I don’t see this as a “show down”. It’s two people having a deep conversation while respecting one another. It’s exactly what this world needs. Everyone in the United States should watch this interview regardless of what views you have. Kudos to you both.
For what? The fact that Matt Walsh is even having this conversation proves that he has accepted homosexuality as normal. If homosexuality is a normal practice, so is gay marriage. However, if homosexuality is an unnatural practice then so is gay marriage. There's no discussion to have.
I guess clickbait is just the accepted norm from now on. But I'm almost not sure if I even mind it in this case. We all ought to look for this type of discussion more often than we look for "show downs".
Major props to Jillian for hosting Matt. It is exceedingly rare that liberals will host conservatives. Conservatives host liberal all the time. We need more dialogue.
Absolutely, I agree. Conservative media has more tolerance for hearing out moderates or liberals. Liberals rarely hear out a conservative point of view. Jillian is awesome for making room for a conservative perspective.
It does actually, because marriage is a social construct that has changed through time to fit the needs of a society. One's "opinion" on the subject doesn't automatically make it the law of the land. Especially in today's contemporary society.
@@speedstackingmaniac Respectfully, not everyone follows the one teaching from a religion that has 3000+ different variations of itself, that advocates for things like slavery and impregnating young girls through immaculate conception. 🤷♂ It's not so much about changing *his* mind on the subject, but subjecting others who do not follow said variant of said religion that has changed throughout thousands of years. "God created marriage because a 2000+ year old book says so" is not a valid argument based in any sort of observable science.
@@erauprcwa So then marriage can become anything. In every that is EVERY society marriage was always related to the act of consummation. An act that can ONLY be achieved through heterosexual sex no matter what form the relationship took. That is whether polygamous, monogamous whatever the basic act was always heterosexual. And in NO society was homosexuality elevated to the same level as heterosexuality. In NO society was the homosexual relationship preferred or celebrated to the same level as today. No matter how much homosexual behaviour was indulged it ALWAYS confined to a second class activity because it was NOT procreative. And procreation is utterly essential if any society wishes to continue. Case Closed!!! Marriage is discriminatory because the act of procreation is discriminatory.
This was a great example of how to have an uncomfortable conversation between two people who disagree but allow the other one to get their point across. This was well done.
I'm a conservative. I like Matt walsh. I absolutely do not agree with this woman for the most part, but I am in awe of how polite and reserved she is emotionally when arguing this topic. I can see that she is a lesbian and this is clearly a topic that is personal to her, and I absolutely commend the fact that she could have an open dialogue in such a civil manner. That's really awesome
@@supertrippyjohngit’s even more depressing how the suppressive right doesn’t understand and lacks compassion on someone’s self. No wonder the people affected by your archaic thinking get upset. It’s none of your business. Let people live their lives.
@@RenaissanceMan-pg3duit's cute that you think attacking others with a different perspective in a civil thread is somehow helping make things better...
I respect you Jillian, but you are reading alternate definitions that where changed only recently to be "more inclusive". That doesn't mean that those are correct
Today's concept of marriage is a modern one. You used to could marry 100 wives. People married they're siblings and cousins, at one point. Transgenderism used to be common until the crusades, and they married men. Monogamy used to mean one person forever, now it means one a time. My point is marriage throughout history has evolved through time.
At the end of the day, no one can tell Jillian who or what her marriage or family should look like. Matt lives in la la land! Been a fan of his for years but he is way off on this one! She wins the debate just by being.
At the end of the day, the USA 🇺🇸 is trying to be as inclusive as humanly possible that ILLEGAL ALIENS are allowed to vote in their politician elections.
Yeah this was very annoying that Matt did not push back better on that idea. He let her steamroll him when we all know that they just changed the definition to fill their political needs.
yep, I think 100% class act, and very well thought out arguments and respectful. I think she actually wants to understand the other side, which is exceedingly rare.
Jillian’s definition of marriage is the reason why marriage is such a failure now. Because it’s being viewed as a contract not a fundamental need for our society
Marriage has always been viewed as a contract. In biblical times or any pre-modern times really, its been used for business transactions, alliances, treaties, etc. This is also the reason why in the past women were essentially treated as property, girls/women many times were used as a bargaining chips. Here's my my virgin daughter that will bear you children and act as a token of good faith between our clans, now partner with me so our 2 villages can work together in harmony. The same thing is reported in so many historical accounts across various cultures.
Not many people would be willing to have this conversation, much respect to you Jillian for bringing on someone like Matt Walsh to have an open conversation.
@@kestrelmedialaws change all the time. So you debate ideas to prevent laws from changing again. Or you prefer what? That they redefine marriage, nobody talks about it and same sex marriage is void?
@@kestrelmedia I definitely do not agree with him on a lot of stuff but if we share ideas that aren't normally shared it creates a dialog which is needed in society instead of everyone living in their own bubble.
One thing that I really loved is that. Especially in today's easily "triggered" (which used to actually mean something" world. My man is directly calling her out as a threat and he believes that she should not have the right to marry who she chooses. And she seeks to understand and probably wants to change his mind but you know what she doesn't do? Start yelling. Cry. Get violent. Demand he apologize. She doesn't care - because she believes what she's fighting for is right. It's absolutely ridiculous when people get offended over me using the "wrong" pronouns. Like if you referred to me using "she" I wouldn't care because I know you're wrong Okay then as a side note, as someone who really respects Matt Walsh and loves to hear his take on things but doesn't agree with him on this particular issue I'd give him (or really you because he's not here to take my question) the same question he posed for his first documentary (to great effect). What is a marriage? I'm not asking its purpose, I'm seriously just asking for a definition
@@samstromberg5593 As a Christian, I follow Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:4-6: “Haven’t you read,” Jesus replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” This makes it clear that men and women are supposed to be joined together. In regards to homosexuality, it's clear from Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 1 Corinsthians 6:9-11, 7:2 and Romans 1:26-28 that such acts are sinful. Corinthians includes fornication and adultery in the same category of serious sin. I know people don't like to hear that, but it's written quite clearly. So I consider any intercourse that's not between a wedded man and woman to be sinful.
@@keshaestevan3623 It affects the culture in a negative way. A marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of civilization, and as a Christian, it's also a moral value. Even the NIH has a publication that points out that having a mother and father is best for children. Personally, I think the government should be out of the marriage issue entirely, as it really should be a religious issue. But if the government wants to financially incentivize marriage, then it should be for the union that can create life together, which is also the healthiest environment for raising children.
@@samstromberg5593 Something seems to have happened to my previous reply. Instead of re-typing that lengthy message, I will just say that marriage is laid out clearly in the Bible as between men and women. It even says that to be a pastor, you must be the man of ONE wife. the Biblical standard, which is a moral standard, is quite clear.
Why? Why is this a conversation that needs to be had over and over again? Isn't this old news at this point, gay marriage is legal - does anyone really think we need to go back?
@@JustinHenryfan We don't need to go back. But in a way, this is a friendly reminder that although conservatives look like the normal ones now compared to how power hungry the democrats have become, ANY political ideology will overstep their boundaries and pursue negative outcomes under the disguise of doing the right thing if they gain enough traction. Oppose the growing radical left, but never forget a lot of people on the right will try to take away rights if not kept in check.
@@JustinHenryfan They deleted my comment for some reason, but yes, this is why you have to keep any side that gets into power in check. The left has gone off the deep end with power, but don't think that that can't happen with the right. People of any ideology, given too much, will corrupt. People in the comments genuinely talking about taking away gay marriage. That's insane. Don't die on this hill. Matt lost this debate as soon as Jill brought up "you don't go after people who can't procreate".
I get both of their points. But man, her situation is such a mess, it kind of proves Matt’s point. She adopted a girl who never even got an adoptive father, and now has two separated adoptive mothers, and a son with no father from the get-go, and now separated mothers… she wants government protection, but her own family unit, already built on non optimal grounds and the cutting off of her son’s father, completely fell apart. Why did she force children in this non procreative situation, and then not protect her family unit? But now she wants to rely on government protection? I don’t understand…
its actually quite easy. Because she only cares about herself and her 'happiness'. A child is an accessory to a lot of women. I should have one so i'll take one, just like a watch. All of the rights, none of the duties. all of the privileges, none of the responsibilities
What's weirder is they supposedly adopted a child from Haiti... like why when there are plenty of local children who need parents? It just reeks of liberal minded virtue signaling.
No they don't in fact gay couples raise kids just as well as straight couples. In fact kids raised by gay parents have even ben turning out better than kids raised by straights. They get better grades, stay out of trouble etc,
I've seen traditional marriages that have produced abused and undisciplined children. I've also seen single-parent and same-sex couples with children who turned out just right. It's not about what the parents are, it's who the parents are.
Let's be real, how many marriages are loving and respectful? That's a picture-book idea that is not tethered in reality. Yes, it would be great. But it's not real.
Jordan Peterson explains this better. Jillian asked, “Why not just have kids? Why get married?” Marriages protects not only the child, it protects the mother. Meaning, the wife and child inherit the house, the money, etc, and it’s past down by generation. Before there was marriage, there was anarchy. Women were just sex slaves. Marriage has a fundamental important reason for society. I don’t understand why Matt doesn’t explain this. He agrees it’s fundamental, but he doesn’t successfully explain why.
Yes it’s a contract of possession. All my stuff is hers and all her stuff is mine. Including ourselves. It’s a governmental record for the future. Her kid’s’ descendants will have to go through extra steps just to find out who their paternal ancestor is.
Matt isn’t Jordan Peterson and I believe it’s better conversation to have Jillian to explain her opinions and understanding , instead of being man splaining to a woman…😂
Huge respect to these two people for coming together and having an honest open conversation without annihilating each other’s character. Rare these days!
@@pdizzle10484You would not do well in a civil debate. Both sides made good points. I would be curious to watch the whole thing because I would have more questions for her.
@jookm There should never be a civil debate with Matt Walsh because to do so is to give him more credence than he deserves. He is a liar, a propagandist, and a provocatuer for clicks. He sat there in front of Jillian and told her she doesn't deserve the same rights he does and that's supposed to be taken seriously? Absolutely not.
@pdizzle10484 Marriage isn't a right. And you're part of the problem of why we can't have civil debates among those we disagree with. I applaud them both. But using your logic, why stop at gay marriage? Let's give those same benefits to single people, brothers and sisters, cousins, friends, everyone. Starting to sound ridiculous? Exactly.
@jookm Having a civil debate with people with beliefs that are not civil is the real problem. People like Matt, and you, should be laughed out of every room for your terrible logic and bad faith arguments.
I think this conversation reveals marriage is an evolving concept. Yes, Matt is correct about some of the historical intent of marriage, and the logistic uniqueness of how a hetero procreative relationship would be compared to homosexual and/or non-procreative relationship. But, I think Matt's standards reveal how what he stands firm on is more based on his beliefs rather than an objective, rational perspective. Gay marriage does not harm anyone in any meaningful way beyond your religion.
@celticbat3792 Children do better in a two parent home where those two parents are a male and female. Homosexual relationship deprive children of that experience that they are inherently owed. They are owed this because they can only be produced from a male and female.
There's a substantial cultural difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union' which has the exact same legal implications and protections. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals is being sold as 'inclusive and progressive,' but the underlying motivation is actually the erosion of Western culture and ideals. As POS communist Herbert Marcuse said: "The new socialist world order can only be built on the ruins of all pre-existing cultural values." As one of the European Marxists said: "In every Western nation we will ridicule all virtues, and proclaim all vices virtuous."
@@fedev80It is not. Sex is part of human nature. And considering natural selection have not eliminated same sex behavior from our species in the last 200.000 years, it is natural variation of the sexual behaviour of our species.
@@Pedro-m7f3f buddy, there's nothing more detrimental to the survival of the species than homosexuality. That's the whole point. Watch the video again. Homosexuality remains in spite of natural selection, not because of it. Because humans are not dogs or insects. Human nature involves the need of a man and a woman to conceive and raise children in a loving heterosexual family. Aka marriage. And that hasn't changed. I'm sorry but homosexuals don't have that ability. Deal with it I guess.
And the minor attracted individuals also want in on this "conversation", the people who want to define marriage between direct and close relatives want in on this "conversation"... you can't hurt a dead person, so the people who want to "marry" the dead must also be heard, like this woman insists on being heard. Wow. Insanity.
@@Maxwell86Smart You're getting it so entirely wrong. The idea between any relationship is valuable because it is a CONSENSUAL agreement between both parties who want to commit to each other. The minor attracted individuals or the necrophiliacs are NOT a sexual identity because dead people CANNOT CONSENT nor can children CONSENT because they don't know any better. Many if not all the sane lgb's are completely against pedophilia and necrophilia because it's not a sexuality, it's well... a "philia"
Mrs. Michaels...While I lean hard towards Mr. Walsh's convictions, I am so impressed with your commitment to debate and the search for truth. I hope that this kind of honest and courageous conversation will become normal again.
It is so sad that this comment has to be made. Why is this not the norm that 2 people with differing views can have a friendly dialog. It is so sad the the media and identity politics have driven so many people to have so much hate that a normal conversation is no longer normal and the new normal is argument and fighting.
Not placing this as an attack, just a definition from 1826: “MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
I get that, but times have changed n we gotta be able to advance as a society. I’m Catholic n I have no problem with gays getting married. Not all marriages are done in a church, so it’s not just religious meanings. That’s like saying atheists can’t get married cause they don’t believe in god, which is silly. There are atheists who wanna get married n have kids, they don’t have to believe in god to get married n have kids.
this is a definition from 1826, marriage exists a looooooong time ago, in various religions (not just between christians, there's rituals of religions like witchcraft of marriage. Regardless that, the definition changed, because religion isn't based on reality, just on your faith. Nowadays, marriage is not only a civil contract, but something symbolic. It's like assuming and declaring the love you feel for your partner to the world.
@Caz-z1x yes times have changed but not for the better. There are more abortions now than ever so is massacre of the unborn for selfish reasons good? Is it good that a Christian mother and father can't foster a child because they're not a same sex couple and if the police find out the Christian mother and father is fostering a child the police can legally take it away. Boy how times have changed for the better😆. If the sacredness of a pure marriage is done away with there's a collapse in society and you're already there
e@Caz-z1x advance. Don't make me laugh. Times have changed bit not for the better. You may count it as better because it's giving people their sinful desires
Wow... When they brought the woman caught in adultery Jesus wrote in the sand. He then told the woman go and sin no more. Christ is about people. The love of people. And you ok with people living in sin and possibly going to hell
Eh kind of. The emotional manipulation tactics were a bit much. It’s not that mature to force a fake inauthentic tone. “Aren’t you a good person?” “But how can you be a good person if you don’t agree with me?”
