The reason Joe and Matt are disagreeing here is because they haven't defined the terms properly. There's difference between secular "marriage" and "The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony". "Marriage" has moved into the public arena now, so it is subject to all the many subjective interpretations. Joe is talking about "marriage". Matt is talking about "Holy Matrimony". The term "matrimony" actually means - the making of a Mother. So the two participants have to be a man and woman and they have to be open for reproduction. If they are not, that Sacrament will not be given. A man cannot make another man a "Mother". That's impossible. They can adopt children and be called a "mother", but that is just a name.....that man can never be a Mother.
@@faithbycatholicism1416 bingo, and there in, I believe, marriage should be sepparated from partnership. Even from govermental POV, procreational marriage is a virtue. Its above partnership because its much more sustainable institution longterm.
Did this man say "the church is allowing these divorces to occur?"Under scrutiny, these Walsh type characters crumble everytime. Sounds like Mr Walsh wants a religious theocracy here in America.
@@JedirieFTW marriage is an institution. That for the history of ever has been about one mother and one father. It’s an institution for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay couples can’t procreate. Therefore it isn’t “marriage” in the traditional sense. As far as why not, I believe that the parental roles of a mother and father are both necessary to have the best outcome (in general) for a child. Not to say a gay couple can’t raise a kid properly but men and women are in fact different and each bring something that is biologically engrained in them to the table. There’s the non biblical argument. Personally I don’t think government should be in marriage at all but it’s necessary to be above replacement rate. 😊
@@JedirieFTWI recommended re listening with the intent to understand. It was going around in circles because Joe Rogan couldn’t accept the fact that Mat Walsh has a set of opinions that differ from his own. Mat believes that there is an objective meaning to marriage despite the outliers, and that one of the central purposes of marriage is to create a platform for children to enter the stage. That’s his opinion, and whether or not you agree with it he is entitled to it.
@@analisamarieh4119 you misunderstood buddy. It wasn't Joes fault. He was simply bringing up that Walsh had an illogical reason for his opinion. But Walsh couldn't explain himself. He was continuing to push a false reason
Marriage isn't necessarily a religious institution. Certainly not just Christian. People of different faiths, cultures and non religious beliefs get married. Marriages are certified by the government of the State you live in or the country you live in. All marriages are recognized or at least should be recognized no matter where you go. Love is the most important reason to get married. That's why it shouldn't matter if the couple wants children or can have biological children. Older couples can get married and not want children. Infertile couples can get married. And just like infertile couples can adopt children if they wish, so can gay couples. Marriage also gives couples certain rights and legal privileges. That is why gay people getting married shouldn't be discriminated in receiving those rights and legal privileges.
Then why did they sue the christian church and everything related to chrisrian marriage? They hijacked western christian marriage. Children are the main reason you should plan to love someone forever. Other “loves” dissolve which is why the divorce rate is above 50%. Thats people thinking they know what love is then divorcing when the lust dies. Thats all same sex couples are, lustful. You’re actually a thoughtless person for comparing people stricken by the tragedy of infertility to people who have fetishes. Same sex couples should have coined a new word or accepted the term civil union and fought for equal rights under those words. Instead, they decided to hijack the family word and make it about filth. Fake love. Marriage only works when it is about family.
@@LogicCaster Marriage was not hijacked and it does NOT belong to religion. Children are NOT the main reason you love someone. And love isn't something you plan you *mbecile. There is nothing wrong about lust. Gay is not a fetish. Same-sex marriage doesn't need another word. You are a fake human being. Marriage can work when it is about something else than family.
It is primarily religious. And Christian. The Christian church has existed for over six thousand years. No one introduced marriage except the Christian religion
@@Orthodoxology Hum… the Christian church does not date back 6000 hundred years, no. And first marriages were celebrated way before Christianity was a thing.
@@Nonalhomophobie “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). First book of the old testament. The Book of Job (/dʒoʊb/; Biblical Hebrew: אִיּוֹב, romanized: ʾĪyyōḇ), or simply Job, is a book found in the Ketuvim ("Writings") section of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the first of the Poetic Books in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Scholars generally agree that it was written between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE. The components and books of the bible are significantly older and more important than you think. The only reason you’re a gae atheist is because you’re cursed. That book CAN cure you
This was a fine example of why Joe's podcast has become so popular. Discussing a controversial topic where neither side got emotional or reached a point of insulting the other. A lot of people myself included could take lessons from this conversation.
Matt is obviously wrong here and his idea crashed fromfew basic questions. People being happy that 2 people can have opposing ideas and be civil is cringe. When no one walks away from a discussion with a new perspective what is the point. Matt wont change his mind. But sure be halpy with the low bar of "they were civil."
@@btgkg9639 nah joe Won that debate however I understand where Matt is coming from traditional Christian marriage but that should not be involved in politics nor should wokeness
@@jimwerther ok lets get someone educated to press him on those issues free form like this. Maybe his world view isnt as coherant as those daily wire "documentaries" make out. Maybe matt is actual pretty low iq.
By the way, this is the way humans are supposed to have conversations. Not lashing out at every little thing just because your ego is to big and you don't like being possibly wrong. From the first second to if you skip 13 minutes ahead, its the same body language. No one is toxic here, they are just men having a talk. Edit: If you really think this is toxic, you are what’s wrong with the current socializing groups.
It is a lot easier for Joe to be calm in this situation since gay marriage is not something Joe is gonna do. If Joe was gay and someone invalidated his rights it'd be harder to remain emotional neutral.
So let's say this was someone advocating against interracial marriage, and that the speaker defined marriage where "two races can't mix". Why is this the model of a good conversation and debate when someone is advocating against human rights?
A question that I wish was asked of Matt was "Why is the istitution of marriage important on a societal level?", which his answer would probably be somewhere on the line of "protecting the nuclear family and creating and raising children", to which the follow up is "how does gay marriage damage that purpose?"
If the purpose of marriage is to stabilize the nuclear family and in a sense hold the parents accountable to each other and to their children then gay marriage hurts that because it totally destroys how society views the meaning of marriage and what a normal marriage looks like. I think a good question is why are people getting married in the first place? Nowadays I guess it would mainly be for tax and beneficiary purposes. But honestly people should be able to get those things separate from just marriage status. When a man and women are married the whole dynamic will inherently be different in nature from that of a man and a man and a woman and a woman because of biology and the possibility of reproduction. Marriage is the flesh of a man and woman ‘unifying’, so yes having children (2 coming together to create 1) is essential to marriage. Gays should be allowed to be together and name each other as beneficiaries but other than that why would they want to be married ? For what? At least in the church anyways
@@vevasika "But honestly people should be able to get those things separate from just marriage status" couldn't agree more. Marriage, without governmental interference would remain intact in its original sacred from and it would be honored as such. Government could invent new things for special bonds (as described by Joe) like "Life Partnership" or any other types of government-backed bonds for anything. And for the spiritual aspect, gays could find or invent a religion that offers rituals they're looking for instead of trying to change the existing ones to fit their desires.
@@DreamingConcepts I agree. No one is stopping them from creating their new traditions and institutions. Marriage isn’t exclusively Christian but if you look at all cultures it was always between a man and a woman. I think that says something to what it is and what it was meant for even stronger being that’s how it was practiced all around the world. Funny too many progressive feminists would say marriage is a patriarchal institution and really just the institution which upheld women as slaves to men. So why would gay people who you would suppose align with progressiveness and feminism want to be “married”? They can have their own government sanction so that they can pass on property and get tax benefits etc
The thing is that the nuclear family doesn't really need protecting in that way. Most people are heterosexual, so the vast majority of marriages which occur will be male/female. And if the nuclear family is that important, then could I not make the argument that if something happens to one parent in a traditional nuclear family, then the kids should be taken away until the remaining parent can find a new partner? How far, exactly, would people like Walsh want to go in their view of how society should be?
@@brianm2881 It doesn’t? Because if you ask me it’s been pretty destroyed by our society and hurts kids. Taking a child away wouldn’t make sense. Damage has been done because of the loss of the parent but it would be even more damaging to remove the child from the other relationship as that relationship has already formed. The relationship with the mother is especially important because the baby forms that connection and familiarization with her in the womb. The mother is everything to that baby. I’m a single mom, I left a husband who didn’t love me or my child. I wish it was not this way. I see the consequences of my daughter not having her dad in her life and how she struggles with it. It breaks my heart. Fortunately she has a grandpa, uncle and now my boyfriend as father figures in her life. I can tell you it will make a huge difference for her
1 a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry
40 seconds in and I’m realizing how well Joe Rogan simply asks someone a question in order to investigate their beliefs, listen to them, understand them, without intent to agree, disagree, judge, or criticize. He is a mirror to these people and he tries to get honest conversation out of them and challenge them which makes the content so entertaining.
It even feels like he has no emotion or personal bias. He blankly keeps digging to investigate and get everything out of his guests. First instinct is to feel like he’s challenging because it goes against his own beliefs. But once you realize that’s not the case, it’s mind blowing to see how interested he is in all opinion and knowledge and getting that out of people.
Not true at all. Rogan is what would be known as a ‘shill’. He pretends to be a maverick, but is a sellout. From way back, he was always pushing the queer narrative. Same like the ‘pandemic’…him pretending to be ‘challenging’ narratives with talking about “I’ve a make-tin” when he shoulda been talking about the testing and existence of 🦠. He will ALWAYS come up on the side of the handlers. Look back thru his videos how much he jokes about butts and dicks.
@@redcoresuperstar Religion is the main argument. And its a 10,000+ year LONG project, an instruction manual for societies to function around. Thats all religions have ever been.
Usually people who are up against him are just avarage people who are not ready for a difficult conversation, quick questions right after another...and they end up embaressing themselves eventho they might not be in the wrong!
He could have just shut down the debate by simply saying this is only my opinion. But , people like Matt are so sure of their “rightness” they can’t say it.
And why should anyone be told they cant get married with the person they love... a marriage is a conecting to your sole mate...no one should be told no you cant get married... every single human should have the same rights as any other human.
His reason is that it destroys the institution of marriage which according to him will damage society. Not sure how, they didn't talk about this. I don't really agree with him.
@@supertigik agreed, marriage altho invented long ago, was invented into society. Theirs places in the world where love exist but marriage is not accepted. I think his point of view is that traditional familys are no longer a thing and he's cross referencing the fact that theres more single mothers then ever. So one can assume a lot of society issues are ruined from raising motherles/fatherless children. But I believe marriage won't fix that like how having another kid doesn't fix the relationship, but rather economically imo its impossible to raise a family
Just wanted to note my appreciation for your non-clickbait title. You simply and honestly described what the video was without inciting drama like some high school gossip girl. Far too few TH-cam channels do that. It's very much appreciated!
There's a problem with the title though, they aren't disagreeing on gay marriage, they are disagreeing on the definition on marriage and why people should get married. They go on a few tangents discussing whether they are allowed to get married based on sexuality, but what Matt is saying which i agree with is, marriage is for all three of the pillars mentioned: Monogamy, procreation, and permanence. P.S Don't believe i'm picking sides here, i've listened to countless hours of JRE where i have agreed with Joe on many 'heated' discussions about controversial topics.
@@samgreen1933 marriage in America is a legal agreement, a contract. The parties involved are entitled to be subjective regarding their terms of an AGREEMENT. If you're understanding of marriage is informed by biblical standards (which I suspect), you have smuggled in monogamy without warrant. If you listened to this discussion and thought that Matt had the more reasonable argument, your mind is presumably immalleable and/or you tuned out during Joe's contribution. If you agree with him on controversial issues in the past I would submit you likely did so because he was able to articulate your already held belief. Matt Walsh was taken to school here in a primarily Socratic fashion and HIS argument was antithetical to freedom and much more aligned with bigotry and totalitarianism. I guess you believe that everyone that is capable of a heterosexual relationship is therefore competent enough to raise children.
This is why this podcast will have more viewers than all major news outlets top shows put together for their time slot. No yelling, no down talking, no interrupting, and no brainwashing.
Remember this moment. Matt does not think through things deeply. He has an ideology and that is all he needs. This whole clip is him subject shifting to deal with the very real problem of the fact that he has no grounding for his opinion. Other than that have a nice day
@@LogicCaster no it isn't. And no I wasn't. From this clip he can't deal with even the slightest scrutiny. In real time he stumbles because it was an ideological point only and was not well thought out. It is the same as watching Ben Shapiro freeze up or have to back peddle when he has to interact with anyone and doesn't have a podium to hide behind. Matt is trying to prove his intuitions, not test if his intuitions are true. Watch again and you'll see what I mean. Other than that have a nice day.
@@LogicCaster "Societal impact was his argument. Thats a very strong and serious argument" It is, against Matt. More wedding economy. Tax benefits. Less homophobic suicide and discrimination.
If you can't answer "How is it wrong?", then you are making the case that it is not wrong. He finally gave a decent answer at the end. Not sure why he didn't just say that at the beginning.
EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a TH-cam comment huh? THIS IS IT! This is EXACTLY why I started watching Joe Rogan. Even Keel, Middle Ground, Non-bias back and forth. Polite but ALWAYS seeing the other side and willing to debate it. It's the only way we can proceed as a society.
Rogan totally whiffed on challenging Matt’s BS “millions of kids are on puberty blockers” comment. Turns out it was a few thousand and he just laughed it off.
Ya this was a great episode. I was glad he had Matt on! They didn’t agree on this point, but I was also surprised to see they agreed on just about everything else.
@@kingdolo23 The absolute irony of calling someone who enjoys the fact that two adults can have a mature, respectful conversation/debate about something a "child"
Please ignore this pathetic incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere. They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married. They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family. This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed. They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic. This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides". They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews. They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke. They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure. Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style. They also claim that I : -Sexually molest Donkeys -eat jewish children -have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews -am a murderer -am a dog -am responsible for the holocaust -am a Nazi -am a religious extremist -adore Hitler and a big fan of him -am a gr00mer/child predator -sleept with a family member -am trans -am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means) But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable. They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic. They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources. They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that. They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy. They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men. They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy. His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me". On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it. I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.❌️
@@LogicCaster Read it if you need a reminder how you compared yourself to the victims of the holocaust or how you called me a nazi while using nazi-rethoric Foolish incel. You don't even have an argument anymore to throw my way. I won, you got nothing anymore. You only can point at me an laught to overshadow you're insecurity. Pathetic.
If your partner dies and they are not married then the mother of your partner can come in and control everything ...keep u from seeing them before they die and u could do nothing about it ...if your partner is in a coma and u are not married then u cant Have the right to keep them alive or take them off of life support.. if they in the hospital if u are not family u cant even see them before they die unless you are married ...its important for all to have that right so that in all aspects you are legally connected for stuff like that as well
I think one reason this convo was executed so well and peacefully is once Joe pressed Matt a little bit on why he feels what he feels with the “well what’s wrong with etc etc”, Matt never got mad or flustered. He remained in a constant state of calmness and never raised his voice or got rattled about it. Same with Joe. If many people get cornered or questioned too much about their positions, they tend to start getting agitated and the flow of the convo goes to shit very fast. This clip is a great example of how to have meaningful conversations.
I feel sorry for people for whom this type of conversation isn't the norm. It surprises me that people are so blown away by two people who have opposing point of views can have a civilized conversation. It just speaks to where we are in the world.
Joe handles this with class, reason and logic. Matt however just doesn’t want to say “Because I don’t like gay people.” So his rebuttals sound reasonless, illogical, and frankly just dumb.
Man I wish there's a comment on Spotify. In some of the argument in regards to gays and marriage, this guy was really dishonest and kept on dodging and change the subj everytime Joe gave argument towards being open to gay and gay marriage.
