Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage

Taken from JRE #1895 w/Matt Walsh:
open.spotify.com/episode/5c6S...

[@t9j6c6j51]

Just imagine if two politicians could discuss an issue without talking over each other and insulting each other. Bravo guys.

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

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.

[@romualdaskuzborskis]

@@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.

[@woodlandgangsta3931]

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.

[@romualdaskuzborskis]

@@woodlandgangsta3931 i bieve he was refering to sacramental divorces.

[@christopherbunce9724]

@@woodlandgangsta3931 tbh most conservatives do. Thats why they impose Christian ideologies into their policies

[@Slavenmierech]

Two dudes disagreeing without swearing, insulting and abusing each other. Refreshing in 2022

[@enterpassword3313]

Is it? Thats mostly what i see, you must watch a lot of trash

[@Bloodhound_Dogg]

This!!!

[@JohnSmith-yd5wq]

Walsh is a liar and Rogan is too stupid to call him out on it.

[@rickjones5399]

Yea just need to take the stupid out of it

[@alexandrem9326]

What is a Dude?🤣

[@danielmaloney946]

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.

[@The-Traveler-And-Wanderer]

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.

[@Tebytorozo13]

⁠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.

[@luxolontamo4440]

​@@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" .

[@beezybeez4207]

@@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.

[@beezybeez4207]

He’s not saying …

[@AravSethi-wf4ky]

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]

That wasn’t a humble opinion at all. And matts right, rogans more opinionated than ever here.

[@cherryswole]

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.

[@thumbeast3130]

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."

[@jimwerther]

@@thumbeast3130 Matt has had better moments. But he's correct nonetheless on the larger issue.

[@btgkg9639]

@@thumbeast3130 No he wasn’t, Joe was completely wrong. Don’t be stupid all your life.

[@ishallgunyou9835]

@@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

[@thumbeast3130]

@@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.

[@Botmfeeder02]

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.

[@Cryptum404]

Joe was attacking Walsh

[@jens6851]

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.

[@tymesho]

You can't learn with your mouth open.

[@meechisminners]

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?

[@YutubeBansALot]

Still , Matt is right

[@HipHipHeredia]

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!!

[@TheColdrush22]

I don't respect Matt at all but Matt WAS drowning.

[@Yes-gp1bt]

Matt sucks

[@hew195050]

1 a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry

[@Evolocean]

It's nice to see Matt Walsh actually go against someone who can generate strong, critical follow-up questions.

[@springheelsack010]

What where you watching jo is just repeating himself

[@redcoresuperstar]

And basically failing to form an argument that doesn't involve religion.

[@LogicCaster]

@@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.

[@RyanYou-xm8hu]

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!

[@quickmike420]

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.

[@DatGuyNamedAlex]

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.

[@DatGuyNamedAlex]

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.

[@hifiandrew]

And yet completely destroys their BS. He's good.......

[@brookejackson9145]

He's great at what he does, for sure.

[@JohnDoe-zj6xf]

Joe's getting better all the time but he still has some bias which are shedding slowly and he's turning into a proper interviewer.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

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.

[@nikolaidrago7938]

You know you fucked up when Joe fucking Rogan can disassemble your entire argument with one question.

[@LogicCaster]

Joe agrees with matt these days

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster No he doesn't.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie I saw you say earlier you want to *$EXUALlSE CHlLDREN*

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster​​⁠Prove it. Reported for slander and harassment.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie Your profile picture is literally a child sitting on a predators lap. You’re a predator.

[@Fotosynthesis858]

I agree with Matt about 50% of the time. But not on this subject. I believe everyone has the right to get married. Although I do think that marriage has lost a lot of its value in America

[@blackswan8386]

To my mind, not all couples are mentally prepared to have children. That's why we have children who were abused by their parents.

[@LogicCaster]

Then its up to society to mentally prepare children to one day become parents who have children.

[@mikewilliams6025]

Therefore gay marriage? What the hell?

[@aresito22]

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

[@user-uz3rl7hl7t]

⁠@@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

[@ricks5876]

​@@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

[@thamomentum]

EDIT: Lol wow - some of you really get that heated over a KZbin 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.

[@kingdolo23]

Oh hush excited child

[@jonlake4754]

Non bias? Joe believes everyone should do whatever the fuck they want, and was very adamant on that point.

[@timprosser1710]

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.

[@iBeHampe]

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.

[@Brave_New_Tube]

@@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"

[@taylorskidmore2760]

Matt Walshs arguments fall apart under the slightest bit of real pushback. Thats why these nerds just post clips of them dunking on 19 year old college kids who dont know what theyre even saying

[@LogicCaster]

Matt Walsh produced one of the most successful documentaries of all time with over half a BILLION views and was trending in over 37 countries. The ratings were 5 star too, everyone tuned in to watch the FREAKSHOW

[@taylorskidmore2760]

@LogicCaster Ya I watched it a couple times. It's no "This Is Spinal Tap" but it was alright. Def got his point across

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Absolutely irrelevant what Matt succesfully produced. He failed miserably here.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie He mentions same sex marriage in his documentary

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster So ?

[@michelangelobunansa9239]

Nice to see how Matt didn't actually answer any of Joe's questions

[@theexotic2983]

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.

[@BrandonSBaker]

Exactly

[@makaveli_DK]

There is no God though.

[@johnreese7291]

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.✌️✝️

[@fr.hughmackenzie5900]

Matt's is sex is for family formation, Joe's is sex is for love.

[@Walrus286]

Individuals can, and do, worship different gods. So god cannot be the ultimate authority in a free society.

[@kingk5955]

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.

[@paintbynumbermonalisa4187]

You just described The View. 😂

[@chefbutterrrr]

@@paintbynumbermonalisa4187 you need to stop watching the view.

