That's what I love about him and his podcast even on disagreements with guests he does not make them uncomfortable instead listens to what they have to say. Out of all the major podcasts on RU-vid Joe Rogan might be the most mature out of all of them.
It's not just a professional thing in my opinion. Joe understands that disagreeing with someone doesn't necessarily mean you need to hate them. I have many friends with whom I disagree on many things, doesn't mean I can't have them as friends or treat them with disdain. Within reason...
Oh I think they're both great and no I'm not a conservative Republican. Ben Shapiro is a funny guy. I don't stand with him though. Joe's a riot too but I do believe he gets in over his head debating some of his guests.
Thats because his ego is seperated from his ideas. He can actually have a meaningful discussion disagree and then go get lunch with them. This is why joe is awesome. He lets them lead and plays off it.
I swear it's like ben shapiro can reverse the aging process on some people *he practically turns anyone from the left into children in a matter of minutes*
Matt seemed nervous. He always sort of does in interviews talking about his faith even on Catholic platforms. I do believe Ben is generally more intelligent and well read and certainly is more confident when he is challenged or even given a question in general. I take Walsh to be more of a Conservative Catholic whereas I’m probably the step further to the “right” on that spectrum as a Traditionalist and to be frank it is a position that requires a lot more reading and critical analysis of assessing what is the orthodox position of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Magisterium through history. I do find myself wishing that Matt would do more reading and become firmer in the specifics of his position as dictated by his religion. Ben comes of much more self-assured and frames the question from the outset as different in secular vs religious terms, and positions himself explicitly and early as an orthodox jew whose religious framework is the deterministic factor, and explains from there his own position as the position of his religion specifically. Matt fails to do this and is sort of rhetorically fumbling around with his response and, as far as i remember, failed to situate his own opinion as the Catholic position, the position of a higher authority, that being the body of the Church’s teachings through not just scripture but the Magisterium as well. He really seems to get unstable when discussing these points especially with a more adversarial conversational partner, and is far less confident in asserting his religious position explicitly vs Ben in this clip. For Matt I think educating himself further would help but he does just seem kind of nervous and shaky in his voice (just the same as when he’s appeared on Catholic podcasts and the like - that is to say a non adversarial interview on religion) but native intelligence and reading habits have a huge impact on clarity of speech and depth of understanding religious doctrine. It’s fair that Walsh may not want to be the representative for Christianity or Catholicism at large and that may explain some reticence on his part vs Ben’s confident (characteristic of a lawyer as well, lol) expressive abilities in a dialogue or debate in which he is the interviewee rather than just the interviewer or giving a monologue or the like.
@@marguerillathats an awful lot of words just to say you can’t think for yourself x if Pope Clement XI saw a traffic light his head would explode, you can certainly live your life however you wish but please dont force others to do so as well, especially not based on doctrine of bronze age people
@@marguerilla I simply think that Matt Walsh does less reflection than Shapiro. It is a skill to be able to debate yourself and challenge your own views. I don't think Matt does that, Shapiro does. Matt believes in what he believes because of what he's been told. Shapiro, as much as I disagree with him, is a smart, reflective guy who knows what he wants (mostly)
@@fsh_outta_wtr His "feelings on the topic" differ from the person he's having a discussion with (Joe) so technically this is a debate you fool. A debate doesn't have to be a "fight", it's two people discussing something they disagree upon!
@@deepakbisht1327 No it isnt, this is just a discussion. Nobody is trying to come out on top, nobody is trying to change the mind of the audience. Joe asked why he disagreed with him on the concept of gay marriage, because in legislation Ben isnt against, and so he explained it to him. A debate isnt you just disagreeing with a friend on a topic. If it is for you, your friends must find you insufferable.
@@fsh_outta_wtr Ok then, agree to disagree. Because debating about whether something is a debate or not is probably not worth it. But I think that's how debates should be - A healthy discussion where two people are trying to find what's best for the betterment of all rather than trying to "win" or come out on top.