@@aresito22 well matts argument is that everyone that gets married should have kids, that’s what he sees as one of the core aspects of marriage. This is stupid because if EVERYONE who got married had kids there would be way more bad parents than if they had just got married and had kids. A lot of married couples want kids and that’s fine, but to enforce it upon everyone will have pretty negative effects on the children because those people just don’t want to be aren’t ready to have kids. People who would make bad parents aren’t effecting anyone if they aren’t having kids, but they would directly negatively affect a kid if they had them. So the idea that marriage NEEDS procreation is stupid, as that would have awful results, and if that idea is stupid, gay people shouldn’t be held up to the same ideas
i think what theyre both over looking is the fact that both of their opinions are based on conditioning and experiences (whether or not those experiences are religious or not).. a lot of people get married simply for the financial aspect... i know several couples who got married to be able to buy a home...
1:26 - then by nature of what things 'are meant to do/be' - the same can be said about feminine men, and masculine women - they exist too - Jordan Peterson agrees there - someone of us arent born into the gender stereotypes of our sex - just because we exist a little differently - doesnt mean we shouldnt have the right, to be what we are, or belive the things we do - yes, men are strong, and brave, and all that - but some men arent wired that way - just like im gay - thats just a fact of my life - just like intersex people - DONT up-end what male and female are - gays, and lesbians dont up-end what marriage is, or sex, or love.
I love how peaceful this conversation was! Nobody raising their voices or getting defensive just two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those beliefs.
If I was gay the idea that my rights are something that's up for debate would be infuriating. It's not like walsh walked away from this convo any less convinced of his bigotry so like why are his abhorrent ideas worthy of respect?
@@silencer1286 I mean maybe you read his comment wrong but he didn't say anything about respecting or agreeing with Matt Walsh's stance. All is he said was that he loves how peaceful the conversation was. That it was two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those opinions without getting defensive or raising their voices. You seem to be against free speech and the sharing of opinions or even the debate of opinions that you don't agree with. And if that were the case that may stem from a place of bigotry based on its definition.
@@chrishuffman6734 Feelings are just feelings. It takes wisdom and responsibility to put feelings in their proper place. Joe made the choice to let respect and his values do the talking.
@dj Kplus there both intelligent people. there definitely not stupid. just because he gets aggressive with other people and didnt here doesn't mean it's because he's afraid of him. if u really watch there actually interested in each other's take on the subject so instead of yelling there talking like civilized adults.
What would be even better is if they were both in agreement with whichever position was correct. Civil disagreement is not, in itself, a good thing if it leads to the promotion of error.
@@monsta2311 it literally does mean he is afraid of him. Why isn't he aggressive in those other situations and not here? Why doesn't he be more polite and civilized there instead of building an entire platform on being condescending? He kinda is stupid here, he has strong position on gay marriage that he clearly hasn't taught about.
@@monsta2311no offense bro, but you telling others about intelligence is hilarious. Figure out the whole “they’re, there, and their” thing before you judge a debate between a moron and a comedian.
In Norway, marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. It is mostly in relation to economics - unless you write prenup clauses. This sets a foundation for a more serious commitment, which in addition to love makes it more robust than a general relationship on rainy days.
@@Nonalhomophobie You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now. So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. So stop getting married since all you’re doing is lying to yourself and your family and the state. And you said earlier you want to *$EXUALlSE CHlLDREN*
@@LogicCaster "You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now." It's a fact. Welcome to the real world. It is irrelevant if you accept it or not. "So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. " Yes it can. "And you said earlier you want to $EXUALlSE CHlLDREN" PROVE IT. Until then it is slander and I report you. You are going to pay.
I can definitely see both sides especially at the end how Matt explained how basically people add no value to marriage these days however, that is not for us to decide. We are not GOD and Christianity is about love GOD and love people. Raise your kids on good morals and values and let people live.
Refreshing to hear the boundaries of an argument being tested with relevant questions and hypotheticals rather than attempts to discredit the person or a straw man argument. We desperately need this in our mainstream media.
Matt doesn't have a good reason for not accepting gay marriage other than to say it makes it "meaningless" which it does not... Marriage should be defined as two people expressing undying love for each other and there are also LEGAL benefits to marriage where one spouse can make legal decisions in behalf of the person they live.. Which they can't do as just two people dating. So there is absolutely zero effect on gay marriage to a heterosexual marriage... They should both be entitled to the same legal benefits in addition to the emotional reasons for it
Joe has had every type of guest known to the modern world on his show. I'd love for him to have some Senior Leadership Pastors on his show. And just see where the conversation goes.
Yes, love the way Joe just keeps asking questions rather than just going “yeah” and moving on. Such a great way to come to understand eachother but also to point out where something might not make sense.
You only listened to questions. Matt never was shaken Joe Tried to force him to concede his religious beliefs in a conversation where Matt refused to have a religious debate.,,, Matt Walsh will be known as the greatest debater ever’
Cos he's an agenda. He's changed since going to Spotify. Fence sitting for the most part and trying to score points on issues that he probably doesn't believe in. He comes across as dishonest with no conviction.
@@jeremyvculek3090 Not really - Matt has good ideas when it comes to countering the current nuttery on the left, but his religious views are blinding him to the obvious thruths also. One of them is that marriage has never been about having kinds - in history, ever. They are not linked. And they absolutely have nothing to do with it today or even recent history. And if anything, if he is against unrestricted sexual behavior, he should be in FAVOUR of gay people getting married. But sadly it is about his belief-reinforced hatred of homosexuals as a way of life. I don't care whom people love, and if two or more consenting adults love each-other and want to enter a contract of support, good. Less need of the state to handle any support - it must be done within the family. We should get the state OUT of marriage, not into it more by having laws around it.
@CJ P. Maybe to you. Didn't make sense to me it didn't and clearly didn't to Joe. To me the idea that marriage is only about a man and a woman breeding is pulling a definition out of your ass and calling it sacred. The common denominator of the tradition has always been people wanting their bond recognized by whatever god, government or society they live under. That's it. Everything else is specific to a personal belief and in America the idea is, no one gets to impose theirs on you.
@@jimmy-wf1uo I agree with your definition, but also believe many people equate an argument with a fight, instead of an academic argument which is called a civil discussion. I know an argument is a civil discussion and not necessarily vice versa but it seems to be the conversational definition.
There is a variety of ways it could exist. It could be made up of any types of people and those people can structure their family in whichever way they feel. And with each of those, it requires a tremendous amount of time and dedication to make successful according to one's choice of family structure. After falling in love, it's a vow to always care and love one another among those getting married ideally until death do you part. It's fundamental conditions are the following: (1) those designated to be married are in love, (2) they want a symbolic representation of their choice to _remain in love,_ (3) they intend to structure their family according to their collective wishes.
You two have reached the highest level of civility with this video👏👏👏, it is clear you really respect each other. Respect is what's missing from this world we live in
@@LogicCaster I like them both and didn't see bad behaviour in any of them. Is it possible you like Matt better and you are a little biased? I am not accusing, just asking. Take care
This is what all arguments should be. Every single one. This conversation really made me realize how rapidly humanity and dignity is declining: everyone was completely shocked by the civility and understanding. This type of conversation should be the norm.
Political views are often complex, though. Very rarely do open debates change someone’s mind, especially on issues like gay marriage. At some point, having discussions with every idiot isn’t virtuous.
And the resolution would be what exactly? They didn’t solve anything at all. Matt Walsh isn’t going to go home and see that his opinion is silly nor is he going to go home and decide to let people have the freedom to choose how to live their lives. He wants to codify in law the way he views the world and force everyone else to live how he thinks people should live.
Matt Walsh advocates for widespread liberties to be taken away from Americans. The guys against divorce. At what point would it be reasonable to yell at him?
This shouldn’t even be an argument though! Mat’s point is completely irrational and prescriptive, we should be way past these topics and not debating this anymore, makes no sense.
The final takeaway from this conversation: You can have a conversation without throwing insults, and without resorting to personal attacks. This is why so many watch JRE in the first place.
I dunno. There were many non-selling musicians from the 70s who say I should be a gry about something or another. I dunno if I can support 70s, forgettable music AND JRE... that is a hard thing to reconcile
It’s not personal because joe is married and has kids … if he was telling someone to their face that he believes they shouldn’t have to right to get married would you consider that an insult??
Logic disaster lied again. @@Matt34677 th-cam.com/video/v3z4-lFckZ8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=S5juzLoOsyn5fR5G Thats the video He always used to link to make that claim. Please notice the complete Lack of even mentioning gay marriage at all. In fact they speak about a completly different topic. This User is a well known pathologic liar and completly unhinged.
@@Matt34677th-cam.com/video/v3z4-lFckZ8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hrtDNkjTvsOkLTxW Thats the one He always said would prove his point. Please Note the complete Lack of even mentioning gay marriage. LogicDisaster is a known pathologic liar.
The link gets removed. Its probably in the spam filter becouse logic disaster posted it so much so more people would watch the clip and see more conservative content. I get you that vid buddy, just one second.@@Matt34677
@@jaymann5180 Anyone who wants to pave the way for a moral society where people make fruitfully good decisions tends to be offensive to these libertarians.
I agree with Matt about 50% of the time. But not on this subject. I believe everyone has the right to get married. Although I do think that marriage has lost a lot of its value in America
Ugh finally at the end, Matt gets to the point. His views come from a bigger picture. I understand both sides. I've lived and breathed both sides. I just want a world where we care for each other. Lots of children do need homes, and communities do need volunteers. I don't see many rising the occasion. In my experience, I see more selfishness and in Matt's ideology, he thinks raising children would fix that. Im personally a little more hesitant to say the same but I have noticed a huge amount of growth since having children.
As always, Rogan creates an atmosphere and conducts his interviews in a way to promote a respectful and insightful discussion between two people who disagree. Love it.
truee, don't we just love it when two straight men debate *other* people's rights to marriage? it's really easy to not get angry when you're not part of the demographic that are having their basic human right needlessly debated. in my opinion, there was nothing "respectful" about that discussion. towards each other, maybe, but certainly not respectful to anyone who is LGBT.
Matt Walsh is trying to protect/ make an argument for THE IDEAL of marriage. The whole talk lacked the explanation that the Ideal of marriage is what Matt sees value in. As far as I understand Matt's fundamental argument, Matt is not trying to enforce/ punish/ legislate, the idea is to talk through & see if the Ideal of marriage is still Monogamous, Permanent & Procreative. Striving for an Ideal makes us all better humans, no matter what area of human endeavor we are talking about. Good Ideals matter.
They disagree on what marriage is and the function of marriage. The topic of gay marriage doesn't even matter when you can't even agree with what marriage means and the function of marriage.
this was laid out by Matt in the full discussion on this particular topic (which lasted around an hour) but Matt didn't make a good case on why this difference in definition made that big a difference in the first place, Joe poked holes all over it.I was open to Matt's point of view even though I currently do believe gays should be allowed to get married in civil court but he simply didn't make a good case for it. Didn't sound like his argument was very well fleshed out either. He has some homework to do!
@@ShaferHart That was my take as well. I really wanted Matt to present a better argument, as I'm religiously inclined to agree with him. Still, he didn't do so well in explaining why he thinks what he thinks on this matter.
@UCwCgjYObRwdfFJG4FWc6KJA Both institutions exist for the purpose of encouraging lifelong heterosexual monogamy, because these relationships are necessary to be practiced en mass for a functioning civilization.
i think to understand the issue surrounding marriage and gay people (and why said people are historically excluded from marriage) we must understand what marriage means to homophobic people and how these people view gay people. Personally, I feel it is an issue of social hierarchy, and how that topples with the introduction of equality. Suddenly when a certain group of people receive the same priviledges as you, somehow, your relationship is less so. Its a harmful and rude mindset.
Once again your kind fails to consider the wellbeing of society. Instantly jump to “homophobic.” The whole issue is over if they just use their own word, but no. They had to sue churches and mutilate children.
In pretty much every conversation I hear these days about marriage in any sense the legal protections are always forgotten which to me is the entire purpose of a legal marriage. Otherwise we can commit to eachother without the courts. That legal protection and responsibility is the real commitment to me
Are you pathetic with divorced parents and without anything better to do then to spread lies over thousands of comments? Yes. Get therapy.🤡 @@LogicCaster
@Black King How can a man be masculine if he accepts red heads? What exactly do you mean by "accept"? They exist, it's a born trait. Every relationship has the dynamic of Dom and Sub btw, and there is nothing insulting about femininity... that is a very immature attitude, like boys being scared of cooties. Being homophobic is weak and lacking of courage and masculinity.
You understand that using the word 'adulting' makes you look pretty childish, right? It's like your admitting you have imposture syndrome about being an adult, lol.
@@LogicCasterthats not the solution. If you don't agree with Matt marriage will not "die off". There are more options silly. Get therapy. You need it.
@@LogicCaster no, absolutly not, you can't just fix the succes of a societal construct like marriage on a number like the divorcerate. There are good reasons why people divorce and those reasons need to be combated in order to bring down the divorcerate and not some flimsy bigoted attempt at an argument like you always do. It's also not the only thing that ever worked. Over time there have been many different kinds of marriage, you idea of marriage is just one of them, many of them have succeeded. There is no "one way" of marriage that works and at this point in time people are figuring themselfs out and come to terms with what they want in theyr marriage. All of the reasons why people marry are legit and not one is better then the other. Get therapy.
@@ZetsubenSama It worked for 5000 years when basically the entire planet was subject to abject poverty. Then you flags messed with the word and it fell apart. Simple.
Yeah... He gives the impression of being interviewing someone while in reality he does not let the interviewed to end a a phrase. It's just a monologue of his thoughts
The reason gay marriage was historically not acceptable is because every society that accepted it was destroyed or died out. Birth rates are falling in the west and the percentage of Americans that identify as LGBT doubles every generation. Enjoy your future!
In April of 2014 I experienced my first demonic possession. I was awake for a 3 straight days in a row making erratic decisions and doing stuff I wouldn't normally do. I walked down the street and almost got hit by a car after my dog Snicker got lose. I was severely dehydrated and hadn't eaten much in those 3 days. Walking down the street thirsty I wanted to get me a drink at the town's carryout. I didn't make it there. a big Mac truck carrying coal came straight my way and I walked straight in front of it. I went through the truck. Jesus saved my life for the second time in my earthly existence. As I continued walking down the road a neighbor in a small truck was pulling in his driveway. I went up to his parked truck and wanted to steal it to assassinate a person. Jesus Christ (the one true living God) immediately started preaching to the man through me. The man that tried to kill me was simply coming home from somewhere and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. and he did not listen to me as he thought I was out of my mind. The man hit me in the head 3 times with a short club. My skull was fractured but God saved my life that night. I went to the hospital, and the next morning I was admitted to the Pysch ward.
I have a lot of respect for how civilized they both were in discussing something they disagreed on. If more people were like this, the world would be a better place. If all of us communicated without getting into our feelings, we would be able to understand one another better.
This would require people to know why they believe what they believe, and back it up with logic. Unfortunately most people just take up an opinion without substantially exploring it.
In my opinion, there is really no civil “disagreement” on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. One side says “hey these two people who are consenting adults and love each other should be able to marry” and the other side says that they should NOT have the right to marry. There is nothing “civil” about wanting to take away someones right to marriage.
Freedom doesn't mean I justify sin, Christians know that, just because I'm free doesn't mean I can kill, or rape, or steal, or hit you, I can do all that, but I'm going against God and I will burn in hell Those who become homosexuals, or lesbians, have been raped as children, I know many people who have started families with a proper priest, with the help of God, they understood that what they did was a disease and that they will burn in hell, they confessed with the power of Jesus , Christ, they found their footing.
It's because any reasonable person, consciously or unconsciously, knows that saying, "I'm against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs" sounds ridiculous and insensitive.
@@Ken-zg3ze Lots of non Christians get married and that's no issue. Gay marriage in the church is the bit that is unfair as there are 1000's of places to get married so why should the church go against its beliefs?
