where to be freed from slavery in the u.s., without order(white supremacy) there would only be chaos (freed black people)
Another way to put it...
"Hard cases make bad law."
Live your traditional marriage, and let others do what they want. If your God is omniscient and omnipotent let him step in whenever it pleases him.
Rogan asked Walsh earlier in the interview as to how we as a society got to the point where we can't define a man or a woman. He later proceeds to deconstruct the idea of marriage, a concept that has existed across culture for millennia, and fails to see the irony. I love M Walsh, but his inability to draw light to this glaring hypocrisy was a serious miss.
I also fail to see the irony. Being a man or a woman is biological certainty. Marriage is a human created institution, no matter how old it is (and the definitions have always been wildly different throughout different cultures and different times. First same sex marriage dated back to 66AD in Rome). You can always deconstruct man made concepts, but you can't do the same with measurable and objective biology. Rogan's stance isn't hypocritical at all.
From this clip, I don’t see Rogan deconstructing anything. Walsh is the one with the critique of modern marriage. Joe just disagrees, like most people who grow up in our Bourgeois Western ideology.
"He later proceeds to deconstruct the idea of marriage, a concept that has existed across culture for millennia".
Honesty humans had lived in nomadic groups far longer than that , ( and I don't believe it was one man to one woman) and we seem to have survived, not only that but flourished. I believe it was the right system for that time. If you didn't live in groups your survival percentage was pretty low.
@@sitka49 This is true. Your comment also points to something that is missing from the OPs argument, IMO: we need to understand historic institutions, such as marriage, for what they are, and what they have been, situated correctly in their proper historical context.
Before romantic love, even before the idea of Christian marriage was standardized by the church, _and even before it was standardized in Judaic Law,_ marriage emerged originally as a property exchange (Women in exchange for Dowry/Material Wealth).
It seems kind of arbitrary to pick one form of pre-modern marriage (The Christian Rite) and claim it’s “correct.” You can say that it’s the best, and explain why you think it’s the best and why you think we should return to it, but let’s not misconstrue history in the process.
@@dethkon From Mesopotamia to Egypt, women in the ancient world were considered property -- valuable property, but property nonetheless.And it's true of the Bible's view as well.
And the custom of a marital "bride price" (money given by the groom's family to the bride's family) reveals that marriages , were to aline tribes and families and at least in some respects, a property transfer, as payment had been made to acquire the bride (Genesis 34:12; Exodus 22:16; 1 Samuel 18:25; Genesis 24:53). Love had nothing to with it!
Yes, there were biblical women who flourished in spite of the patriarchy, women like Ruth, Esther, Lydia and Priscilla, but still...
Brian, I wish it was you who were there. Your calm disposition and sane, logical arguments delivered with much charity and clarity are what we need.
You think he would’ve convinced a non-Christian to accept a completely foreign view of marriage through his cool use of logic and persuasive argument? Let’s not get carried away, lol. I can’t even convince my own Mother and Father of it, lol.
This is just sad, how people will twist things to fit their agenda or view. Most people today have the wrong idea what marriage is. Marriage isn’t about personal happiness, it’s all about loving the other person in a selfless way. It’s all about being a servant to them. Now this only works with 2 people of the opposite gender who are committed to each other. Because God design marriage and He designed the sexes to complement each other. Too often people nowadays are more interested in getting their desires and expectations that person will “MAKE them happy” that’s not how it works. Marriage is about loving selflessly, forgiving the the other and 2 becoming one.
People always leave marriages when they don't feel happy either. I haven't felt happy for 7 years, but here I am still. (on this planet)
Tell me you don't know any married gay couples without telling me you don't know any married gay couples. My experience is that gay couples are just as likely as straight couples to love each other selflessly, be a servant to each other, and forgive each other.
@@jamiblakeley4300they might have a committed relationship but by definition it cannot be marriage. Marriage by definition is the voluntary union of 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been around for centuries until the alphabets changed it. First they removed man and woman, now they want to change the number 1. Soon we will have a "marriage" of 3, 4, or more.
They can change the definition of what marriage means to them, but that does not change what marriage is
@@mattduin7144 The comment to which I was replying was not about nomenclature but about the nature of gay and straight relationships. That comment implied that LGBT people are incapable of truly loving relationships, which is untrue. In this context, making an argument based on nomenclature is a non sequitur. Also, LGBT people are not "the alphabets". We are human beings just like you, who experience the same joys and sorrows. God bless you.