@@gibbonbasher8171 More like he obfuscate the issues to make him sound smart. He constantly engages in fallacies, two of his favorite are False Equivalency and Equivocation Fallacies. He throws in an example of Adultery to justify his opposition to gay rights (False Equivalency Fallacy). He also defines the terms he uses (In his own interpretation), than uses that term to justify his logical argument (Equivocation). And finally, Circular Reasoning, he's basically saying nothing throughout this video to either support or reject the legal claim to gay rights by bring up religious interpretations. He basically says "God is right so who are we to argue it" but humans are also fallible so its unlikely that God's word as written is correct....so where does that leave us???
@@gibbonbasher8171 More like, the word of god cannot be voiced by man and our worldly desires are a gift from god (Why else would he design us to have them?). As long as it doesn't break the Golden Rule, why would God restrict activities that would makes us happy? Its a human interpretation of God's will, and thus is not god's will.
@@gibbonbasher8171 That's exactly why Religion should have no place in legal/moral argument. Religion is Faith and therefore it doesn't need to rely on logic or data to form an opinion. It relies on nothing more than the faith of the scripture. Ben Shapiro states that the traditional nuclear family is "better", how so? What proof has he provided beyond what is written in scripture? Morality can come from religion but it shouldn't be anything more than a moral framework to build off of. Data/Science is how we make policy now, not the conservative's faith based policy which relies on scripture from drunk monks.
mainstream media is absolute garbage. CNN and Fox news and all others are only there to perpetuate the status quo and keep people mindlessly enraged at the wrong aspects of society while the 1% keep on funneling money to the top.
In a sense, they are in the same group-people who are willing to have a civil conversation even if they disagree. That's becoming increasingly rare these days...
Absolutely. I fully agree. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear Joe Rogan say exactly what most of us gay men and women have been thinking and trying to say forever.
I keep saying that! Im gay and my GAYDAR is digning everytime I see him talk! What a traitor prick! no one will convince me hes not gay! His thought our rational thought says it all- He is GAF!
robert broadley Totally agree. He is so good at respectfully discussing divisive topics and standing his ground. He’s good at agreeing to disagree. Even when I don’t agree with Joe, I like him. I’d love to have a beer with him.
The point of a debate, or discussing different opinions and ideas is to learn from another perspective. Turning one into a shouting match becomes more like "no, I'm right, you're an idiot!" I've learned a great deal from sitting down and talking to people who have views that differ from my own.
Fantastic conversation. So much respect between both of them even though they may disagree. I love how joe always asked questions to try and understand others people reasoning. So refreshing
"Hey ben ,how have you been?" Ben Shapiro:well are you asking from my perspective or in the veiw of the world becuase if you mean from my perspective then right now i would have to say ive been doing alright throughout the past few days
+Novemdecillion Let’s say hypothetically that you put the sauce on the side. And let’s say that while I’m trying to eat my meal, I drop my fork in the sauce. Now at this point, I hypothetically am dealing with a fork that is covered in sauce and a meal on my plate that I have not finished. What is a rational and fair-minded person to do in this situation? Do you really want to put your customers in that kind of situation, Brenda? Then I think you know the answer to that question.
Canada 🇨🇦 Live He feels the same way on lots of other issues though. He doesn’t like weed but he’s pro it’s legalization. I don’t understand why the idea of not wanting to ban everything you don’t like is so hard to understand for some people.
Did u know his wife’s a doctor? Edit: To all the people who keep trying to correct me and calling me an “idiot”, this reply was supposed to be taken as a joke. Thank you.
True But it's sooo hard to stay calm when somebody is so wrong in such basics because of things like religion or tradition And it's even harder if the person is smart enough that he should have figured this out already
@@mulder938 Not sure if you're sarcastic or don't get the comment. Dunking on people only 5 years removed from growing there first pubic hair in a political argument is just as pathetic as if I would go up to a 10 Year Old, dunk on him in a Basketball Match and think I'm some sort of an NBA Superstar.
