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.
This conversation kept circling around the same issue for 10 minutes and Matt cant articulate his rationale. I applaud Joe for digging and questioning the "why".
@@andrewwatts8240 Agreed. As a bisexual Christian Deist, I wish people like Walsh would stop relying on the Bible in intellectual discourse. It's not a good look.
@@AppleOfThineEyebecause if marriage is based on love, why cant i marry my family or dog? Christians invented marriage, if you want a union use another term
@@nickxcaliber7991Christians did not invent the term marriage or marriage itself, it predates your Religion. You can marry your friend. No one will stop you. You can't marry a dog because a dog can't consent.
@@andrewwatts8240Yes, it’s 100% religion. And nothing wrong with religion. I’m Christian myself. But there’s a separation between church and state for a reason. There are places the world that don’t separate religious law and state law, and most of us don’t want to live in those places.
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?
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!!
Well, he's making a philosophical point, not a "real life" one, lol. The fact is people get married for MANY reasons, most of which are probably not good ones lol. The point is to be committed to ONE person for your ENTIRE life. If you cannot imagine being with that person at their WORST (which could mean severe illness at ANY stage of life, including being handicapped/comatose), then you absolutely should not consider the question of marriage, just reject it out of hand.
@@francescopietropaolo8598except he actually didn’t, he answered fictional questions that weren’t asked or provided false equivalencies such as comparing the definition of a woman vs the definition of marriage which is not at all an equivalence
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
BS. link, quote, etc., please, of matt saying that there should be laws that married people should have children, or laws that certain people shouldn't be allowed to marry. i'm calling huge BS. i agree w/ matt, btw. marriage is not man-made, it is for a man and woman and one of it's primary functions is to procreate. he's not wrong.
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.
It's because Joe kept asking him questions provoking more conversation. I think Matt didn't want to explicitly state that gay marriage is wrong, at the expense of sounding like a bigot or whatever. Personally, gay marriage is wrong because like Matt says, marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. Something gays cannot do. Go ahead and say I'm a bigot.
quick question. Because I disagree with Matt's answer. By that logic would you say a couple thats infertile cannot get married because they can't procreate?? I feel like this are just excuses to say what they truly believe. And there's nothing wrong if you believe gay marriage is wrong because you don't support homoxesuality, just say so. But saying is because marriage is supposed to procreate is just plain stupid and that's why Joe started with the "what if couples don't wanna have kids?" Because the argument is flawed.
@@Tebytorozo13This isn't particularly a good counter scenario, because infertile people still marry under the same "principle", which explains why they go on to adopt to "make up for it". Moreover, in the case of not wanting kids regardless of whether the couple is fertile or not, that still holds because "sexual relationship" has also been seen as a concept of marriage - which explains "no sex before marriage" .
@@The-Traveler-And-Wandereri agree. I think it’s just a matter of preserving the definition of marriage. Same sex couples should have the same right to a partner but why call it marriage ? I’ve made airplanes and flew them for decades. Then someone invented a helicopter. Why don’t we call them airplanes too ? They both do the same thing? We don’t call them the same thing because they are different. Not because you are against helicopters or anything. Not sure why people are so offended by this. Yes not saying don’t let gays get together.
EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a RU-vid 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"
@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.
I don’t have anything against Matt Walsh, i also enjoyed his documentary. But seeing him just keep failing to even consider joe’s point is kinda sad. He is so focused about how gay marriags makes him feel that he can’t see that marriage is just a legal institution to ensure financial and legal privileges to a couple. Which they should have if they want to regardless of their sex
@@declanfraney6372 it doest matter at the end is made for that... The important is kids are inside the marriage and not outside Because is better for them and give safety to the family If in the end you have kids or not doesn't matter...just better if you have them inside a marriage Do you understand the point?
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.
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?
This was a conversation - not a debate. The conversation was about a topic they disagree on. Matt is right on historic grounds - marriage was “invented” to Secure the woman and the offspring from being without a man. The “till death do us part” part was meant for the man to provide for the woman and children (family) for the rest of his life. Marriage was a Bond of protection.
