In this episode Trent breaks down the recent discussion Matt Walsh and podcaster Joe Rogan had on the issue of marriage. To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Something you'll recognize about Rogan's positions is that every one of them is focused on the gratification of the individual in question and never about what an individual ought to do for the good of more than just their personal desire.
Definitely a reoccurring thing when Joe explains why someone might want to get married. As if the public is obligated to make someone happy or achieve their personal dreams and goals lol.
Yes but rogan believes homosexuality is not a harm to society. While many Christians believe homosexuality corrupts the world and should not be confirmed legally
Being childless can let you contribute plenty much to society. Its unsubstantiated to suggest otherwise. Matt badly falters by not answering that. Demanding married people who have the ability, to have kids is insane. To deem them , as Trent and Matt Walsh do, as taking part in some sort of second tier marriage is some pretty cold and unsupported logic.
For anyone who thought Matt was holding back, he did kinda mention that he was trying to make his arguments against gay marriage as 'non-religious' as he possibly could, (presumably) because of how Joe Rogan tends to dismiss any viewpoint with an immediate religious tag as thoughtless rules/ideas that cannot be challenged.
If he was trying to make a “non-religious” argument against gay marriage he failed miserably. Joe Rogan seemed to be the most consistent based on the conversation. Matt is a smart guy but he should just stick to politics. He needs to stay away from ethics and philosophy since he know so little.
@@manny4012 Joe was consistent in his appeal to emotion and other logical fallacies, so if you're trying to say that Joe was *logically* consistent then that is simply false.
@@csongorarpad4670 Of course he wasn’t Logically consistent. He has no sound rational argument for his position. That’s why I only used the word “consistent” instead of following it by logically. To everyone else he seemed to be on top because Matt couldn’t answer as eloquently as Trent did. I believe in the church’s teaching on marriage because I’m a faithful catholic.
@@manny4012 I think you need at least an argument based on morals to argue against what Rogan says, but he can just ignore it with a "that's because of your religious belief". For a person that believes "both parties are ok, i am ok" then this argument barely works, not that i believe Rogan is right. Joe's hella wrong and i'm Catholic too before someone gets angry at me
@Tercio Novohispano I don’t think he hates Catholicism…he’s said many times that he thinks discarding religioun is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, had Jordan Peterson on several times, I’d be very surprised Johnathan Pageau didn’t make an appearance sometime in 2023..Joe just has interesting people on. The reason he’s successful is because he can talk to anyone.
I loathe the libertarian mindset of "Why does it matter it doesn't affect you?" when the broader cultural implications are severely self evident. Every libertarian needs to read The Brothers Karamazov because it makes the best case in literature of why we are truly our brothers keepers and what happens to one of us has a ripple effect in our society.
I think one of the fundamental issues is that the libertarian position when it comes to our house of property (money, resources, etc) has so thoroughly dominated “conservative” political thought, that it is a uphill battle when it comes to other issues like marriage.
@@Nimish204 there will come a day when so few people are having kids that we may need to begin mandating this. That or we will have to import people from other countries.
Honestly, I think Matt Walsh did well when he was debating Rogan. Especially since he went on just to discuss his documentary. Plus, Joe Rogan was the one who brought up religion. Matt was debating from logic.
@Maximos Martinson I know right? It's such a self report thinking that Matt had a semblance of a logical argument after watching him flounder like that
I watched the whole podcast, my biggest problem is that Rogan continually throws “what aboutisms” and almost doesn’t let Matt finish speaking before Rogan fires another “what aboutism” posed as a question. Rogan has called out others for doing this on his show, disappointing from Rogan.
Well yes I was disappointed. Rogan has proven himself to have a decent amount intellect. And to use “what abouts” and “ well but” in my opinion was below him and should’ve debased immediately. And again in my opinion Walsh should’ve called it out and asked if he was going to be allowed to voice his opinion in a very calm manner.
rogan's points are fair because this is a moral and philosophical disagreement based on what we think marriage is and means. someone who's religious has a different view on it than someone who isn't.
I listened to this podcast episode a few days ago. While Matt doesn’t really say anything wrong, I think he leaves a lot unsaid. The whole time I am thinking, “if only Trent Horn were there with him.“ Thanks for the commentary.
So glad you got on this because as a new Catholic and prior long time Evangelical, Walsh said what Evangelicals say. They don’t know the Sacrament of Marriage. I didn’t until becoming Catholic.