“When a society abandons the definition of meaning and purpose of the marital union, that has vast implications on society” -Matt WOW what a truthful statement everyone should agree upon.
@@331Grabber how do u know its not causal? people use the argument "correlation is not causation" wrong all the time! in virtually every cause causation is only discovered because correlation was first discovered.
What impact does it have? Its been a thing for years now and I dont see society burning down? I dont see religious married couples LOSING anything Everyone keeps saying it has implications on society but when you put their feet to the fire to actually PROVE it all you get is ambiguous "look at how bad things are" as if there is a clear link between anything that ever goes wrong and its because gay people are being married If ANYTHING is having a vast implication on society its RELIGION... just look at the middle east at the moment, the ONLY reason people are being slaughtered by the thousands is because they believe their imaginary friend told them they could live there You are just talking absolute gibberish... just like Matt All of his arguments are absolutely fallacious: - "Its been that way for thousands of years" ARGUGMENT FROM TRADITION. For THOUSANDS of years they had human sacrifices... why are you not arguing for that now? Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it somehow guaranteed to remain unchanged for all eternity - "If we climbed out of the ashes and couldn't remember anything" If that happened then YOUR FUCKING RELIGION WOULD BE GONE! So arguing that we would somehow regain marriage as being between a man and a woman and therefore it must be "right" then you are arguing your own religion is wrong because IT WOULDN'T COME BACK! I could go on all day and night about the pathetically WEAK arguments that Matt keeps giving, but it is idiots like you who are too dim witted to see how stupid you sound supporting him
1) Not everyone is religious 2) religions have flaws, especially Christianity 3) homosexuality doesn't harm anyone 4) love is love, why do yall care so much
you mean thanks Mr Walsh for defending your self-interests and to hell with everyone else lol ....with that tribal attitude humanity won't last another hundred years. Who cares who wants to get married dude.
@@friendlyskiespodcast until a decade or two ago there was no such thing as same sex marriage”marriage” … humanity thrived on it. Wonder how long humanity will exist into the future with all the liberal laws and “rights” they are arguing for …
The original definition even up to the 90’s was. “The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life.” 🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️
@@heatherbrandon1243 that is true but I’m talking about a word changing it definition with in a generation. When I was a kid I had stained glass rainbow 🌈 in my window. It would shoot colors all over the room. I loved it. But now it has a completely different meaning. To me, marriage is a man and a woman. That doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t be in a union of equal rights. Just call it something else instead of changing words definition. Look up the word “gay” it still has the definition of “happy or joyful” as one of the definitions. It never was changed, just added to. We have an epidemic of erasing history.
@@Thechickenmantx unfortunately Matt always blows it when he’s on someone else’s show. I love his show but he is slow to the point and stumbles throughout and boring when he goes on another show. I get you want to think through your answer but come on man! Spit it out
@detroitsurvivor4989 Sharp as a serpent, gentle as a dove. Matt is trying to have the conversation without being too "religious", it's a good choice and not an easy path. To say that he "blew it" is armchair coaching, and I don't believe, respectful of the situation he is in. My understanding is that the apostles spoke to the Greeks differently because they had to show them with their own words how their ways were wrong and the truth is with Christ. It was a missed moment, and perhaps he was too hesitant overall....I just have a real problem with the concept of him "blowing it" if anything he did an excellent job
@@Thechickenmantx that's a good critique. I think it's worth pointing out. One of my daughters encountered a girl with 2 "mommies", and asked me about how all that works. I told her that in fact, this girl does have a father and a mother, but in all likelihood will never have the chance to meet her father and possibly also her mother. She's being denied a relationship with one or both for whatever reason. That it's a sad situation, and she should make it a point to be kind to this girl, but not engage her in conversation about this specific thing. She seemed to understand the injustice.
@@mmhmmmyearight7183 Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary was the standard for all of western civilization at the time. Yes, the work was accomplished because of Christianity. The post-modern, Orwellian, “dictionaries” which have subsequently come along with the express purpose of tearing down western civilization, and specifically taking aim at Christianity, have dismantled the English language as a means towards that end.
Change definitions, changes discussions. There is an obvious motive for changing the definitions. I'm a book collector, and own a 1910 and a 1933 Websters. From the dawn of recorded history, the consensus was marriage was a union of a man and woman....until very recently. We can change reality to suit what we want....and use a change in definition as one means of doing it.
Jillian really hope you see this, as a conservative, must honor and give you credit for having such a beautiful, CIVIL, RESPECTFUL conversation with someone who has different views. Again even if I disagree the way you carried yourself and the way you guys spoke is literally two lung filled breaths of fresh air!!! Thank you thank you. So dope!
As someone who tends to align with Matt in terms of this subject, but has always loved Jillian and who she is as a person and how i've known her to be through biggest loser, etc...I VERY MUCH love this forum/discussion with respectful discussion between 2 people of different views. Major Props Jillian.
Wow, who knew this sensitive topic could be discussed/debated in such a respectful manner by BOTH participants? God i pray that America gets back to this.
MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. -Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
@@NathanH83 Awful, adjective "Filled with awe" or "inspiring awe" -14th century Middle English Words have meaning because we give them their meaning. And over time, we find new meaning in these words. Those meanings aren't derived from anything other than society. We choose how to use them, not the other way around.
@@Unknowntyper Well you're just conflating "awful" with "awfully?" Next time someone asks you how they look, describe their appearance as "awful" and see what their reaction is. Like I said, we give words meaning. The meaning isn't derived from nature.
@@NathanH83 A lot of people don't subscribe to your mythology. Regardless, marriage originated from Mesopotamia not Christianity. So your point is even more moot.
Ah yes, so nice to watch two people talk past each other, change no one's mind and make lots of money while ignoring the fact that debating gay marriage is putting the cart before the horse...in fact, the real debate should be about the "horse" not the cart. But Matt Walsh, and everyone else on BOTH sides ignore this fact.
I respect Jillian for having Matt on and actually having a conversation rather than just virtue signal or scold him. That said, Jillian, what you're missing is the elephant in the room you don't want to see. Not every couple will conceive, BUT every child has a mom and dad. Your ex-spouse did create a child and then denied her child the right to be loved and raised by the father because the father is inconvenient to HER wants. THIS is what you don't want to see for obvious reasons. Kids made via IVF are always comodofied. You are using the exceptions (parents who can't conceive) to attempt to debunk the rule (all kids have a mom and dad). I know you're smart, so this isn't about "missing something." It's about willful blindness because of your chosen lifestyle and sexual desires.
Well said. I would add to that the natural order of things is that 1 man and 1 woman create children. 2 women cannot do it. 2 men cannot do it. Therefore, it is NOT natural for 2 women or 2 men to have a natural family. It is not designed to work that way. It's not simply about having the capacity to love another person and provide love to a child or children and seeing to their needs. Gay couples can NEVER raise children in the same way a heterosexual couple can. PERIOD. There are far more implications to what it means to be a "family". Jillian will never truly understand this because she wants EVERYTHING that comes with being attracted to and marrying a person of a complementary gender. But nature doesn't work like that.
I completely agree with you. Same sex advocates like to strawman their ideologically enemies by saying:" LOL what about sterile people?" While ignoring the reality that it's biologically impossible for them to conceive and bear children. The point of the argument is to show that homosexuals by nature are completely cut off from a very important part of marriage, therefore demonstrating that same sex marriage is impossible.
@marcusaxel3425 I think they are making the case that every child needs a mother and father. Most single mothers would rather have a husband - typically the reason they don't is either the father of the child leaves OR they are abusive and therefore the mother leaves. No one has to settle for a "crappy marriage" if they find a wife/husband to be in a loving relationship and provide the second parent figure that might be missing (there are single dads too). The ideal is a mother and a father in a healthy relationship. But no one is perfect and we all have wounds. No one is advocating for people to stay in an abusive relationship for the sake of children. Two women/two men as parents will not provide the child with a perspective on life that is essential for healthy development. The children are missing an essential piece of understanding of where they came from and their place in the world. These children will have the wound of abandonment. This wound is created from the lack of one or both parent(s) being involved in the child's life. IVF within same-sex marriages or as a single mother is purposefully inflicting this wound on the child. It's creating the child with a certainty of psychological damage that leads to poor life outcomes for them in the future. Adoption to a family with a mother and a father at least affords the child to be loved and they will have examples of what it means to be a man and a woman and the roles that they have in raising children and living in the world which mitigates some of the effects of the wound of abandonment. If you are missing one, or the other parent, the child will have a damaged psychological starting point. Children who are put up for adoption were not created with the intent to inflict that wound of abandonment like surrogacy and IVF for same-sex couples does. Even in surrogacy if the child is conceived through IVF but spends 10 months in a woman that is only being used for gestation. That child will still have an immeasurable bond with that woman. Separating them still creates that wound of abandonment because the child literally developed inside this woman who is their birth mother and was all that the child knew from the beginning of the child's existence. There is a reason we can see demonstrably that children from families with a mother and father in a healthy relationship have better outcomes in all measurable fields of life than any other children group. The wound of abandonment has been well studied and is known to cause the person to exhibit self-sabotaging behaviour, insecure attachments, and disordered relationships (sex addiction/isolation). It affects the biology of the child's developing brain in many ways. It can also cause poor impulse control, poor executive function and memory, depression, anxiety, paranoia, and other mental health struggles, anger, difficulty trusting people, sharing emotions, being vulnerable, prone to self-injury and suicidal behaviours, the list goes on... Do you need more evidence that it is wrong to deny the child a relationship with both their father and mother?
I was never against gays/lesbians getting married, although maybe it freaked me out a little at 19-20, not anymore. But I am completely against the TG movement.
the thing is they dont - your hypothetical is purely inflamatory and this heterosexual superiority is absolutely stupid. from you and from Mat. The same way men and women have different froles in society , heterosexual and homosexual people can complete different roles. the world needs more love. more resposnible people. the world is better when people are in pair bonds. this arguments is so shortsighted it makes me want to scream
The issue is when the government started "marrying" people instead of it being called a union. Marriage is religious and always has been and always should be.
The only reason that government got involved in sanctioning marriage was to ensure that the men who impregnate the women stay with the women to raise the children. It goes with the flow of nature. We could change the definition of marriage to mean anything but when we shift it to celebrate a person's love, it misses the common sense reason for marriage in the first place. We could allow Lars to marry his doll or allow a bisexual to marry 'one of each' or allow a commune full of people to marry the entire group but it would miss the point of trying to ensure that kids are raised with both biological parents acting as one unit to raise their children. Even so called 'progressives' admit that is should be the goal when they make the case that kids raised in a single family home need more help than those with an intact, two parent family. The problem is that 'progressives' try to dismiss the importance of an intact family to make the single parent child feel better. In the end, that approach just makes more people feel worse and hurts society overall. That is why our entire system is breaking down. It is also often a purposeful attempt by big government advocates to try to break down traditional institutions so that they can grow their own power and control and ownership over society.
@anthonyfalco2462 You're saying that anyone who has a secular marriage outside of a religion isn't actually marriage? You're saying my parents' marriage isn't a marriage? You arrogant ass.
False. The government is granting benefits to people for simply staying together. A good percentage of marriages are secular and have no need for religion, as it should be.
This conversation is a prime example of exactly why dialogue is needed. They both respectfully convey their points without demonizing each other. Well done to you both
Yeah, I think it says homosexual is a sin and you’re suppose to repent from sexual immorality or you won’t enter Gods kingdom when you die and you’ll end up in Gehenna for all eternity 👹
@jonathanallen8236 there's only one moral absolute that's God . If no God there's no reason to do anything the right way no God no right or wrong no reason to do good !
Hi Jillian, I’m a 34 yo gay man in California and let me just say I’m SO PROUD of you that you are having this conversation for the world to see. Ive recently have come back to the church, as skeptical as I’ve always been I will offer you this….theres a whole piece of the pie you’re missing. I promise you that you will find more answers than questions. I wonder as a gay man what my purpose is….but I’m open to the fact that it may be to help protect the family even tho I myself may not be able to participate in procreation, I want to help my brothers and sisters do exactly that because it will benefit civilization. I love people, as flawed as we may be.
You ARE not gay. You struggle with same sex attraction. I pray you never practice sodomy again now that you attend Church. Homosexual acts are some of the worst sins and Heaven cries out every time.
Yes she engaged in debate peacefully, however that doesn't dismiss the fact that she engaged in multiple logical fallacies, strawman arguments, frequent self projections, and other cheap tactics to justify her lifestyle.
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary defines marriage as "The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children."
I wish Matt would explain this better. He just keeps saying things like "it protects the family, protects the child creating relationship" but doesn't explain what "protects" means. All Matt has to say here is: "Marriage is a promise, generally a sacred oath, made between a man and a woman to enforce a monogamous commitment to sacrificing for a potential child. Gay people are fine to unite with each other, such as a civil union, but that wouldn't be the un-saturated definition of marriage in its original context." Boom
I agree. I'm a Matt Walsh fan but felt like he just couldn't get in the groove to explain what I think he was thinking in his head. He was just off his game that day, I think. And, yeah, Call it a civil union, not marriage. Just *call* it something else because it isn't the same thing -- physically or spiritually or even relationally. (Generally, I think it's easier for men to get along with men and women to get along with women. One of the things marriage does is calls us to learn how to get along with the "other" because contrary to popular opinion, men and women aren't the same.)
Matt seems to lack caffeine, or good sleep, in these situations. This isn’t the first time he seems off. It’s disappointing. How does he not seem to have 3-7 strong bullet points to stay on track?
even if he said that, it would still be wrong. Nothing in that explanation precludes gay people from following that oath; your homophobia is embarrassing.
But then you're disregarding the successes of gay relationships/gay marriages, especially when they are more likely to succeed where MANY heterosexual relationships/marriages fall short. BECAUSE we have so many heterosexual relationships/marriages, we do indeed have more successful outcomes. However, there are also more chaotic failures present because they are the norm in today's world. There's too much energy spent disregarding what conservatives (especially religious conservatives) view as solely unions, and not much energy simply just putting the two dynamics (gay/straight) on equal footing. If the outcomes are more or less equal (or disproportionately better in gay relationships/marriages), I don't see what the issue is.