[@falkerwyscray9067]

What about mainstream media interviews? 60 minutes? Their interviews on many famous people are very civil.

[@Ihatecommies42]

Duhhhhhhhhh sure about all that?

[@Ihatecommies42]

@@falkerwyscray9067 mostly famous child preditors, of course they’re welcoming.

[@fazelok]

1:26 - then by nature of what things 'are meant to do/be' - the same can be said about feminine men, and masculine women - they exist too - Jordan Peterson agrees there - someone of us arent born into the gender stereotypes of our sex - just because we exist a little differently - doesnt mean we shouldnt have the right, to be what we are, or belive the things we do - yes, men are strong, and brave, and all that - but some men arent wired that way - just like im gay - thats just a fact of my life - just like intersex people - DONT up-end what male and female are - gays, and lesbians dont up-end what marriage is, or sex, or love.

[@ayeblanken9041]

I respect the hell out of Matt’s etiquette but I find it impossible to get on board with his views. Either way, stellar debate.

[@LogicCaster]

Agree with matt or marriage dies off. Thats basically the two options we have in the west

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasterthats not the solution. If you don't agree with Matt marriage will not "die off". There are more options silly. Get therapy. You need it.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama It already is. The traditional meaning is the only thing to ever work.

[@ZetsubenSama]

@@LogicCaster no, absolutly not, you can't just fix the succes of a societal construct like marriage on a number like the divorcerate. There are good reasons why people divorce and those reasons need to be combated in order to bring down the divorcerate and not some flimsy bigoted attempt at an argument like you always do. It's also not the only thing that ever worked. Over time there have been many different kinds of marriage, you idea of marriage is just one of them, many of them have succeeded. There is no "one way" of marriage that works and at this point in time people are figuring themselfs out and come to terms with what they want in theyr marriage. All of the reasons why people marry are legit and not one is better then the other. Get therapy.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama It worked for 5000 years when basically the entire planet was subject to abject poverty. Then you flags messed with the word and it fell apart. Simple.

[@saumyanh93]

Joe Rogan at his best being a normal person analysing an argument

[@LolaBgcps]

@Easily Impressed Old Man LOL Good one.

[@jimmy-wf1uo]

@JustARandomCitizen yes. They are arguing. Walsh believes one thing and Rogan another, and they are discussing their disagreement. Arguing.

[@jeffreyepstein9641]

@@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.

[@jimmy-wf1uo]

@@jeffreyepstein9641 Great point Jeffery Epstein

[@MikeJProto]

@Easily Impressed Old Man Cope

[@TenTonNuke]

Walsh doing everything he can to not say, "Because God said it."

[@LogicCaster]

Rogan agreed with walsh in a recent video posted 5 days ago. I posted the link in a recent comment if you want to watch

[@TenTonNuke]

@@LogicCaster Whether or not a podcast host agrees does not make "God said it" any less ridiculous as justification for an argument.

[@ZetsubenSama]

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]

@@ZetsubenSama ^ read that crap if you want to laugh at a stupid german

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@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.

[@eirikstensrud2260]

In Norway, marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. It is mostly in relation to economics - unless you write prenup clauses. This sets a foundation for a more serious commitment, which in addition to love makes it more robust than a general relationship on rainy days.

[@LogicCaster]

You know what makes a really robust commitment? Offspring.

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasteryeah becouse Single parents don't exist, ey? 😂

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster No need of an offspring for the relationship to be robust.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now. So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. So stop getting married since all you’re doing is lying to yourself and your family and the state. And you said earlier you want to *$EXUALlSE CHlLDREN*

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster "You said yourself love dies which is acceptable now." It's a fact. Welcome to the real world. It is irrelevant if you accept it or not. "So lifelong marriages cant be founded on love alone. " Yes it can. "And you said earlier you want to $EXUALlSE CHlLDREN" PROVE IT. Until then it is slander and I report you. You are going to pay.

[@kizombasupreme3914]

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

[@connor7048]

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.

[@ajax201000]

Joes definition is the correct one

[@ShaferHart]

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!

[@cupidsfckedupfairy3216]

One believes in God and the other one doesn’t, you can’t really talk to people who got their heart closed to God.

[@Stephen-zw7km]

@@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.

[@crubs83]

@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.

[@luke88perry]

It's so refreshing to have people disagree without being disagreeable.

[@monsta2311]

hes not afraid ....this is how intelligent people talk about differences.

[@monsta2311]

@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.

[@timothymcleod7710]

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.

[@lampad4549]

@@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.

[@BlueLineKing7]

@@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.

[@jordanwilliams8040]

I like Matt walsh but he was umming his way through this debate and Joe objectively won

[@connorglaze538]

I agree with every part of your comment except liking Matt Walsh

[@christiankrausekjr5575]

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.

[@CarlosMedina-zq4lz]

In “traditional Marriage” there was “prima nocta” sometimes traditional is not the best Word to define something that is “Right”

[@kma3647]

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 KZbin channels do that. It's very much appreciated!

[@samgreen1933]

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.

[@embodyhealthuk]

yh

[@gnu2ewe-toob551]

@@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.

[@wolfjaeger7]

@@samgreen1933 they’re also disagreeing on gay marriage, as Walsh was eluding the question for 15 minutes.

[@LogicCaster]

Ever heard of joe rogan?

[@drksdofthmoon]

Matt: "what is a woman?" Joe: "what is a marriage?"

[@stickaaay]

extremely under rated comment

[@moderndayheretic]

Matt had a way better answer than Joe. Joe basically just said “it’s a relationship with love” which is flimsy and vague.

[@con10001]

@@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.

[@donglefimblethorp8339]

@@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.

[@tonystarrk4859]

@@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.