@@jg2213 So there can be NO gay Christian's? Christian dogma has been changed and altered during adaptation so many times over the past 3 millennia or so, this is a very strange hill to die on. Especially when most Christian's don't even actually follow the dogma in any way but superficial element's like this which they focus on. Given that many of most prominent members of the anti-gay Christian community have, in fact, turned out to themselves be gay, this doesn't really seem like an issue that stems from real problems. This is a problem with the homophobic element of the Christian community often being . The Pope himself has come out in support of Christian homosexuals, being married in a Church isn't the issue, it's fundamentally down to some people picking and choosing element's of their religious practices to maintain a degree of exclusivity and for various reasons relating to insecurity. Like, it's just irrelevant. If two gay Christian's want to get married in a Church, why is that a problem? It literally effects nobody and impact's nothing. It's just yet another irrational religiously motivated opinion. If people are going to follow everything in the bible, ok, but they won't (because that would be insane in a modern context), they will select part's that are convenient for them and ignore everything else.
@@AveSicarius I actually support gay marriage and think the whole argument against it is stupid, but just like you wouldn't marry 2 Jews in a mosque you can't marry 2 gays in the eyes of the lord. Why aren't we talking about other religions marrying gay people as well?
That's a conversation between two adults without yelling, insulting, or trying to cancel each other. This is how it should be debating with an open mind.
"If you don't have kids when you get married you're a bad person and if two consenting unrelated adults get married then they'll legalise incest!" doesn't really sound like an adult mindset but whatever. It's very clear Matt's mind is closed.
@@MagcargoMan nah bro that's not what Matt was saying at all but regardless with whether or not you disagree with him, the conversation was civil each dude gave the other a good chance to voice his opinion without speaking over one another or getting emotional.
@@MagcargoMan ''bad person''? let me show you an analogy real quick. Imagine we talk about games and i say: if you havent played call of duty, you are not a gamer because i think that you dont care about elaborate and realistic games and the amount of emotions and adrenalite you can get from call of duty. when I said it was badnot to have played call of duty? This is what matt said regarding marriage, when tf did he say it was bad? One of the most incredible feelings you get is when you have kids with the person you love and how you become the best version of yourself
@@rypsterhc8673 maybe YOU needed to have children to become your best self. Other people don’t need this. This shows how YOUR mind is closed to other possibilities.
Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman
Imagine 2 people disagreeing but listening to each other’s opinion and actually having a conversation. And more importantly not hating someone and trying to silence someone with a different opinion.
It's not that. It's that his guest would usually be belligerent and 'dunk' on the person saying they support gay marriage but they are afraid of being too wacky and losing access to his giant platform. If it was anybody else saying what Joe was saying, he'd call him a woke cuck.
@@BlackedOutDreams Joe didn't keep changing the question, it was Matt that didn't answer the question at all. So Joe changed the fazing and examples, with it still being the same argument, to try and make Matt actually give an answer. Matt didn't. Matts argument is that marriage is just to produce kids. Well, should infertile people be allowed to get married? Matt says he didn't want to ban it and that they could still adopt. Well, gay couples can adopt to, but he wants that to be banned. What about women who are to old to get pregnant? Should there be an upper limit to when you can get married? Should marriages automatically dissolve once you cannot get children? What about people who stop believing in God? Does the marriage need to be broken up as well? Or what if they are just unsure? What if they do it just because of tradition, and that they do not care about christianity one way or another? The whole point here is to keep it consistent. Matt wasn't and he just tried to talk around it without giving an answer. He could use the bible as an argument, but that opens up another can of worms. If the part about marriage being between man and women needs to be taken literal, does every other part need to be as well? What about women not being allowed to speak up in public, and should rather ask their husband about things at home? Mixing of cloth? What about slavery? Since the bible gives us rules to where to buy slaves and how to treat them, do we need to bring slavery back? His last argument in this clip was that we had already taken away so many "morals" from the bible and just discarded them. Well, is having slaves one of the morals of the bible we have just tossed away and need to bring back? Its no wonder that he can't find a good argument and need to talk around the point without giving an answer. His stance on the matter, is in fact very hollow. It is "I don't like it and therefor it should be banned", but he cannot say that. He need to make up justifications, but when asked about things that his standpoint logically must stand for, he isn't able to defend it.
Yeah, Matt Walsh failed at justifying the traditional sense of marriage, and why, as a constitution, it should be preserved. I've listened to Dr JBP explain what is marriage to such a degree that he could probably answer this question while defending religious dogma on it, unlike Mr Walsh who's a staunch Catholic. The backend of this podcast is unfortunately dissatisfactory.
Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children? Matt: I think married couples should be open to life Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children? Matt: It's not only procreation, but its one of the fundamental definitions of marriage Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children? Matt: Well what's the definition of a woman? A woman is someone that by their nature bears children Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children? Matt: I wouldn't advocate a law to prevent it This guy is absurd lmfao
Matt walsh is just yapping in my humble opinion. The power of asking the right questions is truly amazing and walsh was visibly uncomfortable. I think people at times interpret confidence for competence and take anything someone says with enough conviction as gospel. But if you take them down from that pedestal, they are quite literally just a normal person. Walsh isn't a crazy intellectual as some deem him to be, and Rogan did really well to systematically make walsh rethink his own views on marriage.
What? He genuinely tried to poke at the fact that Matt is religious and tried to find a problem with Matt being Catholic and holding certain beliefs due to his religion.
@@maxadonna6545 No he didn’t, he’s openly explaining why Matt’s beliefs are wrong, harmful, and stupid. He’s also publicly showing Matt’s religion makes him a bigot, and that he’s against freedom because he’s a fucking theocrat.
Yeah. Growing up a female millennial I was always told be independent, be a feminist, yet at the same time was told marriage is the epitome, the zenith of societal relationships. Why? Because it is assumed that you are valued, you are worthy, you are cherished enough to be in a committed relationship. Beyond that, the actual benefits in written laws for marriage/civil unions , actually give the same values in writing, not just symbolism. Furthermore it gives parental rights to any children born or adopted into that union. This way children have two adults who have oversight over their innocent and vulnerable life. How could that be bad? (Given that it’s two normal people who love children, and are not predatory over the child or over the other partner)…
Right, do “marriage” should be removed from all legal dealings. This way, civil unions for all. Most people accept a secular government (although in the USA it is not), and marriage is not necessarily a secular relationship arrangement
100% agree with Joe here. Marriage is symbolic above all else. It is meaningful to those who get married, and that is all that matters. They aren’t hurting anyone else. They are celebrating a commitment that is meaningful to them.
And the divorce rate is above 50% because nobody cares about the procreative union of marriage anymore. You and joe aren’t liberating marriage for some, you’re destroying marriage for all.
@@ZetsubenSama Yeah its literally all the reasons. Selfishness over procreation. Dont get married unless you’re doing it for your children or those problems emerge. “Money and loss of spark” you freaking child.
@@LogicCaster i am not the one desiding why people divorce. This is a choice people make on theyr own and they are definetly not on your side. People don't Stick together for children: at least not married. People marry for All kinds of reasons. That's part od freedom. They also divorce for a multitude of reasons, those can be fought. We can fight the reasons why people divorce, instead of you sitting here and claim that people get married for All the wrong reasons. There are no wrong reasons to marry.
Matt's definition of marriage comes from a Worldview where God is the ultimate authority whereas Joe's definition of marriage comes from one where the individual is the ultimate authority. From such different paradigms we get this cordial and civil discussion which can be summarized as agree to disagree.
I was trying to put my words into Place. You did a great job!!👏👏 Joe comes from his parents hippie background and thats where he get that Individual is “the ultimate authority” Matt should have said that we disagree because God is the ultimate authority.✌️✝️
It comes from a position that recognizes that there are thousands of religions so most of you are wrong. It's why we do not make laws off of your special, unique, and overly specific religious wants.
In a world where disagreements are not encouraged and you are forced to pick a side. I am glad for people like you Joe for sharing this platform with others.
So glad Joe shares his platform with people who don't think same sex couples should be legally able to get married. What a great moment for our society
@@ar71498 It is always a good thing to have a civil debate with people who disagree with you. You get to truly learn the different sides of human nature.
@@ar71498 Covenantal marriage upon which modern marriage is founded is fundamentally a Christian covenant between God, man, and woman. That is the Christian belief and foundation upon which all marriage is founded. It wouldn't make sense for a Christian (Matt Walsh) to reject that fundamental worldview. If anything, gay marriage should instead be purely a civic partnership under law, that is not connected with the Christian covenant marriage. Every Christian would support that fully, because it wouldn't be trying to change anything about Christian covenant marriage - it would just be a civil union under man's law.
Your belief is based on a false equivalency that everybody's entitled to have a view. When your view gets in the way of other people's human rights you are basically Criminal.
I doubt that twisting words and putting words into the other person's mouth is part of a "healthy" two way conversation. It's pretty toxic tbh haha. Thankfully Joe is confident enough to know that this other dude is coming off poorly by twisting his words, pushing propaganda and putting a spin on EVERYTHING lol
That's what I thought it's refreshing to hear 2 adults have a normal conversation on the internet no matter what people think about these guys they are intelligent calm and willing to listen something our society has lost
Definitely think Walsh regrets debating this topic. Joe absolutely schooled him. The notion that marriage is valid only when kids are created is ludicrous and outdated.
Joe agrees with matt these days. And you say “outdated” but the modern version of marriage has a divorce rate of OVER 50% across the entire west, i.e. it doesn’t work. Children based marriage is the only reason anyone should get married because its the only one that has purpose.
@@LogicCaster You don't get to define what "purpose" is for every relationship. People can get married for a ton of reasons and they can divorce for a ton of reasons. And divorce rate isn't a measure of success or failure. People not getting divorced isn't a sign of a healthy relationship. You can be in a terrible marriage and not get divorced due to social pressure or financial pressure. Is that a relationship that's working? Conversely, you can be a in relationship that isn't fulfilling and isn't providing happiness to the two parties and they can decide that the mature, logical, and right thing to do is to end that union and walk away. That sounds like a better relationship to me even though you would label that as "not working". You should probably rethink your screen name.
@@LogicCaster Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples typically fare just as well, if not better than many kids raised by straight couples. The reason being that if you're straight, you typically don't have to jump through as many hoops to have a baby. Which means that virtually any straight couple, no matter how unqualified to raise a child, can just keep popping them out like puppies for as long as they're physically able to. It doesn't matter if they're not mentally/emotionally/financially equipped to handle raising kids, no one can stop them from "making" as many of them as they want. Prime example being my college roommate's mom who has had all of her kids taken away from her by child protective services due to extreme abuse and neglect, and yet she continues to keep popping out another baby year after year like it's nothing. When a gay couple decides to have kids, there's typically a lot more planning involved. And the few gay couples who are able to afford things like surrogacy, in-vitro, adoption etc. tend to be more financially well-off than their straight counterparts. Hence why statistically, kids raised by same sex couples tend to fare better. Because obviously anyone whose parents are financially well-off (on top of being mentally/emotionally equipped to raise them well) is going to do better than a kid whose parents are struggling to make ends meet, regardless of it it's a man and a woman, two women, or two men.
@@ciggystardust99 Kids have been raised by same sex couples for like 10 years, experiment isn’t long or broad enough. They “fare better” in school. Probably because they don’t have many friends seeing as they have two dads. Makes studying easier. We have massive cultural studies showing children need a mother and a father. Massive reoccurring issues result in women with no dads or especially young men raised by a single mother. Throwing a second mother into that equation will NOT help the child who has antisocial tendencies. MAJOR studies make that obvious. Children fare better when their parents have a stable and loving marriage. That is what needs to be promoted above all. Obviously
I've never felt so refreshed and calm after watching two people disagree with each other about such an important topic. This is conversation and this is how to disagree... Everyone laying out their stance clearly without fear of cancelation then you decide for yourself what is right for you and for your family then we part ways.
Now some left-wingers are accusing Joe Rogan of being homophobe in podasts? I came her from one of the podcasts, this "Guily by association" got to stop.
@@tccurtis9727 But it was civil. Sure it's cringey to watch him flounder about when he runs out of justifications, but the discourse didn't devolve into petulant sourness, infantile name-calling, or threats of violence. I'll take civility every time.
@@tccurtis9727 80% of the world believes in institutions. Only America and western Europe have this 20th century invented "do whatever you want" life purpose. And by the way, it's NOT in the interest of your own freedom. It's to make you a dissatisfied money making machine
"Never found a definition"... Look harder.. Marriage is a business agreement whether arranged or between two people. Being in love just makes it better. But you can be in love form a union and not be married. I imagine years ago that agreement meant providing children. However, Joe has a great point what if you can't provide the children?
Come on are you joking? Sadly their bargaining tools were their children. Couple of goats. Access to water. A tiny plot of land, safety in union. Membership to a better lifestyle. I could go on....
@@jbrasco5000 Yeah, we exist because marriage was the smartest idea to ensure the survival of our people. Now you want to destroy that? Disrespect it? Nullify it for future generations?
Please ignore this pathetic, bigoted and narcissist incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere. They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married. They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family. This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed. They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic. He even saied that he wants segretation so that LGBT+ people are seperated from "normal" people. This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides". They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews. They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke. They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure. Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style. They also claim that I : -Sexually molest Donkeys -eat jewish children -have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews -am a murderer -am a dog -am responsible for the holocaust -am a Nazi -am a religious extremist -adore Hitler and a big fan of him -am a gr00mer/child predator -sleept with a family member -am trans -am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means) But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable. They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic. They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources. They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that. They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy. They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men. They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy. His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me". On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it. I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.💥💥❌️❌️💥
@@LogicCasterbecouse walsh had no answer, he just thumbles out words without a clear line since there is no good reason to be against gay marriage other then your own religious fanaticism and ideology.
@@ZetsubenSama He mentioned societal impact which speaks for its self. Society is and will continue to be impacted by the change in the definition of marriage, obviously. You must be an autist to not acknowledge that, no wonder germany has the history it does.
@@LogicCasterah yes, saying a word without any reasoning behind it speaks for itself. 😂😂😂 You and matt never establishes causation, you both point to it like its a fail safe. The question is not if society will be impacted but how it will impact society. You can build sand castles and say "i impact society" and it will be just as relevant. The definition of marriage has hardly changed. Straight couples feel no change at all just becouse gay people can marry. You just talk absolut nonsence while calling other people autistic 😂 its hillarious as always. Get therapy you narcissist lmfao 😂.
@@FeelmProductions joe wasn't even debating, just asked the most simple questions and walsh didn't have answer for anything. Heavyweight intellectual for sure
People are allowed to have their believes and disagree with others. And this is how you have a discussion and disagree but maintain a level of respect 🫡
Walsh wasn’t able to articulate a good reason as to why he felt that way. Joe on the other hand was very clear and asked follow up questions to make Walsh’s response.
I respect both guys, but man Matt was drowning in this one.. reaching for something to make his point valid😂 hats off to having conversations without the insults!!
Great freaking conversation, 2 differing opinions, talked out in a civil manner, need more of this exact thing, you gotta be able to see both sides even if you disagree
@@moderndayheretic Why is it flimsy and vague? Matt's answer was vague if anything, he refused to answer any of Joe's questions directly because he couldn't. It's a union between two consenting adults, where you commit to each other and share your lives, your money, your goals etc. One of the original religious cornerstones of marriage was about procreation but as Joe pointed out, that's not possible for all heterosexual couples, yet that obviously doesn't diminish their marriage in any way. And that is an indisputable fact, one that if you accept, begs the question: Why can't two consenting adults of the same sex have the same thing? If your religion posits that it simply has to be between a man and a woman, then fine. But Walsh was the one who backed himself into the procreation corner, then didn't have an answer when faced with the obvious follow up question about infertile couples. I actually don't mind the guy and a lot of what he says makes sense, but he always ends up looking like a doofus when his religious fundamentalism gets in the way of obvious logic.
@@moderndayheretic it isn't flimsy and vague. love is the only variable that doesn't change in marriage. outside of arranged marriages (which are barbaric and ought to be abolished) all functional marriages have love as the driving force behind them. if that weren't the case people would just marry each other for the tax benefits, and it would be treated as something no different from a friendship.