@@LensicalSuccessful gay marriage? Is there a gay marriage of either holes or rods that created a litter of at least one boy or one girl? Even disfunctional straight marriages can do that. I guess you’re gonna have to do some more thinking. Im sorry society has enabled your thinking and now you are so confused lol
Well said. Compare the good/successful with the good and successful. And compare the failures with failures. At the end of the day gay couples/marriages don’t produce kids within the relationship. They have to adopt or bring in another person or buy sperm/eggs. And bad faith arguments are not interesting and boring
@@Lensicaldepends what you define as successful. If gay marriages stay together longer that’s cool but when bringing in a kid it changes things bc that kid will most likely have some type of mental issue because there is a part of them missing. A kid wants to have the normal dynamic of a dad and a mom. 2 moms or 2 dads don’t give a kid what they need. Ofc there are outliers where they end up perfectly fine but I don’t believe that to be the majority. The only plus I see with gay marriages is they are getting foster kids out of the system. Otherwise depending on the age of the kid it’ll just lead to confusion. lol like in the episode of modern family when lily kept saying she was gay
I love that two people can have disagreement and still respect each other. I am a woman married to a woman. I vote conservative due to constitutional reasons. I am not a fan of lgbtq stance or i doctrination. But I also believe that it is shallow to think two people who love eachother shouldnt have the chance to be married based in a body part. Marriage should be between two consenting adults, who are in love and want to be comitted to the highest level/title of a relationship. They are to become one. Regardless of your beliefs, no one has the right to tell someone that they can or cannot marry someone (consenting adults).
This is how these conversations should go. Two people discussing the issue, trying to understand the other’s point of view while also knowing neither is coming from a position of hate. Bravo you two.
20:45 “I adopted a child because I felt something inside of me was telling me this is something I needed to do”. That little something Jillian is the reason why you will never be able to leave this thing alone. It’s also the same reason why we will never abandon the sanctity of the family. We were created for this purpose. We cannot successfully suppress nature. It’s inherently in us. Great conversation. I’d love to see Ben Shapiro on your show.
@@richarddoan9172wrong. Islam and Judaism and traditional Protestants and Eastern Orthodox hold that view too. Non-religious and atheists can’t and don’t have sacramental marriages.
@@richarddoan9172 Religions have their own doctrine. The reason that government has any interest in marriage whatsoever is to ensure that the men who impregnate the women stay with the women to raise those kids. Changing that purpose to celebrate someone's love for another person or another entity shifts the emphasis away from the common sense focus on what makes a society work the best. When a society embraces same sex marriage, it also tells kids from the time they are two years old that they should treat boys and girls no differently when formulating their early views on sex and love, long before the kids hit the puberty time bomb that is geared by nature toward opposite sex attraction. We can be tolerant of the exceptions to nature without totally ignoring the obvious flow of nature. We also see how the breakdown in support and celebration of the binary dynamic of nature is leading to even breakdowns that go against the flow of nature with things like transgenderism, where kids are told from the time they are two that they can be either a boy or girl without recognizing the puberty time bomb that is coming farther down the road. It's alot like kids playing on train tracks that have to depend on adults to know what is coming before their brain develops patterns that conflict with oncoming puberty. We've also seen that the LGBT plus lobby is not happy to let parents decide for themselves how to raise their own kids. They want to force LGBT-plus ideology everywhere, even when the community voted against same sex marriage or transgender rights.
Jillian seems to have a very conflicted heart. She’s open minded and still searching for the truth. That’s why she is able to have this conversation. But the agnostic mind is always at war with the truth, and seeks self indulgence instead.
@scottc3029 You arrogant ass. Someone is at war with the truth for not believing in a sexist, homophobic, unscientific religion with a talking snake and a talking donkey in it?
Even if you’re right “best” isn’t an option anymore. Heterosexuals can’t raise their own kids, hundreds of thousands of kids don’t have a mom OR a dad.
Most people have kids before their brains are even fully developed. That's been the case for most of human history. No wonder we are where we are. Any two idiots can make a baby and claim themselves to be the best decider for the future of their children.
If the justification for marriage is just that “people love each over” we get into very dangerous territory! Two siblings could claim to love each other!
True. The key to solve the dilemma is understanding that there is a distinction between marriage and companionship, a distinction that goes beyond sex, of course.
Correct. Marriage has nothing at all to do with love. Zero. The ****** MATE SELECTION ****** process **** CAN **** (but is by no means required) have something to do with love. But the marriage is fully separate. You can marry for security, for money, for status, etc… but that’s still all mate selection.
Honestly, Man beat around the bush here and really said notging... He should have simply said "Marriage is a Holy union between a man and a woman set forth by God Himself and recognized by the church as such". He should also have noted how the GOVERNMENT bastardized the definition of marriage and took away the power of definition from the Church, in order to appease the LGBT community, instead of legally recognizing LGBT unions as something else for the purposes of stuff like taxes, estate planning, etc. So really, the argument can be made that the government violated the 1st amendment to define a religious principle that wasn't theirs to define, for the sake of wokeness.
16:45 Jillian, you brought up slavery as an example of things that once were OK by society and now we have moved away from (for good reason). Here is the basic (religious) reason why that comparison is flawed. Marriage was an institution created by God. Specifically, God said: "That is why a man his father and his mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." In contrast, slavery (for instance) was created by (evil) men. You also spoke about polygamy and how Abraham had concubines. If you were to read the Bible and study this case (and all others) you will soon realize that this WAS NOT God's plan for Abraham or Sarah. On the contrary, it was the result of BOTH of them not trusting the actual plan God had for them. The passage I quoted (Genesis 2:24) was, is, and forever will be God's plan for human kind: For a man (singular) to unite with his wife (woman - singular) and become one flesh. Anything outside of that comes from humankind's flawed reasoning and justification, just like Abraham and Sarah did.
It’s definitely religious from Christ faith. You can’t separate it and Matt tried to this time and it doesn’t work. Gods definition is one man and one woman period. Easy.
@@stephanielancaster5846 Pretty sure Jesus told us to love our neighbors. He was the least racist, least homophobic, and least transphobic person who ever lived. Maybe try following his example for once.
@@ewrock7635 Jesus indeed said to love, He also lovingly calls us to repentance and faith, which involves denying ourselves. There is no room for hating someone because they are LGBT. However, having a different opinion or belief is not hate or unloving. That is what this country needs to get over.
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
Jillian doesn’t understand that language isn’t designed to be the most inclusive or make people feel the best. It’s designed for utility and to convey some truth or category as we understand it. She’s fine with changing marriage. However, I don’t think she’d be fine with changing the definition for “lesbian” to something relating to gender instead of sex. Who knows? Maybe she would. But it would effectively erase whatever it is she believes exists in her that makes her a lesbian.
If it’s designed for utility and to convey truth, then the new definition for marriage is correct. It isn’t what it was. The new definition reflects the new and better understanding of it.
This is why we pray for others and show compassion. She doesn't deserve any hate or vitriol. She discussed this openly with civility. I don't have to agree with her but this woman has my respect.
I saw Matt Walsh being extremely delicate because he's not heartless and Jillian is not looking to score points but she is genuinely trying to understand marriage. His example of how if we restart society we would see how obviously marriage is something between a man and woman was excellent. The understanding that children should follow and that without this we would perish removes faith from the argument for any who aren't believers. That doesn't mean someone can't care for a child who isn't married or doesn't share the faith. People did live in different family structures, but that inherently can't be called the same thing. Marriage is about intent and trying to create the most ideal conditions for family.
He articulated his position effectively enough - the fact that you disagree with him doesn't mean he 'couldn't articulate' his position - no facts, logic, or common sense could suffice to change your mind.
@19:00 Matt, that was where the conversation should have started. Jillian is spot on for thinking what's she does outside the framework of Christianity. Christianity involves knowing who God is and why when He says "don't", He's saying "don't hurt yourselves". Yes that's overly simplistic, but, Matt, don't hold back the truth on this. Marriage is created by God and defined by God, not man, not Webster. Jillian, I can really appreciate your position and think you did a very honest and respectful debate with Matt. God bless you both.
I like Jillian and I appreciate this discussion. We need more civil discourse! Now that I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I see that the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob made marriage. There should have been a different word used for gay unions, but they didn’t want that. I the courts could have granted that state of unity with all the rights of “marriage”. I don’t think that people thinks that gay parents threaten what we have (as Jillian suggested before 8:50). As a believer, I have to do what God says. Jesus is very real and is alive!
@@jaycole2109 why does it need a different word if it's legally, structurally and functionally the same thing. Marriage is a contractual relationship that is enforced by the government.
@@ashleygraham1011 Keywords "enforced by the government". It may surprise you ma'am, but decent human beings view marriage as an emotional or spiritual connection to another being.
what is this even supposed to mean? the rule is that children with same-sex parents grow up just as well as other children, as has been documented by multiple studies throughout the years. I can't believe that there are still people against this.
I kept thinking "why are we aiming for failure?". If she grants that a father and mother raising a kid is the best situation, then everything should be an attempt to reach that. We can tolerate suboptimal things like single parents raising kids, but we should aim for it. Same with those who choose not to have kids. The best marriage is one with kids, so we shape the laws around them. We shouldn't craft marriage laws around those couples that don't have kids.
@@b.1756well i mean federal gay marriage protection has been codified into law. It’s essentially impossible to overturn- it would take a 3/4th vote of the senate to overturn it. Which will never happen. And if it did then SCOTUS wd overturn THAT. So, it’s just about personal opinions or religion at this point.
So, if a straight couples can’t create children, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Is he generally against gay relationships, or is he just against gay marriage?
they always were since the government always had an interest in promoting stable households which can procreate. and who do you want to enforce violation of a marriage if not the government, which has the monopoly on physical violence.
This might honestly settle it. Make marriage alegal. In the eyes of the government, no one is married. "Marriage" is not relevant to anything government related. If religious institutions want to marry people in their eyes, and restrict it however they want, then let them. But, no one is getting extra legal rights or anything from "marriage".
A Catholic priest, in his sermon at Mass, once said, "God made men and women to complement one another." I totally agree with Matt's idea of marriage. It is meant to create life in a sacred union.
The point of marriage is to have two people with procreative powers enter a legally binding relationship that is committed to raising children in a safe and healthy environment. This is the best chance for children to grow to be contributing respectful members of society, thus maintaining civility. Marriage of gay couple is simply a union of two people who fell in love which will need a third person involved if they want children.
Very hard to give a concrete non-religious argument against same sex marriage. On the other hand it is just as difficult for Jillian to explain why a legal union was not an acceptable alternative. They demanded the term marriage because they wanted it to be not only legally the same. They wanted it to be culturally the same. The truth is that a marriage between a mana and a woman was unique and the obvious uniqueness is being denied.
The legal union not being acceptable alternative is because it creates an unnecessary distinction. Like if marriage 'was' a union created from Abrahamic religions for their people, then why not call take away non-religious peoples' right to be called a marriage. It's silly.
@@mothinhead8903Some distinctions are necessary. People sometimes forget that there are civilizations outside of the West like in Asia or Africa that have a clear understanding that marriage is between man and woman. That is beyond religious.
Concrete non-religious argument against same sex “marriage”. It has provided a stable foundation for our civilization for hundreds of years. Changing it so drastically obviously undermines that foundation.
@@mothinhead8903 Respectfully, we disagree. I think it is a necessary distinction and you don't. We could debate in circles for hours and not move the others position. And that is OK
Interesting that she brings up Abraham and Sarah having “numerous wives”, not really accurate but to her point that that resulted in so much chaos with Isaac and Ishmael…she defeated her own argument. Yes, it results in so much chaos, so let’s get back to marriage norms that God created in Eden.
She keeps saying it’s okay because all these other people do irresponsible, destructive things resulting in children. Those things are wrong too and people shouldn’t do them either.
Jillian also failed to mention that Sarah could not have children herself, was older in years, and she wanted Abraham to have children, nor did God ever sanction polygamy. Those people made those decisions on their own and frowned upon even in their time.
That doesn't even make sense. The entire point of that story is to say "Abraham was wrong for marrying multiple women". We also see this carried on later when God even mentions that if a man has multiple wives, he'll naturally end up liking one more than the other and that could even lead to issues that will carry on with the children of the women potentially hating each other.
@@adamfrost3139 The story of Sarah and Hagar is indeed a significant one in religious texts. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, eventually had a son named Isaac, as foretold by God. Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, bore Abraham’s first son, Ishmael. This situation led to tension and strife within the household, as Sarah and Hagar’s relationship became strained. According to the narrative, God did not sanction polygamy. Instead, He directed Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, emphasizing the importance of respecting and guarding the marriage relationship1. This story is often interpreted as a lesson on the consequences of deviating from God’s will and the importance of faith and obedience.
As a childless 46 year old widower should I not get married again if I'm not going to be having children since the women in my dating pool at menopausal?
@@brianparrett114 You can get married, but that´s irrelevant, marriege is still an institution based on reproduction, your marriage wouldn´t change that
@@leatherandtactel no it's not, it's an institution built on property ownership and inheritance. Human reproduction occurred long before humans decided to create a thing called marriage in their societies.
@@brianparrett114 Yes it is, Christian marriage is based in reproduction and in family. Before that people had children, but it was not a Christian marriage. Ownership and inheritance occurs after reproduction incase you own something, and not everybody owned land or were patricians...
Just because your religious values that have no basis in reality say that it's bad, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed when it demonstrably causes no harm and leads to the betterment of society.
I remember before this was even an issue, some lesbian friends of mine were over and they wanted to have a ceremony and every dictionary at the time referred to a man and woman. So, the dictionaries online are not really dependable for a historical look. But it was not THAT a big deal at the time. It only became a big deal when they went to a state that recognized gay marriage, got things legalized and when the divorce came, it was a bad scene. One of the issues that I don't think was approached that would have been helpful was how St. Thomas Aquinas described sex and marriage. Sex is like a fire. It has to be controlled. When under control, as in a hearth or chimney, it provides warmth and heat. When out of control it brings destruction. Marriage is the framework for control of that procreative power. Marriage is the chimney and hearth. This would address Jillian's point about procreation as a result of a one-night-stand. That's a fire burning out of control. Short term, it seems okay, but before you know it, the consequences of that impulsive fire lighting start to spread to all different areas of life. My third point, is as a straight, conservative male, why is it so important to get the term opened up instead of making a new term up? Before these last few decades people were making legal contracts that provided for their partners in virtually all circumstances. I've heard people argue that it's all about the guilty consciences of they gay people insisting on acceptance and therefore they are going to redefine whatever needs to be redefined or undefined. I don't know, but it's plausible and there are gay activists who have rightly or wrongly trumpeted the idea that the whole thing is an attack on traditional marriage. I don't think every gay person would agree with that, but I would be curious to know where the "movement" actually begins. Is it some romantic idea of marriage? If so, that is a modern invention concerning marriage that has been detrimental to marriages. Allan Bloom the gay academic philosopher wrote "Love and Friendship" on his deathbed and he viewed Platonic friendship as the highest form of love. Just something to throw out there. I really don't think Matt Walsh is well versed enough on all of the permutations of the multiple topics intersecting to make a fruitful discussion. This "showdown" is really the result of social engineering trying to create conflict.