@@jamiblakeley4300 The comment to which you are replying made no mention of sexuality, it was about marriage in general.
Also, the alphabets is how they refer to themselves. If you dont refer to yourself that way, i applaud you
Brian, thank you for yet another thought-provoking, inspiring video!! You have more knowledge and common sense than many of our so-called "shepherds" who are silent on all the evil things going on in our world and in our Church and keep sweeping everything under the carpet!!! 😠
Rogan doesn't believe in chastity, so why does marriage even matter to him? Can't those people in love live together and have sex together all they want without marriage?
Should be able to. Especially when he’s looking at marriage from this warped perspective of it all being about personal happiness.
I think Matt did a horrific job representing conservatism against Rogan there. A lot of people are hungry for a strong foundation to stand on and giving the lukewarm "secular" and "non-religious" answer wasn't going to win anyone over when Rogan was able to suggest that marriage was "socially constructed". Marriage was instituted by God and made a sacrament by Christ, these things cannot be ignored and ultimately will always go back to that. There is only one way to oppose the notion of "social construction" and that's by arguing that uncaused Cause.
Walsh is trying to defend the indefensible! Marriage divorced - pun intended - from God and the purpose He has assigned to it (procreation) cannot be upheld our defended!
Another reason people are leaving religion in droves. It's hypocritical lol
At the end of the day, at the root of all the arguments, there is one answer: God ordained it so.
AMEN.
God said it, and that settles the question.
The problem is the whole “Do it because I say so” attitude produces a generation full of resentful people. Once someone is no longer a child they need to be told exactly why certain things have to be done in certain ways.
Actually, Rogan was waiting for Matt to bring up God or religion. Matt didn't do it on purpose.
Which isn’t even going to make a dent in people like Rogan.
"Joe Rogan is so open minded, his brain fell out."
-GK Chesty
Most of liberalism came from religious agnosticism.
It's written in the fundamental documents of the late XVIII century that founded the modern West (that includes the so called "conservatives" that are, in practice, just the wing of liberalism that is not in open war against religion and leave religious people alone more than the other wing).
It's possible to overcome this challenge, but it's extremelly difficult and could take multiple generations of continuous work and, of course, the grace of God..
Brian, thank you so much for pointing out this trick. I‘ve seen it so many times, but never recognized the pattern. Greetings from Germany
Fantastic insight. Not everything has to be torn down or rewritten simply because people don't agree with it.
Cheers Brian, great video!
You should have a discussion with Tim Gordon about marriage.
He has an awful take on pretty much everything. Can you debunk his claim that the art in the Vatican is stolen ?...
If a couple is not going into marriage to have kids then its madness to get married.
At that point it isn't marriage, it's mutual usury masquerading as marriage. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it a human but at the end of the day it's just a pig with lipstick: trying to hide the grotesque reality of something ugly by associating it with something beautiful.
its not madness its a choice
@@damianwhite504 not a good choice for the man when the divorce happens. It's all risk and unfair for the man unless it's to make a family.
@@markgross plenty of people live long and happy lives without children
@@damianwhite504 no
In Rogans example, no, those things are not the purpose of marriage, but they still seek to imitate a marriage, just like gay marriage does.
The origin of marriage is to create a stable family unit for raising children. If not for that, men and woman would not publicly bond together in societies, what would be the reason for it?
The reasons he throws out are just products of modern, lucrative societies, just as gay marriage is.
If you go to tribal cultures, there are still family units, husbands and wives, but the goal is survival. People in primitive societies didn't get married to travel the world. But even in primitive basic societies, procreation and family is central.
as societies become modernized, they can move away from this central purpose, but the draw to have a life partner is still rooted in this primitive need to build strong families.
not sure if that makes sense. or if it would convince people we need to have boundaries around marriage in modern societies.
Joe wasn’t doing a deconstruction, he was simply disagreeing with Walsh’s informal Critique of modern bourgeois marriage. And Luther didn’t “deconstruct” Catholicism, he did a critique of it (pre-Kantian obv).
It is true that the idea of romantic marriage/love is relatively recent (a product of the renaissance, IIRC), but it’s been the norm here for the past 300 years at least.