Why not also follow all the other things they say in the old testament. Not only the gay thing. But wearing two materials . Eating shellfish. Stoning people. Etc. Why just follow the gay thing if the book is the ultimate moral standing for you
Considering the fact that Ben considers himself an Orthodox Jew my assumption would be that he, in fact, does not wear two materials (or what we Jews call "Shatnez" which is a garment that contains wool and linen) or eat shellfish. The whole idea with stoning people is a much more complex conversation as to why that has practically never been practiced in jewish history.
Wrongdoing is still sin. God didn't make sin not wrong anymore when Jesus died. He did take away the requirements that told us what we have to do. But sin is still wrong.
@@dawndavenport9139 Cancel culture is at the forefront of liberal groups, it is normalized and even the expected behavior inside the circle. Conservative groups are flawed in many, many, many ways, but cancel culture doesn’t seem to me to be as prevalent compared to liberal groups. What is ultimately good from Joe is that he has a very varied point of view in many things, and that’s ok. Most people should try and do that, make their own opinions and think for themselves.
It really blows my mind when I hear anyone try to spew that 'being gay is a choice' bullshit - which I'm really glad neither of them believe. But as a gay person, I've often found myself having this conversation: Them: Being gay is a choice Me: Oh it is? So basically you're saying you could wake up tomorrow, say I'm gay, and actually change whom you're attracted to? Them: Well no, because I'm straight. Me: You're not answering my question, lol
Now of days, it’s hard to distinguish who’s naturally gay or just “gay” to seek attention… Gay has been around since ancient times, it’s biblical. The point is to deny debauchery. Same goes for a straight man indulging in lust.
I don't think you understood Ben's point. He basically said being gay is a choice. While being attracted to men is not choice, living as a gay person is a choice. That is no different in practice from saying being gay is a choice. He just worded it in a way that avoids directly saying it.
@@nuknukisdead What a shame - even though politically we don't see eye to eye, I've always had respect for him. Didn't think he was THIS big of a moron
@@nuknukisdead The problem with that logic also applies to straight people. They cannot change their sexual orientation but they can also live a "gay lifestyle".
Rogan: “Don’t you think that’s why religious text says not to eat pork?” Shapiro: “I’m not a big fan of naturalistic explanations for religion.” One Minute Later Shapiro: “The red sea split because of a strong eastern wind.”
I caught that too. Ben seems like a great guy but the cherry picking is the problem with any religion. Ben would still be a great guy without religion. He just can't understand why.
@Bad Cattitude Because cherry picking. Also, why is this never brought up: suppose a strong wind (tornado or whatever) parted any sea. How in the hell (that doesn't exist) are people going to walk through that?
@@gleep1905 bro, jesus apparently rose from the dead. Dont be getting all logical on the bible, torah qu'uran or any religious scripture from 1000s of years ago. Take then metaphorically not literally
@@cleshsesh6155 Yes well that is my point. Either everything in these books is metaphorical (thus open to interpretation) or it is not. They circumvent this by cherry picking. And worse still, nobody cherry picks the same things. This alone should be a red flag brighter than an active quasar. If a god exists, he is watching galaxies collide. I doubt it cares much about different coloured primates gathering in a building each week or which of them is sticking whatever into whoever.
Jordan Peterson does the same thing, too. Expends a great deal of mental energy trying to square ideas with a religious perspective he'd do well to just step outside of.
This sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't have any religious beliefs. If you watch a lot of Been Shapiro speeches, he rarely brings up religion, this conversation it seems unavoidable to bring up religion since he is a heavily religious person. Certain topics such as Abortion, I have never seen Ben use the Torah or the Bible in his arguments, unless someone asking him a question at the end of his talks that brings religion up.