[@deemoe7301]

Me and my wife have been together for 16 years and never had children. And we're very happy together

[@LogicCaster]

Thats nice. Tell all the children that.

[@bobbydanger529]

Wtf my parents would kill me for not giving them grandchildren. but I also want kids too, it’s traditional in my culture.

[@LogicCaster]

@@bobbydanger529 The problem in the west is just that, lack of culture.

[@Ri57490]

Sounds like a good life

[@eligotti6530]

Seems like a boring like without kids. Kids bring me more joy then anything.

[@RRC1]

Joe has had every type of guest known to the modern world on his show. I'd love for him to have some Senior Leadership Pastors on his show. And just see where the conversation goes.

[@RcCrafter]

Matt does not want to just say that his view of marriage is religious more than social

[@kami_1789]

It's why religion is so backwards

[@Ken-zg3ze]

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.

[@jg2213]

@@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?

[@AveSicarius]

@@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.

[@jg2213]

@@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?

[@shaanchaudhry5719]

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.

[@cptpepper7731]

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.

[@SENATORPAIN1]

matt was rattled the whole time his argument was stupid.

[@burnstv280]

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.

[@shaanchaudhry5719]

@@SENATORPAIN1 You think? He seemed pretty calm/grounded to me

[@Krotas_DeityofConflicts]

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.

[@sofiahampton3030]

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.

[@jameswebb3410]

Sometimes the simplest of questions prove big points. I completely agree with Joe on this matter.

[@LogicCaster]

Or joes just asking simple hypothetical questions like a child

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCaster"like a child" said the child. Get therapy.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama “Said the child” then we look at your queer profile picture

[@ZetsubenSama]

​​@@LogicCaster"queer Profile picute" its a plush of a chicken, how tf is that suppose to be queer? 😂😂 Get therapy.

[@Richardwqr]

@@LogicCasterget help

[@MrDammit2hell]

This is what adulting looks like. So many so called adults these days don't even know how to have a conversation and be in amicable disagreement

[@weazel4945]

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.

[@AcidicMentality]

"adulting"... go back to reddit.

[@andyrome316]

@@AcidicMentality 🤣🤣

[@TheCrusher2468]

Do you mean acting like an adult?

[@vwtdi1579]

These 2 people aren't gay so the issue doesn't strike their identity. Once an issue does, then amicable disagreement can't happen.

[@100mbps6]

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.

[@Maxfox11]

Cue the JRE Crowder weed debate.

[@teddyguerrero9013]

Couldn’t have said it any better.

[@fearanarchy]

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

[@HenritheHorse]

@@fearanarchy 70s had some of the best music ever.

[@Kalivermore925]

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??

[@joeportland559]

This sounds like a discourse over a word what it means. To which we can just make a new word with the exact function but a small caveat, so there's a difference so people stop feeling some kind of way.

[@LogicCaster]

Yeah but they want to hijack the word marriage and sue religious people instead of do something as mature and obvious as you suggested.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster The word marriage does NOT belong to you, it wxas not hijacked, insane *mbecile.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie Yes it does. Yes it was. Speak for yourself F &:&)3’slahaha A keuekwodysljjdidkejs G &3&4992”2@2$; G @,@:@2@1””2”34@&43/ 0 @&:&2@@2&2$11”&( T You are a $3$3@/@$2 ^^^^

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasteryou completly lost your mind at this point. Get therapy.

[@vincentramirez8188]

Joe provides very logical arguments. This is the first time I have seen Matt backpedaling and stuttering a bit lol

[@travisvanalst4698]

Usually everyone does who promotes their ideas from a script instead of live civil discourse.

[@BlackedOutDreams]

because Joe kept changing the question and didnt let Matt have a chance to fully articulate his point

[@fredrikfjeld1575]

First time? Has to be the first time he has had the question brought to him without just letting him talk in a figure eight and let it be then.

[@fredrikfjeld1575]

​@@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.

[@marsjokes]

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.

[@nicklyons5614]

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.

[@benharris144]

"he's using his own logical brain" Truly a man of words.

[@jesterbons1558]

@@benharris144 lol

[@jesterbons1558]

rogan says alot of dumb shit

[@user-kb1hw2yq2f]

Careful. You're giving him too much credit. He isnt as authentic as he might have you to believe

[@mistertrackk]

@@user-kb1hw2yq2f and people should believe you because you say so?

[@fuexiong88]

Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman

[@connergoldberg]

Yeah the argument against Civil Unions is because it is just discriminatory language. In that case the de-facto for all marriages should be seen as "civil unions" under secular law with a clear definition of it being 2 humans that enter into an agreement whereby they share incomes, assets, wealth, resources, debts, liabilities etc with powers of attorney, hospital visitation, etc. And then the ultra-religious reserve the right to the word "marriage" strictly as dictated by their religious texts. But then we just argue semantics. If a civil union between a man and a woman is called "marriage" within the ultra-religious context, no one is going to fault someone for viewing a same sex civil union as "marriage" as well because it is just utilising marriage as a synonym. No religious doctrine is going to claim ownership over a word. That's not how the english language works.

[@LogicCaster]

Nobody mentioned religion. The whole human race acknowledges marriage as a means of procreation and raising of children in a civilised manner.

[@nightangelx1513]

It’s sad how refreshing it is to hear a civil conversation . . .

[@gtrell1991]

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.

[@HaleysComet81]

🤣

[@davidthomas9190]

@@gtrell1991 brah

[@gtrell1991]

@@HaleysComet81 what's so funny. My story is true

[@gtrell1991]

@@davidthomas9190 what?

[@caseyschneiderphotography]

And this is why Joe Rogan is the phenomenon he is. Honest, pragmatic, compassionate, free thinking. Thanks Joe.

