What is a Marriage? | Doug Wilson

In this episode of Doug Reacts, Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to Matt Walsh's conversation with Joe Rogan about the meaning of marriage.
Get one free month of Canon+ with code NQNQ
mycanonplus.com/
Free Books:
Joy at the End of the Tether: amzn.to/3fhXOom
Radiant: amzn.to/3U6Z3p7
A Brief Theology of Christmas Presents: dougwils.com/product/a-brief-...
Current Canon+ subscribers can give a year’s subscription of Canon+ for just fifty bucks-$49.99 instead of $95.88
mycanonplus.com
Doug Reacts is an apologetics reaction series presented by Canon Press.

[@keithwilson6060]

I'll say it again because it's true. If marriage can be anything to anyone, then marriage means nothing.

[@hudjahulos]

But what if, hear me out on this, they really want to?

[@DM-dk7js]

Marriage can be anything to anyone. Marriage is a social construct and legally binding contract. Why gay people can’t engage in that makes no sense.

[@sirsaint88]

Joe Rogan, sounds like a 13 year old kid trying to rebel against how the world works. What if? What if? What if? What if? What if?........ Normal for a 13 year old to look for loopholes, not normal for a grown up.

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

Same as the definition of Love (willing the good of another for their sole benefit). This is why “love is love” is an illogical statement in the same way that “marriage is marriage”is illogical.

[@keithwilson6060]

@@commercialrealestatephilos605 Very true. The two or three-word slogans of the left are designed to deceive.

[@burburkang]

I would love to see pastor Wilson on Joe Rogan’s show.

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

I’d take Doug, Jeff Durbin, or Michael Heiser on Rogan for 3 totally different reasons.

[@rwren]

that would be so great! So he can say explicitly what Walsh implied

[@Globeguy1337]

Or on Crowder (especially since they have a mutual acquaintance in Audio Wade). A while ago, Crowder complained that pastors aren’t teaching about biblical masculinity and marriage. Wilson et al do, and the exposure would be great.

[@HartyBiker]

@@Globeguy1337 yeah that would be very good I think. I do enjoy watching Crowder from an entertainment point of view, but the addition of Dave Landau has meant that the Christian conservative element has been lost, and he's dragging his own point of view down on my opinion. But yeah, he has a massive conservative audience so it would be fantastic for them to hear where their values actually come from.

[@sojourner2013]

Rogan wouldn't bring on Durbin or Wilson bc they would use him to mop the floor. He'd rather beat up on sophomores like Walsh.

[@peanutpablo9596]

"Why is it insisted upon that personal choice be the standard that rules all things?" Perfectly stated.

[@DM-dk7js]

Umm because this is America and we value FREEDOM!

[@SMoneyT]

@@DM-dk7js yeah I'm not American we do the same but why you have the right to tress pass into other people's beliefs ?

[@tankiebot704]

@@DM-dk7js freedom isn't a virtue

[@aallen5256]

@@SMoneyT It’s sort of a two way street, isn’t it? People have the freedom to believe what they like, but their actions can’t infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Intolerant evangelicals who want to ban all abortions, for example, are directly curtailing the rights and freedoms of women. The opposite isn’t true in the same way, the majority of people believe that terminating a pregnancy is a basic healthcare requirement and the rights and freedoms of evangelicals are not curtailed by this because they can still choose never to have an abortion.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@tankiebot704 lol! Okay.

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

“The obvious effect of frivolous divorce will be frivolous marriage. If people can be separated for no reason they will feel it all the easier to be united for no reason.” GK Chesterton

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

And freedom will reign. Isn't that important? Love and freedom? I just hear restricting freedom.

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

@@UsmanKhan-coolmf restricting freedom? How so?

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

@@apostolicapologetics4829 " you aren't allowed to divorce except for these reasons "

[@SatireSanity]

@@UsmanKhan-coolmf Frivolous marriage isn't freedom. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a bondage to your own selfish desires, and whatever your heart pleases. The problem is that if marriage can be whatever you want, based on your individual desires, then it isn't love at all. it is a restriction and bondage to your flesh and sin.

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

@@SatireSanity we don't agree on the definition of freedom. How much of what you said is your belief?