@@con10001 So by that definition we should allow incest marriages too shoudn't we? Isn't that two consenting adults (what's the logical reasoning for stopping at two)? They don't have to have children. I think that was the only response of Matt's that really hit, it is taking Joe's definition to its logical conclusion.
They present a very clear distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian world view. That's what makes this kind of a discussion dealing with morality versus immorality, self-centeredness versus God-centeredness, and absolutes versus relativism. The two opposing sides can never agree and certainly should never even find a compromise. Ok, so they have a civil discussion, but what point is there in that? That leads nowhere especially if it does not futher The Truth. I think Matt is very good, but he sort of hems and haws in his effort to benefit from being in conversation with Joe on Joe's hugely popular podcast. I had to stop watching at about 5 minutes because it looked to me like they were going to go round and round in circles with no arrival at definitve, absolute truth which would win the debate. Unfortunately that's our civil (i.e. non-Christian) world today.
By that logic you're saying that you are either "self-centered" or "god-centered"? Those are the only two options in life? The world has no consensus on your god and it's dismissive of millions of fellow humans to claim yours is "the one" and the rest of the world has it wrong.
I think that's a very clear truth: one is either egocentric or Theo-centric. One either believes in, adheres to, trusts in, surrenders to (in obedience) the Actual True Ever-existing God of All or one doesn't. There are only two roads, two paths. Consensus doesn't establish truth! I would argue that it's not dismissive to propagate the claims of The incarnate God, Jesus, who declared Himself to be God in the flesh. HE is The One Who claimed that there is only one, distinct, unique way to enter into a true knowledge of The God Who is. One may either accept that or deny it. But whatever one's decision about that Truth is, it doesn't negate nor verify the fact. It's kind of like gravity; you either accept it or deny it. But it's still an ontological fact. I love the way the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14) quotes a conversation between Moses and The LORD, " and God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE...". That's an absolute, unquestionable statement from the Absolute, unquestionable God. The book of Job, further down the road from Exodus, is also a great revelation of Who this God, beyond time and space and also the ever-existing creator of all within time and space, actually is. You bring up a great point in the discussion!
Eh. Joe really didn't do that we'll. He tends to have a hard time accepting a viewpoint he doesn't agree with. Joe just kept asking the same question and Matt kept answering him the same way. Also, coming up with edge cases doesn't disprove the fundamental categorization or useful of an activity. A much better approach is to summarize the other persons point of view to make sure you understand it. Joe definitely didn't understand where Matt was coming from due to conceding absolutely no ground when Matt had valid points about the tradition and origin of marriage versus Joe's thinking on the legal definition of marriage.
@@mattbeisser3932 I agree that Joe does tend to do this. Once he is set in a mindset he really puts on the blinders and I've seen him bully people he disagrees with. Not saying he did that here as he is getting better at that. I think sometimes when you have a smart guy like Joe they get used to being right and then have a hard time conceding or giving any ground. I personally like to find areas I can agree with someone but doesn't seem like he did that here.
Yeah the argument against Civil Unions is because it is just discriminatory language. In that case the de-facto for all marriages should be seen as "civil unions" under secular law with a clear definition of it being 2 humans that enter into an agreement whereby they share incomes, assets, wealth, resources, debts, liabilities etc with powers of attorney, hospital visitation, etc. And then the ultra-religious reserve the right to the word "marriage" strictly as dictated by their religious texts. But then we just argue semantics. If a civil union between a man and a woman is called "marriage" within the ultra-religious context, no one is going to fault someone for viewing a same sex civil union as "marriage" as well because it is just utilising marriage as a synonym. No religious doctrine is going to claim ownership over a word. That's not how the english language works.
I think that's an excellent idea. Still, it's important to remember some if the topics aren't just "opinion". There are right and wrong answers to questions. It's important to call people out when they lie as a standard. Not an exception.
THIS is the perfect example of a civil disagreement. They both strongly disagree with eachother on the subject but it's done respectfully and they're still able to dig deep and explore the reason why they each see things so differently. We don't always have to agree on things but this level of understanding and civil discussion would do wonders for the world today.
Its probably a good thing that I tuned most of this out cuz the parts I did hear the guy just sounded dumb as hell, but I was mostly just wondering how uncomfortable sleeves must be when you're buff like that cuz Joe's arms looking ready to rip out them sleeves 😂 that's gotta feel so constricting
The reason Joe is as popular as he is is because you can watch this and he’s using his own logical brain and not trying to win over anyone in particular. He’s real.
I watch Joe from time to time and I have gotten asked "why? Isn't he some sort of right winged conspiracy theorist and off his rocker?" Usually my answer is that the reason I listen to his discussions is because he gives people the time and is so level headed and while he does not have a science, law or some other scholarly backing (that I know of) the man has a wealth of patience and common sense. A rare combo to see amongst most these days. And he IS intelligent, and more often than not, makes good points and trys to understand whoever he talks to regardless of if he agrees with them. He is the kind of person we need I'm such a polarized society. And we need more.of that more than ever before
Those “what degree does he have?” Comments usually come from a guy with an art degree that’s now $40,000 in debt making $30,000 a year trying to convince himself he made the right decision
You give those people way too much fucking credit. Ask them to explain themselves instead. Ask them to begin justifying that kind of accusation with any amount of evidence. Watch them fall apart.
Because marriage is not viewed as an institution created by God is extremely difficult to argue that same sex marriage is wrong because marriage in our secular world isn't about procreation.
Just imagine if two politicians could discuss an issue without talking over each other and insulting each other. Bravo guys.
The reason Joe and Matt are disagreeing here is because they haven't defined the terms properly. There's difference between secular "marriage" and "The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony". "Marriage" has moved into the public arena now, so it is subject to all the many subjective interpretations. Joe is talking about "marriage". Matt is talking about "Holy Matrimony". The term "matrimony" actually means - the making of a Mother. So the two participants have to be a man and woman and they have to be open for reproduction. If they are not, that Sacrament will not be given. A man cannot make another man a "Mother". That's impossible. They can adopt children and be called a "mother", but that is just a name.....that man can never be a Mother.
@@faithbycatholicism1416 bingo, and there in, I believe, marriage should be sepparated from partnership. Even from govermental POV, procreational marriage is a virtue. Its above partnership because its much more sustainable institution longterm.
Did this man say "the church is allowing these divorces to occur?"Under scrutiny, these Walsh type characters crumble everytime. Sounds like Mr Walsh wants a religious theocracy here in America.
@@woodlandgangsta3931 i bieve he was refering to sacramental divorces.
@@woodlandgangsta3931 tbh most conservatives do. Thats why they impose Christian ideologies into their policies
Two dudes disagreeing without swearing, insulting and abusing each other. Refreshing in 2022
Is it? Thats mostly what i see, you must watch a lot of trash
This!!!
Walsh is a liar and Rogan is too stupid to call him out on it.
Yea just need to take the stupid out of it
What is a Dude?🤣
This is literally the most circling conversation I have probably ever heard.
@@JedirieFTW marriage is an institution. That for the history of ever has been about one mother and one father. It’s an institution for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay couples can’t procreate. Therefore it isn’t “marriage” in the traditional sense. As far as why not, I believe that the parental roles of a mother and father are both necessary to have the best outcome (in general) for a child. Not to say a gay couple can’t raise a kid properly but men and women are in fact different and each bring something that is biologically engrained in them to the table.
There’s the non biblical argument. Personally I don’t think government should be in marriage at all but it’s necessary to be above replacement rate. 😊
He's ducking the question better than Sarah Palin 😅
@@JedirieFTWI recommended re listening with the intent to understand. It was going around in circles because Joe Rogan couldn’t accept the fact that Mat Walsh has a set of opinions that differ from his own. Mat believes that there is an objective meaning to marriage despite the outliers, and that one of the central purposes of marriage is to create a platform for children to enter the stage.
That’s his opinion, and whether or not you agree with it he is entitled to it.
@@analisamarieh4119 you misunderstood buddy. It wasn't Joes fault. He was simply bringing up that Walsh had an illogical reason for his opinion. But Walsh couldn't explain himself. He was continuing to push a false reason
@@SplitGooseseems this flew way over yo ur head
Marriage isn't necessarily a religious institution.
Certainly not just Christian. People of different faiths, cultures and non religious beliefs get married. Marriages are certified by the government of the State you live in or the country you live in. All marriages are recognized or at least should be recognized no matter where you go.
Love is the most important reason to get married. That's why it shouldn't matter if the couple wants children or can have biological children. Older couples can get married and not want children. Infertile couples can get married. And just like infertile couples can adopt children if they wish, so can gay couples.
Marriage also gives couples certain rights and legal privileges. That is why gay people getting married shouldn't be discriminated in receiving those rights and legal privileges.
Then why did they sue the christian church and everything related to chrisrian marriage?
They hijacked western christian marriage.
Children are the main reason you should plan to love someone forever. Other “loves” dissolve which is why the divorce rate is above 50%. Thats people thinking they know what love is then divorcing when the lust dies. Thats all same sex couples are, lustful.
You’re actually a thoughtless person for comparing people stricken by the tragedy of infertility to people who have fetishes.
Same sex couples should have coined a new word or accepted the term civil union and fought for equal rights under those words.
Instead, they decided to hijack the family word and make it about filth. Fake love.
Marriage only works when it is about family.
@@LogicCaster Marriage was not hijacked and it does NOT belong to religion.
Children are NOT the main reason you love someone. And love isn't something you plan you *mbecile.
There is nothing wrong about lust.
Gay is not a fetish.
Same-sex marriage doesn't need another word.
You are a fake human being.
Marriage can work when it is about something else than family.
It is primarily religious. And Christian. The Christian church has existed for over six thousand years. No one introduced marriage except the Christian religion
@@Orthodoxology Hum… the Christian church does not date back 6000 hundred years, no. And first marriages were celebrated way before Christianity was a thing.
@@Nonalhomophobie
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
First book of the old testament.
The Book of Job (/dʒoʊb/; Biblical Hebrew: אִיּוֹב, romanized: ʾĪyyōḇ), or simply Job, is a book found in the Ketuvim ("Writings") section of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the first of the Poetic Books in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Scholars generally agree that it was written between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE.
The components and books of the bible are significantly older and more important than you think. The only reason you’re a gae atheist is because you’re cursed. That book CAN cure you
This was a fine example of why Joe's podcast has become so popular. Discussing a controversial topic where neither side got emotional or reached a point of insulting the other. A lot of people myself included could take lessons from this conversation.
Matt is obviously wrong here and his idea crashed fromfew basic questions. People being happy that 2 people can have opposing ideas and be civil is cringe. When no one walks away from a discussion with a new perspective what is the point. Matt wont change his mind. But sure be halpy with the low bar of "they were civil."
@@thumbeast3130
Matt has had better moments. But he's correct nonetheless on the larger issue.
@@thumbeast3130 No he wasn’t, Joe was completely wrong. Don’t be stupid all your life.
@@btgkg9639 nah joe Won that debate however I understand where Matt is coming from traditional Christian marriage but that should not be involved in politics nor should wokeness
@@jimwerther ok lets get someone educated to press him on those issues free form like this. Maybe his world view isnt as coherant as those daily wire "documentaries" make out. Maybe matt is actual pretty low iq.
By the way, this is the way humans are supposed to have conversations. Not lashing out at every little thing just because your ego is to big and you don't like being possibly wrong. From the first second to if you skip 13 minutes ahead, its the same body language. No one is toxic here, they are just men having a talk.
Edit: If you really think this is toxic, you are what’s wrong with the current socializing groups.
Joe was attacking Walsh
It is a lot easier for Joe to be calm in this situation since gay marriage is not something Joe is gonna do. If Joe was gay and someone invalidated his rights it'd be harder to remain emotional neutral.
You can't learn with your mouth open.
So let's say this was someone advocating against interracial marriage, and that the speaker defined marriage where "two races can't mix". Why is this the model of a good conversation and debate when someone is advocating against human rights?
Still , Matt is right
A question that I wish was asked of Matt was "Why is the istitution of marriage important on a societal level?", which his answer would probably be somewhere on the line of "protecting the nuclear family and creating and raising children", to which the follow up is "how does gay marriage damage that purpose?"
If the purpose of marriage is to stabilize the nuclear family and in a sense hold the parents accountable to each other and to their children then gay marriage hurts that because it totally destroys how society views the meaning of marriage and what a normal marriage looks like. I think a good question is why are people getting married in the first place? Nowadays I guess it would mainly be for tax and beneficiary purposes. But honestly people should be able to get those things separate from just marriage status. When a man and women are married the whole dynamic will inherently be different in nature from that of a man and a man and a woman and a woman because of biology and the possibility of reproduction. Marriage is the flesh of a man and woman ‘unifying’, so yes having children (2 coming together to create 1) is essential to marriage. Gays should be allowed to be together and name each other as beneficiaries but other than that why would they want to be married ? For what? At least in the church anyways
@@vevasika "But honestly people should be able to get those things separate from just marriage status" couldn't agree more.
Marriage, without governmental interference would remain intact in its original sacred from and it would be honored as such.
Government could invent new things for special bonds (as described by Joe) like "Life Partnership" or any other types of government-backed bonds for anything.
And for the spiritual aspect, gays could find or invent a religion that offers rituals they're looking for instead of trying to change the existing ones to fit their desires.
@@DreamingConcepts I agree. No one is stopping them from creating their new traditions and institutions. Marriage isn’t exclusively Christian but if you look at all cultures it was always between a man and a woman. I think that says something to what it is and what it was meant for even stronger being that’s how it was practiced all around the world. Funny too many progressive feminists would say marriage is a patriarchal institution and really just the institution which upheld women as slaves to men. So why would gay people who you would suppose align with progressiveness and feminism want to be “married”? They can have their own government sanction so that they can pass on property and get tax benefits etc
The thing is that the nuclear family doesn't really need protecting in that way. Most people are heterosexual, so the vast majority of marriages which occur will be male/female.
And if the nuclear family is that important, then could I not make the argument that if something happens to one parent in a traditional nuclear family, then the kids should be taken away until the remaining parent can find a new partner? How far, exactly, would people like Walsh want to go in their view of how society should be?
@@brianm2881 It doesn’t? Because if you ask me it’s been pretty destroyed by our society and hurts kids. Taking a child away wouldn’t make sense. Damage has been done because of the loss of the parent but it would be even more damaging to remove the child from the other relationship as that relationship has already formed. The relationship with the mother is especially important because the baby forms that connection and familiarization with her in the womb. The mother is everything to that baby. I’m a single mom, I left a husband who didn’t love me or my child. I wish it was not this way. I see the consequences of my daughter not having her dad in her life and how she struggles with it. It breaks my heart. Fortunately she has a grandpa, uncle and now my boyfriend as father figures in her life. I can tell you it will make a huge difference for her
1
a
see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
b
: the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK
c
: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected
especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union
the marriage of painting and poetry
40 seconds in and I’m realizing how well Joe Rogan simply asks someone a question in order to investigate their beliefs, listen to them, understand them, without intent to agree, disagree, judge, or criticize. He is a mirror to these people and he tries to get honest conversation out of them and challenge them which makes the content so entertaining.
It even feels like he has no emotion or personal bias. He blankly keeps digging to investigate and get everything out of his guests. First instinct is to feel like he’s challenging because it goes against his own beliefs. But once you realize that’s not the case, it’s mind blowing to see how interested he is in all opinion and knowledge and getting that out of people.
And yet completely destroys their BS. He's good.......
He's great at what he does, for sure.
Joe's getting better all the time but he still has some bias which are shedding slowly and he's turning into a proper interviewer.
Not true at all. Rogan is what would be known as a ‘shill’. He pretends to be a maverick, but is a sellout. From way back, he was always pushing the queer narrative. Same like the ‘pandemic’…him pretending to be ‘challenging’ narratives with talking about “I’ve a make-tin” when he shoulda been talking about the testing and existence of 🦠. He will ALWAYS come up on the side of the handlers. Look back thru his videos how much he jokes about butts and dicks.