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
I am gay. Gay people love each other just like straight people do. The "movement" begins with the idea that someone like me should have the same freedom that someone like you has.
@@Jack-uh6zz No. That's a misappropriation of the term and concept of "love" in opposition to the reality of it. By the way, straight people often misappropriate the term "love" for misdirected and ultimately long term or even short term unhealthy ends. Any person can want the best for any other person, but you can also have (for various reasons) a variety of feelings for them or attractions towards them that are not necessarily love or rightly directed feelings and attractions. Pedophile priests have openly claimed that their molestations were "love." They have misappropriated the term as well to justify a validation of their personal desires. And oftentimes if you love someone the actual proof of it is that you don't indulge in satisfying your personal feelings or attractions or even trying to satisfy their feelings or attractions. To do so would be the opposite of love.
I LOVE this! Love two people have a sensible debate about their beliefs. You may not change minds but to explain your side and why you feel a way is so important
Matt’s definition stems from a spiritual reality. Those who have no regard for Scripture can never truly understand what marriage is. We measure it against God’s standard. Yes, there are situations in scripture that violate God’s standard-that is sin. It’s there because we have a choice to obey or disobey. All of those polygamous situations had major issues with wives and children-judgment for sin.
This is one of the most respectful conversations on this topic I’ve seen online. You both chose overall kindness and strength to present understanding (even when you may have fully not understood) & it’s a blessing to witness.
Thank you for being honest enough to have a real conversation like this with a serious person - not an angry, each yelling over the other, useless fight.
16:02 I don't know why she keeps reading the dictionary definition as if it proves your point? Especially when we know that the dictionary has actually changed the definition several times for the specific purpose...
Yeah, if your thoughts are based on accommodating the people and the times, of course, go for the common agreement of humanity trying to govern itself... the Bible, however, is the plumb line. What God says goes. He is aware of our brokenness, and He will not bend to our whim. He loves us too much to leave us that way we chose rather than submitting to His will if we will.
If you're arguing that marriage is reserved for a union between a man and woman only for the purposes of procreation. Then, I think the next logical discussion is whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children or not. I suspect that if you're down with one, you're also down with the other.
From a Christian perspective, marriage is intended to be as God created it in the Garden of Eden. It is meant to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman with God at the center. When sin entered the world, there began to be a distortion of marriage, including polygamy, which is in the Bible. God never said that man should take many wives. That was something men in that culture just chose to do. All of the polygamous relationships in the Bible were disastrous, showing us that it was never intended by God. The best outcome for children is in a loving household with a mom and a dad. That being said, I understand Jillian's perspective as well. The world is broken, and therefore, marriages and relationships are broken. We don't live in 'unicornland' as she said. Knowing that not everyone in our country has a Christian perspective, we need to try to do the best we can for the kids out there who just need a stable home with love. There is a lot to be learned from both sides. I appreciate the respectful dialog between two differing views.
@jtremaine23 If it is a safe and stable home environment I don't think that we have the right to deny an abandoned child an environment in which they can actually thrive and feel secure. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who adopt that aren't Christians either. All I'm saying is we need to be careful not to force our Christian beliefs on everyone around us. God never commands us to force a Christian life on the society we live in. He simply demands that we, as his followers, live in obedience to Him. Let the way we conduct ourselves speak to God's truth.
@@kallenpowell6503 I wouldn't say it's safe or stable if it's a relationship outside of God's design. They could be safe from physical harm but not psychological harm. A heterosexual couple who are not Christians would still be under God's design as far as one man and one woman. Also, there are couples who wouldn't abandon these same kids that could adopt or foster. Serious question--I hear people bringing up forcing Christian beliefs on everyone alot but how does that look? I've seen people share the gospel but not "force" it. You can't make anybody believe anything to be honest. It has to be God giving them a new heart with new desires. Living in obedience to Him means all Christians sharing the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20).
@jtremaine23 I know of plenty of Christian homes that have caused a lot of psychological harm on kids. Thankfully, God can redeem any child coming out of a broken situation. It should not be within our control to force everyone to live the way we want them to. We aren't changing anyone's hearts or minds that way. Sharing the gospel is a pillar of Christianity and is not forcing our beliefs on anyone. Thankfully, we live in a country that allows us to speak openly about our faith. At the end of that interaction, the other side can either accept or deny what we've shared.
I think he did a really good job considering who he's talking to. It's an emotional issue, and you can tell he was trying his best not to wound her by diving too deep into natural law philosophy. It's like trying to explain why IVF is a moral evil to someone whose child is a product of IVF. Or abortion to someone who's procured one or more.
@@alexhoffman6477 first of all he should have explained that the definitions she was reading were written by politically correct Leftists who are trying to placate modern woke sensitivities. If she had read definitions from Webster's or any dictionary from a few decades ago, she wouldn't have gotten those definitions. He also should have said that homosexuals could have Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions with similar rights as marriage but "Marriage" is exclusively reserved for one man and one woman, as per Jesus and/or the Bible and/or long-standing tradition going back thousands of years( which at least he did that). That's what I would have done. What say you?
The simplest way to explain what Matt is trying to convey is that his world view includes God and his intention for marriage which is to "be fruitful and multiply" and hers does not. When he tries to explain, and she rudely interrupts, that if there were some unexplainable thing that crippled or ended society as a whole there is something devine about men and women coming together to procreate and repopulate the world that cannot be replaced or happen between two people of the same sex.
"Divine"? The male uses the same duct to procreate to excrete urine, the female anatomy makes it easier to get fungal infections in her genitalia, the whole process is falty, few fertilizations end up in nidation, it takes months to gestate the baby and when it comes it is far more fragile than how other animals, like horses or deers, come into the world. Not to mention that even if the scenario you proposed were to happen that doesn't change the fact that people who are not atracted to the oposite sex can't be forced into procreation. That is called r@pe, in case you didn't know.
@@fatmonkey4716 That is a lie. Thet are disfertile not infertile. The vast majority are biologically capable of having children bug are not atracted to the opposite sex so they use other methods that have been used by infertile straight couple for a long time. And they also know that it is impossible to be "indocrinated" into being gay because most of their lives they were forced to be straight and it did not work. Are you just going to say lies here?
Marriage is a picture of Jesus Christ and His Bride, the church. Can’t change that! That’s the big picture for which we will ALL be accountable before God, like it or not.
I don’t see this as a “show down”. It’s two people having a deep conversation while respecting one another. It’s exactly what this world needs. Everyone in the United States should watch this interview regardless of what views you have.
Kudos to you both.
For what? The fact that Matt Walsh is even having this conversation proves that he has accepted homosexuality as normal. If homosexuality is a normal practice, so is gay marriage. However, if homosexuality is an unnatural practice then so is gay marriage. There's no discussion to have.
@@doinkclown7020 clickbait. It’s ridiculous. 🤦🏻♀️
click bait
blame the algorithm, she's just doing what works
it shouldn't, but it does
I guess clickbait is just the accepted norm from now on. But I'm almost not sure if I even mind it in this case. We all ought to look for this type of discussion more often than we look for "show downs".
Major props to Jillian for hosting Matt. It is exceedingly rare that liberals will host conservatives. Conservatives host liberal all the time. We need more dialogue.
Absolutely, I agree. Conservative media has more tolerance for hearing out moderates or liberals. Liberals rarely hear out a conservative point of view. Jillian is awesome for making room for a conservative perspective.
Isn’t Jillian conservative?
@@annavladislavovna5579 Good point. I'm not sure how she identifies politically.
Hopefully she learned something. But I doubt it.
Deep intellectual discussion is so rare these days This is powerful.
The definition of marriage changing in dictionaries doesn’t change the definition of marriage
It does actually, because marriage is a social construct that has changed through time to fit the needs of a society. One's "opinion" on the subject doesn't automatically make it the law of the land. Especially in today's contemporary society.
@erauprcwa Respectfully, from Matt's point of view, God created marriage, not us. So you cannot change his mind on it.
@@9pdag lucifer will call good, evil and evil, good. That means he will change definitions in the last days
@@speedstackingmaniac Respectfully, not everyone follows the one teaching from a religion that has 3000+ different variations of itself, that advocates for things like slavery and impregnating young girls through immaculate conception. 🤷♂
It's not so much about changing *his* mind on the subject, but subjecting others who do not follow said variant of said religion that has changed throughout thousands of years.
"God created marriage because a 2000+ year old book says so" is not a valid argument based in any sort of observable science.
@@erauprcwa So then marriage can become anything. In every that is EVERY society marriage was always related to the act of consummation. An act that can ONLY be achieved through heterosexual sex no matter what form the relationship took. That is whether polygamous, monogamous whatever the basic act was always heterosexual.
And in NO society was homosexuality elevated to the same level as heterosexuality. In NO society was the homosexual relationship preferred or celebrated to the same level as today. No matter how much homosexual behaviour was indulged it ALWAYS confined to a second class activity because it was NOT procreative. And procreation is utterly essential if any society wishes to continue.
Case Closed!!! Marriage is discriminatory because the act of procreation is discriminatory.
This was a great example of how to have an uncomfortable conversation between two people who disagree but allow the other one to get their point across. This was well done.
I'm a conservative. I like Matt walsh. I absolutely do not agree with this woman for the most part, but I am in awe of how polite and reserved she is emotionally when arguing this topic. I can see that she is a lesbian and this is clearly a topic that is personal to her, and I absolutely commend the fact that she could have an open dialogue in such a civil manner. That's really awesome
It's depressing how rare that is
Same here. It's nice to be able to disagree with respect for each other.
@@supertrippyjohngit’s even more depressing how the suppressive right doesn’t understand and lacks compassion on someone’s self. No wonder the people affected by your archaic thinking get upset. It’s none of your business. Let people live their lives.
@@RenaissanceMan-pg3du maybe you should take some cues from the host, on how to handle diseenting views, and grow up a bit
@@RenaissanceMan-pg3duit's cute that you think attacking others with a different perspective in a civil thread is somehow helping make things better...
I respect you Jillian, but you are reading alternate definitions that where changed only recently to be "more inclusive". That doesn't mean that those are correct
Today's concept of marriage is a modern one. You used to could marry 100 wives. People married they're siblings and cousins, at one point. Transgenderism used to be common until the crusades, and they married men. Monogamy used to mean one person forever, now it means one a time. My point is marriage throughout history has evolved through time.
At the end of the day, no one can tell Jillian who or what her marriage or family should look like. Matt lives in la la land! Been a fan of his for years but he is way off on this one! She wins the debate just by being.
At the end of the day, the USA 🇺🇸 is trying to be as inclusive as humanly possible that ILLEGAL ALIENS are allowed to vote in their politician elections.
@@border411 💯 exactly
Yeah this was very annoying that Matt did not push back better on that idea. He let her steamroll him when we all know that they just changed the definition to fill their political needs.
I disagree with Jillian, but I genuinely commend her for her honest and sincere approach to this conversation. We need more people like her
@@justinsmith4157 sounds like she genuinely wants to know others’ views. With an ear to hear!!!!
yes, eventually is she follows the logic, and truth through evidence she will come to find Jeasus and the kingdom of heaven.
yep, I think 100% class act, and very well thought out arguments and respectful. I think she actually wants to understand the other side, which is exceedingly rare.
Jillian doesn't read, she works out. She is giving her face a work out by looking so utterly confused.
@@libertyinalienablerights403logic would be evidence based and demonstrated to be true. Religion does not fit that
There is NO Gay Gene!!!
💯💯
Too bad there’s not.
This is true.
What about skinny genes?
@@captianplanet363 😂
I APPRICATE BOTH OF THEM FOR HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RESPECTFULLY!
It is so refreshing it is almost shocking, especially given her situation
Caps lock is easy to turn off
@@marct8160 AWWWWWW, MAN !!!! ...... CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME A TUTORIAL ???? ...... THIS IS DRIVING ME BONKERS !!!
Yes
@@marct8160 CAN YOU GIVE ME A TUTORIAL ON HOW TO DO SO ??? ........ THIS IS GETTING ON MY NERVES !!!!!!
It is worth pointing out that Webster CHANGED the definition to remove the concept of opposite sexes being part of the definition not that long ago
The definition of a marrige is of 2 People in love in a union before god
@@Marcustheseer what about before Christianity was made up
@@mattice9083 well that’s the thing, marriage IS a religious/christian concept.
@@Iamheresometimes Yup. G4ys being "married" is a farce.
@@Iamheresometimes Marriage is made up - by God.
This is how 2 ADULTS who DONT see eye to eye SHOULD have a conversation!!!! 👏👏👏👏
19:35 Matt asks, "You're gnostic but you believe in God"? Camara pans back to Jillian and she is giving the devil horns. 🤔
this is how *Wealthy* people have conversations because they don't have to worry about money...
crazy to see people actually talking about an issue rather then yelling. Props to both of them
Jillian’s definition of marriage is the reason why marriage is such a failure now. Because it’s being viewed as a contract not a fundamental need for our society
Marriage has always been viewed as a contract. In biblical times or any pre-modern times really, its been used for business transactions, alliances, treaties, etc. This is also the reason why in the past women were essentially treated as property, girls/women many times were used as a bargaining chips. Here's my my virgin daughter that will bear you children and act as a token of good faith between our clans, now partner with me so our 2 villages can work together in harmony. The same thing is reported in so many historical accounts across various cultures.
@@Ryshaad The women got stuff out of it too.
The divorce rate spiked in the 70s dawg
....ain't gay marriages fault
@@jds614 id attribute it to contraception also. The sexual revolution did a number on society, we see it today in full rage.
Agreed
Not many people would be willing to have this conversation, much respect to you Jillian for bringing on someone like Matt Walsh to have an open conversation.