To be fair, Matt was speaking to a secular (VERY secular) audience, so making arguments directly from Catholic teaching would be useless and not fruitful. You have to speak to people where they are first before you dig into the real meat.
@@Mrs_Homemaker The Catholic teaching stems from objective reality and truth. It isn’t merely an assertion. Therefore you should be able to bring them to that truth without assuming a secular posture. A secular person in these discussions shouldn’t be allowed to reject an argument out of hand merely because it has a religious foundation. That is not being intellectual honest. In fact, Rogan’s own notions that individuals have rights is an idea with religious origins.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw yes, he could speak from natural law (which is secular), and should have been more clear. I was simply stating that repeating Catholic teaching re: sacrament of marriage isn't helpful to those who don't even have access to the sacrament.
Was waiting for this video. No one explains these things better than Trent. I’ve learned so much from watching these videos. Also, Trent, don’t feel bad. My husband lost his ring too. He lost it while cleaning. It happens. Y’all still married tho. 😂
My husband is an electrician and hasn't worn a ring in years bc of it. He tried the silicon rings but it made his skin flake and rash up. 😓 But we just celebrated 14 happy years so I suppose we are still doing fine 😅
Trent, I think you should make a follow-up video about marriage and its importance in safeguarding women and children. The Children's Assessment Center notes: "Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse." That's directly from their website. This is common knowledge. When a single parent brings a stranger into their home (more so single mothers than single fathers) the likelihood of their children being molested and or raped goes up significantly. I really think you should do a thorough video on this topic. Children who are mostly vulnerable are the ones from broken families. Perpetrators look for victims they can have access to and keep quiet. The data on this is abundant.
I would argue it safeguards men, women, and children. Married men live longer, are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, and have more stable jobs/careers.
@@Nimish204 Same-sex monogamy is preferable to same-sex promiscuity. That is true of male/female relationships as well. Promiscuity has proven to be detrimental to society. However, same-sex parenting is another topic that needs to be addressed. Same-sex couples would have to do their best to duplicate a stable biological two-parent household. Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin discussed this topic recently on Peterson's RU-vid channel. We don't know what the positive or negative effects are on children who are and who are not raised by their genetic mother and father. I'd love to see data on this, but as far as I know it has never been studied. I'm not necessarily opposed to same-sex couples adopting. If I had a choice between a stable husband/wife household or a stable same-sex household, all things being equal economically, I'd choose the man and woman. I do believe both sexes are essential in parenting because that's the natural order of human flourishing.
Rogan's tactic is pretty clever, he avoids Matt's crucial points by just keep changing his positions (supporting a subjective idea of marriage, but then offers an objective way to see marriage), and switching the topic they are currently arguing (from the legality to morality of a childless marriage). Being in a hot seat is difficult, as you can see when Matt was having a hard time seating at that seat by keep moving his butt (can't help to make this joke, lol). However, it's important to not be defensive all the time, but offer a counter-attack, and pushes your own arguments to the other side, if you want to make a balanced battle of ideas.
Matt is the one wallowing in avoidance here. He keeps referring back to some societal understanding of what marriage is supposed to be while Joe is using the actual modern defintion. Matt had no real answer to Joe's questions on the definition. Joe gave examples and kept asking for clarification and Matt just got vague and copped out.
@@veddermn8 Hello there, Veddermn8. Happy to see you here. I think Matt looked like he's avoiding the question, and he was clearly not trying to agree with Rogan, though he could not from his arguments clearly. Just to clarify your comment there, Matt introduced the definition of marriage as "The union for procreation", Rogan introduced the definition of marriage as "a union of love". Matt attacked Rogan's definition by saying, why you can't be married to your own family member? Why does it have to be two people? Rogan didn't answer that question, he switched gear by pushing why it is wrong to not have kids. Matt tried to answer both yes and no. 1. Yes, it is generally wrong to have a marriage that is not oriented to have babies. 2. No, it is not wrong legally to be married and to not have babies. By answering Yes and No, Matt was having a hard time, and looked like he's not answering clearly. For more argumentation against Rogan's position, I think you should watch Trent's video up there until the end.