[@maxadonna6545]

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.

[@caseyschneiderphotography]

@@maxadonna6545 Oh I didn’t see that. He definitely has his issues but he has a good heart

[@maxadonna6545]

@@caseyschneiderphotography for sure man

[@brandonman1315]

@@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.

[@neonboom6121]

@@maxadonna6545 nothing wrong with criticising someone's religion Typical Christian persecution complex

[@brianaandrews8899]

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

[@LogicCaster]

The responsibility being raising children

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasternope

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama Dont you have dyslexia and dig graves for a living in germany? Yeah

[@ZetsubenSama]

​​Are you pathetic with divorced parents and without anything better to do then to spread lies over thousands of comments? Yes. Get therapy.🤡 @@LogicCaster

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCasterMarriage has nothing to do with children.

[@JohnM3665570]

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.

[@LogicCaster]

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.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@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.

[@Orthodoxology]

It is primarily religious. And Christian. The Christian church has existed for over six thousand years. No one introduced marriage except the Christian religion

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@Orthodoxology Hum… the Christian church does not date back 6000 hundred years, no. And first marriages were celebrated way before Christianity was a thing.

[@LogicCaster]

@@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

[@seanhubble5532]

This is literally the most circling conversation I have probably ever heard.

[@RochScoot507]

@@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. 😊

[@e-money5085]

He's ducking the question better than Sarah Palin 😅

[@analisamarieh4119]

@@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.

[@SplitGoose]

​@@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

[@divinegon4671]

@@SplitGooseseems this flew way over yo ur head

[@yumyum723]

I'm glad Joe is capable of challenging his guests when necessary, even when he agrees with them on 90% of their views

[@AUZlE]

Typically more so when they are conservative.

[@yumyum723]

@@AUZlE I'm a Conservative myself doesn't mean I have to conform the every view held by other Conservatives

[@RS-cm8gg]

@@yumyum723 woaahhhhh!!! Ohhh no you didn’t!

[@J3WfroN1NjA21]

@@yumyum723 cap

[@TheH3Library]

Joe and Matt do not agree on 90% of their views lmfao

[@scottmoore7588]

People that have more empathy for words and definitions than people will never not terrify me.

[@BennyDaBandito]

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.

[@LogicCaster]

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

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasterwhat you are saying is reaching at best and disingenious at worse.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Nobody encourages or even allows children to be mutilated, slandering piece of sh*t.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama Whole world knows by now you’re one of the extremists

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Ta gueule.

[@thedragonslayer7294]

If all debates were like this, the world would be a better place.

[@kangaroo3708]

@Black King Stop commenting this evrywhere

[@arshiamirani9562]

@@kangaroo3708 his right tho

[@kangaroo3708]

@Arshia Mirani Ya but he’s typing the same thing over and over At least be original

[@pkingo1]

​@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.

[@metal882]

@Black King you're submissive

[@barelystephen]

My god. This is THE example of how all two people with differing opinions should converse with each other.

[@letsgobrandon5981]

to be fair, matt couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.

[@flatmoontheory]

Matt is a pedophile, if that's not obvious you're completely blind.

[@jinglebells223]

@@stone33 you dont have civilized conversations with people who reject human rights

[@replexity]

@@jinglebells223 you’re part of the problem.

[@stone33]

@@jinglebells223 Zuckerberg was in another video

[@sdguy67]

Marriage is a legal contract. Everything else is individualized, and shouldn't be rules pushed on others

[@jackmealor8455]

Civil conversations are cool but Joe Walsh didn’t deserve it, he’s found a weird place he wants to draw a line in the sand and is grasping for the logic to validate it, he failed

[@ItsBeenACoonsAge]

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.

[@silencer1286]

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?

[@sonoftherighthand1843]

@@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]

Really? I felt tension, especially from Joe.

[@oddindian1]

@@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.

[@ItsBeenACoonsAge]

@@chrishuffman6734 Tension, sure but they didn't get disrespectful with each other which is rare.

[@ShawnMwenje]

Can’t wait for Matt Walsh’s next hit documentary: ‘What is a Marriage?’

[@spreadtruth2103]

Better if he did what is Religion; as he follows a cult that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of “God”

[@Cheekycnt]

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]

words man, we made em up!

[@FrostySloth]

@@coughwheezeexplode idk man... that sounds made up.

[@Rotaks]

@@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.

[@gavingrant9121]

Because marriage is not viewed as an institution created by God is extremely difficult to argue that same sex marriage is wrong because marriage in our secular world isn't about procreation.

[@vu4ea]

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. This is the best way to talk to someone for their opinion and see why they have that opinion.

[@dsy9578]

Wow matt was stunned how joe always comes up with questions every moment 🤣🤣🤣

[@LogicCaster]

Stunned that joe didn’t get the answers

[@ZetsubenSama]

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.💥💥❌️❌️💥

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@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.

[@LogicCaster]

@@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.

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@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 😂.

[@steves835]

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.

[@bradyblough]

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.

[@renlysotherlover294]

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.

[@kodyk.7649]

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?

[@philipenos2930]

That is because you have 2 rational people talking with each other.

[@obeb787]

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.

[@f.r.etling6226]

Joe really showed Matt that you can be a real man and not be homophobic

[@LogicCaster]

Joe was emotional and opinionated here. Matt isn’t homophobic here.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Matt is homophobic. Opposing gay marriage is homophobic discrimination by definition.

[@LogicCaster]

⁠@@Nonalhomophobie No he isn’t. No its not. No its not. You’re just a little blich

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCasterYes he is. Yes it is. Yes it is. You are a sc*mbag who exist only to poison the world. One day you will pay.