[@JamesExcell-InterJex]

What is Marriage needs to be his next documentary. 💯 %

[@sickboy666fu]

It needs to be for 2 consenting adults

[@JamesExcell-InterJex]

@@sickboy666fu why just 2?

[@sickboy666fu]

@James Excell 2, the minimum number required for there to be an actual relationship After that sky's the limit. Though it does become more difficult when you add more people to a relationship

[@johndarwin4705]

Watched this interview this morning and immediately thought "I wonder when Doug will react to this." Thank you!

[@banemaler]

Same 😂

[@keithwilson6060]

I'm glad Doug is so engaged with the narratives of the day.

[@Globeguy1337]

Same. Me, my reaction was to repeatedly facepalm so hard I thought I’d bruise. Walsh didn’t directly go to God, but he was talking about teleological structures and definitional frameworks, and Joe was just repeating ‘but like watif they wanna, tho?’ even on points Matt had already answered. Wilson is looking from the 7th floor at Matt, who had descended to the 3rd floor balcony to be within earshot of Joe, who is trying to wrestle Matt’s shadow on the ground as Matt keeps asking him to try to look up.

[@christhompson2616]

when I heard the interview I was thinking the same lol.

[@milakuzmanic3313]

@@Globeguy1337 I just LOVE how you used that metaphor. And I'm so glad you fully understood and articulated Matt's intentions - "Matt keeps asking him to try to look up". So many people in this comment section didn't understand at all why Matt didn't mention God. He tried to meet Joe where he is. Just like he managed to meet Joe where he is and touched his heart with his documentary. You can not appeal to an authority which is not mutually accepted. But YOU CAN try to make a "meeting of the image bearers". What I mean is - Joe Rogan IS the image bearer of God even though he doesn't believe that. Even though Joe is intellectually rejecting the basis of his existence - he can not completely reject it in living out his life. Joe's lived out family live is MUUUCH more conservative than what he intellectually believes. Which makes me believe that everybody in the comment section is totally wrong in criticizing Matt's tactics in this debate. I think he approached Joe in the best possible way to have a chance to plant a seed. I believe that Joe will rethink A LOT of what he heard from Matt ESPECIALLY when situations in his children's lives confirm the wisdom of Matt's words.

[@bryanpratt5850]

It’s always refreshing to hear Doug tell it like it is. “In this fallen world, there are many slippery slopes, and we should know since we’re at the bottom of one.” 😂😂😂

[@blackstarrogue8896]

Please, get Doug and Rogan in the same room. 3 hour podcast, best one that would be done to date

[@stooch66]

Joe would immediately dismiss everything he says and it would be over without real discussion. Are you all that simple?

[@DM-dk7js]

@@stooch66 well yeah, because there’s no evidence for any of the stuff Wilson says. So yeah. It would be dismissed. As it should be.

[@godsstrength7129]

Is there any evidence for marriage for gay people?

[@apierre6]

@@godsstrength7129 Joe and most secular people are arguing for marriage from a legal standpoint. Marriage is a human institution, you don't need "evidence"

[@apierre6]

It would be a very short podcast and Doug would look like an idiot because his entire argument centers around "God said" or "God made". Joe easily counter and say "how do you know your God is correct?" And then you have to justify the existence of God. The conversation wouldn't go anywhere

[@Jordanazrei4]

Thank you guys at at Canon Press. You’re on top of it

[@PostTenebrasLux89]

This was what I hoped would happen after I listened to that podcast episode. Thanks, Doug!

[@mexvantil7523]

Yes. Matt! Say, “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.”

[@marlam8625]

And as Augustine writes, as Eve was flesh of his flesh, so too a husband cleaves to his wife as Christ cleaves to His bride the Church, by his flesh, the Eucharist.

[@dissonantsublt2469]

My dad, my dad would absolutely love your talks. Watching this video I was quick to reach for my phone to send him a link or call him and tell him all about you guys, but he has been gone for more than a year now. But man would he love the things you've got to say and I wish I could share this channel with him.

[@connorhurley6772]

This interview gave me an aneurysm. We are literally witnessing two guys dance around the reality of God and of the truth. Blatant rebellion.

[@chico5777]

Jeff the ninja woulda had a heart attack watching Matt Walsh fail to build his argument on the foundation of Christ.

[@LMPM0909]

Yes! 😂 I was thinking the same.