@@raymk Some states you can marry a family member, and weirdly its in the more conservative, religious states. Neither one of them says what they mean by "wrong" though. Matt gets abstract and vague very quickly. And they both conflate legal and religious definitions of marriage. And Trent furthers Matts assertion that childless couples are in a second tier marriage by saying uncosummated ones are "null" which would be gravely hurtful to any handicapped, traumatized or elderly couple not able to get it going in the bedroom. Which is completely absurd and cold hearted.
@@veddermn8 There's a state where you can marry your own immediate family member? I was talking about a marriage between siblings or a child with his/her parent. The point is, if we think those kinds of marriage shouldn't be legal, we better have that stated in the definition of marriage. - I think saying that childless couples are in a second tier marriage is wrong, and I believe both Trent and Matt also will say so. What Trent is basically saying is that it is natural and good to have children in marriage. It's the same as saying, it is good for humans to have eyes to see. It doesn't mean blind people are in a second class, Trent is just stating what is true and good. - I don't want to prolong the discussion too far, but I encourage you to really dig in what makes a marriage a marriage, and how to make sure the definition of marriage is clear enough to exclude relationships that we consider immoral. THANKS!
@@raymk Matt said out loud that he thinks there is "something wrong" with purposely childless marriages. Sounds second tier to me. No one is saying "it is wrong to be blind". Some people choose to be celibate despite potential partners who would love a family with them. Is that also "wrong"? It just feels weird to require a relationship to work in such an invasive way to be considered "correct". There's more ways to contribute to society than just having kids. That's all I'm saying.
Matt needed to drive home that this is a metaphysical disagreement and not merely a subjective disagreement... I also don't think Matt pushed back enough against Joe. He sort of hesitated his way through answering Joe's questions but didn't carve out what marriage is and why it's beneficial. I think if Matt showed why an ideal marriage would benefit all involved and why it's good for society to have such marriages, that would have gone a long way to show why imperfections like lack of children do not impact what makes a marriage valid-- because when it's between a man and a woman, it is still pointing toward this ideal design for marriage.
Thank you Trent & Matt & Matt. I pray that one day, sooner than later; people like joe would see the light of objective truths remain true no matter the emotions and conditions. God willing.
Someone like Joe could actually be convinced. The only problem is that Matts arguments were all over the place. He didn’t know how to defend the position from a non religious perspective. He had a couple of good moments but overall bad performance.
@@manny4012 The problem is Joe called it out as being a religious argument. Giving the state power to regulate marriage and divorce is the issue. Before becoming Catholic I was married 15 years I had a shock to find out it was actually only a civil union. Marriage as a Catholic is what Matt can speak on the state is not in the same category.
@@bradicas5359 Of course the religious and secular arguments for marriage are going to be different. That doesn’t mean you can’t make a strong argument for it. I believe you can and Matt just didn’t do a good job overall.
@@manny4012 The problem is precepts the Catholic definition of marriage doesn’t hold water without God and the ideas of sanctification. It’s something like the order of sacraments matter, I can’t articulate it. Personally I don’t care what people outside the church call shacking up.
@@bradicas5359 I understand what you mean. Kind of like the example when Trent and Alex were discussing when human beings become valuable given the millions of years of evolution. At some point you have to draw the line and it can only be drawn from a theological standpoint. That’s the issue with defending marriage or any other sacrament. Matt didnt have to go that far anyways because he wasn’t equipped to get the topic of the ground but I under your point.
Joe still would've won the debate against Knowles. Both their arguments against gay marriage are baseless and are rooted in nothing more than their own religious bias.
LOL Joe thinks marriage is "really strange." It's a cultural universal. That means it exists in literally every known human culture, past and present. There is no human culture that doesn't "involve the law in relationships." Even if you're a utilitarian who sneers at culture, marriage has an important practical function - to ensure that parents fulfill their natural obligations to their children. To ensure that paternity can be established, which can prevent lethal feuds and child abandonment.
I love Rogan and listen to him regularly but I legit laughed out loud when he asked Matt what is the definition of marriage and Matt responds with the definition that has historically been the case up til very recently and Joe just replies with something to the nature of "That's just your opinion man" LOLOL
Literally just your opinion. The Catholic Church molested children for centuries… should they continue that practice because it was historically accepted for centuries? Or slavery? Or women not being able to vote ?
From the conversation Rogan has a low and imature view of women, Marraige and sexual relationships, he's more like a frat bro than an adult from what. I hear. He obviously doesn't understand fidelity or love at all only who he considers hot. I also notice his expletives are meant to exude some street cool but really sounds just base, crude and teenage.. Sorry I'm not modernist lol
As to the notion that someone else’s gay marriage doesn’t affect me: it may not affect my marriage directly, but on a societal level it normalizes gay marriage to the point where my kids and my grandkids may want to do it. In past generations, it wasn’t even considered.