@@theelephantintheroom69 I've watched approximately 10 of his full speech videos which are somewhere from 1.5 to 2 hours long and in any of those videos , i don't recall him citing Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms or any part of the Old Testament that would back up any of his political beliefs. Like I said in my past comment, when people have tried to use Scripture to justify their political views or they have heard someone else has and they bring that up to him at the end of his speeches is the only times I have heard him speak on religion. It seems like you know in enough that you should know this, so I don't see your point in the way you replied.
@@AjejeB It really doesn't. Pig faeces are too acidic and damages plants. Whilst cow and horse manure help crops, the pig faeces need to be kept away from cultures. Salad is pig shit as much as you are a Sun.
Joe Rogan beautifully asks the tough questions. And Ben answers honestly, he is strong in his faith. I love this debate because it’s two so contrasting views and they have a civil conversation. Great learning
The discussion here was excellent. Two guys, with opposing opinions, speaking calmly and intellectually w/o cursing, shouting and making disparaging comments about each other. THIS is how it should be done. Kudos to both of them....
Ben Shapiro is literally arguing that gay people are lesser and aren't worthy of having the same basic civil rights. You should also know Ben Shapiro ridiculed the Lawrence Vs Texas decision a decade after it banned states from making homosexuality illegal. The dude is a depraved lunatic.
@@tristanbarrilleaux5535 , no, he argues that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, which means he opposes the actual decision that made gay marriage a constitutional right. He is being misleading about his position. Also people who have homophobic or racist or any other kind of prejudiced belief because of their religion should find better interpretations. That isn't a good excuse to have irrational prejudices against people.
i feel like more christians should have the approach that ben and most other jews have. "do whatever you like, the government shouldn't get involved. but if you want to be a part of *our* religion, there's rules"
As a gay man I agree with that. I don’t want to force other people to conform to my worldview but I also don’t want to be actively harassed or disrespected.
Yeah it's his show. He manipulates it the way he wants. He asks questions in a way that corners shapiro like he's really saying " you really believe in god??? You really believe in miracles???" Because Shapiro's convictions are more towards rules than actually faith he stumbles when answering. I would be like " yup! I believe that moses parted the red sea! I believe in miracles! I believe it all!" And just let it be a discussion of belief and unbelief...which is essentially what it is
I really respect how Joe can engage with a difficult topic and have some meaningful dialogue out of it. Even though he doesn't agree with a lot of the points raised, he still has a constructive conversation.
Agree 100%. This is how I have engaged in debate all my life. It's also how I imagined debate should be. Not to win but to learn and grow. Truth is, I'm gay but I find it fascinating how the religious think AND I find it even more interesting how they rationalize and are still accepting of gay people in the modern world. I have no hate for their beliefs. On the contrary, I enjoy learning reasonable, everyday people's reasoning for why they hold them. Most of them don't have any special hate for gays they just don't have a personal experience into that perspective. We all need to appreciate that point.
tookings I feel the same way but from the other perspective lol, honestly the only standpoint on it I have is that sex outside of marriage is a sin, so sure two men or women or whomever having sex is a sin, but so is a man and a woman having sex outside of marriage🤷🏻♂️ I donno I think people forget the fact that everyone sins so if ya wanna criticize someone for theirs become perfect first lol
They're not disagreeing here? as far as laws go at least. Ben is just saying that according to his morality to stick to his religious beliefs, he cannot condone the act. Doesn't mean he thinks it's to be shunned, made illegal, or the sort.
I noticed that too. Ben is so used to debates and people talking over him or dismissing him that he has adapted this state of tension even in lighthearted conversations.
@@glowrillaz and he is all for it. An argument from joe wont spark anything. Ben will just make points constantly. He debates. This isnt anything new for him to be disagreed with.
Matt Clark Even though Joe was arguing, Ben agreed with most of view, conceding that he has no reason to shun gay people/marriage besides religious covenants.
I’m happy now and living as my authentic self. I also feel closer to God now, not trying to be someone I’m not. Being with a woman felt wrong. Like I was doing something i wasn’t supposed to be doing. But now I am happy.