@@christiankrausekjr5575 That it Is made just for people for no raising kid out of marriage only because your ancestors realized that it always finished in single mom stuff That's why ...that actually a society rule made thousand years ago to protect mom and kid and its funny now how feminist are destroying it...because is patriarchic for them.... Stupidity sad modern stupidity destroying society People just doesn't understand tradition and why they were made of since long ago ....
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.
@LogicCaster the whole conversation is literally based on this Matt guy's opinion he believes his definition of a marriage should apply to everyone. I never once in my life thought about marriage as procreation. It's just marriage a legal bond of two people has nothing really to do with children
@@mrmr-qx4jq No its based on our species relying on marriage as a means of civilised procreation since the dawn of civilisation up until the past 40 years where the west tried playing with that idea and ended up skyrocketing the divorce rate from 2% 40 years ago to above 50% today. Your model does not work. Either marriage is procreative or marriage gets destroyed for everybody, which is not a good thing.
@@mrmr-qx4jqThats because you aren't very bright. The whole institution of marriage is made mostly to help with child rearing. Just because you've never realized it, it doesn't make it not true.
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.✌️✝️
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 RU-vid 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.
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
There’s so many easy ways to pick apart Matt’s argument - Matt’s definition of marriage is based off of “feelings” as much as the opposing side - Matt also didn’t give any clear definition, he just kept adding things he FELT that marriages require - Having kids can be just as selfish as not having kids. There’s many couples that refuse to adopt because they’re obsessed with the idea of their own offspring. It can be as self-centered as not having kids. - Marriage also binds two people by law, as Joe stated, which helps both individuals financially through their lives and even after one spouse passes away Matt just feels some type of way and is upset that not everyone feels the same way
At the end of it he goes to ask the only woman who's opinion matters - but finds a note on the counter instead "Matt, i took the kids and am moving far away - i've been sleeping with your mom"
@@coughwheezeexplode What the hell is going on? B. Walsh give J. Rogan specific, biological, functional, rational, scientific, technical description of: why the two gays relation is not a marriage. And JR is just...throw away all this and stick with "ooh, let them do what they want". What is wrong with you JR? What happend to your scientific, rational approach? It is a BASIC rule of the civilized world! Definitions! Ok, maybe this you will get it... Let say, there's a guy who has a bicycle. But he always wanted to be a motorcyclist. But he is to small (motorcycles are to heavy for him), he doesn't like the smell of gasoline. But he wants to fill like motocyclist. So he finally force you to call his bicycle - the motorcycle :/ And your approach is "oh, let him call it how he want - it will not hurt anyone", "Why not? Both has two wheels, so it's almost the same thing". NO IT IS NOT! Normal, reasonable people don't change THE MEANING of words, agaist the logic - just to make same people fill better! The WISHES of minority are not the reasons to force MAJORITY to change the definitions of well described...phenomena! You still don't get it? You will be against when some tae-bo practicioners will DEMAND to call their trening as MMA fight! You will be against when KIA owners will force you to call their cars the "muscle cars". Etc., etc. etc., etc. BE REASONABLE! Be logic! Be consistent! Be coherent! Basics of civilization. But no, in this one case, you abandon your common sense, rules, logic...now the only rule is - whim: "I want that, and you all must obey to my whim" And there is a "parasite" behaviour. They don't CREATE their own definitions. They are like parasite - they take our well-functioning definitions - and they DESTROY IT. All this cancel-culture and so on. They are just DESTROYING. They don't create. They are PARASITES.
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
Matt was jumping around the real reason why...he believes the Bible is the inspired word of God and God says marriage "by definition" is between a man and woman. Therefore, people of the same sex cannot get "married" in the eyes of God. The Bible is a Christians ultimate authority. You (and Joe) need to state what your ultimate authority is and then debate the issue on why that ultimate authority is more truthful/or valid to argue from.
@@tr889actually personal “ultimate authority” doesn’t matter because getting married is solely a legal thing and religion has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for Matt, we don’t live in a theocracy
Who says marriage is only a legal thing? In what worldview is that true? Who gets to define what is true for everyone? Why should humans have "rights" over a Cockroach?