@@yenahbrown4675 Marriage is designed for a traditional family, preferably with the desire to bring children into this world. It has been demonstrated that children develop best with a loving father and mother. If one of my kids were to choose to have a gay marriage, it would do one of two things: either they would be deprived of having children of their own, or two, if they chose to adopt, then that child would automatically be without a mother or without a father. And I believe a child needs both.
@@jlacy73 studies say children deserve 2 parents which is why single parents household are bad. The question is do you prefer a child to be adopted by a single parent or 2 parents? Also about marriage itself, WE’RE not in the times where the reason for marriage is procreation, so the whole traditional marriage doesn’t apply to western countries or countries that have no problem with gay relationships. Another thing, should straight couples who don’t want kids should get married? Also if children doesn’t do well with same sex parents, why is it still legalized? Why is there adults who were raised by a gay parent(s) say they didn’t have problems? Same sex parenting must’ve been not a big issue more than you realized
@@yenahbrown4675 The studies don’t say “two parents,” but that children need a father and a mother. There are things that my children learn from my wife that they could never learn from me, and vice verse. My son needs a role model who is a male and my daughters needs a role models who is female. My daughters may look to me when choosing the type of man they’d like to marry. And about the idea that traditional marriage doesn’t apply to western countries: it should. Most young people don’t even understand the purpose of marriage. We are in the decadent stage of our nation’s cycle, and if we don’t change our ways we will be replaced by a nation who honors the traditional family. You ask about straight couples who don’t want kids. Should they get married? Yes. If they were to accidentally get pregnant, then a stable, committed relationship is already in place. And even if they never have kids, by getting married they are honoring the institution and setting an example for others. And the notion that children of same sex couples turn out alright, I can only use my common sense because I don’t know of any long-term studies on the subject. They may not have a penchant for crime, or be more susceptible to poverty like children of single mothers. But if I were in their situation, I would feel like I was robbed of a father or a mother. My mom’s dad died when she was only ten. She has spent the rest of her life without a father. She had no choice in the matter. Why would someone do that voluntarily to a child?
I've heard the 50% stat comes from something like 30% of first marriages end in so called divorce and 80% of "remarriages" end in so called divorce. This is sourced from my highschool teacher so who knows
It's actually lower than that now for first time marriages too--Gen X and Millennials get divorced at much lower rates than baby boomers. Of course, they also get married at lower rates.
Yeah, I heard something like that too! I think most of these remarriage stats are because an unfaithful person who cheats on their spouse will end up going through multiple marriages because when the spouse finds out they file for divorce and the cycle repeats and all. Divorce in itself isn't a bad thing, especially when someone finds out their partner has been cheating on them, but yeah we do need to find a way to get the unfaithfullness rates down!
Matt Walsh was surprisingly muddled and disappointing in that interview. We just need to be proud of the fact that we are grounded in the objective morality of Jesus Christ and His Church.
Where Matt fails, is taking Joe's protest about living a child free fulfilling life to its natural conclusion. If someone doesn't want to have children, there's a state of life for that. It's called being SINGLE. If you don't want to have kids, then you don't have any business getting married. If your job is so important and necessary to make the world a better place, that person should live a single life devoted to his noble career or a single life devoted to his hobbies.
Wonderful explanation, and you are right. It is tough to be on the hot seat, especially on such a sensitive topic. Although, I believe there should have been a deeper discussion on contraception/steralization/the purposeful exclusion of children.
A good point I just thought of regarding this topic is the unique nature of a marriage that includes children. Marriage naturally includes children which requires that one of the people in the marriage watch over the children as the other person in the marriage goes to work so that the family has the resources it needs. In a same sex union there is no requirement that one of them stay home, because are no children that will naturally be created though their union, and thus neither person is truthfully fully impacted by divorce. they are both working and at any point point they can both leave with relatively little financial loss. A man or a woman in a marriage suffers huge financial loss if a divorce ensues especially when children are involved because of the natural function of a marriage which is a child bearer and their partner being in a permanent union to avoid crippling the most vulnerable person in the marriage the woman and her children.