Honestly I believe the way people feel and/or think--Their personality I guess--does affect how they look as they grow up. It kinda makes sense because you hold your body language which includes facial expressions by how you feel and what you think and your muscles must grow in to those suspensions as you grow. To me he looks as though he was always told he was correct - which I think he is alot of the time - and had a very sheltered childhood. That's why I think he always looks smug. Not hating here dudes... Just a theory of somebody who's studied biology at a university level but has never done any sort of research on this particular matter... In fact I think my education didn't even touch on any sort of matter like this. :)
That’s what he is saying. He doesn’t care. But him going to the party of two gay men is supporting a sinful event in his eyes. It’s not that he cares if they bang eachother it’s that he would knowingly be sinning by going to the party.
Yeah, Joe did a great job. It's his job to ask the difficult questions. I think Ben also answered well, though obviously some people in the comments still misunderstood.
Joe Rogan is the kind of guy who can disagree with you on many things but still doesn't make you feel like a horrible person for having differing beliefs. This is the best way to have tough and important conversations.
I try to roll like Joe with all these challenging situation’s in the world today. It really works to be mellow when talking to people plus I smoke weed also.❤💨💨💨💨💨💨💨💨👋😊
I would argue that you’re giving him too much credit. The reason he can be so chill is because he doesn’t ACTALLY care. It doesn’t affect him. But change the subject to weed and watch him fly off the handle.
I don't know why Rogan keeps arguing folks don't understand biology if you don't recognize same sex relations is a thing. Biology, strictly speaking, says only a male and a female can produce children. The fact that you may have sexual urges for the same sex is not a biology thing. -OG
Sexual urges are absolutely biological. I never chose to be attracted to women, I just am. I can remember as far back as 4 years old being attracted to girls. That's biology. Anything dictated strictly by your body is biological.
@@LukeNorther it's really not amazing, dialogue like this should be the standard. Instead we get discussions and when people disagree they throw hissy fits
Vito Adame Although my beliefs align with Ben Shapiro’s, I agree with this comment. Making a witty comment about a quality someone has doesn’t have to mean the person making the comment is using their comment as a way to discredit anything that comes out of the mouth of the person they’re making a witty comment about.
Reece A We all know Ben Shapiro’s claim to fame is “facts don’t care about your feelings”. So, to see him justify his weird, backwards anti-gay stance on marriage with a book full of logical fallacies is effectively Ben Shapiro taking facts and throwing them out the window. You’re an atheist so I’m sure you would agree that holy books aren’t exactly factual. It’s not that gay marriage is inherently justified by facts, it’s that Ben Shapiro is using feelings to justify limiting freedom. And that, my friend, is ironic and hilarious
@@thomasfoolery5031 Agreed, but I still respect that he admits it's just his personal opinion and doesn’t want to impose it on everyone. Everyone has biases, so I don't judge him harshly for it, still funny though.
C W of course, but i can’t help think his personal reasoning is really dumb. I know shapiro is a smart guy so it’s stunning to me that he can spew out Ted Cruz level talking points like that
@@mightymurph3949 Been a couple weeks since I watched, but I think I was pointing out how Joe kinda kept interrupting him before he even explains his stance. Also it's not that Ben "cares" about gay marriage. He's not gonna go jump in front of two guys at a wedding screaming "NOO YOU CANT DO THAT." The point is that his religion states it as a sin, therefore he doesn't believe in it. It is a taboo for him. Seemed a lot like Joe didn't really understand this. And that is mostly evident with the fact that he's asking Ben "Why do you care?" at least 3 or 4 times when Ben really doesn't, his religion does. Not sure his reason for replying but seemed like he wanted to be a smartass tho. Thank you for being a genuinely curious and not a smartass like the other guy. Haha
@@TillerOG Personally the question is valid. He's responding from HIS religion and not HIMSELF. To which he keeps asking "Why do you care". He doesn't you're right. His religion does, but it still doesn't answer Joes question.