[@Demonizer5134]

​@@LogicCaster Agreed. Matt made point after point and Joe refused to acknowledge anything he said. Joe was just being overly stubborn here.

[@jbrasco5000]

"Never found a definition"... Look harder.. Marriage is a business agreement whether arranged or between two people. Being in love just makes it better. But you can be in love form a union and not be married. I imagine years ago that agreement meant providing children. However, Joe has a great point what if you can't provide the children?

[@LogicCaster]

A business agreement? 99% of the time nobody had ANYTHING to bargain with.

[@jbrasco5000]

Come on are you joking? Sadly their bargaining tools were their children. Couple of goats. Access to water. A tiny plot of land, safety in union. Membership to a better lifestyle. I could go on....

[@LogicCaster]

@@jbrasco5000 Well in a remote village with only 50 people thats all pretty freaking important to the survival of the group don’t you think?

[@jbrasco5000]

@@LogicCaster yes, I agree. That is my point

[@LogicCaster]

@@jbrasco5000 Yeah, we exist because marriage was the smartest idea to ensure the survival of our people. Now you want to destroy that? Disrespect it? Nullify it for future generations?

[@WasenshiDo]

Having a healthy 2 way conversation is actually a skill. These guys are pros at it and it takes lots of practice

[@michaelthespikel5685]

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.

[@SplitGoose]

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

[@illuddivinus3309]

Neither talked about tax incentives and next of kin responsibilities as spouses.

[@andypancini2130]

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

[@tonyclifton2230]

Matt Walsh is a fool. Hiding his bigotry behind what ever nonsense that came out of his mouth there.

[@Neresdipity]

I'm getting really tired of this "it's selfish to not have kids" argument. I know someone who helped raise her niece - starting from when she was around 20 years old- after her sister gave birth and then immediately disappeared. One of the most amazing people I've ever known grew up in poverty -he was brilliant, he was in college on a free ride thanks to scholarships and he was on track to have a great education, career, and life, he was set up for great things. He went back home to help his sister when she got sick with a major, chronic illness and finished out his education at local colleges, that completely changed the course of his life. I know people who were more like parents to their own parents than their parents ever were to them for a number of reasons. I have great respect for the hard work and sacrifices it takes to be a parent - especially for women, the physical act of carrying life like that, that's amazing and is taken way too much for granted. But I'm also aware that people make sacrifices everyday for family members who are not their kids (or friends), some people spend years of their lives taking care of others because their character and sense of integrity compells them to do so. (I also think it's worth noting - parenting is often a choice. Yes, unplanned pregnancies happen, but it's often a choice, meaning that that person is making sacrifices based on a choice they made. My friend who raised her niece? Made sacrifices based on choices someone else made. That's not nothing). There's more than one way to be selfless/to show love/to contribute to society than getting married and creating life, there are all sorts of different ways to be an amazing person. There are decent people all over this world. Being a parent is a huge, wonderful, beautiful responsibility. We don't have to buy into this binary of: parent = good, child free = selfish. That's just ridiculous. Not to mention. ..does Matt Walsh ever...deal with people? He thinks everyone should have kids?... Everyone? He's never met someone who, say, I don't know...decided to set fire to his car for insurance fraud...in a public parking garage...and been surprised when it didn't work out? And who made a surprised Pikachu face when other the other cars started catching on fire? Cuz I have. (That is one of a million 'yeah, it's probably good that person never had kids' stories I've cultivated in my life). Let's...let's please leave parenting in the 'it's best to not do it unless you actually want it and are capable of it' bucket for now, I really think that's the best strategy. Props to parents and childfree people alike, we all play our part and we all matter in this big world. If you're not hurting anyone, if you're doing your best, I've got nothing but love for you. Never forget to be kind to yourselves too, that's a must.

[@LogicCaster]

Yeah thats why marriage should be between a man and a woman. If your sister passes away then you can take care of her children like any other parent would, and that child would be raised in a stable household with a loving mother and father. thats the role of a godparent. But if you dont have a niece heading for foster care, it’s selfish not to have children. Just indulging in money spending and sex. Selfish. Nothing worth respecting. You’re free to do it, but its selfish.

[@LogicCaster]

And maybe that person setting fire to cars would be better off spending his time raising children than living like an idiotic thug.

[@ZetsubenSama]

​You just completly ignored what he said to vomit your standart speech onto the keyboard. Get therapy. The guy deserves a good response and not your standart bs. 🤡 @@LogicCaster

[@Neresdipity]

@@LogicCaster "just indulging in money spending and sex" 😂 😂 👻 👻 ** I appreciate that you approved the very specific example of the most stressful thing my friend ever went through as an allowable reason to not have kids according to you. But ...what if I have a pet monkey whom I'm teaching how to perform open heart surgery so I can drive him around the neighborhood in a van offering free surgery to the uninsured? Is that okay-is it okay that I don't have kids due to my being busy training my monkey? I'm trying to save lives here! 🙊

[@pickie5171]

@@LogicCasterloser

[@ryancaldwell9463]

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.

[@LogicCaster]

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.

[@ZetsubenSama]

The guy above me is just like walsh only willing to make up even more pathetic lies.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Marriage was not hijacked, but improved, *mbecile. We will not have a separate word for our marriages. Cope and seethe.

[@briancheck2901]

This is a reminder of why Joe Rogan became so popular

[@koker59]

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

[@danielshepard2315]

talking to bigots?

[@saab-xq8lc]

@@koker59 Joe’s pretty good at not interrupting but he does when it comes to certain topics that he feels strongly about.

[@saab-xq8lc]

@@danielshepard2315 lol

[@CommanderTexas]

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!

[@Csizzorhandz]

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.

[@1247.cccccc]

As slow as Walsh is Joe is trolling himself with the comparisons. Would Joe be okay with groin shots? That's just a rule, in a sport.

