Walsh did a bad job, period. At no point did he throw the question back at Rogan with a "so what's the difference between marriage and living together?" or suchlike, as that would then naturally elicit a conversation on the definitions being used for the word, "marriage". Once it were established that one was talking about a modern legal statute and the other about scripture's definition, something fruitful might (and only might) have come from this. As it was, the conversation went Groundhog Day and Walsh ended up browbeaten by what was essentially the same philosophical point framed in different ways. All heat, no light.
It wouldn't come to Scripture because Walsh is attempting to make an argument from "natural theology", aka from nature/philosophy and not from revelation (special or natural). And he fails big time lol
@@michaelmannucci8585yes walsh has a great documentary and he does not mention the bible and focuses strictly on the natural world and biology and I respect his approach because to explain this point before the bible to people who reject God's word first establish science and biology. Makes sence and he has said alot of people gave him a hard time for not talking about the bible and he says if people reject the bible they first have to not reject basic biology and natural law.
@@michaelmannucci8585 That isn't true though. The BJJ tradition is not scripture, but that tradition is still a good argument for why hot dog eating contests are not BJJ tournaments, as was illustrated in Nate's analogy. Marriage is a word that has come to, in practice, mean 'a contractual legal agreement that carries certain limited powers of attorney and legal assumptions about property rights'. While it has come to mean the equivalent of 'going steady' or saying 'I like like you' in the minds of modern people who have attached the word 'committed' to the afore mentioned legal action. The traditional meaning of marriage, while based on a scriptural understanding of the tradition, doesn't require scripture for the tradition itself to be the argument. The problem is that in modernity the traditional features of marriage and traditional purposes of marriage have all been abandoned except for the legal consequences of property rights and property transfer. The other pieces, such as, marriage being permanent, and even the entire point of those legal consequences, which is to ensure a stable society and provide an tradition for building families and community, has been abandoned. To return to the analogy, it's as if we were in a world where society has already dismissed the traditional point of martial arts and the entire point of claiming you are a 'martial artist' has already devolved into nothing but a virtue signal. In such a world, it would not be surprising to find every activity being suddenly described as a 'martial art' no matter what actual activity people are doing. In the world above, it would still make sense to point out that eating contests and acrylic painting being called martial arts makes no sense because they lack any physical fitness, physical discipline, have zero self-defense purpose, and do not map onto any purpose traditional martial arts have served other than maybe 'having fun doing an enjoyable activity'. The point being that 'civil unions' which is a word designed to describe the legal consequences without the traditional features of marriage is ironically the accurate way to describe gay marriage, and further ironic, is that the vast majority of marriages in the west would also be best described as 'civil unions' rather than marriages. The one place Matt could have done better in this interview while still not using a scriptural argument, which he was intentionally avoiding, would be to dig into the failure of marriages more broadly when talking about the disservice of abandoning the monogamy and permanence of marriage, and to point out that without monogamy and permanence straight marriages aren't real marriages either. ONLY traditional marriage is marriage, and everything else is just a 'civil union' codified into the laws of the times.
@@shawn4110 If marriage is just a tradition, it has no *objective* meaning. Also, there's no objective "outght" which says you cannot divert from tradition. Matt failed utterly *because* he is adopting the worldview of the secularist (which chucks out objective truth, logic, epistomology, morality, etc) and then trying to argue that something is objectively true and something else is objectively wrong (both propositionally and morally). It's nonsense.
As a Christian the reason for marriage is to commit to the person you love and become one instead of two in the eyes of God. And now after this commitment to become one, you can now bear children. Of course now people just get married to get married that's why it's so easy for people to just divorce or just have kids outside of marriage. But for us Christians, marriage is a very sacred commitment, not just between 2 people but with God as well. That's my veiw of marriage as a Christian
As a Christian myself, I would say you have made a similar mistake that Walsh has made. Which specific 2 people can be married? You said it’s just 2 people who love each other and want to have kids. With that definition, there is no reason a man and another man can’t elope. You have to dig into the details a little more. A marriage like you said is a bond between 2 people and God. To go further however, it is a God accepted bond between 2 people that only God would allow to become married. From there we can go into the scriptures and into the definition of what a Godly relationship is. From here you can then bring up the Brazilian Jiu jitsu analogy to kind of help the other person to gain an understanding of how you view marriage, even if they don’t agree. You can even further the conversation and then get into what the other person deems a marriage and then get into the pros and cons of such arrangement. There’s honestly so much that could be said here but you get the point, it can be hard to converse on such a topic because there’s so many synonymous words we wanna use that are nice and kind words to convey our point but if we say use too much salt with our words, the person won’t even eat the meal you out in their plate. There’s also the chance the person just doesn’t like steak and no matter how well you make it, they will never eat the steak because they have a child’s appetite and only want chicken nuggies.
Rogan did great because he remained consistent. What was frustrating from Walsh is he would not provide a solid definition of marriage. I think later in that video he is asked more specifically if his belief in Jesus had anything to do with it. This is unfortunately is an example of the position that people of faith put themselves in when they attempt to argue without including God, the Bible, or any theological understanding.
Exactly. This is what has always put a bad taste in my mouth with these supposedly religious conservative figures. They never talk about God, the Bible, the gospel, etc. They either want to appeal to a wide audience of conservatives who might not be religious, or maybe they just aren't even that serious about their own faith and really just see the Bible as a book that has some good ideas. So far, Charlie Kirk is the only one of these widely known political people who I have actually seen talk about God a bit.
I disagree. The effects of Christian living are superior to the effects of secular living. You do not specific references to scripture or theology to see the truth. In fact, we have the term "cultural Christian" to describe this where an atheist can recognize the beneficial effects of living according to Biblical principles regardless of whether you believe in God or not.
@@CassTeaElle Joe Rogan already rejects the premise of the existence of God (from what I can tell). The atheists reject all justification for the existence of God, if you try to use God to justify any of your arguments you will be instantly dismissed by them, no matter how good your points are. The only reasonable way to combat this is to have them retroactively come to the conclusion of God's existence, through making good points for your arguments. Once they see your arguments clearly and probe them further, they will come to face God. What they choose to do with this realization then is up to them. But I can tell you that this is far more effective than using God to justify your arguments when talking to someone who already rejects God. In most cases at least.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. My point was only that in the interaction Walsh seems to intentionally leave out Christian doctrines. Many Christian apologists can go down this road as well leaning so heavily on logical reasoning as to forget to make the case for the biblical God.
@speaksilince14Fools who refuse to listen and fools who may come to the truth both exist. As a Christian I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way in both situations.
@@HelloTygr Who is to say that the Holy Spirit cannot use the words of a person, to help arm someone else with the appropriate words? Do we not seek Scripture for guidance, hopefully, on a regular basis?
@@wintersresurrection9841 I think you’re misunderstanding something here. The top comment is me, and the reply comment is also me, responding to someone else who deleted their reply. I mean basically what you’re saying so I don’t disagree with that.
Walsh should have addressed the worldview difference right out of the gate, and not let up till that was clearly grasped, THEN proceed to further steps. For many Catholics (not all, but many) the Bible is a mostly black box out there on the periphery somewhere and rarely, if ever, read. Great job brother!
Nate! Great video! So, I think I saw once that Matt Walsh purposefully didn’t bring up the Bible (he said this about the “What is a Woman?” movie) and I think that he wanted to come at this from a separate perspective outside of quoting the Bible…however I think your video proved that Walsh should go this route moving forward!
Yeah I saw that too and he was right as far as letting the arguments fall against the tide of logic and reason. The problem is at the very base we have Jesus and the Bible for our position and we need to be able to express that without alienating our opposition. It’s not easy!
@@fiftycalguru I disagree. He wasn't right, and he strugled to make an argument against gay marraige from natural theology because there really isn't a coherent one. There's no merit in giving up our foundation/worldview in debate. We don't expect the atheist to give up his foundation/worldview, so why should we give up ours? Without the Christian God you cannot have logic and reason.
@@michaelmannucci8585 yeah I agree with you totally what I meant was it is correct to allow the trans positions to fall apart on their own, because they will eventually. But I went on, more to your point, to say our base is Jesus and God’s Word and it should t be neglected in our arguments. I think I was trying to say the same thing you are just not as well.
His point of the discussion was to prove his view without bringing his faith into it. His idea, is why bring up Christianity’s view of marriage to an atheist. I don’t agree with his way of argumentation but that’s why he went that way.
Ya I know this is how he approaches these types of conversations and yet as Christians watching it is hard to watch. In this interview, it does look as if Joe Rogan defends his worldview better. It's frustrating to watch.
@@Drowning_Girl I get that and I agree if he was talking to a Christian I would be fully for it but I do think it has effectiveness to non-Christian’s.
I think it’s a extremely effective because Christians can claim a grounding for their view of marriage. Arguing for marriage from a ‘neutral’ or atheistic perspective is like trying to contain a runny, slippery goo in your hands.
I have definitely heard non-religious arguments against g*y marriage that are more clear and compelling. He should not have conflated the product of marriage with the definition of marriage itself. Rogan's definition was subjective and vague. And Walsh picked up on that. Yet because he could not articulate a clear and sufficient definition himself, Rogan was able to press him on inconsistencies repeatedly. He clearly won the debate, unfortunately.
Man your video is exactly what I was looking for a year ago when I saw this Joe Rogan episode. Matt's position was very difficult to understand without the clear foundation of the christian worldview. Very difficult. Glad to finally see a take like yours.
Matt probably understands (at least partly) the theological depths of marriage, he just bends the knee to secularism in his arguments, just like the vast majority of Christians on the vast majority of social issues.
He's spoken about it on his channel that he doesn't want to lead into an argument to appeal from a Christian worldview. He feels people will shut him down immediately. But this is where I think he fails. So ya I agree with what you are saying. He is trying really hard to be politically correct.