The fact is, most people in the West are far more familiar with the ideal of Romantic marriage than with Traditional (Biblical) marriage. For us moderns, it seems like you are the one trying to supplant the common definition of marriage with an alien one; the West has kept many of its Judeo-Christian Ideals, but marriage isn’t one of them. I claim that trying to pretend that it is otherwise only serves to confuse people or obfuscate what they believe is common sense.
Do you disagree? Does anyone?
(I personally believe in traditional/biblical marriage, but I understand that most people-even in my own family- don’t and would have no idea what I’m talking about. We can’t simply pretend that modernity never happened, even if we wish it hadn’t).
i love the "icon lamp" in the background Brian - Where did you find it?!
People should be forgiving of Matt Walsh. It is not easy debating people about these things these days because we honestly have no common culture or language by which to communicate with each other anymore. Not saying that makes understanding impossible but there are so many extra hurdles one has to go through in order to establish it.
Never was fan of Rogan.
Me either- never understood the hype about him
Of all the stoics to follow, Joe is not one. He, if anything, an epicurean who indulges in the special of the day.
At least he put a napkin on his lap at the table.
Besides, stoicism on its own, leads to pelagianism. It's good to strive for perfection and holiness, but we certainly can't do it on our own without messing up our form.
matrimony= mater (mother) + munis (office) the office of motherhood
I would suggest, however, that the second part may derive from _moenia_ which can be translated as defensive walls, in this case in a metaphorical sense.
Well done. I'm sick of those who criticize that which is obviously good simply for the fact that it has tiny holes in it and isn't perfect.
If you listen to the whole interview, Rogan's key argument regarding marriage is that it is a manmade construct of fairly recent invention in this history of humanity and that former understandings no longer correspond to reality in the majority of cases -- e.g. childlessness, contraception, divorce, homosexuality -- therefore it can and ought to be redefined. Going further, he argues that homosexuality is genetic and natural, and therefore homosexual couples ought to be afforded the same rights and benefits (e.g. legal, financial, adoption etc.) as heterosexual couple by being permitted to marry.
What do you think about this? Is he right or wrong? Is it good or bad? Or neither?
I tend to explain marriage more from the standpoint from the family than the individuals. With that perspective I say marriage is a binding union between two individuals that takes them from not being related to being family the sexual union of which is designed to produce the next generation of the family.
And even further than explaining marriage from the standpoint of the family, one should also explain it from the standpoint of society and civilization; of how the family unit is the cornerstone of civilization and that the survival of society/humanity depends upon it.
@@EndTimesHarvest It has been through recorded history. So much so in fact that people have asserted that the power dynamics in the family can predict they types of governments and religions that will be most widely adopted in a culture. Yes family is the foundation and marriage is important to the preservation and succession of family.
Deconstructionists like that are an example of knowing just enough information to be dangerous.
Rogan was absolutely on point on this one.
A really exceptional, powerful argument. Thank you so much for making it!
Great Response Video, Brian!
Thank you for this insight in to why my life is so appalling. Targeted Individual 14.
Well noted, Brian.
Brian, you brought up a good point... BUT you didn't fully explored the point
A) God could have given then that cross for grow specific virtues... He could give them a child as happened in the Bible and to hundreds couples years after their marriage... They kept the hope in God and not in their dictirs
B) it's Sinful to castrate yourself because selfishness of wanting to travel... They can still travel by being singles... There us a fear to admit it a celebrity that something us sinful and wrong - it's God that chose to whom give life and when after we aceot to get married
C) God might chosen some people to adopt a child because the greater glory of whom that child will be and to their salvation and identification
The real issue here is that Matt Walsh is a media provocateur and not really a theologian or educated on rhetoric. He just clings to well established conservative political talking points, but isn't really capable of defending them when challenged. Once you take him out of his one man show where he can have complete control, and put him on the spot with someone like Rogan who will actually ask him tough questions, he is unable to form a cogent and clear rebuttal or explanations. In this interview he badly "fumbled the bag" (as the kids say today), because he can't go any deeper than the surface points of conservative and nominal Catholic thought.
Marriage is a corner stone of society.
Monogamous couples without kids so not play into this societal role at all.
What about people who can not have kids? Adopt a kid. What about people who do not want to have kids? They do not understand what is marriage.