It's nice to see Matt Walsh actually go against someone who can generate strong, critical follow-up questions.
What where you watching jo is just repeating himself
And basically failing to form an argument that doesn't involve religion.
@@redcoresuperstar
Religion is the main argument. And its a 10,000+ year LONG project, an instruction manual for societies to function around. Thats all religions have ever been.
Usually people who are up against him are just avarage people who are not ready for a difficult conversation, quick questions right after another...and they end up embaressing themselves eventho they might not be in the wrong!
He could have just shut down the debate by simply saying this is only my opinion. But , people like Matt are so sure of their “rightness” they can’t say it.
And why should anyone be told they cant get married with the person they love... a marriage is a conecting to your sole mate...no one should be told no you cant get married... every single human should have the same rights as any other human.
His reason is that it destroys the institution of marriage which according to him will damage society. Not sure how, they didn't talk about this. I don't really agree with him.
@@supertigik agreed, marriage altho invented long ago, was invented into society. Theirs places in the world where love exist but marriage is not accepted. I think his point of view is that traditional familys are no longer a thing and he's cross referencing the fact that theres more single mothers then ever. So one can assume a lot of society issues are ruined from raising motherles/fatherless children. But I believe marriage won't fix that like how having another kid doesn't fix the relationship, but rather economically imo its impossible to raise a family
Me and my wife have been together for 16 years and never had children. And we're very happy together
Thats nice. Tell all the children that.
Wtf my parents would kill me for not giving them grandchildren. but I also want kids too, it’s traditional in my culture.
@@bobbydanger529
The problem in the west is just that, lack of culture.
Sounds like a good life
Seems like a boring like without kids. Kids bring me more joy then anything.
Just wanted to note my appreciation for your non-clickbait title. You simply and honestly described what the video was without inciting drama like some high school gossip girl. Far too few TH-cam channels do that. It's very much appreciated!
There's a problem with the title though, they aren't disagreeing on gay marriage, they are disagreeing on the definition on marriage and why people should get married.
They go on a few tangents discussing whether they are allowed to get married based on sexuality, but what Matt is saying which i agree with is, marriage is for all three of the pillars mentioned: Monogamy, procreation, and permanence.
P.S Don't believe i'm picking sides here, i've listened to countless hours of JRE where i have agreed with Joe on many 'heated' discussions about controversial topics.
yh
@@samgreen1933 marriage in America is a legal agreement, a contract. The parties involved are entitled to be subjective regarding their terms of an AGREEMENT.
If you're understanding of marriage is informed by biblical standards (which I suspect), you have smuggled in monogamy without warrant.
If you listened to this discussion and thought that Matt had the more reasonable argument, your mind is presumably immalleable and/or you tuned out during Joe's contribution. If you agree with him on controversial issues in the past I would submit you likely did so because he was able to articulate your already held belief.
Matt Walsh was taken to school here in a primarily Socratic fashion and HIS argument was antithetical to freedom and much more aligned with bigotry and totalitarianism.
I guess you believe that everyone that is capable of a heterosexual relationship is therefore competent enough to raise children.
@@samgreen1933 they’re also disagreeing on gay marriage, as Walsh was eluding the question for 15 minutes.
Ever heard of joe rogan?
This is why this podcast will have more viewers than all major news outlets top shows put together for their time slot. No yelling, no down talking, no interrupting, and no brainwashing.
You just described The View. 😂
@@paintbynumbermonalisa4187 you need to stop watching the view.
What about mainstream media interviews? 60 minutes? Their interviews on many famous people are very civil.
Duhhhhhhhhh sure about all that?
@@falkerwyscray9067 mostly famous child preditors, of course they’re welcoming.
Remember this moment. Matt does not think through things deeply. He has an ideology and that is all he needs. This whole clip is him subject shifting to deal with the very real problem of the fact that he has no grounding for his opinion.
Other than that have a nice day
Societal impact was his argument. Thats a very strong and serious argument
@@LogicCaster no it isn't. And no I wasn't. From this clip he can't deal with even the slightest scrutiny. In real time he stumbles because it was an ideological point only and was not well thought out. It is the same as watching Ben Shapiro freeze up or have to back peddle when he has to interact with anyone and doesn't have a podium to hide behind. Matt is trying to prove his intuitions, not test if his intuitions are true. Watch again and you'll see what I mean.
Other than that have a nice day.
@@eriklobo7622
No, he clearly said societal impact. He then tried to unpack that but joe was too dumb and caught up on hypotheticals.
@@LogicCaster "Societal impact was his argument. Thats a very strong and serious argument"
It is, against Matt. More wedding economy. Tax benefits. Less homophobic suicide and discrimination.
If you can't answer "How is it wrong?", then you are making the case that it is not wrong. He finally gave a decent answer at the end. Not sure why he didn't just say that at the beginning.
EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a TH-cam comment huh?
THIS IS IT! This is EXACTLY why I started watching Joe Rogan. Even Keel, Middle Ground, Non-bias back and forth. Polite but ALWAYS seeing the other side and willing to debate it. It's the only way we can proceed as a society.
Oh hush excited child
Non bias? Joe believes everyone should do whatever the fuck they want, and was very adamant on that point.
Rogan totally whiffed on challenging Matt’s BS “millions of kids are on puberty blockers” comment. Turns out it was a few thousand and he just laughed it off.
Ya this was a great episode. I was glad he had Matt on! They didn’t agree on this point, but I was also surprised to see they agreed on just about everything else.
@@kingdolo23 The absolute irony of calling someone who enjoys the fact that two adults can have a mature, respectful conversation/debate about something a "child"
Walsh doing everything he can to not say, "Because God said it."
Rogan agreed with walsh in a recent video posted 5 days ago. I posted the link in a recent comment if you want to watch
@@LogicCaster Whether or not a podcast host agrees does not make "God said it" any less ridiculous as justification for an argument.
Please ignore this pathetic incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere.
They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married.
They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family.
This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed.
They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic.
This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides".
They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews.
They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke.
They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure.
Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style.
They also claim that I :
-Sexually molest Donkeys
-eat jewish children
-have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews
-am a murderer
-am a dog
-am responsible for the holocaust
-am a Nazi
-am a religious extremist
-adore Hitler and a big fan of him
-am a gr00mer/child predator
-sleept with a family member
-am trans
-am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means)
But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable.
They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic.
They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources.
They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that.
They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy.
They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men.
They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy.
His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me".
On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it.
I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.❌️
@@ZetsubenSama
^ read that crap if you want to laugh at a stupid german
@@LogicCaster
Read it if you need a reminder how you compared yourself to the victims of the holocaust or how you called me a nazi while using nazi-rethoric
Foolish incel.
You don't even have an argument anymore to throw my way.
I won, you got nothing anymore.
You only can point at me an laught to overshadow you're insecurity.
Pathetic.
If your partner dies and they are not married then the mother of your partner can come in and control everything ...keep u from seeing them before they die and u could do nothing about it ...if your partner is in a coma and u are not married then u cant Have the right to keep them alive or take them off of life support.. if they in the hospital if u are not family u cant even see them before they die unless you are married ...its important for all to have that right so that in all aspects you are legally connected for stuff like that as well
I like Matt walsh but he was umming his way through this debate and Joe objectively won
I agree with every part of your comment except liking Matt Walsh
I think one reason this convo was executed so well and peacefully is once Joe pressed Matt a little bit on why he feels what he feels with the “well what’s wrong with etc etc”, Matt never got mad or flustered. He remained in a constant state of calmness and never raised his voice or got rattled about it. Same with Joe. If many people get cornered or questioned too much about their positions, they tend to start getting agitated and the flow of the convo goes to shit very fast. This clip is a great example of how to have meaningful conversations.
I feel sorry for people for whom this type of conversation isn't the norm. It surprises me that people are so blown away by two people who have opposing point of views can have a civilized conversation. It just speaks to where we are in the world.
matt was rattled the whole time his argument was stupid.
Joe handles this with class, reason and logic. Matt however just doesn’t want to say “Because I don’t like gay people.” So his rebuttals sound reasonless, illogical, and frankly just dumb.
@@SENATORPAIN1 You think? He seemed pretty calm/grounded to me
Man I wish there's a comment on Spotify. In some of the argument in regards to gays and marriage, this guy was really dishonest and kept on dodging and change the subj everytime Joe gave argument towards being open to gay and gay marriage.
To my mind, not all couples are mentally prepared to have children.
That's why we have children who were abused by their parents.
Then its up to society to mentally prepare children to one day become parents who have children.
Therefore gay marriage? What the hell?
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
@@aresito22 well matts argument is that everyone that gets married should have kids, that’s what he sees as one of the core aspects of marriage. This is stupid because if EVERYONE who got married had kids there would be way more bad parents than if they had just got married and had kids. A lot of married couples want kids and that’s fine, but to enforce it upon everyone will have pretty negative effects on the children because those people just don’t want to be aren’t ready to have kids. People who would make bad parents aren’t effecting anyone if they aren’t having kids, but they would directly negatively affect a kid if they had them. So the idea that marriage NEEDS procreation is stupid, as that would have awful results, and if that idea is stupid, gay people shouldn’t be held up to the same ideas
i think what theyre both over looking is the fact that both of their opinions are based on conditioning and experiences (whether or not those experiences are religious or not).. a lot of people get married simply for the financial aspect... i know several couples who got married to be able to buy a home...
Yeah and thats why the divorce rate is above 50% across the west.
Way to nullify and destroy marriage. Well done
1:26 - then by nature of what things 'are meant to do/be' - the same can be said about feminine men, and masculine women - they exist too - Jordan Peterson agrees there - someone of us arent born into the gender stereotypes of our sex - just because we exist a little differently - doesnt mean we shouldnt have the right, to be what we are, or belive the things we do - yes, men are strong, and brave, and all that - but some men arent wired that way - just like im gay - thats just a fact of my life - just like intersex people - DONT up-end what male and female are - gays, and lesbians dont up-end what marriage is, or sex, or love.
I love how peaceful this conversation was! Nobody raising their voices or getting defensive just two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those beliefs.
If I was gay the idea that my rights are something that's up for debate would be infuriating. It's not like walsh walked away from this convo any less convinced of his bigotry so like why are his abhorrent ideas worthy of respect?
@@silencer1286 I mean maybe you read his comment wrong but he didn't say anything about respecting or agreeing with Matt Walsh's stance. All is he said was that he loves how peaceful the conversation was. That it was two men sharing their opinions and why they hold those opinions without getting defensive or raising their voices. You seem to be against free speech and the sharing of opinions or even the debate of opinions that you don't agree with. And if that were the case that may stem from a place of bigotry based on its definition.
Really? I felt tension, especially from Joe.
@@chrishuffman6734 Feelings are just feelings. It takes wisdom and responsibility to put feelings in their proper place. Joe made the choice to let respect and his values do the talking.
@@chrishuffman6734 Tension, sure but they didn't get disrespectful with each other which is rare.
It's so refreshing to have people disagree without being disagreeable.
hes not afraid ....this is how intelligent people talk about differences.
@dj Kplus there both intelligent people. there definitely not stupid. just because he gets aggressive with other people and didnt here doesn't mean it's because he's afraid of him. if u really watch there actually interested in each other's take on the subject so instead of yelling there talking like civilized adults.
What would be even better is if they were both in agreement with whichever position was correct. Civil disagreement is not, in itself, a good thing if it leads to the promotion of error.
@@monsta2311 it literally does mean he is afraid of him. Why isn't he aggressive in those other situations and not here? Why doesn't he be more polite and civilized there instead of building an entire platform on being condescending? He kinda is stupid here, he has strong position on gay marriage that he clearly hasn't taught about.
@@monsta2311no offense bro, but you telling others about intelligence is hilarious. Figure out the whole “they’re, there, and their” thing before you judge a debate between a moron and a comedian.
In Norway, marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. It is mostly in relation to economics - unless you write prenup clauses.
This sets a foundation for a more serious commitment, which in addition to love makes it more robust than a general relationship on rainy days.
You know what makes a really robust commitment? Offspring.
@@LogicCasteryeah becouse Single parents don't exist, ey? 😂
@@LogicCaster No need of an offspring for the relationship to be robust.
@@Nonalhomophobie
You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now. So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. So stop getting married since all you’re doing is lying to yourself and your family and the state.
And you said earlier you want to *$EXUALlSE CHlLDREN*
@@LogicCaster "You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now."
It's a fact. Welcome to the real world. It is irrelevant if you accept it or not.
"So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. "
Yes it can.
"And you said earlier you want to $EXUALlSE CHlLDREN"
PROVE IT. Until then it is slander and I report you. You are going to pay.
I can definitely see both sides especially at the end how Matt explained how basically people add no value to marriage these days however, that is not for us to decide.
We are not GOD and Christianity is about love GOD and love people.
Raise your kids on good morals and values and let people live.
Refreshing to hear the boundaries of an argument being tested with relevant questions and hypotheticals rather than attempts to discredit the person or a straw man argument.
We desperately need this in our mainstream media.
This!!!
Mainstream is unfortunately just "Fear fear fear obey obey obey propaganda 24/7"
Joe is mainstream believe it or not, 10x more mainstream than whatever news channel you’re talking about
It is an argument and I agree with Rogan, however, it's good to see an argument play out as a conversation rather than being shouted down
TOO MUCH LEFT TOO MUCH RIGHT!! Not enough common ground
My god. This is THE example of how all two people with differing opinions should converse with each other.
to be fair, matt couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.
Matt is a pedophile, if that's not obvious you're completely blind.
@@stone33 you dont have civilized conversations with people who reject human rights
@@jinglebells223 you’re part of the problem.
@@jinglebells223 Zuckerberg was in another video
Matt doesn't have a good reason for not accepting gay marriage other than to say it makes it "meaningless" which it does not... Marriage should be defined as two people expressing undying love for each other and there are also LEGAL benefits to marriage where one spouse can make legal decisions in behalf of the person they live.. Which they can't do as just two people dating. So there is absolutely zero effect on gay marriage to a heterosexual marriage... They should both be entitled to the same legal benefits in addition to the emotional reasons for it
Joe has had every type of guest known to the modern world on his show. I'd love for him to have some Senior Leadership Pastors on his show. And just see where the conversation goes.
Yes, love the way Joe just keeps asking questions rather than just going “yeah” and moving on. Such a great way to come to understand eachother but also to point out where something might not make sense.
As slow as Walsh is Joe is trolling himself with the comparisons. Would Joe be okay with groin shots? That's just a rule, in a sport.
You only listened to questions. Matt never was shaken Joe
Tried to force him to concede his religious beliefs in a conversation where Matt refused to have a religious debate.,,, Matt Walsh will be known as the greatest debater ever’
Cos he's an agenda. He's changed since going to Spotify. Fence sitting for the most part and trying to score points on issues that he probably doesn't believe in. He comes across as dishonest with no conviction.
@@jeremyvculek3090 Not really - Matt has good ideas when it comes to countering the current nuttery on the left, but his religious views are blinding him to the obvious thruths also. One of them is that marriage has never been about having kinds - in history, ever. They are not linked. And they absolutely have nothing to do with it today or even recent history. And if anything, if he is against unrestricted sexual behavior, he should be in FAVOUR of gay people getting married. But sadly it is about his belief-reinforced hatred of homosexuals as a way of life. I don't care whom people love, and if two or more consenting adults love each-other and want to enter a contract of support, good. Less need of the state to handle any support - it must be done within the family. We should get the state OUT of marriage, not into it more by having laws around it.
@CJ P. Maybe to you. Didn't make sense to me it didn't and clearly didn't to Joe. To me the idea that marriage is only about a man and a woman breeding is pulling a definition out of your ass and calling it sacred. The common denominator of the tradition has always been people wanting their bond recognized by whatever god, government or society they live under. That's it. Everything else is specific to a personal belief and in America the idea is, no one gets to impose theirs on you.
Joe Rogan at his best being a normal person analysing an argument
@Easily Impressed Old Man LOL Good one.