@@Drowning_Girl Thanks for asking that. Let's imagine that you are a judge, and there is this group of people who say children should be free to do as they please, us not letting them is wrong. You ask them why they say this, they tell you; children are human beings and human beings are free to do as they please, this is what is recorded on the ancient rock, so why are you stopping children from doing as they please? As a judge how would you take their response, does this "ancient rock" carry any weight whatsoever? I hope you will also give me an answer to the question I asked in my other comment. If you are not sure whether or not an unbeliever would shut you down as soon as you bring up God in a seemingly seperate argument, go and do it when arguing with an unbeliever and note their reaction.
Appreciated the reaction. Walsh would have done well to discuss the foundation of marriage being that marriage is the only thing that came from the Garden pre-fall an all. 😉
Nate, I found your analogy of real Brazilian Jujitsu vs fake Jujitsu eating 100 hot dogs to be spot-on when compared with the argument of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. It actually does create a very eye-opening perspective on why biblical marriage isn't just a "subjective, symbolic relationship" that the world can change according to its preferences. Its fundamental core truth is much deeper than just child-bearing or wanting a companion. Fantastic job breaking this down!
It’s always interesting to me how secular people and Atheists will say morality comes from the natural survival instincts example: “we don’t murder each other because otherwise we would no longer exist” and yet at the same time advocate for life styles by definition are against life
How if Infertile people get married or acesexuals it doesn't hurt the population anyway straights are still the majority population is going down because of other stuff like things being too expensive
@@jackiewheeler9202 Nope. There's a reason why Governments have protected Traditional marriages and gives them benefits over others. They have a mom and dad who in turn have children. This family structure has been around for millennia. Everyone knows this is what's best for a functioning society.
If Walsh would have lead with Christianity, Rogan rebukes with Muslims (et al) marrying, and perhaps we'd get to the same point (and perhaps homosexuality, since it becomes a series of interchangeable labels).
To be fair, Walsh openly admits on his show that he intentionally did not go down the path of explaining the purpose of marriage from a religious standpoint, but instead focused on the practical standpoint, because the religious aspect is very foreign to people at least today since religion has lost of lot of its social significance in this culture. They won't understand how religion even ties into it, so Walsh rationalizes it from purely a practical, biological standpoint that is and should be non-controversial. So he intentionally tried to avoid that because he didn't think talking from a religious standpoint would be productive. Watch his review of the highlights from that discussion: ruclips.net/video/RXDkKpXqR98/видео.html
A lot of people who don't consider themselves Christian have a decent understanding of the religion (perhaps because of the early years of the country being shaped due to judeo-christian ideas)
@@anthonym8205 true that's why I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Matt walsh. I'm just giving his explanation as to why he didn't provide a religious explanation of marriage.
@@josephthomasmusic and my view is that while non-believers may not understand some concepts (like the rosary) they do understand basic concepts (such as the idea of sin), even if they don't believe in them
@@anthonym8205 While I appreciate you sharing your particular view, I don't think it's necessary because we're just providing what Matt Walsh's rationale is. Sure you can disagree with that, but I'm not the one you should be disagreeing with since I didn't give my particular view on the matter. That's all I'm saying.
Another reason he failed is because Matt Walsh has said himself that it's no use to use Biblical arguements against people who don't believe in the Bible but better to use practical arguments. The problem here is, while there are good practical arguements in support of marriage, its hard to find a practical arguement against gay marriage. Conversely, just using practicality, it is more practical that society should support gay marriage because instead of diseased spreading through the community like wildfire and over into the straight community through bisexuals, most states would require a blood test and gay or not, at least one partner is most likely going to expect monogamy.
Later in the episode Rogan asks Walsh if his view comes from the Bible and Walsh says yes but he thinks that you can defend the definition of marriage based on natural law instead of using the Bible. I disagree with him because natural law comes from the Bible and God's creative order but that is Walsh's response.
I think it is unanimous if there is a topic that needs needs to be championed with a Biblical spokesperson we should rally and send Jeff Durbin of apology Church
Great take on this. I think Matt Walsh was ill prepared for this based on his responses. Joe is coming at marriage from a completely different world view. He feels the benefits of the union without understanding of what the union is therefore, which is as you stated to shadow and somewhat reveal the true marriage of Christ and the church. We as believers should understand this and work to put that on display. Marriage is not a state or man made institution it is a God made union that displays His wonderful Salvation!
My minds blown! I’ve never heard of an argument against gay marriage that blows all arguments for it, completely out of the water’s of reason!! Going to use this superior analogy of reason whenever confronted with this argument in the future. :)
I watched the whole interview, it was good, would recommend. This last 30 minutes on gay marriage was excellent. You can tell that Matt was trying so hard not to bring Christianity into the conversation. I total understand this, as in my experience, the moment you mention God/Bible/Christ into this kind of conversation, the other side completely rejects and/or doesn’t even listen to you. So I understand Matt’s motivation to attempt to not incorporate Christian believes into his argument. And that begs the question.. is that even possible given our understanding of marriage?
I get it but id argue that people like Rogan are KNOWINGLY asking for a christian's perspective. He knew Matt was christian so the expectation shouldnt be "argue outsife of your belief structure but tell me your beliefs"
I may be very wrong, but imo, the reason Walsh is debating/arguing w/o using much scripture is because of his DW "co worker/mentor" (for lack of a better description) Ben Shapiro. He has a very staunch belief/practice of not using any "arguments from authority", but especually to never use the Bible/Torah. I disagree w/ that because as Christians we're to view the world through a biblical lens; through the lens of Christ's teachings.
I think Matt intentionally stayed out of the biblical definition of marriage, perhaps because is well known that Rogan have continously question that validity of the Bible so they would get stuck in that subject instead of the main topic that they pick for that day.
It was a really nice example about Brazilian jujitsu. A similar case happens with the word: football. For me, American football is NOT real football. You can call me close-minded, or whatever you want, but you will not convinced me that running with a ball in you arms is Football.
Matt Walsh doesn't actually read the Bible, because he is a catholic and their priests defer them away from actually reading the Word for themselves, and if they do, they turn them first off to their catholic Bible, and then tell them to only read a verse or possibly a chapter and them come back to them for a interpretation of that passage. Matt needs to get him a King James Bible, sit and study it everyday, and come to a faithful belief in the Word. I'm not saying that catholics can't be saved. Salvation is purely based upon our faith in the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But catholics certainly do have a lot more hoops to jump through to get passed all of the catholic tradition and heresy to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Mary is NOT a mediator.
I didn't have much expectations for Matt Walsh knowing that he is a Roman Catholic. If only someone like John MacArthur or James White was the one with Joe Rogan then they would start from the Scripture. The difference is epistemology.
There are so many bad representatives of Christianity out there who are so bad because they believe and think that they know it all. I hope that there will be no one lead astray by this.
The analogy was so good, not sure how much thought went into it… aimed at Joe, perfect, especially with the antithesis of laying around eating 100 hot dogs, so gay.😂… Gold.
This is a controversial view, but here goes, Matt Walsh isn't a Christian or at the bare minimum he is a lukewarm Christian. Why? Because at one point is he willing to advocate for this faith and declare that marriage is defined by God, Jesus further clarifying its tenants, and it isn't something Man is supposed to define at all. Matt Walsh apparently just never thinks about God this entire time. He just cares about the political implications of it because he worships the State more than Jesus.
I don’t think it’s good at all. He is a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu person ok then what. People dress up as profession during halloween. What can he do with it? Teach classes? People will call him out for being a terrible teacher and he will lose students. Go into tournament and get his butt kicked. Not a good comparison because the government is involved in marriage there are protection and benefits that comes with marriage. There is nothing that comes with Brazilian jiu-jitsu person.
@@steventalik4782 do you think he was saying it’s the exact same thing in every way or only comparing how it’s undermining the meaning that the title carries? This isn’t a contest for the best complete analogy of gay marriage, he’s only honing in on how to explain the specific concept of keeping the title “married” to mean what it was created to mean. You’re overthinking it and missing the point
@@iowafamilyexoticsrescue6637 meaning for marriage can mean differently to different people. Denying same sex couple to get married (the benefits and protection that come with it) because it doesn’t represent your meaning of marriage makes no sense to me. What is the real world consequences of allowing gay marriage? Netherland had legalized gay marriage since 2001 (21 years) and heterosexual couple are still getting married and still having kids within that marriage. So clearly the value of marriage has not decreased.
Walsh is usually so great on these subjects, but he is seriously sucking in this debate! I thought Walsh (who I highly respect) would wipe the floor with Rogan, but he fell way short! This should have been about God and the scriptures and God’s plan for marriage and the wrongness of being gay, instead it became a debate of procreation!
As others have stated, Walsh and Shapiro both have stated numerous times that many of our fundamental principles are Biblical in nature and have their foundation in Gods truth. However, in an argument with a secularist we have to be able to ‘win’ the argument without quoting scripture. Make the argument from the results of following Gods word, stable and cohesive society.
Natural Law arguments can be made against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Walsh would do well to brush up on these. In the meantime, he should invoke his Catholic moral framework, since - as a Catholic - he believes all persons everywhere will one day be judged by God.
Your analogy of the Brazilian hot dog eating jujitsu is funny, and does make sense, but i feel like Joe Rogaine is so lost and confused at this point, just to not allow you to prove your point, he would say that it doesn't matter because he could come in and tear the place apart with his real jujitsu.