It might help to point out and use the distinction between the "type" of a thing and the "definition" of that thing. Using only the word "definition" education has narrowed thinking in a crippling way. The type of a thing is its purest form, the exemplar from which lesser examples of that thing may vary. The definition of a thing only talks about the edges of the thing, the line which distinguishes this thing from other things which are not this thing.
Often it is the type and not the definition which is needed to clarify thinking on a topic. Typifying is a skill we should reclaim.
I'd be as pleased as I would be shocked to see Mr. Rogan have a good priest on his show. It would do him some good as well as his viewers of good will. Is there a way to suggest guests to his show?
Great commentary! Thank you!
The sun does revolve around the earth
I.... I don't even know where to begin with this one. So many false equivalencies...
There are many things wrong with Rogan’s thinking on any number of subjects. I stopped listening to him long ago.
It is a pity Mr. Walsh could not come up with the answers at that moment, when put on the spot. All he had to do was look at his faith and the Catechism to see what is says.
“What about people that get married that don't want to have kids?”
Our faith teaches us we must be open to procreation. Marriage is a sacrament, an act of faith designed to earn grace. Marriage has two elements to it as defined by our faith. One is the unitive element and the other is the procreative. It is not a case of either/or. Both go together hand-in-hand. They are an integrity. If you don’t believe in our faith or having children, then don’t bother to get married. Have a civil union, but don’t call it a “marriage”. Marriages are sacramental. Civil unions are just that - civil, non-religious. Somehow we always manage to confuse sanctity with equality.
“And what about people that are infertile?”
The Church makes provisions for those people of faith who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, cannot produce offspring. In this case, it is possible to obtain a dispensation from the Church to marry.Somehow we always manage to confuse sanctity with equality.
What is the hymn at the very beginning?
It's not that complicated. An infertile couple is still a valid marriage so long as they are open to procreation even if it's not possible. On the other hand, someone who married a woman specifically BECAUSE she is infertile and he just wants sexual access commits a grave sin towards himself and his wife who he is using.
In fact, this argument undermines his own position on gender and women's sports.
Are you saying that a childless marriage is less than or equal to a marriage with children? The explanation of your views seemed a bit jumbled.
Pointing out an exception proves the rule Joe. Come on now.
As a member of the living body of our Lord I'd call it an innocent take on marriage. If you have eyes to see with the Love of our Lord. Too bad JoeR does not have a Holy Father of our Lords Church to ask such questions. He is asking for the Truth.
God have mercy on this time where all want to take the seat our Lord gives only to His Holy Fathers.
God help us.
ok. Everybody has an opinion. Been together 52 years, won't judge others, but will add that searching scriptures for ourselves saved our marriage after 7! Churches have a variety of opinions.
Everyone having an opinion does not mean they are all equally valid.
Great video, but didn't Luther try to stay in the church until he was excommunicated?
And didn't he offer a few Theses to reform it?
@@lesparks126 As a priest, posting a list of complaints on the door of a church is not the correct way to change the Church's practices, whether those are or are not the right way to do things
I think people are ends in themselves, so I reject the legitimacy of any view that sees them as a means to an end.
So, any institution (marriage in this case) that sees people as instruments for achieving a particular goal is wrong.
As far as I can tell Matt walshes view is that marriage is for procreation and to bond families together. This is a view that sees the institution of marriage as one that is there to serve a social purpose or goal.
My view is that people are ends in themselves and traditions and institutions, in their proper form, are established because we've noticed a pattern or way of being that we value and would like to perpetuate.
When one person decides to make a vow to another person, that decision is infused with a tremendous amount of courage and devotion and that's why marriage should be honoured, not because it serves certainsoc8al ends. But yes, when two people vow to be with each other they do bring their entire human self along, so there probably will be children and society probably will be more stable, but that is not what is essentially valued in marriage. The thing of significance is the personal vow made, that's the thing that establishes the stability results. Its not "marriage" that creates more stable societies and environments for kids, it's the vow that was made between two people.
I see no in principle reason why two gay people should not make vows of that kind to each other (I think its a beautiful thing actually). The arguments against it are either arguments from authority (the pope says so or the book says so etc) or arguments that have an instrumental view of human beings.
We live at a time where perfectly straight couples are getting gay married
Marriage is a piece of paper that allows the Church to bred more followers?
Lot a road to true happiness. For many reasons.