I wish all politicians could conduct debates like Joe Rogan does. He keeps a level head, he doesn't raise his voice, he doesn't talk over you, he doesn't insult you, etc. Imagine if ALL politicians went about debating like that. It used to be like that until the 2000s.
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.
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.
Everyone is commenting on how civil this discussion is. I can’t argue against that. It was definitely civil. But I think it’s important to remember one key detail-one man is arguing for minding his own business and letting people live their lives peacefully. The other is arguing in favor of legislating the lives and humanity of a group of people he doesn’t belong to. It’s about his feelings and fuck who other people are. THAT is why discussions like this end up devolving in to shouting matches. It’s one thing to have different opinions on healthcare policy or economics. It’s another thing to argue against an entire population of people and say they can’t be happy. Stop acting surprised when people respond aggressively in those debates.
Except he didn't say that at all. He specifically says multiple times he is not arguing in favor of legislation and that people can do what they want. Joe is asking his opinions on marriage and what it is and what it means. Walsh is giving his opinions on those topics. People take contrary opinions or critiques as attacks on who they are as a person, that is why debates end in aggression.
Assuming you’re talking about Joe doing the arguing in favor of legislating the lives and humanity of a group he doesn’t belong to?? Joe isn’t gay so why is he advocating for gay people to pretend they can get married? He admits marriage is a man made institution. And it was made with meaning and purpose. The word “Hello” is man made yet it still has one singular definitive meaning and purpose and nobodies feeling or opinion can change the word “Hello”. Marriage is the joining of one man flesh and woman flesh becoming one flesh. Man and woman 2 flesh become 1 flesh. 2 men can not meet this requirement nor can 2 woman. So why can’t Joe the others just create a new institution with a new meaning that allows the joining of 2 men or 2 women? Why must they be a part of something that they simply do not quality for? Are roller coaster height requirements also attacks on short peoples humanity? Or is it simply a requirement? Does the UFC hate babies or is the UFC simply not designed to have babies in the ring? Very dumb of you
Marriage is between a man and a woman. And sexual morality being destroyed affects everyone including our children and the society. Nobody said anything about you not being able to be happy that’s a emotional feminine argument. Nobody can stop you from being happy we just don’t want to see your sexual perversion. You can be happy behind closed doors that’s happened for hundreds of years.
Why do gays have a need to push their perversion in our faces? Yes men having sex with men or women having sex with women is perverted within the natural world. Staying in the closet would have been the smarter choice....two consenting adults should be left alone to live how they want but when your choice goes against the norm then problems are going to happen. Gays can leave their personal possessions to each other legally, they don't have to be married to do that. I see the gay movement as making you accept their life style whether you like it or not....that will never work!
Wow the mental gymnastics this guy is going thru. The great lengths he’s going to go be anti marriage equality. He wouldn’t want a rule banning childless marriages, or want a rule saying you have to have a certain number of kids. But I bet he’d love to see marriage equality overturned. Man, live your life and believe what you believe, but leave other people the hell alone.
No, he would love to see the people who sued the church and hijacked western marriage shunned for their behaviour because they should have made their own word up in the first place. Civil union was coined for them but they wanted to steal marriage from normal people so they could feel less filthy and abnormal.
@@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.
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.
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.
@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.
Walsh is trying to get Joe to understand. Joe just keeps repeating the same point. Joe is slow on the uptake about nuance here. It’s not just “are you for or against” personal choice. It’s about “just because it’s a personal choice, does that mean it’s the best?” The answer is no. Sometimes we make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. That’s what Joe is failing to grasp. Walsh is trying to get him to understand how society can get better, not just exist in its current condition.