As an agnostic turned Christian, I find myself at odds with the common apologetic approach that relies on the assertion 'because God said so' when engaging in debates with atheists. Such arguments often lack resonance with those who don't have find confidence in the Bible it's akin to invoking Santa or the spaghetti monster. In my perspective, the God portrayed in the Bible embodies wisdom and reason, and the commandments outlined within it can be justified through sound logic. I believe that individuals, when seeking the qualities of God such as love, truth, justice, mercy, and wisdom etc, would independently arrive at positions aligned with the Bible. Apologists should strive to present compelling reasons behind why God issues specific commands rather than just emphasizing they are from God. Take the example of marriage in the podcast. While procreation is a purpose, there are numerous additional reasons for the specific configuration of marriage dictated in the bible. Monogamy between a virgin bride and groom, for instance, offers optimal protection against sexually transmitted diseases, shields individuals from emotional trauma caused by promiscuity, provides protection to women and children, fosters a nurturing environment for children, ensures sexual fulfillment and companionship for both partners, guarantees paternity, contributes to population growth, and offers stability during times when women cannot work due to pregnancy or menstruation. There are several more reasons to argue why God designed it this way, and why alternative lifestyles like homosexuality, polyamory, or choosing not to have children may be considered selfish or suboptimal on both an individual and societal level. While the statements 'The Bible told me so' and 'It's a model for how Christ loves the church' are valid, they might only be persuasive to those who already identify as Christian. In defence of Walsh who has to appeal to a audience of believers and unbelievers chose to not mention theology. For agnostics, logical reasons behind God's commands are more likely to instill confidence in the Bible. Anyway, that's my rant. @WiseDisciple I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it's advisable to use the authority of the Bible as a basis to support one's position in a debate when the opponent is an unbeliever.
If Rogan asked me about couples who choose not to have kids, I would have said ideally yes. If you don't want kids, then you should not receive the financial incentives from the government that is reserved for marriage. However I would say realistically yes, because it's impossible to enforce since people will just lie and say they plan on having kids.
@WiseDisciple. Love your channel and your takes! I'm with you 💯. I'm on Matt Walsh's side here, but he made a huge error in playing Rogan's game. If God's word is not our starting point, then we enter into the naive world of the unbeliever. Walsh's failure to appeal to God's word (the objective standard), led him into Rogan's subjective worldview. What's Joe's ultimate authority? Walsh should have stood firm and upheld God's word, thus highlighting Rogan's subjective and baseless worldview. Does Rogan have a problem with a grown man and a toddler tying the knot? If so, why? By what standard is that wrong in Joe's worldview? Very disappointed with Walsh here. There is no such thing as neutrality.
So i have a question - when Jesus says what God has joined together, let no man put asunder, is He talking about individual man & woman marriages or is He talking about what marriage is supposed to be overall? If He is speaking on marriage overall, that changes a few things on how we should approach marriage right?
It seems like Walsh is like a lot of us: He knows what he believes on this subject, but he doesn't know the subject well. If you are accustomed to simply taking your position for granted, you may find yourself in a situation where you have to articulate beliefs you haven't taken the time to examine closely for yourself. I think this encounter is an encouragement to the church to think more deeply and focus on how to communicate clearly and effectively to others who do not agree with or understand Christian faith & practice.
@WiseDisciple I'm a huge fan of yours nate and I'm a daily wire member and matt walsh's approach is very good like the what is a woman documentary he does not bring up God and reaches more people by just using biology and he talks in some shows later answering people commenting against how he did it. He points out that people dismiss you if you bring up God's word so if people reject the bible and stick to the evidence science holds to then biology is great starting point for unbelievers.
Amen. Thank you, Bro Nate. Sweet Daddy Walsh did not do a good job, no siree. We can't allow them to sucker us into leaving God out of it, because its all about God, we lose the moment we leave God, this was a Prime example
When you listen to this whole conversation it becomes apparent that Joe Rogan has his own standards as to what makes a legitimate marriage. The question that Joe needs to answer is what his standard his, from whence it came, and what authority does he possess to force that standard upon others who disagree with him (the exact thing he is up in arms about Matt Walsh doing). The problem sweet daddy Walsh had was that he started at the wrong place. Instead of starting with revelation, going into natural law, then appealing to human history, he skipped revelation all together and went straight to natural law and history. He cut off one of the three legs of his stool at the very beginning.
I’m gay and deeply devoted to Christ. I have my thoughts on this video, but I will say I greatly appreciate this pastor for his approach. What’s in Scripture is an institution for marriage and it’s spiritual purposes and a layout of heterosexual inferences because that’s the majority of everyone who lived and what the Law required before christ came. In the very few chances I get into discussions with someone who is against gay marriage, I would love to get to the meat of scripture and discuss the foundational pillars of marriage and why it’s in the bible! As soon as they start talking about procreation like it’s a requirement for christians or think gay couples existing is destroying the institution because of their own biases, I already know the discussion won’t get anywhere. Most people that are against gay marriage because of their faith have the privelege of shooting straight from the hip the six clobber passages “condemning homosexuality” and then dust their hands like they did God’s work, but gay christians ACTUALLY read and STUDY this particular topic EXTENSIVELY for obvious reasons. So it would be nice to talk to someone who doesn’t think being gay means you don’t know the bible and there’s just some solid definition we don’t already know about.
I wonder if a reason Matt's starting place for his definition of marriage sounds different than many of us here because it comes from the difference between the way Catholics view marriage (Matt) and the protestant view on marriage.
I understood where his logic was but it can still fall apart in the view of a nonbeliever. Why? We can trace the origins of Brazilian Jujitsu to confidently say the "new style" isn't it. Meanwhile marriage happens worldwide in different religions/cultures.
I honestly had to stop watching the podcast with Matt and Joe after a bit because I was practically yelling at the computer for Matt to ground marriage in Scripture. Joe even asked him to talk about his faith, and Matt didn't want to even bring it up. Marriage is not something that can be argued from a naturalistic perspective (as Matt is trying and ultimately failing to do) because, as opposed to Joe's claim that he made, it is not a man-made institution. It was designed by God for a purpose: to reflect the love of Christ for his bride (the church). And yes, one piece of marriage is pro-creation. Pro-creation is both a blessing and a duty of married couples. When God said in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply," that was both a blessing and a command. It is so sad to see someone like Matt who claims to be a Christian and yet actively avoids standing on Scripture to talk about something that God has personally designed.
How hard is it to say, because marriage is a covenant between one man one woman and God. This is exactly what happens when you try to make a biblical point without the Bible just because who you're talking to doesn't consider the Bible a source. The bottom line is homosexuals can't get married because marriage is something created by God. Your religion is supposed to come into play in this argument
Rogans postion seemed to be to have you question what God says. Sounds kinda of familiar to me. Great job Nate on the Brazilian hotdog eating. I loved the comparison.
Here’s my crazy idea, let me know what you think: Marriage = the joining of two different things which creates a new thing of the same kind. This not only fits the definition given in scripture between man and woman, but also matches common parlance when understood properly. For example, if you blend two different types of coffee, letting them sit together for a time, their flavor profiles are said to “marry.” What you wind up with in your cup is a brand new thing! Same goes for tea, tobacco, and all sorts of things which can be creatively joined. So the marriage of a man and a woman is necessarily the coming together of the two to produce a new one. The vows of human marriage as well as the rest of the social order is built on nurturing and raising up that child. Rinse and repeat until there are 9 billion of us lol Maybe that seems irreverent-I definitely don’t mean for it to be-but I believe it’s helpful for understanding what marriage is.
Added note: to Rogan’s point, he probably wouldn’t see it the way he does if western society weren’t so lax on these super important, foundational things. The deep hypocrisy of our society (and in Christendom by extension) seems to make any unbeliever see our point of view as true. Such a mess that we’re in 😔 Lord, have mercy!
Always use the following question. How did you come to that conclusion? Challenge more with more questions and make them support their foundation to their Worldview.
Physiologically, each person has complete systems (circulatory, respiratory, nervous, skeletal, etc.) which sustain the individual, while the reproductive system is split in half between organisms that reproduce sexually. One biological function depends on the union, or marriage, of these two systems, and these systems are what define male and female. This is one of the reasons that things like r*pe are morally wrong… it’s an involuntary yet potentially permanent union.
Here's my argument (if anyone interested.) Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period. At least this Western version of Marriage we have, where we literally QUOTE THE BIBLE! Those who are not of the Faith, should not have an interest in participating because it's not for them (obviously I'm not saying atheists can't get married, I'm just saying they shouldn't want to.) You spit in the face of my God and then ask for His blessings? No. I'm not okay with that. Go make your own tradition if you wish, I want to keep Marriage what the Church decreeded it, a sacred union of one man and one woman in God. Most of the people who advocate Gay Marriage are not Christian. Those people should not get to have a say unless they are a part of the church. I don't correct Muslim rituals. I don't walk into the Satanic Temple and yell at them for not being inclusive. They do what they want. Let the Christians keep our traditions sacred.
Why do they have to be before a priest in church? Ratifying the marriage before God? A homosexual union is a sin in the bible. That's like being someone who wants god to ratify and bless a bank robber for being a bank robber or a idolater, pick another sin. And since it seems obvious that they know that, it comes off as an antagonism before God.
Wise Disciple's illustration states the black belt is marriage while Brazilian Jiujitsu is Christianity. The issue I thought when he finished explaining that analogy is that there's black belts for many martial arts in the world. If someone gets a black belt in Karate (let's say it's Hinduism) does that mean their black belt isn't a real black belt?
Joe said as an example, “I dont want to ruin a kid because Im at the office all the time.” Where’s your sense of ambition? Challenge! Those kids’ very existence is incredibly valuable to the creator of our world. If I get to spend an eternity with my children when this gauntlet is finally over it would be worth fighting and struggling to balance the glory of a career and spending nonreturnable time with my family. Even if I train them up in the way they should go and they possibly reject Christ, it makes the chance that they might believe in him that much more precious. Nate, you are doing the Lord’s work and I’m so moved by you brother. Thank you for all that you do and the glory is God’s. Love in Christ Nate. God bless you.