I got pretty mad at Joe Rogan for acting like the exact people he allegedly is against. He's a liberal with a conservative mask to look way cooler and counterculture than he is.
Damn wish it was you that was on that podcast. Walsh got annihilated in that debate.
Ahhh, that's what i like! A Brian Holdsworth video not ten thousand hours long 🥵
Great video.
Rogan's challenges were old and well known. Perhaps he was playing devil's advocate?
Brian thinks dogs are superior to cats and therefore his opinion is not worthy of consideration. That’s how it works on the internet
Excellent
Joe Rogan has been happily married for 10 years with 2 kids.
Ergo, his own marriage serves a purpose! Gay "marriage" and barren hetero "marriage" do not!
If Christ is not your King then whatever you say is just a irrevalant opinion
God bless you Brian !!!
Another good and practical lesson. 👍
I would answer with a question:
How do those exceptions disprove the rule?
And then go into Brian's example.
The concept of marriage is universal - it's a license to reproduce, because we all know it's the best arrangement for the flourishing of children. Those exceptions don't change that. There are always exceptions, to every rule. It's the rule that homosexual couples are more unstable, more prone to domestic violence. Yet they focus on exceptions.
Where did you pull out the statement about violence in homosexual couples? Source?
@@vanyaliveshere It's well known. Has been for decades.
@@loreman7267 Well, that's like your opinion man...
That it has been well-known for decades.
@@vanyaliveshere It's was a major talking point in the gay 'marriage' debate of the mid 00's.
@@loreman7267 The fact that people talked about it doesn't make it right. I may as well talk about Flat Earth or Lizard people. And we debate about such topics doesn't mean that they are factual or worthy of a conversation, only that we deemed them worthy of a conversation.
well stated
Dogs are not superior to cats.
What a thing for him to say.
not tasteful, as he usually is.
The state has no use for childless marriages, and they should all be annulled after a certain grace period. However, if a man and a woman did not know that one of them was infertile beforehand, then their marriage should be exempt from that!
Rogans arguments are just straw manning. It is trying to be smart/win the argument, rather than having a serious discussion.
damn, Brian… I so love your grasp on spiritual logic… please, forge onward!
I respect Joe, but this is such a fail that it seems unworthy of him! "Childless marriage" is NOT a checkmate argument! Had I been there I would have simply said " Yes, childfree marriages are stupid and useless. End of discussion!"
cats are better >:O
I have to say, one of my biggest problems with the Catholic Church is their teaching on marriage and annulment. I'll probably be able to get an annulment for several reasons, and I don't think I'll be charged for it. However, that's not the problem.
The problem is the teaching that there's no such thing as divorce. Before I was "married" (I might not have actually had a wedding, let alone a marriage), I was leaning more towards the Catholic belief, with the exception of abuse and cheating. I wasn't sure if remarriage was Biblical (as a Protestant).
After being married, however, the idea that you're united in flesh and spirit to someone who... let's just say has made themselves physically and/or spiritually unclean, and the idea that your flesh now also shares a bond with an outside body is actually really disgusting to me. I can't believe that this is God's definition of a marriage. This my biggest disagreement on the Catholic teachings of marriage.
This is more of a side-note, but the Church teaches that marriage is for this life only and that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. So it doesn't make sense that someone can't remarry when they're unable to have kids because their spouse is dangerous to be around. If it's impossible to fulfill the calling of marriage, which is on earth only, why be married?
Like I said, my biggest concern is the idea that you can't divorce. I don't even think divorce is man-made. I think God supernaturally grants it when man decides to break the union with his or her spouse. I agree with the Tewadu Church teaching on that. So, "let no man break apart" is a warning to the cheating spouse, who is the one breaking it apart. I think divorce essential in many cases, so that the marriage doesn't cause people to be "unclean".
I hope this was coherent!😅 I would appreciate your take on annulment.
It troubles me that, according to a pew poll, more people are concerned with getting their birth control than about whether divorced people can take communion. They're also just as supportive of divorce as they are gay marriage. So, basically they think divorce and being gay are equally sinful? And they're more concerned with their own birth control and having their own fun than other people being treated fairly? It's just a spiritual red flag to me. It seems like they enjoy fornicating, and then judging people who try to do it the right way and then it doesn't work out for them.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have low divorce rates, but the Orthodox Church still has a fraction of the divorces that the Catholic Church does. They allow divorce. Do you want to have less divorces or a hold to a certain ideology? To me, if not having divorce was important, I would copy what the Orthodox Church was doing, so there would be less divorce. The Orthodox Church seems to be more focused on premarital sex, rather than divorce as a sin.