@@MYWRLDVW LOL did we watch the same video? walsh isnt trying anything, hes just repeating the same igorant, rote argument. its joe who understands. walsh is a dense moron who was probably raised by awful people that forced him into such an archaic way of thinking. marriage is human-invented. thats the beginning and end of the argument. wake up kid
@@MYWRLDVW But the part people like Walsh ALWAYS fail to answer is “best for who?” It’s like when people try to convince other’s to get an electric car because it’s “better” for the environment therefore everyone should get an electric car despite the variables of things such as distance limitations, battery replacements and high initial costs that aren’t realistically achievable for everyone are in place. But who care’s about that because it’s “better” for our society and our environment. Sometimes people make personal choices that reflect us not being at our best. And sometimes they make the right choice for themselves and the people around them. It’s situational. This “I don’t think it’s a good idea” mentality simply doesn’t work
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.
@@Zure467 the separation aspect itself between two parents is what damages a child (i assume that's what you're referring to). a preexisting long term relationship and STABILITY is what's most important to a family unit , whether that be in the form of an official marriage or not. i understand not wanting to get married too ; it's stupid. the "marriage" itself is not important at all when it comes to having kids , what traditionally constitutes a marriage is though.
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.
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 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.
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.
I will always appreciate when two people can calmly talk and disagree, so this is great. But Matt clearly cannot dig deeper than his surface level disagreements. He doesn’t want gay people to get married because he doesn’t want them to get married. Simple as that, and when Joe invites stronger talking points he goes back to his very shallow ideas.
@@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
@@user-uz3rl7hl7tNo match argument is that the purpose of marriage was for couples to create a nuclear family, You know those things that generally create kids that become productive members of society whereas most kids that are fucked up and grew up to be criminals don't come from a solid nuclear family
@@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
I’ve decided I don’t want kids, but It’s funny because every single reason I can think of as to why I’d maybe want to have them are all selfish reasons. Twins run in my family and I’d love to test my chances out in having a set. I’d love to pick out cute names for them. I worry that maybe I’ll be lonely or need help taking care of myself when I’m older. So no, I don’t think I’ll be having children in this lifetime, because that would be very self centered of me.
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??
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 😂.
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.
If you have a problem with every single married couple in the world abstaining from having children, then it is not wrong to have a problem if a percentage of couples abstain from 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.
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
I think a lot of right leaning individuals have forgot what it means to be conservative. In my opinion (I’m not conservative) the fundamentals of being conservative is freedom of the people of America, yet they want to take away all sorts of rights from people who are not harming anyone. It’s very redundant.
While the left wants to give men the right to enter womens bathrooms and dress in drag in front of children whilst encouraging children to mutiIate themselves and take drugs
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!
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.
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
@@jlooox333 Matt Walsh is the embodiment of exactly what's wrong with both sides. No one wants freedom. They want their way to be the only way. Especially religious zealots who claim to be the "freedom party" yet want everyone to be one religion.
@@tristankrager9789 Their way to be the only way? Marriage intrinsically linked to God and our relationship with God. It's people like Joe with the opinion on their way is the only way trying to change this sacred joining of two people to suit their secular worldview.
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.
“So you’re trying to impose your sensibilities onto other people.” That’s exactly what he’s doing, because he’s trying to appeal to a definition of marriage (which is a manmade institution with no inherent definition) that people with the same sensibilities as him came up with, and then trying to argue that anyone with different sensibilities is destroying not just his definition of marriage, but _the_ definition of marriage.
@@AppleOfThineEye I guess LogicCaster has never experienced being in love and being loved back, where you want to spend the rest of your life with that person and yet just one moment with that person is worth a whole lifetime. Where, because of that single moment, you can say, "I can die tomorrow happily 'cuz my life has been so joyous and worthwhile."
@@zbighugh9193 Yeah. Guy is so morally lost he's spent a year in this comment section railing against equal rights. His latest misadventure is telling women how they feel. Big yikes!
@@zbighugh9193 Of course i have and im experiencing that love now. But the argument from YOUR side is that love fades and divorce should be encouraged. Im suggesting you have a child with someone you love so you cant deny seeing her face on something you both created out of love. A true miracle. A literal new human as a representation of your undying love for one another, even if you HATE eachother personality after 20 years. That child is the love, that child makes it all worth it, till death do you part.