Yeah, Seamus From freedom toons makes a good point about this I heard. That So Called Modern Day Conservatives love to mention Traditional Gender Roles in Marriage but don't mention how Same sex "marriage" undermines that.
I don't exactly think this is true, especially in this economy. It really depends on what both people in the marriage agree on and their financial situation, but both my parents and many others work a lot. Really everyone in the west who isn't a boomer has to work, stay at home wife or stay at home husband isn't as possible now. But yeah, if a divorce happens then the kid is affected the most and the financial mess is not going to be fun to deal with. I agree with the whole same sex marriage doesn't have as much requirements and is more flexible and unstable, but I think how you arrived at that conclusion is a bit iffy. This is probably just because I'm an Anglican, but I think a divorce system can be done right so if a woman marries a toxic man she will not face the crippling financial consequences of divorcing a toxic man.
It is a strange and uncommon feeling for me to agree with Trent, but I think a lot of what he says makes sense. I do think there are some reasons why the government needs to be informed about people deciding to enter a strong relationship (changing of last names, presumption that either participant will inherit in the event of the other's death, preferentially considered for adoption vs people in no union, etc) but there isn't any reason at all why that *has* to be called 'marriage'. I definitely think there should be no impediments to anybody entering into that kind of relationship, and have it recognised as such by their peers, but (and I'll ask for information here, as I'm not certain) if 'civil unions' already had all the same legal characteristics as 'marriage', then I see no rational reason why marriage had to be legally redefined.
Something I didn’t notice the first time I saw this debate/discussion was Rogan becomes less interested in marriage itself. He seems to become most concerned with how Matt make a moral judgment against not wanting to have kids.
Matt's great on most topics, ironically when it comes to religious/doctrinal topics he really struggles. The answer to gay marriage is different people, different purpose, different outcome. Anything else with this criteria would automatically be assigned a different name. Shapiro asked MW about his belief in the afterlife and Matt froze...then quoted CS Lewis. Flatfooted.
Yeah, I've always said that it's a different thing and it fine to have it if you give it a different name. No more of this cultural appropriation crap; marriage is for the married, not whatever silliness you think your imitation is.
Yeah! Honestly, my main concern is that the LGBTQ+ community thinks that it's ok to act on their impulsive thoughts. The Bible condemns homosexual sex for very good reasons, both in terms of health and symbolism. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, each gender which represents 50% of humanity comes together in a union of marriage to become one! Marriage is supposed to bring men and women together, same sex marriage just divides the two genders even more!
Joe mentioned at least twice that marriage was purely a human invention. I think it's critical to point out in these discussions that we do NOT believe that marriage is a human "invention" but rather a human "discovery". Just as triangles have necessary traits that make them relevantly different from circles and squares, so do marital relationships have necessary traits that make them relevantly different from non-marital relationships (e.g. same sex relationships). This first point needs to be made explicitly with examples in order for the other side to understand where we're coming from... otherwise they often just fall back on "that's just your opinion".
Hey Trent, I hope you see my question. I love your content and have been a follower and helps me with defending our faith. Anyways, my prot coworkers use infidelity as an absolute way to end a marriage in divorce, what would you say to this premise? Thank you!
Jesus makes an exception in Scripture to no divorce for a cheating wife, but not a cheating husband. In any event, cheating on one's spouse doesn't automatically end a marriage. It just makes them lousy spouses. We'd need a cannon lawyer for the details, but cheating doesn't automatically lead to annulment of a marriage.
I was wondering if you ever review anything Taylor Marshall says. He said that marriage with the intention of not having children is concubinage; and is sin. I don't agree with everything he says but this sounds true.
Actually it’s true. Openness to life is a must for marriage. Maybe you can’t have your own kids but you can adopt, that is what that can look like for you.
@@matthewbateman6487 Funny how you are resorting to incest as an argument to homosexuality. Incest is wrong not because of the sexual or romantic relationship between two consenting adults. Incest is wrong because it affects a potential third party: the offspring. Children born from parents closely related to each other have a significantly higher chance of obtaining hereditary diseases and disabilities. If it is wrong for parents to risk their child's life by letting them get fat or walk alone on a sketchy street in the middle of the night, then incest relationships are wrong if they choose to have children for the same reasons of endangering your child's health. Since incest can DIRECTLY affect a third-party, incest is made taboo. Homosexuality would never affect any outside parties outside of the ones involved, so homosexuality is ok. Heterosexual relationships for people who are unrelated are also ok because the chances of their children being born with a birth defect is incredibly low. And to be logically consistent, if a parent has a high chance of passing hereditary diseases to their child, it is wrong for them to gamble on it, incest or not.