@JustARandomCitizen yes. They are arguing. Walsh believes one thing and Rogan another, and they are discussing their disagreement. Arguing.
@@jimmy-wf1uo I agree with your definition, but also believe many people equate an argument with a fight, instead of an academic argument which is called a civil discussion. I know an argument is a civil discussion and not necessarily vice versa but it seems to be the conversational definition.
@@jeffreyepstein9641 Great point Jeffery Epstein
@Easily Impressed Old Man Cope
There is a variety of ways it could exist. It could be made up of any types of people and those people can structure their family in whichever way they feel. And with each of those, it requires a tremendous amount of time and dedication to make successful according to one's choice of family structure.
After falling in love, it's a vow to always care and love one another among those getting married ideally until death do you part.
It's fundamental conditions are the following: (1) those designated to be married are in love, (2) they want a symbolic representation of their choice to _remain in love,_ (3) they intend to structure their family according to their collective wishes.
What family? The one they cut the head off after 3.5 billion years of successful procreation? Over a fetish? Yeah lets glorify that.
legal marriage has never required love.
@@mikewilliams6025
“Do you swear to take ___ to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love and to hold…”
@@LogicCaster Exactly ... 😂. Mike Williams is a dolt.
@@wiseyoutube2078
Same sex people have never demonstrated the ability to share a legitimate loving bond.
You two have reached the highest level of civility with this video👏👏👏, it is clear you really respect each other.
Respect is what's missing from this world we live in
Joe was slightly disrespectful
@@LogicCasterHe was not.
You feel that way becouse He did not let Walsh speak Interrupted for 40+ minutes.
@@LogicCaster I like them both and didn't see bad behaviour in any of them. Is it possible you like Matt better and you are a little biased? I am not accusing, just asking. Take care
@@MetalGoddesss
Compared to joes usual podcasts where he lets people talk uninterrupted for 45 minutes, he was quite opinionated in this episode.
@@ZetsubenSama
Yes thats right. Kind of rude.
This is what all arguments should be. Every single one.
This conversation really made me realize how rapidly humanity and dignity is declining: everyone was completely shocked by the civility and understanding. This type of conversation should be the norm.
Political views are often complex, though. Very rarely do open debates change someone’s mind, especially on issues like gay marriage. At some point, having discussions with every idiot isn’t virtuous.
And the resolution would be what exactly? They didn’t solve anything at all. Matt Walsh isn’t going to go home and see that his opinion is silly nor is he going to go home and decide to let people have the freedom to choose how to live their lives. He wants to codify in law the way he views the world and force everyone else to live how he thinks people should live.
Matt Walsh advocates for widespread liberties to be taken away from Americans. The guys against divorce. At what point would it be reasonable to yell at him?
That is because you have 2 rational people talking with each other.
This shouldn’t even be an argument though! Mat’s point is completely irrational and prescriptive, we should be way past these topics and not debating this anymore, makes no sense.
The final takeaway from this conversation: You can have a conversation without throwing insults, and without resorting to personal attacks. This is why so many watch JRE in the first place.
Cue the JRE Crowder weed debate.
Couldn’t have said it any better.
I dunno. There were many non-selling musicians from the 70s who say I should be a gry about something or another.
I dunno if I can support 70s, forgettable music AND JRE... that is a hard thing to reconcile
@@fearanarchy 70s had some of the best music ever.
It’s not personal because joe is married and has kids … if he was telling someone to their face that he believes they shouldn’t have to right to get married would you consider that an insult??
Great job, Joe! Love your questions, great discussion.
Joe agrees with matt these days
@@LogicCaster Can you link the video where Joe is agreeing with Walsh? Trying to find it but having a hard time.
Logic disaster lied again.
@@Matt34677
th-cam.com/video/v3z4-lFckZ8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=S5juzLoOsyn5fR5G
Thats the video He always used to link to make that claim. Please notice the complete Lack of even mentioning gay marriage at all. In fact they speak about a completly different topic.
This User is a well known pathologic liar and completly unhinged.
@@Matt34677th-cam.com/video/v3z4-lFckZ8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hrtDNkjTvsOkLTxW
Thats the one He always said would prove his point.
Please Note the complete Lack of even mentioning gay marriage. LogicDisaster is a known pathologic liar.
The link gets removed. Its probably in the spam filter becouse logic disaster posted it so much so more people would watch the clip and see more conservative content.
I get you that vid buddy, just one second.@@Matt34677
I just appreciate the fact they didn’t start yelling at each other. They disagreed, and had a civil discussion about their disagreements.
Welcome to the JRE
I think Matt expected joe to be the right wing guy they say he is in the media. Pushed back on key logical points.
Wait until Matt starts speaking against pot. Joe won't have it.
It's called debate. Healthy civilised debate.
@@jaymann5180 Anyone who wants to pave the way for a moral society where people make fruitfully good decisions tends to be offensive to these libertarians.
These are the type of conversations that made me a fan of the JRE so many years ago. This convo took me back!
Joe Rogan is the very guy who has the ability to argue with civility coupled with a lot of patience and fortitude.
@Cody 😂 the irony right?
I agree with Matt about 50% of the time. But not on this subject. I believe everyone has the right to get married. Although I do think that marriage has lost a lot of its value in America
Ugh finally at the end, Matt gets to the point. His views come from a bigger picture. I understand both sides. I've lived and breathed both sides. I just want a world where we care for each other. Lots of children do need homes, and communities do need volunteers. I don't see many rising the occasion. In my experience, I see more selfishness and in Matt's ideology, he thinks raising children would fix that. Im personally a little more hesitant to say the same but I have noticed a huge amount of growth since having children.
As always, Rogan creates an atmosphere and conducts his interviews in a way to promote a respectful and insightful discussion between two people who disagree. Love it.
truee, don't we just love it when two straight men debate *other* people's rights to marriage?
it's really easy to not get angry when you're not part of the demographic that are having their basic human right needlessly debated.
in my opinion, there was nothing "respectful" about that discussion. towards each other, maybe, but certainly not respectful to anyone who is LGBT.
Matt Walsh deserves no respect.
Matt Walsh is trying to protect/ make an argument for THE IDEAL of marriage.
The whole talk lacked the explanation that the Ideal of marriage is what Matt sees value in.
As far as I understand Matt's fundamental argument, Matt is not trying to enforce/ punish/ legislate, the idea is to talk through & see if the Ideal of marriage is still Monogamous, Permanent & Procreative.
Striving for an Ideal makes us all better humans, no matter what area of human endeavor we are talking about. Good Ideals matter.
@@elektrotehnik94 I personally think the "ideal" of marriage should have nothing to do with one's sexuality
Joe had no respect when I was there
They disagree on what marriage is and the function of marriage. The topic of gay marriage doesn't even matter when you can't even agree with what marriage means and the function of marriage.
Joes definition is the correct one
this was laid out by Matt in the full discussion on this particular topic (which lasted around an hour) but Matt didn't make a good case on why this difference in definition made that big a difference in the first place, Joe poked holes all over it.I was open to Matt's point of view even though I currently do believe gays should be allowed to get married in civil court but he simply didn't make a good case for it. Didn't sound like his argument was very well fleshed out either. He has some homework to do!
One believes in God and the other one doesn’t, you can’t really talk to people who got their heart closed to God.
@@ShaferHart That was my take as well. I really wanted Matt to present a better argument, as I'm religiously inclined to agree with him. Still, he didn't do so well in explaining why he thinks what he thinks on this matter.
@UCwCgjYObRwdfFJG4FWc6KJA Both institutions exist for the purpose of encouraging lifelong heterosexual monogamy, because these relationships are necessary to be practiced en mass for a functioning civilization.
i think to understand the issue surrounding marriage and gay people (and why said people are historically excluded from marriage) we must understand what marriage means to homophobic people and how these people view gay people. Personally, I feel it is an issue of social hierarchy, and how that topples with the introduction of equality. Suddenly when a certain group of people receive the same priviledges as you, somehow, your relationship is less so. Its a harmful and rude mindset.
Once again your kind fails to consider the wellbeing of society. Instantly jump to “homophobic.”
The whole issue is over if they just use their own word, but no. They had to sue churches and mutilate children.
In pretty much every conversation I hear these days about marriage in any sense the legal protections are always forgotten which to me is the entire purpose of a legal marriage. Otherwise we can commit to eachother without the courts. That legal protection and responsibility is the real commitment to me
The responsibility being raising children
@@LogicCasternope
@@ZetsubenSama
Dont you have dyslexia and dig graves for a living in germany?
Yeah
Are you pathetic with divorced parents and without anything better to do then to spread lies over thousands of comments?
Yes.
Get therapy.🤡 @@LogicCaster
@@LogicCasterMarriage has nothing to do with children.
If all debates were like this, the world would be a better place.
@Black King
Stop commenting this evrywhere
@@kangaroo3708 his right tho
@Arshia Mirani
Ya but he’s typing the same thing over and over
At least be original
@Black King How can a man be masculine if he accepts red heads? What exactly do you mean by "accept"? They exist, it's a born trait. Every relationship has the dynamic of Dom and Sub btw, and there is nothing insulting about femininity... that is a very immature attitude, like boys being scared of cooties. Being homophobic is weak and lacking of courage and masculinity.
@Black King you're submissive
This is what adulting looks like. So many so called adults these days don't even know how to have a conversation and be in amicable disagreement
You understand that using the word 'adulting' makes you look pretty childish, right? It's like your admitting you have imposture syndrome about being an adult, lol.
"adulting"... go back to reddit.
@@AcidicMentality 🤣🤣
Do you mean acting like an adult?
These 2 people aren't gay so the issue doesn't strike their identity. Once an issue does, then amicable disagreement can't happen.
I respect the hell out of Matt’s etiquette but I find it impossible to get on board with his views. Either way, stellar debate.
Agree with matt or marriage dies off. Thats basically the two options we have in the west
@@LogicCasterthats not the solution.
If you don't agree with Matt marriage will not "die off".
There are more options silly.
Get therapy.
You need it.
@@ZetsubenSama
It already is. The traditional meaning is the only thing to ever work.
@@LogicCaster no, absolutly not, you can't just fix the succes of a societal construct like marriage on a number like the divorcerate.
There are good reasons why people divorce and those reasons need to be combated in order to bring down the divorcerate and not some flimsy bigoted attempt at an argument like you always do.
It's also not the only thing that ever worked. Over time there have been many different kinds of marriage, you idea of marriage is just one of them, many of them have succeeded. There is no "one way" of marriage that works and at this point in time people are figuring themselfs out and come to terms with what they want in theyr marriage.
All of the reasons why people marry are legit and not one is better then the other.
Get therapy.
@@ZetsubenSama
It worked for 5000 years when basically the entire planet was subject to abject poverty. Then you flags messed with the word and it fell apart. Simple.
Sometimes the simplest of questions prove big points. I completely agree with Joe on this matter.
Or joes just asking simple hypothetical questions like a child
@@LogicCaster"like a child" said the child.
Get therapy.
@@ZetsubenSama
“Said the child” then we look at your queer profile picture
@@LogicCaster"queer Profile picute" its a plush of a chicken, how tf is that suppose to be queer? 😂😂
Get therapy.
@@LogicCasterget help
This is a reminder of why Joe Rogan became so popular
Yeah... He gives the impression of being interviewing someone while in reality he does not let the interviewed to end a a phrase. It's just a monologue of his thoughts
talking to bigots?
@@koker59 Joe’s pretty good at not interrupting but he does when it comes to certain topics that he feels strongly about.
@@danielshepard2315 lol
The reason gay marriage was historically not acceptable is because every society that accepted it was destroyed or died out. Birth rates are falling in the west and the percentage of Americans that identify as LGBT doubles every generation. Enjoy your future!
It’s sad how refreshing it is to hear a civil conversation . . .
In April of 2014 I experienced my first demonic possession. I was awake for a 3 straight days in a row making erratic decisions and doing stuff I wouldn't normally do. I walked down the street and almost got hit by a car after my dog Snicker got lose. I was severely dehydrated and hadn't eaten much in those 3 days. Walking down the street thirsty I wanted to get me a drink at the town's carryout. I didn't make it there. a big Mac truck carrying coal came straight my way and I walked straight in front of it. I went through the truck. Jesus saved my life for the second time in my earthly existence. As I continued walking down the road a neighbor in a small truck was pulling in his driveway. I went up to his parked truck and wanted to steal it to assassinate a person. Jesus Christ (the one true living God) immediately started preaching to the man through me. The man that tried to kill me was simply coming home from somewhere and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. and he did not listen to me as he thought I was out of my mind. The man hit me in the head 3 times with a short club. My skull was fractured but God saved my life that night. I went to the hospital, and the next morning I was admitted to the Pysch ward.
🤣
@@gtrell1991 brah
@@HaleysComet81 what's so funny. My story is true
@@davidthomas9190 what?
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. This is the best way to talk to someone for their opinion and see why they have that opinion.
How about this. There are no rules. We all die. We turn to dust. Do what you want.
Sounds like early extinction
That’s not an excuse for “do whatever you want” people have to be held to a standard that is universal like the Bible which is the laws of god.
@@OfficialKoharu nah
@@joncudiamat4491 At least it’s not neurotic paralysis.
@@OfficialKoharu the Bible was created by uneducated strangers hundreds of years ago. Why would you live your life going by that?
I have a lot of respect for how civilized they both were in discussing something they disagreed on. If more people were like this, the world would be a better place. If all of us communicated without getting into our feelings, we would be able to understand one another better.
This would require people to know why they believe what they believe, and back it up with logic. Unfortunately most people just take up an opinion without substantially exploring it.
That is excellent point, thank you. Very truthful!
Yep, gotta agree with that one 👍
In my opinion, there is really no civil “disagreement” on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. One side says “hey these two people who are consenting adults and love each other should be able to marry” and the other side says that they should NOT have the right to marry. There is nothing “civil” about wanting to take away someones right to marriage.
Freedom doesn't mean I justify sin, Christians know that, just because I'm free doesn't mean I can kill, or rape, or steal, or hit you, I can do all that, but I'm going against God and I will burn in hell Those who become homosexuals, or lesbians, have been raped as children, I know many people who have started families with a proper priest, with the help of God, they understood that what they did was a disease and that they will burn in hell, they confessed with the power of Jesus , Christ, they found their footing.
I love this conversation. This is how REAL discussions happen. We don't have to always agree, we just have to stay civil and polite.
Than how tf you get anything done U dummy
Sure you can have a civil conversation with someone who’s hateful. No doubt. But calling them hateful doesn’t make you wrong and uncivilized for it.
There’s always at least one “what a great and respectful conversation” comment whenever somebody is openly spreading bigotry on a podcast lol
@@randommaskguy and your attitude about it is part of the problem
Matt dodged the question left and right. Joe had to restate the question so many times. Matt's a coward.
You know you fucked up when Joe fucking Rogan can disassemble your entire argument with one question.
Joe agrees with matt these days
@@LogicCaster No he doesn't.
@@Nonalhomophobie
I saw you say earlier you want to *$EXUALlSE CHlLDREN*
@@LogicCasterProve it. Reported for slander and harassment.
@@Nonalhomophobie
Your profile picture is literally a child sitting on a predators lap.
You’re a predator.
Joe really showed Matt that you can be a real man and not be homophobic
Joe was emotional and opinionated here. Matt isn’t homophobic here.
@@LogicCaster Matt is homophobic. Opposing gay marriage is homophobic discrimination by definition.
@@Nonalhomophobie
No he isn’t.
No its not.
No its not. You’re just a little blich
@@LogicCasterYes he is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
You are a sc*mbag who exist only to poison the world. One day you will pay.
@@LogicCaster Agreed. Matt made point after point and Joe refused to acknowledge anything he said. Joe was just being overly stubborn here.
Matt does not want to just say that his view of marriage is religious more than social
It's why religion is so backwards
It's because any reasonable person, consciously or unconsciously, knows that saying, "I'm against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs" sounds ridiculous and insensitive.