Very open minded...
@@kestrelmedia He gave her the time of day by appearing on her podcast and talking with her about it.
@@kestrelmedialaws change all the time. So you debate ideas to prevent laws from changing again. Or you prefer what? That they redefine marriage, nobody talks about it and same sex marriage is void?
@@kestrelmedia I definitely do not agree with him on a lot of stuff but if we share ideas that aren't normally shared it creates a dialog which is needed in society instead of everyone living in their own bubble.
@@kestrelmedia I wouldnt
Im glad nobody is screaming at each other for once.
As a conservative who sides with Matt Walsh on the issue, I was truly impressed with how polite this debate was from both sides. Encore!
One thing that I really loved is that. Especially in today's easily "triggered" (which used to actually mean something" world. My man is directly calling her out as a threat and he believes that she should not have the right to marry who she chooses. And she seeks to understand and probably wants to change his mind but you know what she doesn't do? Start yelling. Cry. Get violent. Demand he apologize. She doesn't care - because she believes what she's fighting for is right. It's absolutely ridiculous when people get offended over me using the "wrong" pronouns. Like if you referred to me using "she" I wouldn't care because I know you're wrong
Okay then as a side note, as someone who really respects Matt Walsh and loves to hear his take on things but doesn't agree with him on this particular issue
I'd give him (or really you because he's not here to take my question) the same question he posed for his first documentary (to great effect). What is a marriage? I'm not asking its purpose, I'm seriously just asking for a definition
@@samstromberg5593 As a Christian, I follow Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:4-6:
“Haven’t you read,” Jesus replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
This makes it clear that men and women are supposed to be joined together. In regards to homosexuality, it's clear from Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 1 Corinsthians 6:9-11, 7:2 and Romans 1:26-28 that such acts are sinful. Corinthians includes fornication and adultery in the same category of serious sin. I know people don't like to hear that, but it's written quite clearly. So I consider any intercourse that's not between a wedded man and woman to be sinful.
Why do you care about gays marrying there partner? How does it affect you’re life
@@keshaestevan3623 It affects the culture in a negative way. A marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of civilization, and as a Christian, it's also a moral value. Even the NIH has a publication that points out that having a mother and father is best for children. Personally, I think the government should be out of the marriage issue entirely, as it really should be a religious issue. But if the government wants to financially incentivize marriage, then it should be for the union that can create life together, which is also the healthiest environment for raising children.
@@samstromberg5593 Something seems to have happened to my previous reply. Instead of re-typing that lengthy message, I will just say that marriage is laid out clearly in the Bible as between men and women. It even says that to be a pastor, you must be the man of ONE wife. the Biblical standard, which is a moral standard, is quite clear.
I appreciate Jillian’s ability to have this conversation openly.
as she makes it up as she goes along......
Why? Why is this a conversation that needs to be had over and over again? Isn't this old news at this point, gay marriage is legal - does anyone really think we need to go back?
@@JustinHenryfan We don't need to go back. But in a way, this is a friendly reminder that although conservatives look like the normal ones now compared to how power hungry the democrats have become, ANY political ideology will overstep their boundaries and pursue negative outcomes under the disguise of doing the right thing if they gain enough traction. Oppose the growing radical left, but never forget a lot of people on the right will try to take away rights if not kept in check.
Fuck yeah…
@@JustinHenryfan They deleted my comment for some reason, but yes, this is why you have to keep any side that gets into power in check. The left has gone off the deep end with power, but don't think that that can't happen with the right. People of any ideology, given too much, will corrupt. People in the comments genuinely talking about taking away gay marriage. That's insane. Don't die on this hill. Matt lost this debate as soon as Jill brought up "you don't go after people who can't procreate".
I love watching 2 adults discuss an issue in a civil matter. It's so refreshing to see.
@@juliecarr7521 yes! Love this!!
I get both of their points. But man, her situation is such a mess, it kind of proves Matt’s point. She adopted a girl who never even got an adoptive father, and now has two separated adoptive mothers, and a son with no father from the get-go, and now separated mothers… she wants government protection, but her own family unit, already built on non optimal grounds and the cutting off of her son’s father, completely fell apart. Why did she force children in this non procreative situation, and then not protect her family unit? But now she wants to rely on government protection? I don’t understand…
If they adopted a child, the child was an orphan. Surely we can agree that being raised by two loving women is better than not having parents...
its actually quite easy. Because she only cares about herself and her 'happiness'. A child is an accessory to a lot of women. I should have one so i'll take one, just like a watch. All of the rights, none of the duties. all of the privileges, none of the responsibilities
What's weirder is they supposedly adopted a child from Haiti... like why when there are plenty of local children who need parents? It just reeks of liberal minded virtue signaling.
@@mysticquetzal87 I was about to contradict you but..... U got a very solid point there
Hey dum-dum. Do you think growing up (if you survive) in Haiti without any parents is a better situation?
It's nice to see two people with different views sit down and talk about it respectfully
Children need a mother and a father in a loving, respectful marriage.
No they don't in fact gay couples raise kids just as well as straight couples. In fact kids raised by gay parents have even ben turning out better than kids raised by straights. They get better grades, stay out of trouble etc,
@mariaavalon So you're fine with perverts raising children? Quite pathetic and disgusting 3730
@@mariaavalon3730 Stop lying
I've seen traditional marriages that have produced abused and undisciplined children. I've also seen single-parent and same-sex couples with children who turned out just right. It's not about what the parents are, it's who the parents are.
Let's be real, how many marriages are loving and respectful? That's a picture-book idea that is not tethered in reality. Yes, it would be great. But it's not real.
Jordan Peterson explains this better. Jillian asked, “Why not just have kids? Why get married?” Marriages protects not only the child, it protects the mother. Meaning, the wife and child inherit the house, the money, etc, and it’s past down by generation. Before there was marriage, there was anarchy. Women were just sex slaves. Marriage has a fundamental important reason for society. I don’t understand why Matt doesn’t explain this. He agrees it’s fundamental, but he doesn’t successfully explain why.
Yes!
Matt doesn’t sound as clear, confident, and intellectual as Jordan P.
Yes it’s a contract of possession. All my stuff is hers and all her stuff is mine. Including ourselves. It’s a governmental record for the future. Her kid’s’ descendants will have to go through extra steps just to find out who their paternal ancestor is.
But this is not an argument against same-sex marriage. You can easily cite the need for equal protection for gay couples and their children.
Matt isn’t Jordan Peterson and I believe it’s better conversation to have Jillian to explain her opinions and understanding , instead of being man splaining to a woman…😂
@@MailaDRmaybe cause he’s not Jordan Peterson 🤨😂
Huge respect to these two people for coming together and having an honest open conversation without annihilating each other’s character. Rare these days!
There is nothing honest about Matt Walsh. He says ridiculous things and Jilian barely pushes back. Completely pointless.
@@pdizzle10484You would not do well in a civil debate. Both sides made good points. I would be curious to watch the whole thing because I would have more questions for her.
@jookm There should never be a civil debate with Matt Walsh because to do so is to give him more credence than he deserves. He is a liar, a propagandist, and a provocatuer for clicks.
He sat there in front of Jillian and told her she doesn't deserve the same rights he does and that's supposed to be taken seriously? Absolutely not.
@pdizzle10484 Marriage isn't a right. And you're part of the problem of why we can't have civil debates among those we disagree with. I applaud them both. But using your logic, why stop at gay marriage? Let's give those same benefits to single people, brothers and sisters, cousins, friends, everyone. Starting to sound ridiculous? Exactly.
@jookm Having a civil debate with people with beliefs that are not civil is the real problem. People like Matt, and you, should be laughed out of every room for your terrible logic and bad faith arguments.
I think this conversation reveals marriage is an evolving concept. Yes, Matt is correct about some of the historical intent of marriage, and the logistic uniqueness of how a hetero procreative relationship would be compared to homosexual and/or non-procreative relationship.
But, I think Matt's standards reveal how what he stands firm on is more based on his beliefs rather than an objective, rational perspective. Gay marriage does not harm anyone in any meaningful way beyond your religion.
@celticbat3792 Children do better in a two parent home where those two parents are a male and female. Homosexual relationship deprive children of that experience that they are inherently owed. They are owed this because they can only be produced from a male and female.
There's a substantial cultural difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union' which has the exact same legal implications and protections. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals is being sold as 'inclusive and progressive,' but the underlying motivation is actually the erosion of Western culture and ideals. As POS communist Herbert Marcuse said: "The new socialist world order can only be built on the ruins of all pre-existing cultural values." As one of the European Marxists said: "In every Western nation we will ridicule all virtues, and proclaim all vices virtuous."
Is not evolving, it's being corrupted and perverted. Human nature hasn't changed, marriage is part of human nature.
@@fedev80It is not. Sex is part of human nature. And considering natural selection have not eliminated same sex behavior from our species in the last 200.000 years, it is natural variation of the sexual behaviour of our species.
@@Pedro-m7f3f buddy, there's nothing more detrimental to the survival of the species than homosexuality. That's the whole point. Watch the video again. Homosexuality remains in spite of natural selection, not because of it. Because humans are not dogs or insects.
Human nature involves the need of a man and a woman to conceive and raise children in a loving heterosexual family. Aka marriage. And that hasn't changed. I'm sorry but homosexuals don't have that ability. Deal with it I guess.
It's just as equally concerning for a girl to be raised without a Father. Each child no matter the sex needs both parents equally.
@@TheLORDJESUSISCOMINGBACK very true! Fathers keep their sons out of prison and their daughters away from the stripper poles 💯
My dad SA me. I wish I didn't have a father.
Agreed.
@StephanieDonelow I don't know whether to believe you or not, either way it's irrelevant.
Your father was a monster, most are not.
Mine is my hero.
@@StephanieDonelow Anecdotes are not arguments. Try again, liar.
I love the fact that the conversation is happening. THIS is what is missing in todays society--open and seeking dialogue. Kudos!!!
Couldn't agree more. This is a VERY touchy topic and they discussed it in a civil manner.
@@rodneyboyd5280 yes!! Love this.
And the minor attracted individuals also want in on this "conversation", the people who want to define marriage between direct and close relatives want in on this "conversation"... you can't hurt a dead person, so the people who want to "marry" the dead must also be heard, like this woman insists on being heard. Wow. Insanity.
@@Maxwell86Smart You're getting it so entirely wrong. The idea between any relationship is valuable because it is a CONSENSUAL agreement between both parties who want to commit to each other. The minor attracted individuals or the necrophiliacs are NOT a sexual identity because dead people CANNOT CONSENT nor can children CONSENT because they don't know any better. Many if not all the sane lgb's are completely against pedophilia and necrophilia because it's not a sexuality, it's well... a "philia"
Great stuff. This is the civil discourse the world needs
Mrs. Michaels...While I lean hard towards Mr. Walsh's convictions, I am so impressed with your commitment to debate and the search for truth. I hope that this kind of honest and courageous conversation will become normal again.
It is so sad that this comment has to be made. Why is this not the norm that 2 people with differing views can have a friendly dialog. It is so sad the the media and identity politics have driven so many people to have so much hate that a normal conversation is no longer normal and the new normal is argument and fighting.
Matt doesn't even know how to articulate his own definition of marriage.
@@rexroadt8 he did🤷🏻♂️ and he did it well. Anyways…
@@EclipsedSt4r oh cool, cite it please....
Ok. When he said that marriage should between 2 people who have the potential to procreate. That way marriage will protect the children.
Not placing this as an attack, just a definition from 1826:
“MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
I get that, but times have changed n we gotta be able to advance as a society. I’m Catholic n I have no problem with gays getting married. Not all marriages are done in a church, so it’s not just religious meanings. That’s like saying atheists can’t get married cause they don’t believe in god, which is silly. There are atheists who wanna get married n have kids, they don’t have to believe in god to get married n have kids.
this is a definition from 1826, marriage exists a looooooong time ago, in various religions (not just between christians, there's rituals of religions like witchcraft of marriage. Regardless that, the definition changed, because religion isn't based on reality, just on your faith. Nowadays, marriage is not only a civil contract, but something symbolic. It's like assuming and declaring the love you feel for your partner to the world.
@Caz-z1x yes times have changed but not for the better. There are more abortions now than ever so is massacre of the unborn for selfish reasons good? Is it good that a Christian mother and father can't foster a child because they're not a same sex couple and if the police find out the Christian mother and father is fostering a child the police can legally take it away. Boy how times have changed for the better😆. If the sacredness of a pure marriage is done away with there's a collapse in society and you're already there
e@Caz-z1x advance. Don't make me laugh. Times have changed bit not for the better. You may count it as better because it's giving people their sinful desires
Wow... When they brought the woman caught in adultery Jesus wrote in the sand. He then told the woman go and sin no more.
Christ is about people. The love of people. And you ok with people living in sin and possibly going to hell
Two intelligent mature adults having an adult discussion. Love it!
Let's have more.
Eh kind of. The emotional manipulation tactics were a bit much. It’s not that mature to force a fake inauthentic tone. “Aren’t you a good person?” “But how can you be a good person if you don’t agree with me?”
A conversation about one wanting to take the other’s rights away.
@missinterpretation4984 which "rights" are those?
@@ramtigerfalcon8387 Her right to be married to her partner.
“When a society abandons the definition of meaning and purpose of the marital union, that has vast implications on society” -Matt WOW what a truthful statement everyone should agree upon.
I don't agree with his statement. It's a correlation without causation argument.
@@331Grabber how do u know its not causal? people use the argument "correlation is not causation" wrong all the time! in virtually every cause causation is only discovered because correlation was first discovered.
@@gabepoirot What are the implications?
What impact does it have? Its been a thing for years now and I dont see society burning down? I dont see religious married couples LOSING anything
Everyone keeps saying it has implications on society but when you put their feet to the fire to actually PROVE it all you get is ambiguous "look at how bad things are" as if there is a clear link between anything that ever goes wrong and its because gay people are being married
If ANYTHING is having a vast implication on society its RELIGION... just look at the middle east at the moment, the ONLY reason people are being slaughtered by the thousands is because they believe their imaginary friend told them they could live there
You are just talking absolute gibberish... just like Matt
All of his arguments are absolutely fallacious:
- "Its been that way for thousands of years"
ARGUGMENT FROM TRADITION. For THOUSANDS of years they had human sacrifices... why are you not arguing for that now? Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it somehow guaranteed to remain unchanged for all eternity
- "If we climbed out of the ashes and couldn't remember anything"
If that happened then YOUR FUCKING RELIGION WOULD BE GONE! So arguing that we would somehow regain marriage as being between a man and a woman and therefore it must be "right" then you are arguing your own religion is wrong because IT WOULDN'T COME BACK!