Would Jesus even speak out against gay marriage? Or would he love them and say “follow me” and mention the food and water that truly satisfies? Great video as always you’re the best
@@dave1370 ya I mean preaching a message promoting gods message and will is the bread and butter definitely. I’m wondering if he sees our non stop debating and engagement on the specific issue with the unbelievers as foolish and counterproductive. Telling slaves to sin that their specific sin is wrong, and not just a blanket gospel of salvation presented with love and humbly naming yourself a sinner too ya know? That’s how the “god hates ____” slogan came from because we condemn specific sins instead of “we’re all sinners who need a savior”. And approaching it like we’re saving someone we love from danger, and not fighting them as an enemy. Even their sin isn’t the enemy. The enemy is the enemy and he’s all of our enemy. Just thinking out loud here…
26:31 I would also quote Ephesians 6 for it talks about children which are the fruit of marriage. This also shows that marriage is that institution that unites children to their father and mother. A so called homosexual marriage would hurt children for it deliberately deprives them of a mother or a father. God gives the command to married couples to "Be fruitful and multiply" This is one of the reasons for the couple to become one flesh and this 'one flesh union" should only be happening within marriage. It is marriage which is the kind of union that protects the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman and any children that may be conceived from their loving union.
I think Walsh received a lot of criticism from Christians and I believe he defended his arguments later on his show. His point was that getting into theology wasn’t going to be effective or something. I think he said something along the lines of having experienced that it’s less effective to bring God into the discussion.
I don't see how your analogy would work. Describing it, you mentioned how the redefinition of Jiu Jitsu had a negative effect on the fighters that were practicing the traditional sport, instead of the new hot dog version. How is this analogous to same sex marriage? What would you lose, if I happily married another man? What would you lose?
At the height of the gay marriage debate, the conservatives side proposed that States could chose to recognize 'civil unions' between same sex couples which would confer whatever benefits that States decided were legal benefits, provisions, and accountability features of marriages - meaning the legal institution. Gay marriage advocates rejected this idea because it would 'other' gay marriage. They instead were arguing for gay marriages to be treated the same, and identically to straight marriages, not just legally speaking, but in the eyes of society and under the same terminology. The point of the BJJ analogy is that all BJJ practitioners lose the meaning of BJJ if anyone can come in and say that they are a BJJ master without knowing a thing about the tradition and even including random activities like hot dog eating. Likewise, the loss to marriage traditionalists is the same as in the analogy. You cannot ever marry another man, because marriage by definition precludes that possibility, exactly the same way that BJJ is not hot dog eating. What straight people lose is the ability to use the word properly, to mean exactly what marriage is supposed to mean when they say it, in exactly the same way that Nate's world of a hot dog eating BJJ tournament existing would suddenly invalidate every actual BJJ master's practice - BJJ would no longer be able to be spoken of accurately again, and it would no longer truly exist because of that. It's not just traditions that work this way, but all words do. Imagine the word orange suddenly started referring to every color available. Now just try and tell me about your 'orange' chair. There is now no possible way to ever communicate the color of your chair accurately to anyone because the word 'orange' no longer excludes the other colors. All words, and all categories, are by definition exclusionary in nature, not inclusionary.
@@shawn4110 What a poor argument. I asked "What would you lose if I happily married another man?" and all you responded with is "Well, it's tradition." Even if it's a tradition, it's obviously a harmful one and the analogy does NOT work, because neither is marriage competetive, nor does same-sex marriage harm anyone to tge point that it would justify discrimination. Your "arguments" are just an excuse to justify bigotry and hatred against minorities, because of the alleged words of your specific god that you can't demonstrate exists. You should be ashamed of yourself for the discrimination you contribute to! I hope for a world, where LGBTQ-individuals can live their lifes like everyone else 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
I think Walsh is trying to defend it without invoking God, presumably assuming that his message is going out to a primarily secular audience. Unfortunately that's a habit the Daily Wire has as a whole, they try to sneak their message into the mainstream but in order to do so have to disavow or diminish the principles behind it.
Great breakdown, as always. From other conversations I have seen with Joe, he is not a fan of the Bible or Christians but I feel like Matt missed a great opportunity to share the gospel. Yup, that's coming from me typing this out and not a guest at one of the most viewed podcast in the world, so I give Matt grace. However, I'd assume that Matt should have anticipated this very question when being interviewed by an agnostic or atheist. Not dogging on Matt because this is very difficult, but sad that a gospel opportunity was missed.
This is a conversation between two unbelievers who have differing opinions. We shouldn't be surprised that Matt has no idea what he's talking about. He's not a Christian so why would he give Christian answers?
I am completely on Walsh's side and think he's a great debater normally, but in this particular debate, he really wasn't in his best shape. He missed some important and obvious arguments, and was not getting to the point, which led to a pretty shaky argumentation. He normally doesn't do that, he's pretty clear and conscise in most debates I know of him. Probably he was nervous, or just had a bad day. I recommend to anybody who saw this as a first impression of Walsh to check out his show, he has very good presentations and debates there.
You say that marriage is about self-sacrifice, Amen to that. But what your side constantly fails to substantiate is that this kind of self-sacrificial love is somehow impossible to exist in a homosexual marriage. You don't ever once explain why what is good in a heterosexual marriage is bad in a homosexual one.
I think the only pushback might be that there are tangible benefits, namely tax benefits, for those who are married. So the question is would we be better if we entirely separated marriage from the state? As you alluded to, at this point, even for a lot of people who identify as Christian in some capacity, marriage is largely symbolic.
@@solidsloth1Why are you not proposing that solution though? The west has already separated all of the traditional purposes of marriage from marriage other than the legal impact concerning property and power of attorney type decisions. Modern western marriage is just a civil union, and the State needs a compelling reason to maintain marriage if it is conferring benefits. The State cannot use the stabilizing effects nor the benefits of providing a stable structure to raise children as a compelling reason to incentivize marriages though tax breaks and etc unless they maintain that traditional effects and expectations as well. Modern marriage serves none of it's traditional purposes, therefore, it should be removed from the State and no longer incentivized by the State. All of the remaining relevant consequences of marriage are covered by alternate legal arrangements, and forcing people to go through those legal processes while taking away any unearned benefits from the married would be a forcing factor to fix everything wrong with modern marriages.
@@shawn4110 I would be in favor of it, I think, I just didn't really want to get into a debate in the comments. You could argue that the design of marriage benefits society even if people don't always follow through or do it for the right reasons. The alternative of children being raised in environments where there is no family structure is a scary one.
I love Matt Walsh, and I watch his show almost daily. He doesn’t try to take the conversation into biblical texts. Just as with his film “what is a woman”, he didn’t take that to the Bible because so many people doesn’t believe in the Bible so he likes to take it from a different thought. He didn’t do a good job here unfortunately but I wish he would take it there sometimes. Thanks for the video ! I love what you do for Gods kingdom!
Saying, “oh if you don’t believe the Bible, then let’s pretend the Bible doesn’t exist as we argue this,” is NOT how the Bible says to do it. Walsh is a decent fellow and well-meaning, but he’s a Roman Catholic, not a Biblical Christian, and it shows clearly.
I agree Nate. It seems almost as though Walsh went into the interview determined to try to make arguments that did not bring in Scripture. The problem is that a Christian cannot do that without undermining his own position, which is based on Scripture. The interview, therefore, was a bit of a disaster for him. It was hard for me to watch.
Rogan did do a better job at defending his worldview than Walsh did defending his.
That's because Matt didn't present a worldview.
Walsh did a bad job, period. At no point did he throw the question back at Rogan with a "so what's the difference between marriage and living together?" or suchlike, as that would then naturally elicit a conversation on the definitions being used for the word, "marriage". Once it were established that one was talking about a modern legal statute and the other about scripture's definition, something fruitful might (and only might) have come from this. As it was, the conversation went Groundhog Day and Walsh ended up browbeaten by what was essentially the same philosophical point framed in different ways. All heat, no light.
It wouldn't come to Scripture because Walsh is attempting to make an argument from "natural theology", aka from nature/philosophy and not from revelation (special or natural). And he fails big time lol
@@michaelmannucci8585yes walsh has a great documentary and he does not mention the bible and focuses strictly on the natural world and biology and I respect his approach because to explain this point before the bible to people who reject God's word first establish science and biology. Makes sence and he has said alot of people gave him a hard time for not talking about the bible and he says if people reject the bible they first have to not reject basic biology and natural law.
@@joshuawoodin Apart from Scripture, there's no objective reason why Walsh is correct.
@@michaelmannucci8585 That isn't true though. The BJJ tradition is not scripture, but that tradition is still a good argument for why hot dog eating contests are not BJJ tournaments, as was illustrated in Nate's analogy.
Marriage is a word that has come to, in practice, mean 'a contractual legal agreement that carries certain limited powers of attorney and legal assumptions about property rights'. While it has come to mean the equivalent of 'going steady' or saying 'I like like you' in the minds of modern people who have attached the word 'committed' to the afore mentioned legal action.
The traditional meaning of marriage, while based on a scriptural understanding of the tradition, doesn't require scripture for the tradition itself to be the argument. The problem is that in modernity the traditional features of marriage and traditional purposes of marriage have all been abandoned except for the legal consequences of property rights and property transfer. The other pieces, such as, marriage being permanent, and even the entire point of those legal consequences, which is to ensure a stable society and provide an tradition for building families and community, has been abandoned.
To return to the analogy, it's as if we were in a world where society has already dismissed the traditional point of martial arts and the entire point of claiming you are a 'martial artist' has already devolved into nothing but a virtue signal. In such a world, it would not be surprising to find every activity being suddenly described as a 'martial art' no matter what actual activity people are doing.
In the world above, it would still make sense to point out that eating contests and acrylic painting being called martial arts makes no sense because they lack any physical fitness, physical discipline, have zero self-defense purpose, and do not map onto any purpose traditional martial arts have served other than maybe 'having fun doing an enjoyable activity'.