[@jeremyvculek3090]

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’

[@shamrockballs1066]

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.

[@ZarkowsWorld]

@@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.

[@Csizzorhandz]

@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.

[@patpatmoomoo5524]

Yeah. Growing up a female millennial I was always told be independent, be a feminist, yet at the same time was told marriage is the epitome, the zenith of societal relationships. Why? Because it is assumed that you are valued, you are worthy, you are cherished enough to be in a committed relationship. Beyond that, the actual benefits in written laws for marriage/civil unions , actually give the same values in writing, not just symbolism. Furthermore it gives parental rights to any children born or adopted into that union. This way children have two adults who have oversight over their innocent and vulnerable life. How could that be bad? (Given that it’s two normal people who love children, and are not predatory over the child or over the other partner)…

[@ZetsubenSama]

You are absolutly right, but marriage and Civil unions are not equal at all. Have a good one 🫶

[@LogicCaster]

⁠@@ZetsubenSama Thats why they have different words. Same sex relations and normal people wanting to marry are not equal at all either.

[@patpatmoomoo5524]

Right, do “marriage” should be removed from all legal dealings. This way, civil unions for all. Most people accept a secular government (although in the USA it is not), and marriage is not necessarily a secular relationship arrangement

[@ZetsubenSama]

@@patpatmoomoo5524 thats completly fine with me but i doubt that this will be accepted in the US.

[@ZetsubenSama]

@@LogicCaster gay marriage is equal to marriage and it should be since gay people are equal to heterosexual people. Get therapy.

[@arianaislas5353]

Woah if Joe described the marriage situations where someone is committed to work and no kids would make Jordan Peterson cry 😂

[@LogicCaster]

Yeah sounds like depressing filth

[@pantoponrosegoatoe4129]

This is the most I’ve seen Walsh struggle for words. 😂

[@listek981]

Cause he's got nothing to say. Let's be real, he's trying to defend a point he can't form a single argument in favour of.

[@MYWRLDVW]

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.

[@doughboysnerdly2745]

@@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

[@skittycat]

that's what happens when your argument has no legs except "i don't like it, so it shouldn't happen"

[@spliced7383]

@@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

[@mavincio]

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.

[@TJ_Low]

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.

[@pavelskop305]

That is excellent point, thank you. Very truthful!

[@graemedoolan4107]

Yep, gotta agree with that one 👍

[@nescade5663]

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.

[@Paul-uv6mb]

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.

[@tyleraguilar2474]

Walsh wasn’t able to articulate a good reason as to why he felt that way. Joe on the other hand was very clear and asked follow up questions to make Walsh’s response.

[@LogicCaster]

Joe spoke in a simple matter about a complex subject

[@ghostpiratelechuck2259]

@@LogicCasterIt’s really not complex.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ghostpiratelechuck2259 It really is, not to the slow minded

[@retardedvaxxedliberal]

As someone who’s libertarian on most issues, I completely agree with Matt here. Just because you have certain freedoms doesn’t mean you can change the definition of what marriage is.

[@LogicCaster]

Thats right

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCaster"that's right" said the guy who redefined the words "religion" and "man" so it can fit his own world view. Hypocrite.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama No i don’t. You’re the autist who redefines words. I don’t even speak definitions, i delve into fundamentals

[@Nonalhomophobie]

If you agree with Matt you are a homophobe. Marriage's definition is arbitrary and there is no valid reason to restrict it to heterosexual couples.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie If you are a homophobe you are a normal person. Freak

[@paddyholiday2433]

Refreshing to hear the boundaries of an argument being tested with relevant questions and hypotheticals rather than attempts to discredit the person or a straw man argument. We desperately need this in our mainstream media.

[@sdeedenzacker]

This!!!

[@suedenim6590]

Mainstream is unfortunately just "Fear fear fear obey obey obey propaganda 24/7"

[@NK-mr3rh]

Joe is mainstream believe it or not, 10x more mainstream than whatever news channel you’re talking about

[@thevirgintraveller]

It is an argument and I agree with Rogan, however, it's good to see an argument play out as a conversation rather than being shouted down

[@anthonymangi9546]

TOO MUCH LEFT TOO MUCH RIGHT!! Not enough common ground

[@AlexLopez-wh5tc]

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.

[@MagcargoMan]

"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.

[@Blattie]

They did not really have an open mind though. They did not advance the conversation in any direction in any meaningful manner.

[@nauticalzebra4536]

@@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.

[@rypsterhc8673]

@@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

[@commentpost907]

@@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.

[@microsoftpain]

I still want to see Trent Horn on JRE to defend Catholics, but I don't think Joe would do that.

[@frozenIRL]

Sadly this guy doesnt have a real argument against what Joe is repeadetly asking him. He vaguely goes into Religion but doesnt really wanna say it... At least they discussed it in a friendly and respectful manner :)

[@tylerpresley3282]

There's a difference between an argument and a debate. This is a debate. Well done.

[@ilya6458]

debates consist of arguments

[@angieb.8721]

And moderators. This is a discussion.

[@jackreynolds612]

So much class on both sides!!!

[@LogicCaster]

Joe was a little more opinionated than usual in this debate. It should have been a conversation, thats what we all subscribed to joe for.

[@minorsingingairhead]

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.

[@sirmelancholia]

Excellent job by both Joe and Matt in showing how civil discourse is supposed to be done.

[@Boneyard250]

Dude’s argument fell apart several times, and fell back on “but the institution” lol. Nicely done.

[@strikerorwell9232]

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.

[@Atamastra]

@@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.