@@bitchd7839 I appreciate what you're saying, and agree with most of it. First, I was not using incest as a way to make homosexuality immoral.. Rather, the conversation between Rogan and Walsh was about the nature of marriage. What is it fundamentally? What makes it essentially what it is, and who gets to decide? On Rogan's view, two (or more?) people who have some connection and want to share a life/space together should be considered 'married'.. It can be essentially what they want it to be, and kids never have to be part of the picture. Second, I started out with "what about 2 brothers?"... Two brothers can't get pregnant, so the prospect of birth defects is out the window... is it therefore acceptable? What's more, an increasing amount of people are becoming sterilized because they don't want children anyway. Would this become okay then for a brother and sister? Also, I have read where, 1st cousins for example, do not pose a significantly higher risk of birth defects than many other married folks, but the taboo remains. Also, also, I appreciate your consistency of saying 'therefore others who have a high risk of passing...' should also not procreate, but this begins to sound like eugenics. Women over 30 begin to have a sharp increase in the potential for their children to have autism, down syndrome, and other effects. Should they not be allowed to get pregnant? What about alcoholism/drugs? AIDS? What about a Penicillin allergy? So Matt Walsh can't say who can/can't get married, but meanwhile, all these people probably shouldn't do it with each other? Finally, you're thoughts are genuinely reasonable, and again, I agree with much you said. But that isn't a 'solution' to what makes incest wrong... Someone else in this very same thread wanted to keep their 'consistency' by saying, yup, gay marriage is a thing cause they love each other and want to get married, and yup, incestuous couples should be able to as well... After all, we're nothing but animals, and animals do that all the time.
Man I loved this, I think each response Trent gave to Rogan's points were just (chefs kiss). I think Matt did well for what it was worth but I'd love to see Trent on Rogan's show answering these questions. This whole video made me see how the definitions of man and woman, sex, and marriage all hold together beautifully and that once you redefine one the rest inevitably change as well. They changed sex from a unitive act ordered towards procreation to a recreational action ordered towards pleasure (and that's not even taking into account the conflation of terms like sex and "anal sex", the procreative act with something inherently not procreative), which made it easier to redefine marriage from a lifelong, monogamous union of a man and woman teleologically ordered towards the creation and raising of children, to a therapeutic union of 2 people of whatever gender ordered towards self fulfillment. Which in turn made it easier to redefine man and woman from people teleologically ordered towards impregnation and gestation respectively, to people who call themselves men or women. The LGBT activists can say it's a slippery slope fallacy all they want but recent history is bearing these truths out as Trent demonstrated wonderfully in this episode. How does a same-sex "marriage" harm anyone else? By codifying the redefinition of sex and marriage in these individualistic and selfish terms they destroy the concepts of what they truly are and weaken marriage as an institution on the whole. They essentially make it a glorified form of dating. I had all this information in my head separately but this video helped it all to come together in a new way I hadn't seen before, thanks Trent, God bless.
"They (Gay people) changed sex from a unitive act ordered towards procreation to a recreational action ordered towards pleasure". Maybe an average heterosexual couple have sex 1000 times, but they'll have only a couple of kids. Almost all sexual acts in reality happens purely for mutual pleasure, for improving bonds and making people happier. Your puritan view of sex has never been real. "They (gay people) weaken marriage as an institution." How? Things that weakens marriages are infidelity, conflicts, domestic violence and things like that. Not homosexuals. It's your opinion that marriage should always be in between men and women. But it's a fact of nature that some men and some women are entirely unable to be attracted to the opposite sex. Should they never marry at all? or should the live in an unhappy heterosexual marriage? What's your solution?
Amen! It's sad that people view sex as some kind of pleasure thing than as a way to make sure humanity doesn't die. I wish the LGBTQ+ community knew why we Christians oppose same sex marriage. I've only met one other person not including myself in LGBTQ+ who understands why same sex marriage is not ok. It's quite sad that people think acting on their impulsive thoughts is more important than the symbolic and literal physical union that is only of a man and a woman!