The point being that 'civil unions' which is a word designed to describe the legal consequences without the traditional features of marriage is ironically the accurate way to describe gay marriage, and further ironic, is that the vast majority of marriages in the west would also be best described as 'civil unions' rather than marriages.
The one place Matt could have done better in this interview while still not using a scriptural argument, which he was intentionally avoiding, would be to dig into the failure of marriages more broadly when talking about the disservice of abandoning the monogamy and permanence of marriage, and to point out that without monogamy and permanence straight marriages aren't real marriages either. ONLY traditional marriage is marriage, and everything else is just a 'civil union' codified into the laws of the times.
@@shawn4110 If marriage is just a tradition, it has no *objective* meaning. Also, there's no objective "outght" which says you cannot divert from tradition.
Matt failed utterly *because* he is adopting the worldview of the secularist (which chucks out objective truth, logic, epistomology, morality, etc) and then trying to argue that something is objectively true and something else is objectively wrong (both propositionally and morally). It's nonsense.
As a Christian the reason for marriage is to commit to the person you love and become one instead of two in the eyes of God. And now after this commitment to become one, you can now bear children. Of course now people just get married to get married that's why it's so easy for people to just divorce or just have kids outside of marriage. But for us Christians, marriage is a very sacred commitment, not just between 2 people but with God as well. That's my veiw of marriage as a Christian
Man and women
I agree, good points. And marriage allows people to have sex without sin. That fact is great too.
As a Christian myself, I would say you have made a similar mistake that Walsh has made. Which specific 2 people can be married? You said it’s just 2 people who love each other and want to have kids. With that definition, there is no reason a man and another man can’t elope. You have to dig into the details a little more.
A marriage like you said is a bond between 2 people and God. To go further however, it is a God accepted bond between 2 people that only God would allow to become married. From there we can go into the scriptures and into the definition of what a Godly relationship is.
From here you can then bring up the Brazilian Jiu jitsu analogy to kind of help the other person to gain an understanding of how you view marriage, even if they don’t agree.
You can even further the conversation and then get into what the other person deems a marriage and then get into the pros and cons of such arrangement. There’s honestly so much that could be said here but you get the point, it can be hard to converse on such a topic because there’s so many synonymous words we wanna use that are nice and kind words to convey our point but if we say use too much salt with our words, the person won’t even eat the meal you out in their plate. There’s also the chance the person just doesn’t like steak and no matter how well you make it, they will never eat the steak because they have a child’s appetite and only want chicken nuggies.
Very good analysis!
Thank you.
Loved the Brazilian Jiu Jiutsu analogy! Spot on!
Rogan did great because he remained consistent. What was frustrating from Walsh is he would not provide a solid definition of marriage. I think later in that video he is asked more specifically if his belief in Jesus had anything to do with it.
This is unfortunately is an example of the position that people of faith put themselves in when they attempt to argue without including God, the Bible, or any theological understanding.
Exactly. This is what has always put a bad taste in my mouth with these supposedly religious conservative figures. They never talk about God, the Bible, the gospel, etc. They either want to appeal to a wide audience of conservatives who might not be religious, or maybe they just aren't even that serious about their own faith and really just see the Bible as a book that has some good ideas.
So far, Charlie Kirk is the only one of these widely known political people who I have actually seen talk about God a bit.
I disagree. The effects of Christian living are superior to the effects of secular living. You do not specific references to scripture or theology to see the truth. In fact, we have the term "cultural Christian" to describe this where an atheist can recognize the beneficial effects of living according to Biblical principles regardless of whether you believe in God or not.
@@CassTeaElle Joe Rogan already rejects the premise of the existence of God (from what I can tell).
The atheists reject all justification for the existence of God, if you try to use God to justify any of your arguments you will be instantly dismissed by them, no matter how good your points are.
The only reasonable way to combat this is to have them retroactively come to the conclusion of God's existence, through making good points for your arguments. Once they see your arguments clearly and probe them further, they will come to face God. What they choose to do with this realization then is up to them. But I can tell you that this is far more effective than using God to justify your arguments when talking to someone who already rejects God. In most cases at least.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. My point was only that in the interaction Walsh seems to intentionally leave out Christian doctrines. Many Christian apologists can go down this road as well leaning so heavily on logical reasoning as to forget to make the case for the biblical God.
@@CassTeaElle Charlie Kirk also believes in gay marriage
The Jiu Jitsu analogy is actually so good and I’m definitely stealing it to alter based on who I’m talking to and things they’re passionate about
@speaksilince14Fools who refuse to listen and fools who may come to the truth both exist. As a Christian I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way in both situations.
@@HelloTygr Who is to say that the Holy Spirit cannot use the words of a person, to help arm someone else with the appropriate words?
Do we not seek Scripture for guidance, hopefully, on a regular basis?
@@wintersresurrection9841 I think you’re misunderstanding something here. The top comment is me, and the reply comment is also me, responding to someone else who deleted their reply. I mean basically what you’re saying so I don’t disagree with that.
Walsh should have addressed the worldview difference right out of the gate, and not let up till that was clearly grasped, THEN proceed to further steps. For many Catholics (not all, but many) the Bible is a mostly black box out there on the periphery somewhere and rarely, if ever, read. Great job brother!
Nate! Great video!
So, I think I saw once that Matt Walsh purposefully didn’t bring up the Bible (he said this about the “What is a Woman?” movie) and I think that he wanted to come at this from a separate perspective outside of quoting the Bible…however I think your video proved that Walsh should go this route moving forward!
Yeah I saw that too and he was right as far as letting the arguments fall against the tide of logic and reason. The problem is at the very base we have Jesus and the Bible for our position and we need to be able to express that without alienating our opposition. It’s not easy!
@@fiftycalguru I disagree. He wasn't right, and he strugled to make an argument against gay marraige from natural theology because there really isn't a coherent one. There's no merit in giving up our foundation/worldview in debate. We don't expect the atheist to give up his foundation/worldview, so why should we give up ours? Without the Christian God you cannot have logic and reason.
@@michaelmannucci8585 yeah I agree with you totally what I meant was it is correct to allow the trans positions to fall apart on their own, because they will eventually. But I went on, more to your point, to say our base is Jesus and God’s Word and it should t be neglected in our arguments. I think I was trying to say the same thing you are just not as well.
17:22 for the really good Brazilian jiu-jitsu analogy against same sex marriage
Matt could have responded better at times, however I did notice that Joe was interrupting more than he should have
Interrupting? What was he interrupting? Walsh’s embarrassing debate skills?
His point of the discussion was to prove his view without bringing his faith into it. His idea, is why bring up Christianity’s view of marriage to an atheist. I don’t agree with his way of argumentation but that’s why he went that way.
And that's where he failed terriblely. 😢
Ya I know this is how he approaches these types of conversations and yet as Christians watching it is hard to watch. In this interview, it does look as if Joe Rogan defends his worldview better. It's frustrating to watch.
@@Drowning_Girl I get that and I agree if he was talking to a Christian I would be fully for it but I do think it has effectiveness to non-Christian’s.
I think it’s a extremely effective because Christians can claim a grounding for their view of marriage. Arguing for marriage from a ‘neutral’ or atheistic perspective is like trying to contain a runny, slippery goo in your hands.
I have definitely heard non-religious arguments against g*y marriage that are more clear and compelling. He should not have conflated the product of marriage with the definition of marriage itself. Rogan's definition was subjective and vague. And Walsh picked up on that. Yet because he could not articulate a clear and sufficient definition himself, Rogan was able to press him on inconsistencies repeatedly. He clearly won the debate, unfortunately.
Man your video is exactly what I was looking for a year ago when I saw this Joe Rogan episode. Matt's position was very difficult to understand without the clear foundation of the christian worldview. Very difficult. Glad to finally see a take like yours.
Excellent presentation.Thx for teaching us to think critically when engaging with secularists.
Nate, I’m surprised you let that F bomb slip through. You didn’t even flinch!.
Matt probably understands (at least partly) the theological depths of marriage, he just bends the knee to secularism in his arguments, just like the vast majority of Christians on the vast majority of social issues.
He's spoken about it on his channel that he doesn't want to lead into an argument to appeal from a Christian worldview. He feels people will shut him down immediately. But this is where I think he fails. So ya I agree with what you are saying. He is trying really hard to be politically correct.
@@Drowning_Girl it’s like disarming yourself when you arrive to a fight.
@@Drowning_Girl So will they not immediately shut him down when he appeals to God?
@@prayerjoseph9776 as a christian we should appeal to God though and still have sound reasoning. Why can't it be both?
@@Drowning_Girl Thanks for asking that.
Let's imagine that you are a judge, and there is this group of people who say children should be free to do as they please, us not letting them is wrong.
You ask them why they say this, they tell you; children are human beings and human beings are free to do as they please, this is what is recorded on the ancient rock, so why are you stopping children from doing as they please?
As a judge how would you take their response, does this "ancient rock" carry any weight whatsoever?
I hope you will also give me an answer to the question I asked in my other comment. If you are not sure whether or not an unbeliever would shut you down as soon as you bring up God in a seemingly seperate argument, go and do it when arguing with an unbeliever and note their reaction.
Appreciated the reaction. Walsh would have done well to discuss the foundation of marriage being that marriage is the only thing that came from the Garden pre-fall an all. 😉
Nate, I found your analogy of real Brazilian Jujitsu vs fake Jujitsu eating 100 hot dogs to be spot-on when compared with the argument of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. It actually does create a very eye-opening perspective on why biblical marriage isn't just a "subjective, symbolic relationship" that the world can change according to its preferences. Its fundamental core truth is much deeper than just child-bearing or wanting a companion. Fantastic job breaking this down!