I could go on all day and night about the pathetically WEAK arguments that Matt keeps giving, but it is idiots like you who are too dim witted to see how stupid you sound supporting him
Allowing same sex couples to have the same legal rights as straight people isn’t “abandoning” anything.
1) Not everyone is religious 2) religions have flaws, especially Christianity 3) homosexuality doesn't harm anyone 4) love is love, why do yall care so much
Thank you Mr Walsh for defending marriage/ family/ faith.
It's not his job. If God hates gays, let him enforce it.
Very poorly.
@@keepernod2888 in your opinion
you mean thanks Mr Walsh for defending your self-interests and to hell with everyone else lol ....with that tribal attitude humanity won't last another hundred years. Who cares who wants to get married dude.
@@friendlyskiespodcast until a decade or two ago there was no such thing as same sex marriage”marriage” … humanity thrived on it. Wonder how long humanity will exist into the future with all the liberal laws and “rights” they are arguing for …
The original definition even up to the 90’s was.
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life.”
🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️
@@heatherbrandon1243 that is true but I’m talking about a word changing it definition with in a generation. When I was a kid I had stained glass rainbow 🌈 in my window. It would shoot colors all over the room. I loved it. But now it has a completely different meaning. To me, marriage is a man and a woman. That doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t be in a union of equal rights. Just call it something else instead of changing words definition. Look up the word “gay” it still has the definition of “happy or joyful” as one of the definitions. It never was changed, just added to. We have an epidemic of erasing history.
@@racingfortheson I can agree with that :)
@@racingforthesonwell said
Exactly. She is reading the re-written definition.
@@heatherbrandon1243 Having more than 1 wife dosen''t contradict the definition.
Matt, you blew this conversation. You let her say “we had a boy child without a father.” Believe me that boy has a father.
@@Thechickenmantx unfortunately Matt always blows it when he’s on someone else’s show. I love his show but he is slow to the point and stumbles throughout and boring when he goes on another show. I get you want to think through your answer but come on man! Spit it out
@detroitsurvivor4989 Sharp as a serpent, gentle as a dove.
Matt is trying to have the conversation without being too "religious", it's a good choice and not an easy path.
To say that he "blew it" is armchair coaching, and I don't believe, respectful of the situation he is in. My understanding is that the apostles spoke to the Greeks differently because they had to show them with their own words how their ways were wrong and the truth is with Christ.
It was a missed moment, and perhaps he was too hesitant overall....I just have a real problem with the concept of him "blowing it" if anything he did an excellent job
Bingo
You can’t explain spiritual
Things to those who reject God. God instituted man and woman in marriage.
@@Thechickenmantx that's a good critique. I think it's worth pointing out. One of my daughters encountered a girl with 2 "mommies", and asked me about how all that works. I told her that in fact, this girl does have a father and a mother, but in all likelihood will never have the chance to meet her father and possibly also her mother. She's being denied a relationship with one or both for whatever reason. That it's a sad situation, and she should make it a point to be kind to this girl, but not engage her in conversation about this specific thing.
She seemed to understand the injustice.
oh my gosh - two people who can talk from very different opinions and not yell ate each other !!!!
i think you are the last two left
THIS WAS A VERY RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION MORE PEOPLE SHOULD DO THIS!!!
A conservation that went nowhere, debates are meaningless
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING??????
@@slickwilly7341 All caps doesn't necessarily mean shouting.
@@AnneLee-di6fv True, it may mean a malfunctioning keyboard.
0:24 simple, Websters dictionary 1828 says marriage is between a man and a woman
Thats a religious website …its not cannon lol not everyone follows your religion
@@mmhmmmyearight7183 Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary was the standard for all of western civilization at the time. Yes, the work was accomplished because of Christianity.
The post-modern, Orwellian, “dictionaries” which have subsequently come along with the express purpose of tearing down western civilization, and specifically taking aim at Christianity, have dismantled the English language as a means towards that end.
@@nattamused9074 times change
@@mmhmmmyearight7183 Yes, ours is not the first wicked civilization to crumble. We’re just in the front row seats this time.
Change definitions, changes discussions.
There is an obvious motive for changing the definitions.
I'm a book collector, and own a 1910 and a 1933 Websters.
From the dawn of recorded history, the consensus was marriage was a union of a man and woman....until very recently.
We can change reality to suit what we want....and use a change in definition as one means of doing it.
Jillian really hope you see this, as a conservative, must honor and give you credit for having such a beautiful, CIVIL, RESPECTFUL conversation with someone who has different views. Again even if I disagree the way you carried yourself and the way you guys spoke is literally two lung filled breaths of fresh air!!!
Thank you thank you. So dope!
As someone who tends to align with Matt in terms of this subject, but has always loved Jillian and who she is as a person and how i've known her to be through biggest loser, etc...I VERY MUCH love this forum/discussion with respectful discussion between 2 people of different views. Major Props Jillian.
Wow, who knew this sensitive topic could be discussed/debated in such a respectful manner by BOTH participants? God i pray that America gets back to this.
MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.]
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life.
-Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
@@NathanH83
Awful, adjective
"Filled with awe" or "inspiring awe"
-14th century Middle English
Words have meaning because we give them their meaning. And over time, we find new meaning in these words. Those meanings aren't derived from anything other than society. We choose how to use them, not the other way around.
@@reijiakaba7232 Yeah, still. That person is awfully hot, awfully nice, awfully positive.
@@Unknowntyper Well you're just conflating "awful" with "awfully?"
Next time someone asks you how they look, describe their appearance as "awful" and see what their reaction is. Like I said, we give words meaning. The meaning isn't derived from nature.
@@reijiakaba7232 In the beginning, God created them male and female. God established that.
@@NathanH83 A lot of people don't subscribe to your mythology. Regardless, marriage originated from Mesopotamia not Christianity. So your point is even more moot.
How nice to hear two people discuss opposite ideas and still respect and listen to each other ❤
Ah yes, so nice to watch two people talk past each other, change no one's mind and make lots of money while ignoring the fact that debating gay marriage is putting the cart before the horse...in fact, the real debate should be about the "horse" not the cart. But Matt Walsh, and everyone else on BOTH sides ignore this fact.
@@PettyCrow-n9c What’s the “horse” ? 🤔
100% i hope this gets more attention, just wonder to see actual civil conversation
As a conservative, I actually DO agree with Jillian.
I respect Jillian for having Matt on and actually having a conversation rather than just virtue signal or scold him. That said, Jillian, what you're missing is the elephant in the room you don't want to see. Not every couple will conceive, BUT every child has a mom and dad. Your ex-spouse did create a child and then denied her child the right to be loved and raised by the father because the father is inconvenient to HER wants. THIS is what you don't want to see for obvious reasons. Kids made via IVF are always comodofied. You are using the exceptions (parents who can't conceive) to attempt to debunk the rule (all kids have a mom and dad). I know you're smart, so this isn't about "missing something." It's about willful blindness because of your chosen lifestyle and sexual desires.
Well said. I would add to that the natural order of things is that 1 man and 1 woman create children. 2 women cannot do it. 2 men cannot do it. Therefore, it is NOT natural for 2 women or 2 men to have a natural family. It is not designed to work that way. It's not simply about having the capacity to love another person and provide love to a child or children and seeing to their needs. Gay couples can NEVER raise children in the same way a heterosexual couple can. PERIOD. There are far more implications to what it means to be a "family". Jillian will never truly understand this because she wants EVERYTHING that comes with being attracted to and marrying a person of a complementary gender. But nature doesn't work like that.
I completely agree with you. Same sex advocates like to strawman their ideologically enemies by saying:" LOL what about sterile people?" While ignoring the reality that it's biologically impossible for them to conceive and bear children. The point of the argument is to show that homosexuals by nature are completely cut off from a very important part of marriage, therefore demonstrating that same sex marriage is impossible.
@marcusaxel3425it’s wrong for a woman to willfully become a single mother as well.
@marcusaxel3425 I think they are making the case that every child needs a mother and father. Most single mothers would rather have a husband - typically the reason they don't is either the father of the child leaves OR they are abusive and therefore the mother leaves. No one has to settle for a "crappy marriage" if they find a wife/husband to be in a loving relationship and provide the second parent figure that might be missing (there are single dads too). The ideal is a mother and a father in a healthy relationship. But no one is perfect and we all have wounds. No one is advocating for people to stay in an abusive relationship for the sake of children. Two women/two men as parents will not provide the child with a perspective on life that is essential for healthy development. The children are missing an essential piece of understanding of where they came from and their place in the world. These children will have the wound of abandonment. This wound is created from the lack of one or both parent(s) being involved in the child's life. IVF within same-sex marriages or as a single mother is purposefully inflicting this wound on the child. It's creating the child with a certainty of psychological damage that leads to poor life outcomes for them in the future.
Adoption to a family with a mother and a father at least affords the child to be loved and they will have examples of what it means to be a man and a woman and the roles that they have in raising children and living in the world which mitigates some of the effects of the wound of abandonment. If you are missing one, or the other parent, the child will have a damaged psychological starting point. Children who are put up for adoption were not created with the intent to inflict that wound of abandonment like surrogacy and IVF for same-sex couples does. Even in surrogacy if the child is conceived through IVF but spends 10 months in a woman that is only being used for gestation. That child will still have an immeasurable bond with that woman. Separating them still creates that wound of abandonment because the child literally developed inside this woman who is their birth mother and was all that the child knew from the beginning of the child's existence.
There is a reason we can see demonstrably that children from families with a mother and father in a healthy relationship have better outcomes in all measurable fields of life than any other children group.
The wound of abandonment has been well studied and is known to cause the person to exhibit self-sabotaging behaviour, insecure attachments, and disordered relationships (sex addiction/isolation). It affects the biology of the child's developing brain in many ways. It can also cause poor impulse control, poor executive function and memory, depression, anxiety, paranoia, and other mental health struggles, anger, difficulty trusting people, sharing emotions, being vulnerable, prone to self-injury and suicidal behaviours, the list goes on... Do you need more evidence that it is wrong to deny the child a relationship with both their father and mother?
@@thatright4985 🎯
If you had 2 nations, a gay nation and a straight nation, which would have future generations?
Well they’d have to steal ours or buy them.
What the F does that have to do with marriage?
Lmao this is so dumb
Gay people can have kids 😂
I was never against gays/lesbians getting married, although maybe it freaked me out a little at 19-20, not anymore. But I am completely against the TG movement.
the thing is they dont - your hypothetical is purely inflamatory and this heterosexual superiority is absolutely stupid. from you and from Mat. The same way men and women have different froles in society , heterosexual and homosexual people can complete different roles. the world needs more love. more resposnible people. the world is better when people are in pair bonds. this arguments is so shortsighted it makes me want to scream
The issue is when the government started "marrying" people instead of it being called a union. Marriage is religious and always has been and always should be.
The only reason that government got involved in sanctioning marriage was to ensure that the men who impregnate the women stay with the women to raise the children. It goes with the flow of nature. We could change the definition of marriage to mean anything but when we shift it to celebrate a person's love, it misses the common sense reason for marriage in the first place. We could allow Lars to marry his doll or allow a bisexual to marry 'one of each' or allow a commune full of people to marry the entire group but it would miss the point of trying to ensure that kids are raised with both biological parents acting as one unit to raise their children. Even so called 'progressives' admit that is should be the goal when they make the case that kids raised in a single family home need more help than those with an intact, two parent family. The problem is that 'progressives' try to dismiss the importance of an intact family to make the single parent child feel better. In the end, that approach just makes more people feel worse and hurts society overall. That is why our entire system is breaking down. It is also often a purposeful attempt by big government advocates to try to break down traditional institutions so that they can grow their own power and control and ownership over society.
Accurate. My marriage certificate only recognizes that my marriage happened in a church. The state should not be performing marriages.
@anthonyfalco2462 You're saying that anyone who has a secular marriage outside of a religion isn't actually marriage? You're saying my parents' marriage isn't a marriage? You arrogant ass.
False. The government is granting benefits to people for simply staying together. A good percentage of marriages are secular and have no need for religion, as it should be.
The op and the first responder are ULTRA ignorant about the history of marriage.
This conversation is a prime example of exactly why dialogue is needed. They both respectfully convey their points without demonizing each other. Well done to you both
The Bible says marriage is between man and women
Yeah, I think it says homosexual is a sin and you’re suppose to repent from sexual immorality or you won’t enter Gods kingdom when you die and you’ll end up in Gehenna for all eternity 👹
@@shawn47514 women? Or one WOMAN?
@@madisontipton4919 really that's your come back . Lol
@@shawn47514what do you base your morals off of. How do you decide what is right and wrong.
@jonathanallen8236 there's only one moral absolute that's God . If no God there's no reason to do anything the right way no God no right or wrong no reason to do good !
Hi Jillian, I’m a 34 yo gay man in California and let me just say I’m SO PROUD of you that you are having this conversation for the world to see. Ive recently have come back to the church, as skeptical as I’ve always been I will offer you this….theres a whole piece of the pie you’re missing. I promise you that you will find more answers than questions. I wonder as a gay man what my purpose is….but I’m open to the fact that it may be to help protect the family even tho I myself may not be able to participate in procreation, I want to help my brothers and sisters do exactly that because it will benefit civilization. I love people, as flawed as we may be.
God bless you brother!
Sending love
You ARE not gay. You struggle with same sex attraction. I pray you never practice sodomy again now that you attend Church. Homosexual acts are some of the worst sins and Heaven cries out every time.
I'm happy to see people just discussing this decently and in a civil way. I appreciate both of them to have this conversation genuinely
@@JokexPolitix Agreed!
Jillian, I just want to say that I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in difficult conversations GRACIOUSLY. You're a class act sister!
Yes she engaged in debate peacefully, however that doesn't dismiss the fact that she engaged in multiple logical fallacies, strawman arguments, frequent self projections, and other cheap tactics to justify her lifestyle.
@@DZ302-Z28 She justified her beliefs and lifestyle more than Matt did. Why doesn't he have to do the same?
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
@@anacc3257Because his lifestyle is natural.
Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary defines marriage as "The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children."