Amen! I hate how sexualized our society has become! It seems like people have forgotten that celibacy and just not wanting to get married is a thing! Self control is a valuable skill to have! Sadly, abstinence and self control are not taught in FLE in schools. People these days focus so much on their impulsive thoughts they don't stop to think that maybe what they're doing is wrong and immoral!
@@patriciagrande311I was wondering if two people, man and woman, get married but both agree to be celibate for the rest of their live and decide to have no children, should that marriage become invalid since according to Trent it was never valid to begin with. Will they die without ever being validly married? There are many people who desire to just be celibate, should they never have a opportunity for marriage.
@@arnitaxavier9446 Blessed Mother and St Joseph were celibate and theirs was the most loving and holy marriage. Their example is called Josephite, a Catholic spiritual marriage, is one that the agreement to abstain from sex should be a free mutual decision, rather than resulting from impotence or the views of one party. Marriage becomes valid through the properly manifested consent of the man and the woman and is undissolvable.
@@patriciagrande311 I'm not catholic nor religious but I like your definition better and honestly a good example. You can also run into the problem of people being born with deformaties that mean they can't physically consummate the marriage.
There are some cool silicone rings that you can wear for working out and training. Recently I bought The One Ring (my Precious) by Enso rings. That’s the one I now wear as I am a married man.
He is so good that I have convinced my Protestant neighbor to ask for his intersession and he has had such good results that he continues to ask him. St Anthony may convert my neighbor one day..
@@MrPeach1 just the other day I lost my tape measure. Nobody knew where it was, we were looking for 15 mins or so before we called on saint anthony. A few minutes later I found it in the bottom of a box of halloween costumes for the kids.
@@nathanbustamante1525 I was looking for a plug to a kiddie pool and couldn't located it. I played a prayer to St Anthony on RU-vid. After the prayer ended a youtube video came on explaining the Life of St Anthony. As soon as the video finished i kicked something in the dirt and it was the missing pool plug. My understanding was that St anthony would help me but I had to learn who he was first...We laughed.
I think the problem here for Matt was one of public speaking and cultural context. Matt had good points but should have spoken more confidently; he was probably afraid of being labeled intolerant for having specific opinions about marriage. He was afraid that Rogan might twist his words, and, if so, might seriously harm his reputation and turn more people away from his work. It's tricky to balance effectively spreading a message with being completely transparent especially if your livelihood hangs on the former.
Rogan is an ingrate who will talk to anyone. He's an important platform in a confused and stifled culture such as what we find ourselves in. Pray for his conversion.
So, a marriage celebrated by the state is valid even if it's not open to life. The lack of openess to life invalidate only the sacrament. Did I get it right? Does anybody has any knowledge as to why that's the case or any insight on this topic?
The "how does it affect you/your marriage?" line of questioning is actually pretty stupid: it doesn't affect me or my marriage directly or personally. What it does affect is the marriage union as a whole, and thus, society as a whole. With marriage (the family) also being the fundamental political organization, changing the definition of what marriage is also changes politics as a whole. Moral aspects aside, that's why it's important that marriage keeps its definition. It's hard, in a way, not to make a moral argument because on the most base level, all issues are moral issues, to one extent or another.
Honestly, if I were in Matt's shoes and were arguing marriage from a strictly secular viewpoint. I would argue in the other direction and say that there is no reason for a secularist to get married at all. You take away God from it, and all you have left is what? Tax benefits and a joint bank account? There is no marriage without God. There is no point in marriage without God, other than to say that you're married.
@@Nimish204 All of which should either be something allowed to a broader group, or can be sorted out by legal contracts that are just as if not more so binding.
@@luxither7354 if you want marriage to be a purely religious thing, go right ahead. As long as marriage has legal benefits, it must be open to gay couples.
It baffles me when men who are... MARRIED WITH AN ENTIRE WIFE AND MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN at home, fight so hard to be on the side of the case against marriage. It's like armchair quarterbacking telling your audience that they shouldn't marry or ever settle down, all while you get to enjoy the benefits of marriage yourself. Just backwards beyond belief.
It's funny to see how much Joe tries to confuse Matt on this issue and fails miserably. "Why they have to have babies? It's a lot of commitment!" "How breaking the deffinition makes it any less valid?" "Marriage is subjective but it's ALL about fullfillness and love" "If a couple can't have babies, it means the other couple don't need to have babies"
This whole thing should be an example to all Christians on how not to answer such questions. Also how to be better prepared should this topic come up. I feel bad for Matt, he really floundered I hope he learns from this.