Joe is a great interviewer. He can totally disagree with someone and still have a calm collective conversation. This is how it should be. Just two people sharing ideas learning different point of views from each other. This is why Joe is the number one podcast.
I think the problem here is that society has had a horrible understanding of a conversation. Now days you cant even say fat, without having 20 people coming at you mad and insulted.
@@chrism8311 Shapiro said so himself, he doesn’t care what other people do. It’s just a rule in respective religions that you can’t be gay if you follow that religion. He explicitly said “I’m not trying to convert anyone”
@@chrism8311 "How can you respect someone with views like that..." And his argument would hold the same weight if he said the same thing about you. "How could i respect someone that promotes sinful behaviour?"... this type of thinking is far more dangerous than what his actual beliefs are. And yeah, i totally disagree with everything he says... at least i was able to hear it without someone shouting bigot and other insults...
I mean there might've been an element of truth to the story but embellishment over decennia due to word of mouth has likely diluted it severely. As in there might've been rafts involved at one point but to make the story more epic they were removed for example.
@@dnw009 This is likely the case for the entire new testament. Jesus died and nothing was written down for at least 30 years afterwards, and his stories were told via word of mouth by superstitious Christians for decades. Of course it's full of mythology and miracles and embellishment.
Wow Joe actually gave Ben Shapiro a good challenging argument this episode, but still came across respectfully, and Ben still kept his cool and didn’t get too defensive. This is how more debates should be performed.
Its easy to just play devil's advocate and not really stand on a point. Joe just tossed out a sample of a few contrary perspectives he doesn't even stand on himself. Not a debate at all when its opinions and not facts, Kinda like arguing with a woman.
Joe doesn't debate people. That's why his show is so good. It's not too egotistical jackasses trying to argue. It's just people talking in their living room witch mics in front of their face.
K1NGSP1T wow people really out here being purposefully obtuse in the comments for no other reason that to argue. Holy shit, it couldn’t be anymore painfully obvious that the phrase red hair refers to ginger. But noooo, you just had to do the thing. Fuck the overall message, You just HAD to be that guy who takes things too literal for the sole purpose of arguing about semantics. Leave my notifications alone.
The argument that 'it's just my personal religious beliefs and it doesn't affect you' is all well and good but when 80 million evangelicals use that same argument at the same time and then vote as a block against gay rights, well, then it does affect other people. The follow-up to that is, 'even if the majority of our society, which is secular, hold that same belief, do you still think that it should have no effect on the rights of gay people?'
He literally says that those "rules" only apply to those who decide to partake in the religion, and that he does no wish to control the life of others through the government
Exactly. I would like to see tim pool and ben shapiro get punched in the face. Can't stand these anxious emotional fast talking pricks. Gets me annoyed.
The idea that gay men should marry women for their religion led to my parents unhappy marriage and subsiquent divorce. It's a toxic idea and harms both parties.
Straight As A Rainbow you don’t have to get married, if you don’t want to be straight and want to get married to the same sex then don’t practice the religion
@@MrFryer10 when you grow up in a religion, and the alternative to being in it means possible rejection from everyone you know, you can't just leave. That's an illusion people try to hold up. The fact is that religion is buried very deep in a lot of people, and to go against it, even if it can lead to a more happy life, involves rewriting your identity and often losing the people you love.
@@straightasarainbow5344 sounds like the only thing your dad could've done to be happy is to do what he wanted. If he didn't, that's still on him. I'm not saying society is fair or that it treated him the way it should've. But he picked his family over his identity. He probably wouldn't do any different if he could because he got to have you. Remember to forgive society for being society, no one likes it, but we all deal with it in our way. Just stay positive with your Dad and reflect on the positive memories that resulted from his decision years ago.
He was quoting the bible not offering his own naturalistic explanation of how it was done. Whereas the not eating pig offers no real naturalistic explanation.