It’s always interesting to me how secular people and Atheists will say morality comes from the natural survival instincts example: “we don’t murder each other because otherwise we would no longer exist” and yet at the same time advocate for life styles by definition are against life
No they literally don't.
How if Infertile people get married or acesexuals it doesn't hurt the population anyway straights are still the majority population is going down because of other stuff like things being too expensive
Walsh mentioned on his podcast that he was trying to not bring up god in the conversation
But why not?
@@billleroy6736 so non religious people might be convinced
But he needs to give a proper grounding for his view or his view is no stronger than Joe's. and that is how it came across.
And that’s why his argument fell apart, because there’s no secular argument against gay marriage.
@@jackiewheeler9202 Nope. There's a reason why Governments have protected Traditional marriages and gives them benefits over others. They have a mom and dad who in turn have children. This family structure has been around for millennia. Everyone knows this is what's best for a functioning society.
If Walsh would have lead with Christianity, Rogan rebukes with Muslims (et al) marrying, and perhaps we'd get to the same point (and perhaps homosexuality, since it becomes a series of interchangeable labels).
To be fair, Walsh openly admits on his show that he intentionally did not go down the path of explaining the purpose of marriage from a religious standpoint, but instead focused on the practical standpoint, because the religious aspect is very foreign to people at least today since religion has lost of lot of its social significance in this culture. They won't understand how religion even ties into it, so Walsh rationalizes it from purely a practical, biological standpoint that is and should be non-controversial. So he intentionally tried to avoid that because he didn't think talking from a religious standpoint would be productive.
Watch his review of the highlights from that discussion:
ruclips.net/video/RXDkKpXqR98/видео.html
@josephthomasmusic Looks like Nate didn't really do his prep on this one... which is a little ironic haha
A lot of people who don't consider themselves Christian have a decent understanding of the religion (perhaps because of the early years of the country being shaped due to judeo-christian ideas)
@@anthonym8205 true that's why I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Matt walsh. I'm just giving his explanation as to why he didn't provide a religious explanation of marriage.
@@josephthomasmusic and my view is that while non-believers may not understand some concepts (like the rosary) they do understand basic concepts (such as the idea of sin), even if they don't believe in them
@@anthonym8205 While I appreciate you sharing your particular view, I don't think it's necessary because we're just providing what Matt Walsh's rationale is. Sure you can disagree with that, but I'm not the one you should be disagreeing with since I didn't give my particular view on the matter. That's all I'm saying.
Another reason he failed is because Matt Walsh has said himself that it's no use to use Biblical arguements against people who don't believe in the Bible but better to use practical arguments. The problem here is, while there are good practical arguements in support of marriage, its hard to find a practical arguement against gay marriage.
Conversely, just using practicality, it is more practical that society should support gay marriage because instead of diseased spreading through the community like wildfire and over into the straight community through bisexuals, most states would require a blood test and gay or not, at least one partner is most likely going to expect monogamy.
Can’t wait 🙌 I’ll love the way you spear head these issues Nate… God bless
I believe the reason the divorce rate is high is directly related to understanding what a biblical marriage is. Great feed back sir
Later in the episode Rogan asks Walsh if his view comes from the Bible and Walsh says yes but he thinks that you can defend the definition of marriage based on natural law instead of using the Bible. I disagree with him because natural law comes from the Bible and God's creative order but that is Walsh's response.
I think it is unanimous if there is a topic that needs needs to be championed with a Biblical spokesperson we should rally and send Jeff Durbin of apology Church
Great take on this. I think Matt Walsh was ill prepared for this based on his responses. Joe is coming at marriage from a completely different world view. He feels the benefits of the union without understanding of what the union is therefore, which is as you stated to shadow and somewhat reveal the true marriage of Christ and the church. We as believers should understand this and work to put that on display. Marriage is not a state or man made institution it is a God made union that displays His wonderful Salvation!
My minds blown! I’ve never heard of an argument against gay marriage that blows all arguments for it, completely out of the water’s of reason!!
Going to use this superior analogy of reason whenever confronted with this argument in the future. :)
I watched the whole interview, it was good, would recommend. This last 30 minutes on gay marriage was excellent. You can tell that Matt was trying so hard not to bring Christianity into the conversation. I total understand this, as in my experience, the moment you mention God/Bible/Christ into this kind of conversation, the other side completely rejects and/or doesn’t even listen to you. So I understand Matt’s motivation to attempt to not incorporate Christian believes into his argument. And that begs the question.. is that even possible given our understanding of marriage?
I get it but id argue that people like Rogan are KNOWINGLY asking for a christian's perspective.
He knew Matt was christian so the expectation shouldnt be "argue outsife of your belief structure but tell me your beliefs"
But marriage is not only Christian.
This ☝️
I may be very wrong, but imo, the reason Walsh is debating/arguing w/o using much scripture is because of his DW "co worker/mentor" (for lack of a better description) Ben Shapiro. He has a very staunch belief/practice of not using any "arguments from authority", but especually to never use the Bible/Torah.
I disagree w/ that because as Christians we're to view the world through a biblical lens; through the lens of Christ's teachings.
Joe gave him every opportunity to step up to the plate and gives the true biblical definition. But he just refused to do it.
I think Matt intentionally stayed out of the biblical definition of marriage, perhaps because is well known that Rogan have continously question that validity of the Bible so they would get stuck in that subject instead of the main topic that they pick for that day.
It was a really nice example about Brazilian jujitsu. A similar case happens with the word: football. For me, American football is NOT real football. You can call me close-minded, or whatever you want, but you will not convinced me that running with a ball in you arms is Football.
Walsh like a good Catholic was trying to argue from natural law:
St. Paul did.
@@GratiaPrima_ Never said he didn’t.
@@Particularly_John_Gillgotcha. Sounded like you were insinuating Catholics are wrong for doing this?
@@GratiaPrima_ Not wrong. Just incomplete.
Which is the only way to argue and be logical, Christianity is when you have your nose in scripture and ignore the creation
Matt Walsh doesn't actually read the Bible, because he is a catholic and their priests defer them away from actually reading the Word for themselves, and if they do, they turn them first off to their catholic Bible, and then tell them to only read a verse or possibly a chapter and them come back to them for a interpretation of that passage. Matt needs to get him a King James Bible, sit and study it everyday, and come to a faithful belief in the Word. I'm not saying that catholics can't be saved. Salvation is purely based upon our faith in the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But catholics certainly do have a lot more hoops to jump through to get passed all of the catholic tradition and heresy to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Mary is NOT a mediator.
I didn't have much expectations for Matt Walsh knowing that he is a Roman Catholic.
If only someone like John MacArthur or James White was the one with Joe Rogan then they would start from the Scripture.
The difference is epistemology.
There are so many bad representatives of Christianity out there who are so bad because they believe and think that they know it all. I hope that there will be no one lead astray by this.
The analogy was so good, not sure how much thought went into it… aimed at Joe, perfect, especially with the antithesis of laying around eating 100 hot dogs, so gay.😂… Gold.
Wow, the bjj argument is incredible and can be asked of anyone whos accomplished any long term goal. Thank you brother!
Catholicism 🤦🏻♂️
This is a controversial view, but here goes, Matt Walsh isn't a Christian or at the bare minimum he is a lukewarm Christian. Why? Because at one point is he willing to advocate for this faith and declare that marriage is defined by God, Jesus further clarifying its tenants, and it isn't something Man is supposed to define at all.
Matt Walsh apparently just never thinks about God this entire time. He just cares about the political implications of it because he worships the State more than Jesus.
The Brazilian jiu-jitsu analogy is actually very good perfect
Especially for Joe. He would’ve gotten that and felt it immediately.
I thought it was really good as well
I don’t think it’s good at all. He is a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu person ok then what. People dress up as profession during halloween. What can he do with it? Teach classes? People will call him out for being a terrible teacher and he will lose students. Go into tournament and get his butt kicked. Not a good comparison because the government is involved in marriage there are protection and benefits that comes with marriage. There is nothing that comes with Brazilian jiu-jitsu person.
@@steventalik4782 do you think he was saying it’s the exact same thing in every way or only comparing how it’s undermining the meaning that the title carries? This isn’t a contest for the best complete analogy of gay marriage, he’s only honing in on how to explain the specific concept of keeping the title “married” to mean what it was created to mean. You’re overthinking it and missing the point
@@iowafamilyexoticsrescue6637 meaning for marriage can mean differently to different people. Denying same sex couple to get married (the benefits and protection that come with it) because it doesn’t represent your meaning of marriage makes no sense to me. What is the real world consequences of allowing gay marriage? Netherland had legalized gay marriage since 2001 (21 years) and heterosexual couple are still getting married and still having kids within that marriage. So clearly the value of marriage has not decreased.
Walsh is usually so great on these subjects, but he is seriously sucking in this debate! I thought Walsh (who I highly respect) would wipe the floor with Rogan, but he fell way short! This should have been about God and the scriptures and God’s plan for marriage and the wrongness of being gay, instead it became a debate of procreation!
Walsh his a great cultural warrior but he is plagued by his catholic Thomistic natural theology...
Culture warriors are a plague to society IMO. They're the result and promoter of our toxic culture wars.
As others have stated, Walsh and Shapiro both have stated numerous times that many of our fundamental principles are Biblical in nature and have their foundation in Gods truth. However, in an argument with a secularist we have to be able to ‘win’ the argument without quoting scripture. Make the argument from the results of following Gods word, stable and cohesive society.
Natural Law arguments can be made against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Walsh would do well to brush up on these.
In the meantime, he should invoke his Catholic moral framework, since - as a Catholic - he believes all persons everywhere will one day be judged by God.
Your analogy of the Brazilian hot dog eating jujitsu is funny, and does make sense, but i feel like Joe Rogaine is so lost and confused at this point, just to not allow you to prove your point, he would say that it doesn't matter because he could come in and tear the place apart with his real jujitsu.