@@theolite360 Well he definitely floundered from what I saw. It wasn't great and his answres were weak, made me had to think about how I would have answered.
@@megaloschemos9113 you just watched a video from Trent expanding on the answers that Matt gave and you say he floundered. You expect him to come with stats like Trent did after the fact ?
@@theolite360 I watched the Joe Rogan interview, Matt did answer badly. He is a Catholic and should have stated the Biblical covenant of marriage first. I have seen Christian apologists and evangelists do this when challenged quite easily. So it can be done.
I think it all boils down to whether you think there's such a thing as an objective human nature and objective goods to which said nature is inclined. If the answer to this question is yes, then the institution of marriage will appear way less arbitrary. If your interlocutor thinks marriage is an arbitrary construct anyway, there's little hope that you will convince him.
I love how Joe has to resort to "alright let's say we have a healthcare worker who spends all her free time doing charity work, CAN SHE get married and choose not to have kids??" Needs to have Trent on his show!
I think those advocating same sex marriage do not fully appreciate the sacramental nature of marriage. I also did not fully appreciate the difference until I was married. Ironically, it was the introduction of same sex marriage which highlighted to me the difference in these relationships.
If marriage is what unites men AND women, not men WITH women then men can be married and women can be married (and not necessarily to each other). The children that “proceed from their union” can include: adopted children, in vitro children, inseminated children, and surrogate children. Trent LOVES definitions and objectivity, but definitions change over time…especially for social constructs like marriage. For example, the definition of citizenship, adulthood, family, beauty, race, insanity, intelligence, crime, disability all have a very different definition than just 50 years ago. The definition of marriage today is: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Also, what is this perpetual fear of society collapsing if we provide members of the LGBTQ+ with rights? Wasn’t this the same argument when abolitionists argued to end slavery and when women started working outside of the home.
@@reasonablebro Do you mean an “ultimate source” for the definition of marriage? No. But, I would argue that you don’t either. The definition I referenced is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. But, this is exactly my point: the definition of marriage has changed throughout history and from culture to culture. The ancient Hebrews practiced polygamy according to the Bible. Arranged marriages were (and still are in many parts of the world) very popular in the West and were quite beneficial for society, and until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in nearly 30 states. Allowing interracial marriage, abolishing slavery, and allowing non land owning men and women to vote (and heaven forbid work outside the home), was also supposed to cause society to collapse and the literal opposite happened: society flourished. Btw, there is no scientific discovery that helped society redefine race, beauty, citizenship, crime, etc. because they are made up BY society. Marriage fits into this list of social constructs and I really don’t think that scientific discovery is going to help us very much here. Members of the LGBTQ+ community do not have a right to buy cakes for their wedding wherever they want, many do not have the right to adopt children from overseas or from religious institutions domestically, they still face legal discrimination at places of employment and when applying for housing, and can be denied psychiatric health care based on religious discrimination…. These religious discrimination laws are very similar to state laws passed after desegregation, as a backlash to integration and equality. I have nothing to say about your comments on chattel slavery and homosexuality other than that one was condemned by the Bible and the other explicitly endorsed.
I believe you in Joe Rogan’s podcast is really needed. We should get as much comments on the Matt Walsh video mentioning you and see if it gets his attention
38:00 This conclusion is taking a correlation and making it causal. Life isn't a recipe. It very well could be that children who grow up with a mother and father at home and are middle class, typically do all three of these things, but it is not these acts which make them successful per se, it may very well be that their formation played the key roll.
Don't we all often confuse "marriage" with "civil unions"? In a civil union anything goes with two human beings, no rules, no boundaries. Marriage on the other hand is a sacrament and more gender-specific with set standards and qualifications. To get married by a justice if the peace is merely a civil union with all its legal obligations and not a marriage that carries with it, a more defined set of parameters.
10:32 So being currently conscious is necessary for love? Does your spouse also not love you while they're asleep? I don't really agree, but it's semantics I guess.
One of libertarianism's central principles is non-aggression. This means just because two individuals consent, doesn't make it necessarily OK. Someone could be harmed.
If two mentally sane individuals consent without directly and intentionally harming outsiders, then it is ok. If someone is indirectly and unintentionally "harmed" (ex. a Muslim's feelings gets hurt by a Christian or a homosexual's existence), then they need to get over it. Who exactly is getting harmed by homosexuality?