@@Ken-zg3ze Lots of non Christians get married and that's no issue. Gay marriage in the church is the bit that is unfair as there are 1000's of places to get married so why should the church go against its beliefs?
@@jg2213
So there can be NO gay Christian's? Christian dogma has been changed and altered during adaptation so many times over the past 3 millennia or so, this is a very strange hill to die on. Especially when most Christian's don't even actually follow the dogma in any way but superficial element's like this which they focus on. Given that many of most prominent members of the anti-gay Christian community have, in fact, turned out to themselves be gay, this doesn't really seem like an issue that stems from real problems.
This is a problem with the homophobic element of the Christian community often being . The Pope himself has come out in support of Christian homosexuals, being married in a Church isn't the issue, it's fundamentally down to some people picking and choosing element's of their religious practices to maintain a degree of exclusivity and for various reasons relating to insecurity.
Like, it's just irrelevant. If two gay Christian's want to get married in a Church, why is that a problem? It literally effects nobody and impact's nothing. It's just yet another irrational religiously motivated opinion. If people are going to follow everything in the bible, ok, but they won't (because that would be insane in a modern context), they will select part's that are convenient for them and ignore everything else.
@@AveSicarius I actually support gay marriage and think the whole argument against it is stupid, but just like you wouldn't marry 2 Jews in a mosque you can't marry 2 gays in the eyes of the lord. Why aren't we talking about other religions marrying gay people as well?
That's a conversation between two adults without yelling, insulting, or trying to cancel each other. This is how it should be debating with an open mind.
"If you don't have kids when you get married you're a bad person and if two consenting unrelated adults get married then they'll legalise incest!" doesn't really sound like an adult mindset but whatever. It's very clear Matt's mind is closed.
They did not really have an open mind though. They did not advance the conversation in any direction in any meaningful manner.
@@MagcargoMan nah bro that's not what Matt was saying at all but regardless with whether or not you disagree with him, the conversation was civil each dude gave the other a good chance to voice his opinion without speaking over one another or getting emotional.
@@MagcargoMan ''bad person''? let me show you an analogy real quick. Imagine we talk about games and i say: if you havent played call of duty, you are not a gamer because i think that you dont care about elaborate and realistic games and the amount of emotions and adrenalite you can get from call of duty. when I said it was badnot to have played call of duty?
This is what matt said regarding marriage, when tf did he say it was bad? One of the most incredible feelings you get is when you have kids with the person you love and how you become the best version of yourself
@@rypsterhc8673 maybe YOU needed to have children to become your best self. Other people don’t need this. This shows how YOUR mind is closed to other possibilities.
Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman
i was proud of joe on this one
Imagine 2 people disagreeing but listening to each other’s opinion and actually having a conversation. And more importantly not hating someone and trying to silence someone with a different opinion.
C-O-P-E
It's not that. It's that his guest would usually be belligerent and 'dunk' on the person saying they support gay marriage but they are afraid of being too wacky and losing access to his giant platform. If it was anybody else saying what Joe was saying, he'd call him a woke cuck.
Unlike the folks at infowars.
you mean having an argument.
well thats the point of debate.
Joe provides very logical arguments. This is the first time I have seen Matt backpedaling and stuttering a bit lol
Usually everyone does who promotes their ideas from a script instead of live civil discourse.
because Joe kept changing the question and didnt let Matt have a chance to fully articulate his point
First time? Has to be the first time he has had the question brought to him without just letting him talk in a figure eight and let it be then.
@@BlackedOutDreams Joe didn't keep changing the question, it was Matt that didn't answer the question at all. So Joe changed the fazing and examples, with it still being the same argument, to try and make Matt actually give an answer. Matt didn't.
Matts argument is that marriage is just to produce kids. Well, should infertile people be allowed to get married? Matt says he didn't want to ban it and that they could still adopt. Well, gay couples can adopt to, but he wants that to be banned.
What about women who are to old to get pregnant? Should there be an upper limit to when you can get married? Should marriages automatically dissolve once you cannot get children?
What about people who stop believing in God? Does the marriage need to be broken up as well? Or what if they are just unsure? What if they do it just because of tradition, and that they do not care about christianity one way or another?
The whole point here is to keep it consistent. Matt wasn't and he just tried to talk around it without giving an answer. He could use the bible as an argument, but that opens up another can of worms.
If the part about marriage being between man and women needs to be taken literal, does every other part need to be as well? What about women not being allowed to speak up in public, and should rather ask their husband about things at home? Mixing of cloth? What about slavery? Since the bible gives us rules to where to buy slaves and how to treat them, do we need to bring slavery back?
His last argument in this clip was that we had already taken away so many "morals" from the bible and just discarded them. Well, is having slaves one of the morals of the bible we have just tossed away and need to bring back?
Its no wonder that he can't find a good argument and need to talk around the point without giving an answer. His stance on the matter, is in fact very hollow. It is "I don't like it and therefor it should be banned", but he cannot say that. He need to make up justifications, but when asked about things that his standpoint logically must stand for, he isn't able to defend it.
Yeah, Matt Walsh failed at justifying the traditional sense of marriage, and why, as a constitution, it should be preserved.
I've listened to Dr JBP explain what is marriage to such a degree that he could probably answer this question while defending religious dogma on it, unlike Mr Walsh who's a staunch Catholic.
The backend of this podcast is unfortunately dissatisfactory.
Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children?
Matt: I think married couples should be open to life
Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children?
Matt: It's not only procreation, but its one of the fundamental definitions of marriage
Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children?
Matt: Well what's the definition of a woman? A woman is someone that by their nature bears children
Joe: Are you opposed to people getting married and not having children?
Matt: I wouldn't advocate a law to prevent it
This guy is absurd lmfao
Yeah rogan is absurd in this one
@@LogicCaster Matt is absurd, not Joe.
@@LogicCaster you’re so dumb
@@The1nOnlyRoseChildthat's nothing New. This guy is pretty full of himself.
@@ZetsubenSama
You’re literally a dyslexic grave digger HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Matt walsh is just yapping in my humble opinion. The power of asking the right questions is truly amazing and walsh was visibly uncomfortable. I think people at times interpret confidence for competence and take anything someone says with enough conviction as gospel. But if you take them down from that pedestal, they are quite literally just a normal person. Walsh isn't a crazy intellectual as some deem him to be, and Rogan did really well to systematically make walsh rethink his own views on marriage.
That wasn’t a humble opinion at all.
And matts right, rogans more opinionated than ever here.
And this is why Joe Rogan is the phenomenon he is. Honest, pragmatic, compassionate, free thinking. Thanks Joe.
What? He genuinely tried to poke at the fact that Matt is religious and tried to find a problem with Matt being Catholic and holding certain beliefs due to his religion.
@@maxadonna6545 Oh I didn’t see that. He definitely has his issues but he has a good heart
@@caseyschneiderphotography for sure man
@@maxadonna6545 No he didn’t, he’s openly explaining why Matt’s beliefs are wrong, harmful, and stupid. He’s also publicly showing Matt’s religion makes him a bigot, and that he’s against freedom because he’s a fucking theocrat.
@@maxadonna6545 nothing wrong with criticising someone's religion
Typical Christian persecution complex
I'm glad Joe is capable of challenging his guests when necessary, even when he agrees with them on 90% of their views
Typically more so when they are conservative.
@@AUZlE I'm a Conservative myself doesn't mean I have to conform the every view held by other Conservatives
@@yumyum723 woaahhhhh!!! Ohhh no you didn’t!
@@yumyum723 cap
Joe and Matt do not agree on 90% of their views lmfao
Yeah. Growing up a female millennial I was always told be independent, be a feminist, yet at the same time was told marriage is the epitome, the zenith of societal relationships. Why? Because it is assumed that you are valued, you are worthy, you are cherished enough to be in a committed relationship. Beyond that, the actual benefits in written laws for marriage/civil unions , actually give the same values in writing, not just symbolism.
Furthermore it gives parental rights to any children born or adopted into that union. This way children have two adults who have oversight over their innocent and vulnerable life. How could that be bad? (Given that it’s two normal people who love children, and are not predatory over the child or over the other partner)…
You are absolutly right, but marriage and Civil unions are not equal at all.
Have a good one 🫶
@@ZetsubenSama
Thats why they have different words.
Same sex relations and normal people wanting to marry are not equal at all either.
Right, do “marriage” should be removed from all legal dealings. This way, civil unions for all. Most people accept a secular government (although in the USA it is not), and marriage is not necessarily a secular relationship arrangement
@@patpatmoomoo5524 thats completly fine with me but i doubt that this will be accepted in the US.
@@LogicCaster gay marriage is equal to marriage and it should be since gay people are equal to heterosexual people.
Get therapy.
100% agree with Joe here. Marriage is symbolic above all else. It is meaningful to those who get married, and that is all that matters. They aren’t hurting anyone else. They are celebrating a commitment that is meaningful to them.
And the divorce rate is above 50% because nobody cares about the procreative union of marriage anymore.
You and joe aren’t liberating marriage for some, you’re destroying marriage for all.
Look up the reasons why people get a divorce and tell me if one of those reasons is "don't care about the procreative union anymore"
@@LogicCaster
Look up the reasons why people get a divorce and tell me if one of those reasons is "don't care about the procreative union anymore"
@@LogicCaster
@@ZetsubenSama
Yeah its literally all the reasons.
Selfishness over procreation. Dont get married unless you’re doing it for your children or those problems emerge.
“Money and loss of spark” you freaking child.
@@LogicCaster i am not the one desiding why people divorce. This is a choice people make on theyr own and they are definetly not on your side.
People don't Stick together for children: at least not married.
People marry for All kinds of reasons. That's part od freedom. They also divorce for a multitude of reasons, those can be fought. We can fight the reasons why people divorce, instead of you sitting here and claim that people get married for All the wrong reasons. There are no wrong reasons to marry.
Matt's definition of marriage comes from a Worldview where God is the ultimate authority whereas Joe's definition of marriage comes from one where the individual is the ultimate authority. From such different paradigms we get this cordial and civil discussion which can be summarized as agree to disagree.
Exactly
There is no God though.
I was trying to put my words into
Place. You did a great job!!👏👏
Joe comes from his parents hippie background and thats where he get that Individual is “the ultimate authority”
Matt should have said that we disagree because God is the ultimate authority.✌️✝️
Matt's is sex is for family formation, Joe's is sex is for love.
It comes from a position that recognizes that there are thousands of religions so most of you are wrong. It's why we do not make laws off of your special, unique, and overly specific religious wants.
In a world where disagreements are not encouraged and you are forced to pick a side. I am glad for people like you Joe for sharing this platform with others.
So glad Joe shares his platform with people who don't think same sex couples should be legally able to get married. What a great moment for our society
@@ar71498 It is always a good thing to have a civil debate with people who disagree with you. You get to truly learn the different sides of human nature.
@@ar71498 booooo
@@ar71498 the majority of the world would argue openly gay couples are a detriment to society, just sayin.
@@ar71498 Covenantal marriage upon which modern marriage is founded is fundamentally a Christian covenant between God, man, and woman. That is the Christian belief and foundation upon which all marriage is founded. It wouldn't make sense for a Christian (Matt Walsh) to reject that fundamental worldview. If anything, gay marriage should instead be purely a civic partnership under law, that is not connected with the Christian covenant marriage. Every Christian would support that fully, because it wouldn't be trying to change anything about Christian covenant marriage - it would just be a civil union under man's law.
Matt really likes to beat around the bush and not actually answer the question.
Woah if Joe described the marriage situations where someone is committed to work and no kids would make Jordan Peterson cry 😂
Yeah sounds like depressing filth
Having a healthy 2 way conversation is actually a skill. These guys are pros at it and it takes lots of practice
Your belief is based on a false equivalency that everybody's entitled to have a view. When your view gets in the way of other people's human rights you are basically Criminal.
I doubt that twisting words and putting words into the other person's mouth is part of a "healthy" two way conversation. It's pretty toxic tbh haha. Thankfully Joe is confident enough to know that this other dude is coming off poorly by twisting his words, pushing propaganda and putting a spin on EVERYTHING lol
Neither talked about tax incentives and next of kin responsibilities as spouses.
That's what I thought it's refreshing to hear 2 adults have a normal conversation on the internet no matter what people think about these guys they are intelligent calm and willing to listen something our society has lost
Matt Walsh is a fool. Hiding his bigotry behind what ever nonsense that came out of his mouth there.
Definitely think Walsh regrets debating this topic. Joe absolutely schooled him. The notion that marriage is valid only when kids are created is ludicrous and outdated.
Joe agrees with matt these days.
And you say “outdated” but the modern version of marriage has a divorce rate of OVER 50% across the entire west, i.e. it doesn’t work.
Children based marriage is the only reason anyone should get married because its the only one that has purpose.
@@LogicCaster You don't get to define what "purpose" is for every relationship. People can get married for a ton of reasons and they can divorce for a ton of reasons.
And divorce rate isn't a measure of success or failure. People not getting divorced isn't a sign of a healthy relationship. You can be in a terrible marriage and not get divorced due to social pressure or financial pressure. Is that a relationship that's working? Conversely, you can be a in relationship that isn't fulfilling and isn't providing happiness to the two parties and they can decide that the mature, logical, and right thing to do is to end that union and walk away. That sounds like a better relationship to me even though you would label that as "not working".
You should probably rethink your screen name.
@@Scotter4536
You people never consider the wellbeing of children
@@LogicCaster Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples typically fare just as well, if not better than many kids raised by straight couples. The reason being that if you're straight, you typically don't have to jump through as many hoops to have a baby. Which means that virtually any straight couple, no matter how unqualified to raise a child, can just keep popping them out like puppies for as long as they're physically able to. It doesn't matter if they're not mentally/emotionally/financially equipped to handle raising kids, no one can stop them from "making" as many of them as they want. Prime example being my college roommate's mom who has had all of her kids taken away from her by child protective services due to extreme abuse and neglect, and yet she continues to keep popping out another baby year after year like it's nothing. When a gay couple decides to have kids, there's typically a lot more planning involved. And the few gay couples who are able to afford things like surrogacy, in-vitro, adoption etc. tend to be more financially well-off than their straight counterparts. Hence why statistically, kids raised by same sex couples tend to fare better. Because obviously anyone whose parents are financially well-off (on top of being mentally/emotionally equipped to raise them well) is going to do better than a kid whose parents are struggling to make ends meet, regardless of it it's a man and a woman, two women, or two men.
@@ciggystardust99
Kids have been raised by same sex couples for like 10 years, experiment isn’t long or broad enough.
They “fare better” in school. Probably because they don’t have many friends seeing as they have two dads. Makes studying easier.
We have massive cultural studies showing children need a mother and a father. Massive reoccurring issues result in women with no dads or especially young men raised by a single mother.
Throwing a second mother into that equation will NOT help the child who has antisocial tendencies. MAJOR studies make that obvious.
Children fare better when their parents have a stable and loving marriage. That is what needs to be promoted above all. Obviously
I still want to see Trent Horn on JRE to defend Catholics, but I don't think Joe would do that.
I've never felt so refreshed and calm after watching two people disagree with each other about such an important topic. This is conversation and this is how to disagree... Everyone laying out their stance clearly without fear of cancelation then you decide for yourself what is right for you and for your family then we part ways.
“Important topic” 🤣 that’s laughable
Lmao but all that means nothing if nothing is learned…
@@Asailant_ You don't think the institution of marriage and family is important?
“Without fear of cancelation”?? How about without fear of violence?! You know those Trumpers after all.
Yeah its great the way they are disagreeing, but walsh’s view is ridiculous
Excellent job by both Joe and Matt in showing how civil discourse is supposed to be done.
Dude’s argument fell apart several times, and fell back on “but the institution” lol. Nicely done.
Now some left-wingers are accusing Joe Rogan of being homophobe in podasts? I came her from one of the podcasts, this "Guily by association" got to stop.