[@perzonne6302]

@@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

[@kadeholman414]

Matt's argument makes no sense, but I can appreciate how civil the conversation is

[@elanfredette4661]

The problem with what Walsh is saying is that he’s talking about marriage strictly from the religious aspect there are federal and state versions of marriage and that’s what most same-sex couples want equal rights to. They’re not saying that they want to go into the church and redefine with the religious aspect of marriage is per se they want that federal level government option of being able to own a home together to have a tax filing rights together as a couple. It’s more so along those lines, then trying to redefine individual, religious institutions and their definitions of marriage. While she’s coming from a very Christian worldview perspective.

[@LogicCaster]

He never mentioned religion. You’re being a bigot. Religion only mentions marriage because of how important it is to civilisation its self, matt is also discussing that importwnce

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCaster"importwnce" 🤡 You are such a disrespectful Tool. Get therapy.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama Didn’t you say yesterday you were dyslexic HAHAHAHHAHA

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCasteryeah but you are the one making fun of it while writing like you are dyslexic yourself 😂

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama Yeah but you are literally dyslexic HAHAHAHJDLQHSMAKJDSJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@gformisano1]

I think they both have valid points. Although we must make a distinction between the past and today. Many families stayed married and had kids because there weren’t as many opportunities as today and material things were fewer. The internet alone, opened up a world that many couldn’t even dream of before. I am not saying it’s the best thing but one does have to acknowledge societal change.

[@brookieb4796]

I love this conversation. This is how REAL discussions happen. We don't have to always agree, we just have to stay civil and polite.

[@nivekmendez6376]

Than how tf you get anything done U dummy

[@randommaskguy]

Sure you can have a civil conversation with someone who’s hateful. No doubt. But calling them hateful doesn’t make you wrong and uncivilized for it.

[@darbymcdermott7698]

There’s always at least one “what a great and respectful conversation” comment whenever somebody is openly spreading bigotry on a podcast lol

[@kracusomniax3933]

@@randommaskguy and your attitude about it is part of the problem

[@radioactivetrees9626]

Matt dodged the question left and right. Joe had to restate the question so many times. Matt's a coward.

[@BrassCatcher]

Joe has gotten good at this whole interview thing

[@T1BrutaL]

hes been good

[@mattbeisser3932]

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.

[@monsterchad77]

@@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.

[@schmeelkie075_gaming]

People are allowed to have their believes and disagree with others. And this is how you have a discussion and disagree but maintain a level of respect 🫡

[@scottmoore7588]

“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.

[@sneakysnape3425]

Its probably a good thing that I tuned most of this out cuz the parts I did hear the guy just sounded dumb as hell, but I was mostly just wondering how uncomfortable sleeves must be when you're buff like that cuz Joe's arms looking ready to rip out them sleeves 😂 that's gotta feel so constricting

[@BSJ-Unparalleled]

I just appreciate the fact they didn’t start yelling at each other. They disagreed, and had a civil discussion about their disagreements.

[@LinieGoonz]

Welcome to the JRE

[@gettoughtorough1779]

I think Matt expected joe to be the right wing guy they say he is in the media. Pushed back on key logical points.

[@jaymann5180]

Wait until Matt starts speaking against pot. Joe won't have it.

[@libertasdemocratiam887]

It's called debate. Healthy civilised debate.

[@anacc3257]

@@jaymann5180 Anyone who wants to pave the way for a moral society where people make fruitfully good decisions tends to be offensive to these libertarians.

[@jesses3764]

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.

[@welp5981]

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.

[@ballisticbread]

Matt Walsh deserves no respect.

[@elektrotehnik94]

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.

[@welp5981]

@@elektrotehnik94 I personally think the "ideal" of marriage should have nothing to do with one's sexuality

[@GardenGuy1943]

Joe had no respect when I was there

[@CHROMIUMHEROmusic]

Never seen this Matt Walsh guy before but its funny how he finally understands marriage here: 7:09 Certainly quite the coincidence that the person who advocates against gay marriage, saying it doesn't fit the definition, is also the one who barely understood the true purpose of marriage in the first place...

[@LogicCaster]

Civilisation as a whole is just as much a subjective symbolic thing as marriage

[@kinglame2112]

Mariage- the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship Doesn't say anywhere in here about straight marriage or a nuclear family

[@LogicCaster]

Encyclopaedia: Marriage may be defined as a culturally approved relationship of one man and one woman (monogamy), of one man and two or more women (polygyny), or of one woman and two or more men (polyandry), in which there is cultural endorsement of sexual intercourse between the marital partners of opposite sex and, generally, the expectation that children will be born of the relationship (“polygamy” is the term that subsumes both polygyny and polyandry).

[@ZetsubenSama]

​@@LogicCaster that's a quote from a site that is just called encyclopedia. Not to mention that the guy who wrote this piece wrote: "It should not be concluded from the fact that sexual intercourse is a prerequi-site for pregnancy that all peoples regard marriage or the establishing of a man-woman relationship" Get therapy.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama Well it is just a site called encyclopaedia so that second part you mentioned should be ignored

[@ZetsubenSama]

@@LogicCaster my quote comes even before yours 🤣 your Passage is the 2nd part silly. Either take the whole source or don't take it at all. Get therapy.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama You discredited it but quoted it. You literally never went to school grave digger lmfao

[@JC-wq9tt]

Imagine 2 people disagreeing but listening to each other’s opinion and actually having a conversation. And more importantly not hating someone and trying to silence someone with a different opinion.

[@critiquegeek7987]

C-O-P-E

[@ProCoRat]

It's not that. It's that his guest would usually be belligerent and 'dunk' on the person saying they support gay marriage but they are afraid of being too wacky and losing access to his giant platform. If it was anybody else saying what Joe was saying, he'd call him a woke cuck.

[@mickyarams]

Unlike the folks at infowars.

[@santiagosts]

you mean having an argument.