I wish Matt would explain this better. He just keeps saying things like "it protects the family, protects the child creating relationship" but doesn't explain what "protects" means. All Matt has to say here is: "Marriage is a promise, generally a sacred oath, made between a man and a woman to enforce a monogamous commitment to sacrificing for a potential child. Gay people are fine to unite with each other, such as a civil union, but that wouldn't be the un-saturated definition of marriage in its original context." Boom
I agree. I'm a Matt Walsh fan but felt like he just couldn't get in the groove to explain what I think he was thinking in his head. He was just off his game that day, I think. And, yeah, Call it a civil union, not marriage. Just *call* it something else because it isn't the same thing -- physically or spiritually or even relationally. (Generally, I think it's easier for men to get along with men and women to get along with women. One of the things marriage does is calls us to learn how to get along with the "other" because contrary to popular opinion, men and women aren't the same.)
@lucysnowe31 no, he need to work on this explanation. I saw him trying to explain this on another show and he struggled the same way.
Yes he needs to work on this explanation. I saw him trying to explain this on another show and he struggled the same way.
Matt seems to lack caffeine, or good sleep, in these situations. This isn’t the first time he seems off. It’s disappointing. How does he not seem to have 3-7 strong bullet points to stay on track?
even if he said that, it would still be wrong. Nothing in that explanation precludes gay people from following that oath; your homophobia is embarrassing.
She’s comparing her gay relationship to the failures of a heterosexual marriage. And not to the successful marriages.
But then you're disregarding the successes of gay relationships/gay marriages, especially when they are more likely to succeed where MANY heterosexual relationships/marriages fall short. BECAUSE we have so many heterosexual relationships/marriages, we do indeed have more successful outcomes. However, there are also more chaotic failures present because they are the norm in today's world. There's too much energy spent disregarding what conservatives (especially religious conservatives) view as solely unions, and not much energy simply just putting the two dynamics (gay/straight) on equal footing. If the outcomes are more or less equal (or disproportionately better in gay relationships/marriages), I don't see what the issue is.
@@LensicalSuccessful gay marriage? Is there a gay marriage of either holes or rods that created a litter of at least one boy or one girl? Even disfunctional straight marriages can do that. I guess you’re gonna have to do some more thinking. Im sorry society has enabled your thinking and now you are so confused lol
Well said. Compare the good/successful with the good and successful. And compare the failures with failures.
At the end of the day gay couples/marriages don’t produce kids within the relationship. They have to adopt or bring in another person or buy sperm/eggs.
And bad faith arguments are not interesting and boring
@@Lensicaldepends what you define as successful. If gay marriages stay together longer that’s cool but when bringing in a kid it changes things bc that kid will most likely have some type of mental issue because there is a part of them missing. A kid wants to have the normal dynamic of a dad and a mom. 2 moms or 2 dads don’t give a kid what they need. Ofc there are outliers where they end up perfectly fine but I don’t believe that to be the majority. The only plus I see with gay marriages is they are getting foster kids out of the system. Otherwise depending on the age of the kid it’ll just lead to confusion. lol like in the episode of modern family when lily kept saying she was gay
@@LensicalWhat “seems” right, doesn’t mean it is.
It’s still wrong.
The wiki is not the go to for definitions, especially since “they” change definitions based on need.
Absolutely.
They are on beck and call of big corporation/government, see the convenient blatant redefinition of "vaccine".
I love that two people can have disagreement and still respect each other.
I am a woman married to a woman. I vote conservative due to constitutional reasons. I am not a fan of lgbtq stance or i doctrination. But I also believe that it is shallow to think two people who love eachother shouldnt have the chance to be married based in a body part.
Marriage should be between two consenting adults, who are in love and want to be comitted to the highest level/title of a relationship. They are to become one. Regardless of your beliefs, no one has the right to tell someone that they can or cannot marry someone (consenting adults).
This is how these conversations should go. Two people discussing the issue, trying to understand the other’s point of view while also knowing neither is coming from a position of hate. Bravo you two.
@@jakeobryan that is how it was 40 years ago -- now if you disagree you are racist or worse. It's absolutely ludicrous
20:45
“I adopted a child because I felt something inside of me was telling me this is something I needed to do”.
That little something Jillian is the reason why you will never be able to leave this thing alone. It’s also the same reason why we will never abandon the sanctity of the family.
We were created for this purpose. We cannot successfully suppress nature. It’s inherently in us.
Great conversation. I’d love to see Ben Shapiro on your show.
Civil unions can provide the protections she refers to. Marriage is a sacrament for creating and sanctifying a family.
That's just what it is for Catholics. Non-Catholics and non-religious people can get married.
@@richarddoan9172wrong. Islam and Judaism and traditional Protestants and Eastern Orthodox hold that view too. Non-religious and atheists can’t and don’t have sacramental marriages.
@@stevied3400 Non-religious people have marriages. Religious marriage is a sacrament. Marriage in general is not.
@@richarddoan9172 Religions have their own doctrine. The reason that government has any interest in marriage whatsoever is to ensure that the men who impregnate the women stay with the women to raise those kids. Changing that purpose to celebrate someone's love for another person or another entity shifts the emphasis away from the common sense focus on what makes a society work the best. When a society embraces same sex marriage, it also tells kids from the time they are two years old that they should treat boys and girls no differently when formulating their early views on sex and love, long before the kids hit the puberty time bomb that is geared by nature toward opposite sex attraction. We can be tolerant of the exceptions to nature without totally ignoring the obvious flow of nature. We also see how the breakdown in support and celebration of the binary dynamic of nature is leading to even breakdowns that go against the flow of nature with things like transgenderism, where kids are told from the time they are two that they can be either a boy or girl without recognizing the puberty time bomb that is coming farther down the road. It's alot like kids playing on train tracks that have to depend on adults to know what is coming before their brain develops patterns that conflict with oncoming puberty. We've also seen that the LGBT plus lobby is not happy to let parents decide for themselves how to raise their own kids. They want to force LGBT-plus ideology everywhere, even when the community voted against same sex marriage or transgender rights.
except that conservatives don't want civil unions either. the right loves to talk out of both sides of its mouth.
Let gays get married, just don't force religious institutions to facilitate it.
Dont force bakers to make cakes for their weddings.
Jillian seems to have a very conflicted heart. She’s open minded and still searching for the truth. That’s why she is able to have this conversation. But the agnostic mind is always at war with the truth, and seeks self indulgence instead.
@scottc3029 You arrogant ass. Someone is at war with the truth for not believing in a sexist, homophobic, unscientific religion with a talking snake and a talking donkey in it?
The Bible is at war with the truth.
It's best for every child to have a healthy mom and dad. Not single parents, uncommited parents, same sex parents, or abusive parents.
Even if you’re right “best” isn’t an option anymore. Heterosexuals can’t raise their own kids, hundreds of thousands of kids don’t have a mom OR a dad.
Says who? I’ve seen gay parents raise kids and do great. I’ve seen more standard parents raise kids and do terribly. It depends on the people
Most people have kids before their brains are even fully developed. That's been the case for most of human history. No wonder we are where we are. Any two idiots can make a baby and claim themselves to be the best decider for the future of their children.
@@sloth6247 Unrealistic in society now.
@DanT-godofpain lowering the standard is not the solution.
If the justification for marriage is just that “people love each over” we get into very dangerous territory! Two siblings could claim to love each other!
True. The key to solve the dilemma is understanding that there is a distinction between marriage and companionship, a distinction that goes beyond sex, of course.
Maybe People should learn to not want to controle what everyone els wants to do,the world can do with a little less narcisism
@@Marcustheseer Marriage is a societal issue, it is narcissist to reject the natural order of society for the sake of someone's own happiness.
@MaximusTheMad511 that's the crux of the argument (natural) same sex attraction and relations are natural. Look up the word natural come on
Correct. Marriage has nothing at all to do with love. Zero.
The ****** MATE SELECTION ****** process **** CAN **** (but is by no means required) have something to do with love. But the marriage is fully separate.
You can marry for security, for money, for status, etc… but that’s still all mate selection.
Honestly, Man beat around the bush here and really said notging... He should have simply said "Marriage is a Holy union between a man and a woman set forth by God Himself and recognized by the church as such". He should also have noted how the GOVERNMENT bastardized the definition of marriage and took away the power of definition from the Church, in order to appease the LGBT community, instead of legally recognizing LGBT unions as something else for the purposes of stuff like taxes, estate planning, etc. So really, the argument can be made that the government violated the 1st amendment to define a religious principle that wasn't theirs to define, for the sake of wokeness.
16:45 Jillian, you brought up slavery as an example of things that once were OK by society and now we have moved away from (for good reason). Here is the basic (religious) reason why that comparison is flawed. Marriage was an institution created by God. Specifically, God said: "That is why a man his father and his mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." In contrast, slavery (for instance) was created by (evil) men. You also spoke about polygamy and how Abraham had concubines. If you were to read the Bible and study this case (and all others) you will soon realize that this WAS NOT God's plan for Abraham or Sarah. On the contrary, it was the result of BOTH of them not trusting the actual plan God had for them. The passage I quoted (Genesis 2:24) was, is, and forever will be God's plan for human kind: For a man (singular) to unite with his wife (woman - singular) and become one flesh. Anything outside of that comes from humankind's flawed reasoning and justification, just like Abraham and Sarah did.
@hfontanez98 Please provide some evidence that God created marriage.
"God said..." 🤡🤡🤡
Genesis1:27, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:3-9, Ephesians 3:14,15.
Nice, but I don't believe in your god.
@@SawyerCarlson-h6f that doesn't make Him not real.......
It’s definitely religious from Christ faith. You can’t separate it and Matt tried to this time and it doesn’t work. Gods definition is one man and one woman period. Easy.
@@stephanielancaster5846 Pretty sure Jesus told us to love our neighbors. He was the least racist, least homophobic, and least transphobic person who ever lived. Maybe try following his example for once.
Jesus said a lot of things, not just what’s convenient. Read everything he said before you speak up. He was CLEAR. And those who know Him, KNOW.
@@ewrock7635 Jesus indeed said to love, He also lovingly calls us to repentance and faith, which involves denying ourselves. There is no room for hating someone because they are LGBT. However, having a different opinion or belief is not hate or unloving. That is what this country needs to get over.
That’s not what Gold told me! 😊😊😊✝️
@@ewrock7635Christ told the adulteress when caught in the act:”Go and Sin no more”
This is a great discussion. It's how we 'used to be'. Able to speak to one another and still be best friends/neighbors.
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
This woman is wrong, but I appreciate her willingness to discuss the subject mostly calmly.
Jillian doesn’t understand that language isn’t designed to be the most inclusive or make people feel the best. It’s designed for utility and to convey some truth or category as we understand it.
She’s fine with changing marriage. However, I don’t think she’d be fine with changing the definition for “lesbian” to something relating to gender instead of sex. Who knows? Maybe she would. But it would effectively erase whatever it is she believes exists in her that makes her a lesbian.
The Left loves to change definitions to suit their desires.
If it’s designed for utility and to convey truth, then the new definition for marriage is correct. It isn’t what it was. The new definition reflects the new and better understanding of it.
She wants to know what she’s missing… she’s missing it so much she wouldn’t get it if you told her.
She’s missing the belief in her Creator and His son Jesus who died for her sins so she can be saved from death and have everlasting life.
@@dollrose3085 exactly!
Prayers for her
This is why we pray for others and show compassion. She doesn't deserve any hate or vitriol. She discussed this openly with civility. I don't have to agree with her but this woman has my respect.
Two people completely disagreeing respectfully.
Beyond the subject matter, we have to celebrate that.
It is amazing how Walsh has made a career talking about something he can't even properly articulate in a non confrontational setting such as this.
He did fine. It's like trying to explain why water is wet. It's something so fundamental it shouldn't have to be explained. That's why he struggled.
I saw Matt Walsh being extremely delicate because he's not heartless and Jillian is not looking to score points but she is genuinely trying to understand marriage. His example of how if we restart society we would see how obviously marriage is something between a man and woman was excellent. The understanding that children should follow and that without this we would perish removes faith from the argument for any who aren't believers. That doesn't mean someone can't care for a child who isn't married or doesn't share the faith. People did live in different family structures, but that inherently can't be called the same thing. Marriage is about intent and trying to create the most ideal conditions for family.
He articulated his position effectively enough - the fact that you disagree with him doesn't mean he 'couldn't articulate' his position - no facts, logic, or common sense could suffice to change your mind.
@19:00 Matt, that was where the conversation should have started. Jillian is spot on for thinking what's she does outside the framework of Christianity. Christianity involves knowing who God is and why when He says "don't", He's saying "don't hurt yourselves". Yes that's overly simplistic, but, Matt, don't hold back the truth on this. Marriage is created by God and defined by God, not man, not Webster. Jillian, I can really appreciate your position and think you did a very honest and respectful debate with Matt. God bless you both.
I like Jillian and I appreciate this discussion. We need more civil discourse! Now that I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I see that the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob made marriage. There should have been a different word used for gay unions, but they didn’t want that. I the courts could have granted that state of unity with all the rights of “marriage”. I don’t think that people thinks that gay parents threaten what we have (as Jillian suggested before 8:50). As a believer, I have to do what God says. Jesus is very real and is alive!
@@jaycole2109 why does it need a different word if it's legally, structurally and functionally the same thing. Marriage is a contractual relationship that is enforced by the government.
@@jaycole2109 this!!!!!!
@@ashleygraham1011 Keywords "enforced by the government". It may surprise you ma'am, but decent human beings view marriage as an emotional or spiritual connection to another being.
@@user-og6hl6lv7p yes, I agree. Sometimes, those feelings are between two boys or two girls and they can make wonderful parents.
The exception to the rule doesn’t make the rule a moot point. That’s what Jillian fails to understand.
Lesbian couples actually have a higher rate of divorce and violent abuse, so she has a worse argument for family anyways.
what is this even supposed to mean? the rule is that children with same-sex parents grow up just as well as other children, as has been documented by multiple studies throughout the years. I can't believe that there are still people against this.
I kept thinking "why are we aiming for failure?". If she grants that a father and mother raising a kid is the best situation, then everything should be an attempt to reach that. We can tolerate suboptimal things like single parents raising kids, but we should aim for it.
Same with those who choose not to have kids. The best marriage is one with kids, so we shape the laws around them. We shouldn't craft marriage laws around those couples that don't have kids.