Sorry! I can't write today and have no way to edit this on my phone. 😬👍
> the Church teaches that marriage is for this life only and that the purpose of marriage is to have kids.
The Catholic Church does not teach that marriage is _just_ "to have kids".
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1601:
"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature *ordered toward the good of the spouses* and the procreation *and education of offspring;* this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
The map analogy was pretty bad because jesus literally made his own map
He fulfilled the map He created as the Word spoke in Genesis 1:1, reiterated in John 1:1-3.
For example, here's Matthew 19:1-9 & 13:51-52, preferably read in that order.
Jesus, the Way, clearly did not change the Way, He only repaved it and rebuilt the bridge from Earth to Heaven with His Holy Cross.
@@AJKPenguin exactly and those who rules didn't want to align with Jesus's map where sent on fire and cast into he'll as soulless heathens.
Christ didn't make His own map, He IS the map.
@@NoSoupForYouu exactly! And look how denominations chose their own path to take! Heathens and heretics the whole lot. The only real Christians are Catholics
It's ironic how Brian critiques Joe (and other people who are just theoretical) for not providing a definition of marriage, when this video doesn't provide a definition of marriage.
Why would I care what Joe Rogan or the world thinks, we have the word of God to follow.
Lol what?
The truth is, for our wonderful Creator, there is no "can't" when it comes to the gift of love and life.
Our sisters and brothers who do not naturally concieve together have a heavy cross, but it is in God's power to heal all wounds, and to refrain from healing this side of the grave. In all humility we must seek his perfect will, and for his glory do our very best to serve it. Even if that means forgoing IVF and the chance of a "miracle child", at the risk of our souls with all the destruction of innocent unborn that path entails.
No matter what you belive and what you want people to belive, marriage will be what the individual wants it to be and they make of it.
Fine!! I hereby declare that I am married to myself!! After all, I am the only person I have ever loved!
I'm sorry, but this video makes no sense. It's attempting to argue against something that didn't happen in the original video. Joe isn't attempting to get rid of definitions or create empty words. He basically lays out a definition in the original video and it's similar to this "Mariage - The state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
It would be disingenuous to state, or imply, that because Joe's definition differs from Matt's bad definition that it mean Joe is throwing away the institution of marriage or breaking down its foundations. That would be complete nonsense. In the video, Joe was supporting the foundation of marriage by arguing for and encouraging more kinds of people to get married. In doing so, he would not be breaking marriage down. Instead, he would be attempting to build it up and creating greater societal ties / support systems. An important part of marriage.
Next, you're acting like Matt's definition, that wasn't included in the video, didn't directly state procreate as the primary purposes of marriage. Therefore, Joe asking Matt if couples that get married and don't have children are "really married." That's not being pedantic or trying to deconstruction words it's just asking a very simple follow-up question.
Finally, Matt's definition of marriage is anything BUT traditional. It's a modern spin of the past that's fundamentally at odds with what traditional marriage actually was. Traditional marriage, for almost everyone in history, was purely for survival. Which is probably why Matt doesn't use it. Traditional marriage was about acquiring land, live stock, money, influence, consolidating power, and finally the ability / possibility to produce labor / heirs. That's it. Sure, it worked but at the expense of freedom, happiness, self-fulfillment, and love. Let's also not forget that because something works doesn't mean it's good or beneficial.
Example: We have to have abortion because a 12 yr old victim of rape by her father should not be required to give birth
Well thought out philosophy does not mean you have the 'truth'. Science trumps any philosophical position you make, because it checks with reality. Definitions can change. A dictionary today has a different definition of 'marriage' or 'gender' than it did 100 years ago. I don't understand how you can ignore exceptions to a 'rule' that is now outdated. Your 'map' analogy is only accurate if it is a general map. But including 'procreation' is too precise, not general.
"Science trumps any philosophical position you make, because it checks with reality."
As I said in the video, people have been using philosophy to advance the claim that science is superior to philosophy.
"Science is better than philosophy" is a philosophical position.