[@blagoojee]

well thats the point of debate.

[@zodge531]

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.

[@Asailant_]

“Important topic” 🤣 that’s laughable

[@dakotajoseph45]

Lmao but all that means nothing if nothing is learned…

[@zodge531]

@@Asailant_ You don't think the institution of marriage and family is important?

[@Kimberly63]

“Without fear of cancelation”?? How about without fear of violence?! You know those Trumpers after all.

[@Gabes47]

Yeah its great the way they are disagreeing, but walsh’s view is ridiculous

[@just_ethanj02]

Matt really likes to beat around the bush and not actually answer the question.

[@wnazgul]

Its very simple, it all depends on what your defenition is of marriage. If its just about love, its still wrong some ppl get married because somany marriage fail. So in both partys, the meaning of marriage is losing its meaning as 50% are failing. While marriage is made for not being able to fail. If something is broke, you promised to fix it instead of run from it

[@ZetsubenSama]

You mentioned something very important "It all depends on what your defenition of marriage is" Marriage is highly Individual. Matt's stance is completly fine for him and no one will tell him to stop to view his marriage in the way He does but matt feels intitled to Tell others what theyr marriage should be becouse to him his religious selfcentered World view gives him the authority to justify such behaviour. That's problematic becouse Walsh has a huge following, mostly religious people, who view him as smart or even intelligent. They take his stance and his entitled behaviour and use that to Tell others how theyr marriage should Funktion.

[@LogicCaster]

@@ZetsubenSama The definition that works and the definition that caters to terroristic fetishisers and child groomers.

[@ZetsubenSama]

"Terroristic fetishisers and child groomers" you are talking about Walsh 😂 Members of walshs audience made bomb threads on multiple accations and openly are for the marriage of minors. Funny how you accuse others of things but are just telling on yourself all the time 😂 get therapy 🤡@@LogicCaster

[@Nonalhomophobie]

"While marriage is made for not being able to fail." That is not, and never has been, the intended target.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie Yeah it has. Hence the sharing last name and swearing a lifelong bond infront of both families, god and the state. You would literally just dive off a cliff if you stopped lying to yourself about your entire reality huh… maybe its healthier to just stop choosing to be a momo…..

[@b.bernal6151]

I respect people who know they don’t want children and do what is right for them. Better than bringing kids into this world without really wanting them and being a bad or mediocre parent.

[@morganr4426]

THANK YOU! I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS COMMENT! I know a number of people who never should have been parents. They are abusive, manipulative and neglectful. As the saying goes, every child deserves a good parent. But not every parent is deserving of their child.

[@gabbyhayes1568]

I agree.

[@isaiahblann8447]

@Chad 007 I’m assuming this is a chess joke I’m too smooth brained to understand

[@nikis356]

Yeah i get that totally, however, my mum NEVER wanted kids but then it happened unintentionally and she became the best mother i could have ever wanted and she also says that having children was the best part about her whole life. I think people simply are unable to imagine how it feels to hold your own child in your arms for the first time. That changes everything. And i think that many people will regret their choice to not have children when their older, given they were capable of course.

[@climatepurification]

The government system was based upon marriage of man and woman, both energies needed to advance a species. The system functions on this vital energy so the introduction of a same sex "marriage" might advance the resources of a government but then deviates that government from benefitting under the protection of God ("One nation under God"). Once the government attempts to exist outside these simple requirements, chaos then begins to take hold as God (a pro-life entity) cannot support the institution further. Its literally Mason symbology backfiring on society in the pursuit of perpetual greed.

[@SamAlan3005]

These are the type of conversations that made me a fan of the JRE so many years ago. This convo took me back!

[@Seeker7257]

Joe Rogan is the very guy who has the ability to argue with civility coupled with a lot of patience and fortitude.

[@SamAlan3005]

@Cody 😂 the irony right?

[@xavierrose8208]

Matt: “marriage is about family.” Joe: “ what about families that are in fertile?” Matt: “there’s adoption” Me: “ so the same thing as a gay parent… makes sense mate”

[@LogicCaster]

Until he walks in on his two dads ramming and is scarred for life.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

@@LogicCaster Because he would not be scared if it was a man and a woman, hypocrite ?

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie No, he would not. Not as much as two men. Fun fact, you people are a shock to the senses. Thats why you resort to indoctrinating children, because no normal person accepts you historically, biologically and generally speaking.

[@xavierrose8208]

I take it he blocked me, cause I can’t see his dumbshit comment. So that’s fine.

[@LogicCaster]

Yeah i cant see comments either unless i go under the video and click your comment. Modern censorship. Thats a product of you people trying to force acceptance. So many people disagree with your life choices that free speech its self has to be attacked and children have to be forced into acknowledging your backward belief system in order for you to pretend you’re normal.

[@jayallen81]

With marriage as an institution to raise children, a gay couple (men or women) are typically aunts and uncles and cousins and such. Their stability as a gay married couple allows for their relatives to drop off their children so they can have a break. That's a good thing.

[@Nonalhomophobie]

Or, gay couples can raise children of their own.

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie Not properly. Easy way to traumatise and destroy a childs mind

[@LogicCaster]

@@Nonalhomophobie And didn’t you LITERALLY say earlier you think same sex couples raise *$EXUALlSED CHlLDREN?*

[@flyingpanda6802]

Let’s not forget that not all people that get married should be parents.

[@hannah3970]

i was anxiously waiting for joe to bring this up but he never did. THANK YOU

[@Zure467]

With no info to back this up, I would say they on average do better than just "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"

[@parthmudgal9270]

@@Zure467 not really because then the divorce thing is financially destructive to one side.

[@robertrussell7057]

Now thats funny

[@stonecoldsteveaustin9353]

@@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.