@@b.1756well i mean federal gay marriage protection has been codified into law. It’s essentially impossible to overturn- it would take a 3/4th vote of the senate to overturn it. Which will never happen. And if it did then SCOTUS wd overturn THAT. So, it’s just about personal opinions or religion at this point.
@@b.1756thats not true at all. Thats so far from the truth its laughable.
So, if a straight couples can’t create children, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Is he generally against gay relationships, or is he just against gay marriage?
Take the government out of the equation. Marriages are traditionally a religious ceremony that is now regulated by the government for some reason.
they always were since the government always had an interest in promoting stable households which can procreate.
and who do you want to enforce violation of a marriage if not the government, which has the monopoly on physical violence.
Incorrect. The origins of marriage are dated back to Mesopotamia, not the Christian mythology.
@reijiakaba7232 nice try lol. Marriage was around WAY b4 Mesopotamia ever existed
@@domdomdiddy3036 Earliest recorded example of marriages are dated back to 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia. But by all means, show me an earlier marriage.
This might honestly settle it.
Make marriage alegal. In the eyes of the government, no one is married. "Marriage" is not relevant to anything government related.
If religious institutions want to marry people in their eyes, and restrict it however they want, then let them.
But, no one is getting extra legal rights or anything from "marriage".
A Catholic priest, in his sermon at Mass, once said, "God made men and women to complement one another." I totally agree with Matt's idea of marriage. It is meant to create life in a sacred union.
I love how she is genuinely trying to understand... I love people like that... I'm subscribing to her channel
The point of marriage is to have two people with procreative powers enter a legally binding relationship that is committed to raising children in a safe and healthy environment. This is the best chance for children to grow to be contributing respectful members of society, thus maintaining civility. Marriage of gay couple is simply a union of two people who fell in love which will need a third person involved if they want children.
Very hard to give a concrete non-religious argument against same sex marriage. On the other hand it is just as difficult for Jillian to explain why a legal union was not an acceptable alternative. They demanded the term marriage because they wanted it to be not only legally the same. They wanted it to be culturally the same. The truth is that a marriage between a mana and a woman was unique and the obvious uniqueness is being denied.
The legal union not being acceptable alternative is because it creates an unnecessary distinction. Like if marriage 'was' a union created from Abrahamic religions for their people, then why not call take away non-religious peoples' right to be called a marriage. It's silly.
@@mothinhead8903Some distinctions are necessary. People sometimes forget that there are civilizations outside of the West like in Asia or Africa that have a clear understanding that marriage is between man and woman. That is beyond religious.
Concrete non-religious argument against same sex “marriage”. It has provided a stable foundation for our civilization for hundreds of years. Changing it so drastically obviously undermines that foundation.
@@mothinhead8903 Respectfully, we disagree. I think it is a necessary distinction and you don't. We could debate in circles for hours and not move the others position. And that is OK
@@denisgrady7379 spot on
Interesting that she brings up Abraham and Sarah having “numerous wives”, not really accurate but to her point that that resulted in so much chaos with Isaac and Ishmael…she defeated her own argument. Yes, it results in so much chaos, so let’s get back to marriage norms that God created in Eden.
She keeps saying it’s okay because all these other people do irresponsible, destructive things resulting in children. Those things are wrong too and people shouldn’t do them either.
Jillian also failed to mention that Sarah could not have children herself, was older in years, and she wanted Abraham to have children, nor did God ever sanction polygamy. Those people made those decisions on their own and frowned upon even in their time.
That doesn't even make sense. The entire point of that story is to say "Abraham was wrong for marrying multiple women". We also see this carried on later when God even mentions that if a man has multiple wives, he'll naturally end up liking one more than the other and that could even lead to issues that will carry on with the children of the women potentially hating each other.
Yep. Abraham just had Sarah and she pushed him to Hagar. That resulted in absolute catastrophe.
@@adamfrost3139 The story of Sarah and Hagar is indeed a significant one in religious texts. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, eventually had a son named Isaac, as foretold by God. Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, bore Abraham’s first son, Ishmael. This situation led to tension and strife within the household, as Sarah and Hagar’s relationship became strained.
According to the narrative, God did not sanction polygamy. Instead, He directed Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, emphasizing the importance of respecting and guarding the marriage relationship1. This story is often interpreted as a lesson on the consequences of deviating from God’s will and the importance of faith and obedience.
Totally agree with Matt, but I’m a fan of Jillian. She has an open mind, and is willing to engage respectfully, even when she disagrees. Respect
As a childless 46 year old widower should I not get married again if I'm not going to be having children since the women in my dating pool at menopausal?
@@brianparrett114. As a 49 year old man with no kids, I say go ahead and date. Get married.
@@brianparrett114 You can get married, but that´s irrelevant, marriege is still an institution based on reproduction, your marriage wouldn´t change that
@@leatherandtactel no it's not, it's an institution built on property ownership and inheritance. Human reproduction occurred long before humans decided to create a thing called marriage in their societies.
@@brianparrett114 Yes it is, Christian marriage is based in reproduction and in family. Before that people had children, but it was not a Christian marriage. Ownership and inheritance occurs after reproduction incase you own something, and not everybody owned land or were patricians...
Just because the world wants it, doesn't mean it's right. Props to both for keeping it cordial.
Just because your religious values that have no basis in reality say that it's bad, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed when it demonstrably causes no harm and leads to the betterment of society.
Just because a tiny minority on the left want it, doesn't mean it's right.
I remember before this was even an issue, some lesbian friends of mine were over and they wanted to have a ceremony and every dictionary at the time referred to a man and woman. So, the dictionaries online are not really dependable for a historical look. But it was not THAT a big deal at the time. It only became a big deal when they went to a state that recognized gay marriage, got things legalized and when the divorce came, it was a bad scene.
One of the issues that I don't think was approached that would have been helpful was how St. Thomas Aquinas described sex and marriage. Sex is like a fire. It has to be controlled. When under control, as in a hearth or chimney, it provides warmth and heat. When out of control it brings destruction. Marriage is the framework for control of that procreative power. Marriage is the chimney and hearth. This would address Jillian's point about procreation as a result of a one-night-stand. That's a fire burning out of control. Short term, it seems okay, but before you know it, the consequences of that impulsive fire lighting start to spread to all different areas of life.
My third point, is as a straight, conservative male, why is it so important to get the term opened up instead of making a new term up? Before these last few decades people were making legal contracts that provided for their partners in virtually all circumstances. I've heard people argue that it's all about the guilty consciences of they gay people insisting on acceptance and therefore they are going to redefine whatever needs to be redefined or undefined. I don't know, but it's plausible and there are gay activists who have rightly or wrongly trumpeted the idea that the whole thing is an attack on traditional marriage. I don't think every gay person would agree with that, but I would be curious to know where the "movement" actually begins.
Is it some romantic idea of marriage? If so, that is a modern invention concerning marriage that has been detrimental to marriages. Allan Bloom the gay academic philosopher wrote "Love and Friendship" on his deathbed and he viewed Platonic friendship as the highest form of love. Just something to throw out there.
I really don't think Matt Walsh is well versed enough on all of the permutations of the multiple topics intersecting to make a fruitful discussion. This "showdown" is really the result of social engineering trying to create conflict.
Excellent post. The end goal is the destruction of all institutions social norms and structure so the socialist utopia can be ushered in.
Matt is totally right but I very much appreciate the conversation . once you got the snowball rolling it is hard to stop it : from gay marriage to gender pronouns, kids gender mutilation, women competing against men in sport..... Jillian is not connecting the dots
I am gay. Gay people love each other just like straight people do. The "movement" begins with the idea that someone like me should have the same freedom that someone like you has.
@@Jack-uh6zz No. That's a misappropriation of the term and concept of "love" in opposition to the reality of it. By the way, straight people often misappropriate the term "love" for misdirected and ultimately long term or even short term unhealthy ends. Any person can want the best for any other person, but you can also have (for various reasons) a variety of feelings for them or attractions towards them that are not necessarily love or rightly directed feelings and attractions. Pedophile priests have openly claimed that their molestations were "love." They have misappropriated the term as well to justify a validation of their personal desires. And oftentimes if you love someone the actual proof of it is that you don't indulge in satisfying your personal feelings or attractions or even trying to satisfy their feelings or attractions. To do so would be the opposite of love.
I LOVE this! Love two people have a sensible debate about their beliefs. You may not change minds but to explain your side and why you feel a way is so important
Matt’s definition stems from a spiritual reality. Those who have no regard for Scripture can never truly understand what marriage is. We measure it against God’s standard. Yes, there are situations in scripture that violate God’s standard-that is sin. It’s there because we have a choice to obey or disobey. All of those polygamous situations had major issues with wives and children-judgment for sin.
This is one of the most respectful conversations on this topic I’ve seen online. You both chose overall kindness and strength to present understanding (even when you may have fully not understood) & it’s a blessing to witness.
Thank you for being honest enough to have a real conversation like this with a serious person - not an angry, each yelling over the other, useless fight.
16:02 I don't know why she keeps reading the dictionary definition as if it proves your point? Especially when we know that the dictionary has actually changed the definition several times for the specific purpose...
Because he asked her what she thought the definition of marriage was.
Yeah, if your thoughts are based on accommodating the people and the times, of course, go for the common agreement of humanity trying to govern itself... the Bible, however, is the plumb line. What God says goes. He is aware of our brokenness, and He will not bend to our whim. He loves us too much to leave us that way we chose rather than submitting to His will if we will.
The definition of marriage changed when day marriage became law. These definitions of marriage are very recent in history.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive
I appreciate the fact that these two sat down and had a conversation like adults.
Respect to you both for opening this conversation up publicly and respectfully.
If you're arguing that marriage is reserved for a union between a man and woman only for the purposes of procreation. Then, I think the next logical discussion is whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children or not. I suspect that if you're down with one, you're also down with the other.
A lot of respect for Jillian here for hearing someone else out and trying to understand.
From a Christian perspective, marriage is intended to be as God created it in the Garden of Eden. It is meant to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman with God at the center. When sin entered the world, there began to be a distortion of marriage, including polygamy, which is in the Bible. God never said that man should take many wives. That was something men in that culture just chose to do. All of the polygamous relationships in the Bible were disastrous, showing us that it was never intended by God. The best outcome for children is in a loving household with a mom and a dad. That being said, I understand Jillian's perspective as well. The world is broken, and therefore, marriages and relationships are broken. We don't live in 'unicornland' as she said. Knowing that not everyone in our country has a Christian perspective, we need to try to do the best we can for the kids out there who just need a stable home with love. There is a lot to be learned from both sides. I appreciate the respectful dialog between two differing views.
I agree with the 1st half of your statement but are you saying that gay couples should be able to provide a home for kids if it's with "love"?
@jtremaine23 If it is a safe and stable home environment I don't think that we have the right to deny an abandoned child an environment in which they can actually thrive and feel secure. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who adopt that aren't Christians either. All I'm saying is we need to be careful not to force our Christian beliefs on everyone around us. God never commands us to force a Christian life on the society we live in. He simply demands that we, as his followers, live in obedience to Him. Let the way we conduct ourselves speak to God's truth.
@@kallenpowell6503 I wouldn't say it's safe or stable if it's a relationship outside of God's design. They could be safe from physical harm but not psychological harm. A heterosexual couple who are not Christians would still be under God's design as far as one man and one woman. Also, there are couples who wouldn't abandon these same kids that could adopt or foster. Serious question--I hear people bringing up forcing Christian beliefs on everyone alot but how does that look? I've seen people share the gospel but not "force" it. You can't make anybody believe anything to be honest. It has to be God giving them a new heart with new desires. Living in obedience to Him means all Christians sharing the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20).
@jtremaine23 I know of plenty of Christian homes that have caused a lot of psychological harm on kids. Thankfully, God can redeem any child coming out of a broken situation. It should not be within our control to force everyone to live the way we want them to. We aren't changing anyone's hearts or minds that way. Sharing the gospel is a pillar of Christianity and is not forcing our beliefs on anyone. Thankfully, we live in a country that allows us to speak openly about our faith. At the end of that interaction, the other side can either accept or deny what we've shared.
Marriage being between only a man and woman isn’t just a Christian thing.
I don't think Matt Walsh is doing a very good job of explaining why marriage is between one man and one woman and that's very surprising to me
It's not surprising. He has never been a great thinker.
Well, look who he is trying to explain it to.
I think he did a really good job considering who he's talking to. It's an emotional issue, and you can tell he was trying his best not to wound her by diving too deep into natural law philosophy.
It's like trying to explain why IVF is a moral evil to someone whose child is a product of IVF. Or abortion to someone who's procured one or more.
@@alexhoffman6477 first of all he should have explained that the definitions she was reading were written by politically correct Leftists who are trying to placate modern woke sensitivities. If she had read definitions from Webster's or any dictionary from a few decades ago, she wouldn't have gotten those definitions.
He also should have said that homosexuals could have Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions with similar rights as marriage but "Marriage" is exclusively reserved for one man and one woman, as per Jesus and/or the Bible and/or long-standing tradition going back thousands of years( which at least he did that).
That's what I would have done. What say you?
His explanation is woke. Religion is the boss of Wokeism.
The simplest way to explain what Matt is trying to convey is that his world view includes God and his intention for marriage which is to "be fruitful and multiply" and hers does not. When he tries to explain, and she rudely interrupts, that if there were some unexplainable thing that crippled or ended society as a whole there is something devine about men and women coming together to procreate and repopulate the world that cannot be replaced or happen between two people of the same sex.
"Divine"? The male uses the same duct to procreate to excrete urine, the female anatomy makes it easier to get fungal infections in her genitalia, the whole process is falty, few fertilizations end up in nidation, it takes months to gestate the baby and when it comes it is far more fragile than how other animals, like horses or deers, come into the world.
Not to mention that even if the scenario you proposed were to happen that doesn't change the fact that people who are not atracted to the oposite sex can't be forced into procreation. That is called r@pe, in case you didn't know.
@@Pedro-m7f3f Which is why they try to indoctrinate, because they are unable to make people.
@@fatmonkey4716 That is a lie. Thet are disfertile not infertile. The vast majority are biologically capable of having children bug are not atracted to the opposite sex so they use other methods that have been used by infertile straight couple for a long time. And they also know that it is impossible to be "indocrinated" into being gay because most of their lives they were forced to be straight and it did not work. Are you just going to say lies here?
Marriage is a picture of Jesus Christ and His Bride, the church. Can’t change that! That’s the big picture for which we will ALL be accountable before God, like it or not.
That's just your belief because you're pious and short-sighted.