@@aggressivehumor6156 Yeah but he's still more than willing to accept a naturalistic explanation for the red sea just because it says it in the Bible. But the bible tells him not to eat pork, even though there is an actual naturalistic explanation to why you CAN eat pork, but he chooses the bible still Hes still a fuckwit
I Am Merciless you know it was a death sentence to grow wheat and corn next to each other or to walk to far on the sabbath? The King James Bible claims mouth kissing will take you to hell. You had to allow your husband sex at will and stay if you were beaten. Some change is positive.
@@michaelheffernan7113 Ben Shapiro ‘Owns the Libs’...But Who Owns Him? - TYT Network legacy.tyt.com/2018/07/31/ben-shapiro-owns-the-libs-but-who-owns-him/
Ben: "I don't like naturalistic explanations for religion." Joe: "You don't have any miracles?" Ben: "You've got Moses splitting the sea." Joe: "What do you think happened there?" Ben: "There's a naturalistic explanation for that."
Joe is great at not pushing too hard when he starts to nail a guest down on a point - he eases up and allows the conversation to flow comfortably. Despite the occasional BS, I am always so impressed by Shapiro's intelligence and sharpness. Nice convo to witness
Ben Shapiro: “I’m not a big fan of naturalistic explanation of religious ideas” Ben Shapiro less than 5 minutes later talking about Moses splitting the Red Sea: “Yeah so there’s a naturalistic explanation for the physical phenomena”
@@illusive1276 it's still funny how shapiro picks and chooses when to apply empiricism. Shapiro has no qualms citing research when he thinks it's going to help his argument (ie, people are more likely to think Judaism is true if they think splitting the red sea really happened). But he selectively cordons off scientific naturalism in cases where it could obviously threaten his argument. Shapiro does this a lot, he narrows the playing field and tries to set the terms of the debate to protect his sacred cows The second you question the assumptions his ideas rest on, his glossy arguments tend to melt away, and all that's left underneath is this deformed stump of Westboro Baptist style apologetics mixed with reaganism.
@@wolfumz He makes a sound argument here though, like i said earlier you can use natural explanations to describe physical events but when you try using naturalism for all religious idea/rules then its more difficult. He also said that it might be true that being gay has a biological element to it but that still doesnt change the fact that you are still sinning in context of religion. Just because somebody has a drive to do something whether its biological or not doesn't make it sinless. straight Men have a biological drive to have sex with any hot girl they meet but religion doesn't allow sex before marriage. A poor person might have a drive to steal because they are hungry but stealing is still a sin regardless. A Jew/Muslim might eat non kosher/non halal because it tastes good but it's still sinning. Same concept applies to feeling attracted to the same sex. He also said that these things are just a ''buy in'' if you want to be part of the religion, and it you dont want to be part of it then thats fine. You can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others or shove your idealogies and criticism down his throat.
@@illusive1276 Shapiro at least honors the concept that sexual attraction is not purely a choice. St. Thomas Aquinas made a point to say stealing to feed yourself if you're starving is not a mortal sin, and the position Catholic Church has taken that position for the last 700 years. It's still in a sin the broad sense that you're offending justice itself. Jewish theology has tended to land on the idea it is not sinful, so long as the victim is compensated later, although Shapiro seems to give little credence to Jewish thought when it comes to the issues of the day. I'm sympathetic to the "just because you have a biological drive.." argument. I'm an addict in recovery. I abstain from any mood-altering substances. A glance at family history would suggest I have genes, genes I didn't chose, driving my predisposition to enjoy substances while being poorly equipped to stop. The major difference is that I'm healthier and happier when I abstain, I cause less harm, while gays are made miserable when they abstain from same sex attraction. These biological defects, of course, bring up the bigger question of why God would see fit to create suffering like this to begin with, but that's where Shapiro stakes off the edges and says "well it's a free country." My gripe with Shapiro is he ostensibly takes that position ("It's a free country") when he's sitting across the table from Joe Rogan, but then he goes home and tirelessly works to codify his religious positions into law (ie abortion). He's a zealous defender of his own freedoms, but someone else's freedom to pursue happiness, suddenly that's a cultural poison where the state needs to intervene.