As an agnostic turned Christian, I find myself at odds with the common apologetic approach that relies on the assertion 'because God said so' when engaging in debates with atheists. Such arguments often lack resonance with those who don't have find confidence in the Bible it's akin to invoking Santa or the spaghetti monster.
In my perspective, the God portrayed in the Bible embodies wisdom and reason, and the commandments outlined within it can be justified through sound logic. I believe that individuals, when seeking the qualities of God such as love, truth, justice, mercy, and wisdom etc, would independently arrive at positions aligned with the Bible. Apologists should strive to present compelling reasons behind why God issues specific commands rather than just emphasizing they are from God.
Take the example of marriage in the podcast. While procreation is a purpose, there are numerous additional reasons for the specific configuration of marriage dictated in the bible. Monogamy between a virgin bride and groom, for instance, offers optimal protection against sexually transmitted diseases, shields individuals from emotional trauma caused by promiscuity, provides protection to women and children, fosters a nurturing environment for children, ensures sexual fulfillment and companionship for both partners, guarantees paternity, contributes to population growth, and offers stability during times when women cannot work due to pregnancy or menstruation.
There are several more reasons to argue why God designed it this way, and why alternative lifestyles like homosexuality, polyamory, or choosing not to have children may be considered selfish or suboptimal on both an individual and societal level.
While the statements 'The Bible told me so' and 'It's a model for how Christ loves the church' are valid, they might only be persuasive to those who already identify as Christian. In defence of Walsh who has to appeal to a audience of believers and unbelievers chose to not mention theology. For agnostics, logical reasons behind God's commands are more likely to instill confidence in the Bible. Anyway, that's my rant.
@WiseDisciple I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it's advisable to use the authority of the Bible as a basis to support one's position in a debate when the opponent is an unbeliever.
The best Argument for this is simple, What is marriage?
If Rogan asked me about couples who choose not to have kids, I would have said ideally yes. If you don't want kids, then you should not receive the financial incentives from the government that is reserved for marriage. However I would say realistically yes, because it's impossible to enforce since people will just lie and say they plan on having kids.
How do we get Joe Rogan to see this?
@WiseDisciple. Love your channel and your takes! I'm with you 💯. I'm on Matt Walsh's side here, but he made a huge error in playing Rogan's game. If God's word is not our starting point, then we enter into the naive world of the unbeliever. Walsh's failure to appeal to God's word (the objective standard), led him into Rogan's subjective worldview. What's Joe's ultimate authority? Walsh should have stood firm and upheld God's word, thus highlighting Rogan's subjective and baseless worldview. Does Rogan have a problem with a grown man and a toddler tying the knot? If so, why? By what standard is that wrong in Joe's worldview? Very disappointed with Walsh here. There is no such thing as neutrality.
Man that was a great analogy the bjj hot dog contest
So i have a question - when Jesus says what God has joined together, let no man put asunder, is He talking about individual man & woman marriages or is He talking about what marriage is supposed to be overall?
If He is speaking on marriage overall, that changes a few things on how we should approach marriage right?
It seems like Walsh is like a lot of us: He knows what he believes on this subject, but he doesn't know the subject well. If you are accustomed to simply taking your position for granted, you may find yourself in a situation where you have to articulate beliefs you haven't taken the time to examine closely for yourself. I think this encounter is an encouragement to the church to think more deeply and focus on how to communicate clearly and effectively to others who do not agree with or understand Christian faith & practice.
Day 5 of asking for James White vs Tim Stratton
As a Christian who also trains BJJ, I loved that analogy.
@WiseDisciple I'm a huge fan of yours nate and I'm a daily wire member and matt walsh's approach is very good like the what is a woman documentary he does not bring up God and reaches more people by just using biology and he talks in some shows later answering people commenting against how he did it. He points out that people dismiss you if you bring up God's word so if people reject the bible and stick to the evidence science holds to then biology is great starting point for unbelievers.
Amen. Thank you, Bro Nate. Sweet Daddy Walsh did not do a good job, no siree. We can't allow them to sucker us into leaving God out of it, because its all about God, we lose the moment we leave God, this was a Prime example
When you listen to this whole conversation it becomes apparent that Joe Rogan has his own standards as to what makes a legitimate marriage. The question that Joe needs to answer is what his standard his, from whence it came, and what authority does he possess to force that standard upon others who disagree with him (the exact thing he is up in arms about Matt Walsh doing). The problem sweet daddy Walsh had was that he started at the wrong place. Instead of starting with revelation, going into natural law, then appealing to human history, he skipped revelation all together and went straight to natural law and history. He cut off one of the three legs of his stool at the very beginning.
I’m gay and deeply devoted to Christ. I have my thoughts on this video, but I will say I greatly appreciate this pastor for his approach. What’s in Scripture is an institution for marriage and it’s spiritual purposes and a layout of heterosexual inferences because that’s the majority of everyone who lived and what the Law required before christ came. In the very few chances I get into discussions with someone who is against gay marriage, I would love to get to the meat of scripture and discuss the foundational pillars of marriage and why it’s in the bible! As soon as they start talking about procreation like it’s a requirement for christians or think gay couples existing is destroying the institution because of their own biases, I already know the discussion won’t get anywhere. Most people that are against gay marriage because of their faith have the privelege of shooting straight from the hip the six clobber passages “condemning homosexuality” and then dust their hands like they did God’s work, but gay christians ACTUALLY read and STUDY this particular topic EXTENSIVELY for obvious reasons. So it would be nice to talk to someone who doesn’t think being gay means you don’t know the bible and there’s just some solid definition we don’t already know about.
I wonder if a reason Matt's starting place for his definition of marriage sounds different than many of us here because it comes from the difference between the way Catholics view marriage (Matt) and the protestant view on marriage.
7:27 So is marriage to Rogan, "just a loving bond" What is Love? Distinctions! Distinctions! Agape, Eros, Storge, Philia..
Your analogy was amazing about jujitsu.
Great analogy on that Jujitsu
I understood where his logic was but it can still fall apart in the view of a nonbeliever. Why? We can trace the origins of Brazilian Jujitsu to confidently say the "new style" isn't it. Meanwhile marriage happens worldwide in different religions/cultures.
Rogan shouldn’t have been the one bringing God up before Walsh
I honestly had to stop watching the podcast with Matt and Joe after a bit because I was practically yelling at the computer for Matt to ground marriage in Scripture. Joe even asked him to talk about his faith, and Matt didn't want to even bring it up. Marriage is not something that can be argued from a naturalistic perspective (as Matt is trying and ultimately failing to do) because, as opposed to Joe's claim that he made, it is not a man-made institution. It was designed by God for a purpose: to reflect the love of Christ for his bride (the church). And yes, one piece of marriage is pro-creation. Pro-creation is both a blessing and a duty of married couples. When God said in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply," that was both a blessing and a command. It is so sad to see someone like Matt who claims to be a Christian and yet actively avoids standing on Scripture to talk about something that God has personally designed.
How hard is it to say, because marriage is a covenant between one man one woman and God.
This is exactly what happens when you try to make a biblical point without the Bible just because who you're talking to doesn't consider the Bible a source.
The bottom line is homosexuals can't get married because marriage is something created by God. Your religion is supposed to come into play in this argument
Rogans postion seemed to be to have you question what God says. Sounds kinda of familiar to me. Great job Nate on the Brazilian hotdog eating. I loved the comparison.
Here’s my crazy idea, let me know what you think:
Marriage = the joining of two different things which creates a new thing of the same kind. This not only fits the definition given in scripture between man and woman, but also matches common parlance when understood properly.
For example, if you blend two different types of coffee, letting them sit together for a time, their flavor profiles are said to “marry.” What you wind up with in your cup is a brand new thing! Same goes for tea, tobacco, and all sorts of things which can be creatively joined.
So the marriage of a man and a woman is necessarily the coming together of the two to produce a new one. The vows of human marriage as well as the rest of the social order is built on nurturing and raising up that child. Rinse and repeat until there are 9 billion of us lol
Maybe that seems irreverent-I definitely don’t mean for it to be-but I believe it’s helpful for understanding what marriage is.
Added note: to Rogan’s point, he probably wouldn’t see it the way he does if western society weren’t so lax on these super important, foundational things. The deep hypocrisy of our society (and in Christendom by extension) seems to make any unbeliever see our point of view as true. Such a mess that we’re in 😔 Lord, have mercy!
Always use the following question. How did you come to that conclusion? Challenge more with more questions and make them support their foundation to their Worldview.
Great illustration!
Physiologically, each person has complete systems (circulatory, respiratory, nervous, skeletal, etc.) which sustain the individual, while the reproductive system is split in half between organisms that reproduce sexually. One biological function depends on the union, or marriage, of these two systems, and these systems are what define male and female. This is one of the reasons that things like r*pe are morally wrong… it’s an involuntary yet potentially permanent union.
Here's my argument (if anyone interested.) Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period. At least this Western version of Marriage we have, where we literally QUOTE THE BIBLE! Those who are not of the Faith, should not have an interest in participating because it's not for them (obviously I'm not saying atheists can't get married, I'm just saying they shouldn't want to.) You spit in the face of my God and then ask for His blessings? No. I'm not okay with that. Go make your own tradition if you wish, I want to keep Marriage what the Church decreeded it, a sacred union of one man and one woman in God. Most of the people who advocate Gay Marriage are not Christian. Those people should not get to have a say unless they are a part of the church. I don't correct Muslim rituals. I don't walk into the Satanic Temple and yell at them for not being inclusive. They do what they want. Let the Christians keep our traditions sacred.
After hearing your take on that discussion I feel like Matt Walsh really dropped the ball.
I wish you would actually talk to rogan about this, that was a great analogy.