@@tccurtis9727 But it was civil. Sure it's cringey to watch him flounder about when he runs out of justifications, but the discourse didn't devolve into petulant sourness, infantile name-calling, or threats of violence. I'll take civility every time.
@@tccurtis9727 80% of the world believes in institutions. Only America and western Europe have this 20th century invented "do whatever you want" life purpose.
And by the way, it's NOT in the interest of your own freedom. It's to make you a dissatisfied money making machine
Matt's argument makes no sense, but I can appreciate how civil the conversation is
"Never found a definition"... Look harder.. Marriage is a business agreement whether arranged or between two people. Being in love just makes it better. But you can be in love form a union and not be married. I imagine years ago that agreement meant providing children. However, Joe has a great point what if you can't provide the children?
A business agreement? 99% of the time nobody had ANYTHING to bargain with.
Come on are you joking? Sadly their bargaining tools were their children. Couple of goats. Access to water. A tiny plot of land, safety in union. Membership to a better lifestyle. I could go on....
@@jbrasco5000
Well in a remote village with only 50 people thats all pretty freaking important to the survival of the group don’t you think?
@@LogicCaster yes, I agree. That is my point
@@jbrasco5000
Yeah, we exist because marriage was the smartest idea to ensure the survival of our people.
Now you want to destroy that? Disrespect it? Nullify it for future generations?
The words “relationship” & “institution” shouldn’t even be in the same situation.
Wow matt was stunned how joe always comes up with questions every moment 🤣🤣🤣
Stunned that joe didn’t get the answers
Please ignore this pathetic, bigoted and narcissist incel called @Logic disastater or something, they are a right wing ideolog, fear mongerer and writes everywhere.
They are just hurt becouse other people have other world views and don't respect theyr religion. They also claims that this user calles the police on a youtube account becouse of alledget "child m0lestation", while he sayes that he has no problem with 15 year olds getting married.
They are mad about the divorce rate since theyr Parents are divorced, thats why they rant about it so much, they never experienced a loving married family.
This user claims that the definition of marriage was changed, jet they changed the definition of religion to "instruction manuals for the morals of a particular culture" so they can claim that "woke" is a religion. Although it is clear that religion includes the believe in super human powers or the super natural. That understanding is very old, even in 1200 AD the definition includet "reverence of the gods" jet this user changed the definition and rages about how another definition was changed.
They wants a fascist state in wich everyone is christian and everybody needs to follow all rules in the bible, they wants to kill gay people. They sayed so themself that they want shariah law but for christians. They also push conspiracy believes like "the great replacement", a Xenophovic believe where a nations people get replaced by some shadow gouvernment. This believe is often Antisemetic.
He even saied that he wants segretation so that LGBT+ people are seperated from "normal" people.
This user also calles me a Facist and a Nazi becouse i'm german, they make incredible hatefull remarks like "is it time to exterminate the Jews?" While calling gay marriage and trans people a deseace, while at the same time claiming that Nazis where "lisping homosexuals in boots and tides".
They use Nazi-rehtoric like calling gay marriage a disease and that gay people spread all sorts of illnesses, something Hitler directly sayed about the jews.
They accuse me of doing the same to them as Hitler did to the jews, rendering the holocaust and the reasons and consequences of it into a complete Joke.
They compare themselfs to the victims of the holocaust, if asked about it they say "so what?". This person also claims that i pick "jewish teeth and finger nails from carrots and potatoes". They have no respect for the victims of the holocaust, the millions of people that died becouse of ring wing ideology and conspiracy.they have no reguard for the incredible suffering that people had to indure.
Not to mention that they see D-Day as a big win becouse and i quote "MORE GERMANS DIED THEN AMERIKANS, YOU EEEELOOSSSEEERR, YOU LOOSE AGAIN" written exacly in that style.
They also claim that I :
-Sexually molest Donkeys
-eat jewish children
-have a pile of shoes laying around from the dead jews
-am a murderer
-am a dog
-am responsible for the holocaust
-am a Nazi
-am a religious extremist
-adore Hitler and a big fan of him
-am a gr00mer/child predator
-sleept with a family member
-am trans
-am a "holocaust apologist" (whatever that means)
But all of those are lies. They lie and use missinformation, they say the most unhinges stuff imaginable.
They also say that all Muslims *cut off heads* , that is based on the stereotype that all muslims are violent, so clearly Xenophobic and Islamophobic.
They sayed that LGBTQI+ is a Religion by the Communist Chinese regime to destroy the west where they sees themself as the hero and the only person that can help with such. They see themself as the "say all do all" hero that needs to safe the world, accusing others of beeing uneducated but is clearly not capable of critical thinking or sighting any sources.
They think that the R*pe, Abuse and gr00ming in the Catholic church is performed by members of the LGBT community that "infiltrated the church" in order to gr00m children, while they themself want to groom children into marriage. They accuse other people of beeing child sexualiser, pred*tors, ped*philes and gr00mers while beeing exacly that.
They sayed that they want to End another users life for what they sayed in the comments here under this video. A clear indicator for psychopathy.
They subscribed to the hyper maskulin world view of men having all the power, saying that Men are in theyr nature powerfull and violent and that domestic abuse can only come from men.
They are clearly dilusional and seem to not understand reality, while claiming they are the hero. They think that if you bring down divorce rates that this would change socciety and correct all problems like domestic abuse and mental heath issues although the reasons why people divorced are sighted as Psychological issues, mental illness, financial problems and problems with intimicy.
His delusions peaked when he sayed "i bet Joe rogan reads my comments and changed his mind becouse of me".
On top of all that come childish insults about how my mother is a Nazi ho*e that has intercourse with horses for the amusement of Nazi generals. This is very pathetic and should be obvious to anyone that reads it.
I would also encourage anyone to report them if they use Hatespeach like they have done many times.💥💥❌️❌️💥
@@LogicCasterbecouse walsh had no answer, he just thumbles out words without a clear line since there is no good reason to be against gay marriage other then your own religious fanaticism and ideology.
@@ZetsubenSama
He mentioned societal impact which speaks for its self.
Society is and will continue to be impacted by the change in the definition of marriage, obviously. You must be an autist to not acknowledge that, no wonder germany has the history it does.
@@LogicCasterah yes, saying a word without any reasoning behind it speaks for itself. 😂😂😂
You and matt never establishes causation, you both point to it like its a fail safe.
The question is not if society will be impacted but how it will impact society. You can build sand castles and say "i impact society" and it will be just as relevant.
The definition of marriage has hardly changed. Straight couples feel no change at all just becouse gay people can marry.
You just talk absolut nonsence while calling other people autistic 😂 its hillarious as always. Get therapy you narcissist lmfao 😂.
So nice to hear two people debate a point without getting too hot headed about things
Gabriel Owles, 1 chipp court dingley village Victoria
I had listened to a couple Piers Morgan interviews lately and I was super surprised when there was no interruptions in this
Joe was debating, Matt was mumbling on about nothing.
@@FeelmProductions joe wasn't even debating, just asked the most simple questions and walsh didn't have answer for anything. Heavyweight intellectual for sure
Yeah isn't it? Very refreshing.
People are allowed to have their believes and disagree with others. And this is how you have a discussion and disagree but maintain a level of respect 🫡
Walsh wasn’t able to articulate a good reason as to why he felt that way. Joe on the other hand was very clear and asked follow up questions to make Walsh’s response.
Joe spoke in a simple matter about a complex subject
@@LogicCasterIt’s really not complex.
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259
It really is, not to the slow minded
I respect both guys, but man Matt was drowning in this one.. reaching for something to make his point valid😂 hats off to having conversations without the insults!!
Great freaking conversation, 2 differing opinions, talked out in a civil manner, need more of this exact thing, you gotta be able to see both sides even if you disagree
nah lol matt Walsh is a giant dork
It's a seemingly lost form. You took the words out of my mouth.
Exactly!! Let’s all agree that we can disagree✌🏼
@@minipoopuu12340 we can be on the right or left but can we agree a man is a man and a woman is a woman ?
💯
Matt: "what is a woman?"
Joe: "what is a marriage?"
extremely under rated comment
Matt had a way better answer than Joe. Joe basically just said “it’s a relationship with love” which is flimsy and vague.
@@moderndayheretic Why is it flimsy and vague? Matt's answer was vague if anything, he refused to answer any of Joe's questions directly because he couldn't. It's a union between two consenting adults, where you commit to each other and share your lives, your money, your goals etc. One of the original religious cornerstones of marriage was about procreation but as Joe pointed out, that's not possible for all heterosexual couples, yet that obviously doesn't diminish their marriage in any way. And that is an indisputable fact, one that if you accept, begs the question: Why can't two consenting adults of the same sex have the same thing?
If your religion posits that it simply has to be between a man and a woman, then fine. But Walsh was the one who backed himself into the procreation corner, then didn't have an answer when faced with the obvious follow up question about infertile couples.
I actually don't mind the guy and a lot of what he says makes sense, but he always ends up looking like a doofus when his religious fundamentalism gets in the way of obvious logic.
@@moderndayheretic it isn't flimsy and vague. love is the only variable that doesn't change in marriage. outside of arranged marriages (which are barbaric and ought to be abolished) all functional marriages have love as the driving force behind them. if that weren't the case people would just marry each other for the tax benefits, and it would be treated as something no different from a friendship.
@@con10001 So by that definition we should allow incest marriages too shoudn't we? Isn't that two consenting adults (what's the logical reasoning for stopping at two)? They don't have to have children. I think that was the only response of Matt's that really hit, it is taking Joe's definition to its logical conclusion.
They present a very clear distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian world view. That's what makes this kind of a discussion dealing with morality versus immorality, self-centeredness versus God-centeredness, and absolutes versus relativism. The two opposing sides can never agree and certainly should never even find a compromise. Ok, so they have a civil discussion, but what point is there in that? That leads nowhere especially if it does not futher The Truth. I think Matt is very good, but he sort of hems and haws in his effort to benefit from being in conversation with Joe on Joe's hugely popular podcast. I had to stop watching at about 5 minutes because it looked to me like they were going to go round and round in circles with no arrival at definitve, absolute truth which would win the debate. Unfortunately that's our civil (i.e. non-Christian) world today.
By that logic you're saying that you are either "self-centered" or "god-centered"? Those are the only two options in life? The world has no consensus on your god and it's dismissive of millions of fellow humans to claim yours is "the one" and the rest of the world has it wrong.
I think that's a very clear truth: one is either egocentric or Theo-centric. One either believes in, adheres to, trusts in, surrenders to (in obedience) the Actual True Ever-existing God of All or one doesn't. There are only two roads, two paths. Consensus doesn't establish truth! I would argue that it's not dismissive to propagate the claims of The incarnate God, Jesus, who declared Himself to be God in the flesh. HE is The One Who claimed that there is only one, distinct, unique way to enter into a true knowledge of The God Who is. One may either accept that or deny it. But whatever one's decision about that Truth is, it doesn't negate nor verify the fact. It's kind of like gravity; you either accept it or deny it. But it's still an ontological fact. I love the way the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14) quotes a conversation between Moses and The LORD, " and God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE...". That's an absolute, unquestionable statement from the Absolute, unquestionable God. The book of Job, further down the road from Exodus, is also a great revelation of Who this God, beyond time and space and also the ever-existing creator of all within time and space, actually is. You bring up a great point in the discussion!
They never thought the cost of life is a factor
Joe has gotten good at this whole interview thing
hes been good
Eh. Joe really didn't do that we'll. He tends to have a hard time accepting a viewpoint he doesn't agree with. Joe just kept asking the same question and Matt kept answering him the same way. Also, coming up with edge cases doesn't disprove the fundamental categorization or useful of an activity.
A much better approach is to summarize the other persons point of view to make sure you understand it. Joe definitely didn't understand where Matt was coming from due to conceding absolutely no ground when Matt had valid points about the tradition and origin of marriage versus Joe's thinking on the legal definition of marriage.
@@mattbeisser3932 I agree that Joe does tend to do this. Once he is set in a mindset he really puts on the blinders and I've seen him bully people he disagrees with. Not saying he did that here as he is getting better at that. I think sometimes when you have a smart guy like Joe they get used to being right and then have a hard time conceding or giving any ground. I personally like to find areas I can agree with someone but doesn't seem like he did that here.
I'm only 2 minutes in and I've never seen Matt so.. Beat around the busy kind of. And also quite flustered I would say
Yeah the argument against Civil Unions is because it is just discriminatory language. In that case the de-facto for all marriages should be seen as "civil unions" under secular law with a clear definition of it being 2 humans that enter into an agreement whereby they share incomes, assets, wealth, resources, debts, liabilities etc with powers of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.
And then the ultra-religious reserve the right to the word "marriage" strictly as dictated by their religious texts. But then we just argue semantics. If a civil union between a man and a woman is called "marriage" within the ultra-religious context, no one is going to fault someone for viewing a same sex civil union as "marriage" as well because it is just utilising marriage as a synonym. No religious doctrine is going to claim ownership over a word. That's not how the english language works.
Nobody mentioned religion.
The whole human race acknowledges marriage as a means of procreation and raising of children in a civilised manner.
Honest, open conversations that most people are afraid of having. We should all have these conversation, especially people that have opposite ideas.
I don’t know what kind of friends you hang out with but me and friends we talk about this stuff all the time.
@@vitorfernandes651 You're the exception, not the rule
@@vitorfernandes651 That's great. Happy to hear it!
I think that's an excellent idea. Still, it's important to remember some if the topics aren't just "opinion".
There are right and wrong answers to questions. It's important to call people out when they lie as a standard. Not an exception.
I love getting into an educated debate with someone who has different beliefs.. and in going to marry her one day
THIS is the perfect example of a civil disagreement. They both strongly disagree with eachother on the subject but it's done respectfully and they're still able to dig deep and explore the reason why they each see things so differently. We don't always have to agree on things but this level of understanding and civil discussion would do wonders for the world today.
It was ok.
Joe couldn't understand Matt who in turn understood joe and even found other ways of explaining the same thing.
Ok we get it.
@Father (3$) Bill he understood Matt fine. He was pushing back against the illogical nature of his argument.
@@father3dollarbill matt is a homophobe
There is nothing "civil" about denying others rights. I don't think those with beards should be able to get married. That isn't civil it's nutz!
Its probably a good thing that I tuned most of this out cuz the parts I did hear the guy just sounded dumb as hell, but I was mostly just wondering how uncomfortable sleeves must be when you're buff like that cuz Joe's arms looking ready to rip out them sleeves 😂 that's gotta feel so constricting
The reason Joe is as popular as he is is because you can watch this and he’s using his own logical brain and not trying to win over anyone in particular. He’s real.
"he's using his own logical brain"
Truly a man of words.
@@benharris144 lol
rogan says alot of dumb shit
Careful. You're giving him too much credit. He isnt as authentic as he might have you to believe
@@user-kb1hw2yq2f and people should believe you because you say so?
I watch Joe from time to time and I have gotten asked "why? Isn't he some sort of right winged conspiracy theorist and off his rocker?" Usually my answer is that the reason I listen to his discussions is because he gives people the time and is so level headed and while he does not have a science, law or some other scholarly backing (that I know of) the man has a wealth of patience and common sense. A rare combo to see amongst most these days. And he IS intelligent, and more often than not, makes good points and trys to understand whoever he talks to regardless of if he agrees with them. He is the kind of person we need I'm such a polarized society. And we need more.of that more than ever before
Anyone who assumes he's a right winged conspiracy theorist you should probably cut out of your life
Those “what degree does he have?” Comments usually come from a guy with an art degree that’s now $40,000 in debt making $30,000 a year trying to convince himself he made the right decision
You give those people way too much fucking credit. Ask them to explain themselves instead. Ask them to begin justifying that kind of accusation with any amount of evidence. Watch them fall apart.
Rogan is cool but Sam Harris is a more intellectual version
I don't think Joe Rogan is right wing, or are you talking about Matt walsh?
Because marriage is not viewed as an institution created by God is extremely difficult to argue that same sex marriage is wrong because marriage in our secular world isn't about procreation.