It is always strange to hear religious people argue that homosexuality is a choice. "Just choose to stop having sex" they say. But you understand they go on with that obscene and pretentious point of view because they have no choice. It breaks their tiny mythos to challenge them with known modern science...
The difference is he didnt ascribe a naturalistic explanation to an occurrence in the bible, the bible itself says what he quoted The bible said a wind parted the sea. In contrast, it doesn't say to "don't eat pork because microscopic parasites will enter your body if its not cooked to a precise temperature, where it will enter your bloodstream and travel your circulatory system before lodging into your brain." It just says dont eat pork without an explanation.
Kevin P his "religion" doesn't need mans protection. His belief has survived more than any other belief system, throughout mans existence. And has proven itself over and over and over again. For it is G-d's faithful servant, the nation of Israel, who has the lords protection, evermore.
I think the biggest flaw in Ben's argument was when Joe brought up sterile couples. He said there are other benefits to sex, such as strengthening the relationship, etc. That is true for gay people, too.
@@ethanbazinet5099 Sorry, that really had nothing to do with what you said. More to the OP's point. Speaking only to the Catholic perspective, the consummating act's primary purpose is procreative, while there is also a secondary unitive purpose. The church's position is that however unitive the act may be for the gay couple, it cannot be procreative. Speaking to the issue of sterility, while this may be the case in terms of a _specific_ heterosexual couple, the rules are made "as a class" - if you will - for the genders. Therefore, two people are made permissible or impermissible to marry at birth by the sex they are assigned at that time, and are not later disqualified on account of sterility. Put bluntly, the logic is based in procedural jurisprudence, not in practical reality. To illustrate further just how much the decision is procedural in nature and an abstraction of - rather than directly related to - procreation, while sterility is not a disqualifying factor, it turns out that impotence/frigidity IS a disqualifier. This is to say that while the consummative act must be procreative in fundamental nature, even if non-productive in practice, it also must be procreative in resemblance, even if it should also be obscure in appearance - done out of sight of anyone to see
Well if that's the simplicity of the way you see it then you don't sound very bright. Think critically a bit harder and unbiasedly, you can find out why he's like that
It's none of anyone's business what two adults do in a consensual relationship, simple as that. Edit: Some of you missed the point, I said CONSENSUAL, so stop making weird points for your argument. If it's consensual and between adults then it's none of your business.
That’s pretty much Shapiro’s point. It’s his personal belief, but ultimately he won’t tell you what to do and what does his personal opinion on gay marriage matter to you anyways? At least that’s what I got from it.
@@YaBoiFetz Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact it's more common than you'd think a 2009 survey of scientists found 52% were religious 41% non religious and 7% refused to answer. This polling data matched with previous polls as well, it wasn't a one-off. If you thought scientists were all atheists then clearly you were wrong, even among the general public atheism is still pretty rare, the percentage of the population that claims no religion is 18.2% as of 2016. That 18.2% isn't 100% atheists however, the chunk is shared with people that claim the believe in a higher power, just not any specific religion, and that's more than half of that 18.2%.
Clearly you weren't actually listening since he was asked specifically for the naturalistic view of the red sea. He'd already mentioned he personally doesn't hold those views himself he didn't need to repeat it. Pay better attention.
@@DrCooch religion believes in someone they cant see, science believes in a explosion that created the world, I'm not trying to insult anyone by the way
For those who are christians and think its ok to have same sex relation, go and read "Romans 1:27-28". Bible states homosexuality as sin. That doesn't change you liked it or not.
First the Bible isn't a good guideline for sexual morality. It promotes incest, polygamy and even rape Second homosexuality wasn't in the Bible until the catholic church changed the meaning of Arsenokoitai from young boylover to homosexual. In fact most read the KJV. King James was a homosexual himself