"Why are we not talking about the Bible then?" Because the Bible is an absolute fictitious work.
Why do they have to be before a priest in church? Ratifying the marriage before God?
A homosexual union is a sin in the bible. That's like being someone who wants god to ratify and bless a bank robber for being a bank robber or a idolater, pick another sin. And since it seems obvious that they know that,
it comes off as an antagonism before God.
1 Corinthians 7:2 is really good
1 Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:26
Jude 1:7
Leviticus 18:22
1 Timothy 1:10
1 Kings 14:24
This was good. I liked the Wise Disciple’s black belt hot doggers illustration.
The “hotdog” analogy was a little too aprons-pos tho….. just sayin’
Apros
Wise Disciple's illustration states the black belt is marriage while Brazilian Jiujitsu is Christianity.
The issue I thought when he finished explaining that analogy is that there's black belts for many martial arts in the world.
If someone gets a black belt in Karate (let's say it's Hinduism) does that mean their black belt isn't a real black belt?
About the brazilian jui jiutsu. Joe is going to whoop your ass and roll over the floor lauging.
Joe said as an example, “I dont want to ruin a kid because Im at the office all the time.” Where’s your sense of ambition? Challenge! Those kids’ very existence is incredibly valuable to the creator of our world. If I get to spend an eternity with my children when this gauntlet is finally over it would be worth fighting and struggling to balance the glory of a career and spending nonreturnable time with my family. Even if I train them up in the way they should go and they possibly reject Christ, it makes the chance that they might believe in him that much more precious. Nate, you are doing the Lord’s work and I’m so moved by you brother. Thank you for all that you do and the glory is God’s. Love in Christ Nate. God bless you.
Great analogy with the BJJ!!
Would Jesus even speak out against gay marriage? Or would he love them and say “follow me” and mention the food and water that truly satisfies?
Great video as always you’re the best
So……would Jesus speak out against sin?
@@jeremyhobson4295 specific sin in public?
@@iowafamilyexoticsrescue6637 I mean, if He openly spoke FOR a marriage as defined by one man and one woman, He basically did.
Part of the "follow me" is to rebuke sin and to tell them "sin no more"
@@dave1370 ya I mean preaching a message promoting gods message and will is the bread and butter definitely. I’m wondering if he sees our non stop debating and engagement on the specific issue with the unbelievers as foolish and counterproductive. Telling slaves to sin that their specific sin is wrong, and not just a blanket gospel of salvation presented with love and humbly naming yourself a sinner too ya know? That’s how the “god hates ____” slogan came from because we condemn specific sins instead of “we’re all sinners who need a savior”. And approaching it like we’re saving someone we love from danger, and not fighting them as an enemy. Even their sin isn’t the enemy. The enemy is the enemy and he’s all of our enemy. Just thinking out loud here…
26:31 I would also quote Ephesians 6 for it talks about children which are the fruit of marriage. This also shows that marriage is that institution that unites children to their father and mother. A so called homosexual marriage would hurt children for it deliberately deprives them of a mother or a father. God gives the command to married couples to "Be fruitful and multiply" This is one of the reasons for the couple to become one flesh and this 'one flesh union" should only be happening within marriage. It is marriage which is the kind of union that protects the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman and any children that may be conceived from their loving union.
I think Walsh received a lot of criticism from Christians and I believe he defended his arguments later on his show. His point was that getting into theology wasn’t going to be effective or something. I think he said something along the lines of having experienced that it’s less effective to bring God into the discussion.
I don't see how your analogy would work. Describing it, you mentioned how the redefinition of Jiu Jitsu had a negative effect on the fighters that were practicing the traditional sport, instead of the new hot dog version.
How is this analogous to same sex marriage?
What would you lose, if I happily married another man? What would you lose?
At the height of the gay marriage debate, the conservatives side proposed that States could chose to recognize 'civil unions' between same sex couples which would confer whatever benefits that States decided were legal benefits, provisions, and accountability features of marriages - meaning the legal institution.
Gay marriage advocates rejected this idea because it would 'other' gay marriage. They instead were arguing for gay marriages to be treated the same, and identically to straight marriages, not just legally speaking, but in the eyes of society and under the same terminology.
The point of the BJJ analogy is that all BJJ practitioners lose the meaning of BJJ if anyone can come in and say that they are a BJJ master without knowing a thing about the tradition and even including random activities like hot dog eating.
Likewise, the loss to marriage traditionalists is the same as in the analogy. You cannot ever marry another man, because marriage by definition precludes that possibility, exactly the same way that BJJ is not hot dog eating.
What straight people lose is the ability to use the word properly, to mean exactly what marriage is supposed to mean when they say it, in exactly the same way that Nate's world of a hot dog eating BJJ tournament existing would suddenly invalidate every actual BJJ master's practice - BJJ would no longer be able to be spoken of accurately again, and it would no longer truly exist because of that.
It's not just traditions that work this way, but all words do. Imagine the word orange suddenly started referring to every color available. Now just try and tell me about your 'orange' chair. There is now no possible way to ever communicate the color of your chair accurately to anyone because the word 'orange' no longer excludes the other colors. All words, and all categories, are by definition exclusionary in nature, not inclusionary.
@@shawn4110 What a poor argument. I asked "What would you lose if I happily married another man?" and all you responded with is "Well, it's tradition."
Even if it's a tradition, it's obviously a harmful one and the analogy does NOT work, because neither is marriage competetive, nor does same-sex marriage harm anyone to tge point that it would justify discrimination.
Your "arguments" are just an excuse to justify bigotry and hatred against minorities, because of the alleged words of your specific god that you can't demonstrate exists.
You should be ashamed of yourself for the discrimination you contribute to!
I hope for a world, where LGBTQ-individuals can live their lifes like everyone else 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Your example is almost perfect!!
Good video Nate!
I think Walsh is trying to defend it without invoking God, presumably assuming that his message is going out to a primarily secular audience. Unfortunately that's a habit the Daily Wire has as a whole, they try to sneak their message into the mainstream but in order to do so have to disavow or diminish the principles behind it.
Great breakdown, as always. From other conversations I have seen with Joe, he is not a fan of the Bible or Christians but I feel like Matt missed a great opportunity to share the gospel. Yup, that's coming from me typing this out and not a guest at one of the most viewed podcast in the world, so I give Matt grace. However, I'd assume that Matt should have anticipated this very question when being interviewed by an agnostic or atheist.
Not dogging on Matt because this is very difficult, but sad that a gospel opportunity was missed.
He lost me when he said not having kids is rejecting my role. Walsh is low-key hateful of couples without kids. He hates unmarried women more.
This is a conversation between two unbelievers who have differing opinions. We shouldn't be surprised that Matt has no idea what he's talking about. He's not a Christian so why would he give Christian answers?
I am completely on Walsh's side and think he's a great debater normally, but in this particular debate, he really wasn't in his best shape. He missed some important and obvious arguments, and was not getting to the point, which led to a pretty shaky argumentation. He normally doesn't do that, he's pretty clear and conscise in most debates I know of him. Probably he was nervous, or just had a bad day. I recommend to anybody who saw this as a first impression of Walsh to check out his show, he has very good presentations and debates there.
You say that marriage is about self-sacrifice, Amen to that. But what your side constantly fails to substantiate is that this kind of self-sacrificial love is somehow impossible to exist in a homosexual marriage. You don't ever once explain why what is good in a heterosexual marriage is bad in a homosexual one.
True, and any long lasting and meaningful relationship, romantic or not, requires a level of self-sacrifice.
I think the only pushback might be that there are tangible benefits, namely tax benefits, for those who are married. So the question is would we be better if we entirely separated marriage from the state? As you alluded to, at this point, even for a lot of people who identify as Christian in some capacity, marriage is largely symbolic.
That has been discussed before by politicians that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks, Anthony. And just to be clear, I'm not proposing this solution.
@@solidsloth1Why are you not proposing that solution though? The west has already separated all of the traditional purposes of marriage from marriage other than the legal impact concerning property and power of attorney type decisions. Modern western marriage is just a civil union, and the State needs a compelling reason to maintain marriage if it is conferring benefits.
The State cannot use the stabilizing effects nor the benefits of providing a stable structure to raise children as a compelling reason to incentivize marriages though tax breaks and etc unless they maintain that traditional effects and expectations as well.
Modern marriage serves none of it's traditional purposes, therefore, it should be removed from the State and no longer incentivized by the State. All of the remaining relevant consequences of marriage are covered by alternate legal arrangements, and forcing people to go through those legal processes while taking away any unearned benefits from the married would be a forcing factor to fix everything wrong with modern marriages.
@@shawn4110 I would be in favor of it, I think, I just didn't really want to get into a debate in the comments. You could argue that the design of marriage benefits society even if people don't always follow through or do it for the right reasons. The alternative of children being raised in environments where there is no family structure is a scary one.
I love Matt Walsh, and I watch his show almost daily. He doesn’t try to take the conversation into biblical texts. Just as with his film “what is a woman”, he didn’t take that to the Bible because so many people doesn’t believe in the Bible so he likes to take it from a different thought. He didn’t do a good job here unfortunately but I wish he would take it there sometimes. Thanks for the video ! I love what you do for Gods kingdom!
Saying, “oh if you don’t believe the Bible, then let’s pretend the Bible doesn’t exist as we argue this,” is NOT how the Bible says to do it. Walsh is a decent fellow and well-meaning, but he’s a Roman Catholic, not a Biblical Christian, and it shows clearly.
I agree Nate. It seems almost as though Walsh went into the interview determined to try to make arguments that did not bring in Scripture. The problem is that a Christian cannot do that without undermining his own position, which is based on Scripture. The interview, therefore, was a bit of a disaster for him. It was hard for me to watch.
WHEN THE HECK WE GONNA SEE YOU DEBATE DADDY NATE?!?!
Walsh failed.