It’s easy to remain civil when you have no skin in the game. But it’s still nice to see, and this makes me want to watch more Joe Rogan. I thought he was entirely on the far right. What I see here is a compassionate centrist, even leaning liberal.
People over-exaggerate how right-wing he is because the Overton Window has shifted significantly to the left. And also because people complained that he self-medicated Covid. He's a libertarian guy -- which was once considered to be left-tilted, whereas it's now often seen as right-tilted or even right-leaning. Personally, I'm a right-wing libertarian with socially center-liberal beliefs.
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.
@@Boneyard250 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.
@@Boneyard250 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
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.
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.
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.
Marriage is not just a meaningless status, but as Joe pointed out the legal status it provides is actually very helpful, for instance, when moving abroad, or going to a hospital to one's spouse, or when sharing/inheriting all sorts of possessions or real estate. So gay couples would not be able to have all that unless it was allowed.
And the divorce rate jumping from 2% to above 50% is because we destroyed marriages true purpose, to bond a man and a woman for the sake of procreation.
@@LogicCaster “you people”, got it nice to see you finally have the balls to show what you really think You have no place saying I dont know love and you know it. You know nothing about me, but I know enough about you to know what a complete waste of potential you’ve turned yourself into No, YOU think its all about sexual attraction. No one has spoken more about sexual attractions in this entire comment section than YOU. We (the reasonable people) are advocating for equal treatment and protection under the law. While you babble about sexuality with an archaic worldview. You’re are totally useless
He should interview more politicians. Notice how he just keeps asking the same question over and over lol, he's not about to let Matt change the subject until he answers
Same, I'm not disrespecting any work Matt Walsh did as a creator, but I saw his documentary: What is a woman? And he's incredibly offensive in my opinion. I truly can't stand how close minded and stubborn he can be about the questions he tries to control to get the answer he wants, and Joe Rogan is not playing that shit 👏🏿
I don't agree with Joe about alot of things, but he's really showing that you can be a bro-type dude who's sceptical about a lot of liberal assumptions, but still be able to call out complete BS that comes from guys like this.
Everyone here is absolutely wrong. Completely missing the point. Societal family structure is being distorted for individualism and the one that didn’t back down was Walsh. Joe was actually the one peddling resorting to hypotheticals. Sad
Dear Matt, you might nog like it, but things and views have a tendency to change overtime. That is a law of nature. The very natural world you're such a fan of.
Actually there probably never was a formal debate where one debater was won over by his opponent. It's just a kind of entertainment. So, we should not debate things, instead we should discuss things, like in this video.
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.
Marriage functions only when two people are fully committed into working at it repeatedly over and over when things get hard. It’s not easy no relationship is easy but people often get married without wanting to really commit or change things in order to benefit the other partner. Also Religion makes marriage a permanent agreement and marriages that happen outside of religion aren’t seen as permanent as you can get divorce papers and go through a divorce if it doesn’t work out. It’s lack of commitment, lack of religion and lack of traditional marriage values that result in a lot of modern marriages falling through.
@@sauceboss3808 yes that’s one way. People have different perspectives of what marriage means. just like how people have different views on the meaning of life or religion. In this world majority doesn’t rule, people will always live life their own way even through persecution.
Joe does his typical great job of an expanded long form discussion. I was disappointed that Matt couldn’t say that those that take his side on this argument just don’t want to advocate in any way something that they see as sinful. Unfortunately there is no argument that really works to not allow people the right to choose their own lifestyle. Legal marriage is not a religious or moral issue because of its legal nature.
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.
@@ratatoskr9366 That's just how Matt always talks, even on his podcast. It didn't help that Joe was constantly interrupting and completely missing the point. Most non-conservatives just cannot wrap their head around conservative concepts.
His argument is too extreme, if the institution of the hospital is to save lives and everyone that comes in with an emergency and their life is not saved does that diminish what the hospital represents to the point that's its meaningless. Or are there many ways to help people even in that setting and it develops and adapts. Marriage was meant a certain way a long time ago it is adapting with the times