[@aliciajenkins8593]

Jeff Durbin would be so great on the Rogan show

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast between Rogan and Walsh, they get into the Christian world view and Walsh points out in that discussion he intentionally avoided bringing his religious views into the debate up to that point …. The clip ending where it did is misleading by omitting the context that follows

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

Exactly. So there is no real argument! Christ is not real in my mind so its not something i should have to follow. Just like Jew stuff and Buddha stuff isn't really in yours right? I mean wtf are we even talking about here. Why are you making me try to think like a 10 year old to describe why what you're saying makes no sense. Please don't make me dumber!

[@chico5777]

@@UsmanKhan-coolmf what you are describing is a universe with no objective truth. You can suppress the truth of Christ and pretended like we don’t know anything at all. You can pretend like truth is up to every individual. What happens though when your truth goes against mine? Who’s right? By what standard do we live by? The answer to that question is we live by the highest standard, God, who has given his word to mankind. He has given us a way to salvation and a way to live from salvation. You will reject his word because you choose to accept the foolish doctrines of the world. Repent and believe the gospel.

[@garrettscott9427]

Matt Walsh chose the foolish route by leaving God out of the conversation.

[@JB-ku7kv]

RCC style lol

[@SickestDisciple]

Yea but what do you expect from someone who adheres to natural law?

[@victoriathorlacius874]

Consider his audience. Rogan isn’t going to accept any “God says…” argument.

[@His-Story.ForHisGlory]

bUt He'S caTHoliC!!

[@aallen5256]

Yeah he left God out of the conversation to try and avoid looking foolish

[@lukeplaysdrums7007]

Still cringing at how hard matt fumbled this question… Thanks for picking up the pieces pastor!

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the entire podcast between Rogan and Walsh. Right when this clip ends they get into the Christian side because Rogan brings it up, Walsh was intentionally not bringing his personal religious views into the debate as a matter of tactic. They discuss the religious side after that clip ended

[@DM-dk7js]

Yeah he didn’t fumble he just lost the debate on the merits and had no cohesive argument.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@Charles.Wright can we stick to the substance tho please? He lost the debate on the merits. MW’s argument hinges on procreation, so he should be equally upset and against straight couples who don’t procreate. MW had no comeback. He lost.

[@mikvan9849]

@@DM-dk7js Infertile married couples are still valid because it is not a sin. A world without sin, (ergo disease, death, genetic conditions) wouldn't include infertility. Infertility is not a moral failing you jerk. Stop talking as though it is. You're being extremely insensitive to couples struggling with this and you should be ashamed of yourself by portraying it that way. Besides, there are plenty of people declared "infertile" that end up actually conceiving. A man and a man or a woman and a woman have literally no chance to achieve this. And yes, Matt Walsh should simply affirm that everyone that can have children, should have children.

[@YSLRD]

@@DM-dk7js That IS the substance. You regularly come to Doug's presentations to get people to react and argue with you. Since you aren't surprised, the alternative is you think you can present valid arguments to Doug Wilson (😁). Or you have personality disorder that relishes conflict.

[@raymondhunter2401]

This was a breath of fresh air to listen to. Thank you.

[@jeremypeyton1251]

This was a Breath of fresh air Doug. I was so frustrated listening to their conversation, thank you for bringing God’s word into the equation.

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast… right when that clip ends they get into the Christian side of the argument

[@nmbcce]

I agree, I like Matt Walsh and know he's Catholic so I was very confused why he waited so long to bring up the religious context behind marriage. Maybe because he knows Joe is an atheist and wouldn't accept a religious worldview but that is exactly where marriage comes from.

[@JamesWilliams-gg2yu]

@@Pickle312 I listened to the whole thing. Walsh never mentions Jesus defining marriage in the Gospel, he never addresses homosexuality as sin, etc. It was very frustrating...

[@JamesWilliams-gg2yu]

@@devilselbow I disagree with both your statements.

[@JamesWilliams-gg2yu]

@@devilselbow good point

[@NFStamper]

First, notice Matt trying argue without appealing to the divine - how's that going? Second, notice how these two get stuck in a circle with their arguments. Joe thinks personal fulfillment and happiness should dictate the nature of marriage, while Matt believes there is an objective definition of marriage based on transcendent or objective standards. To step outside of this loop of assertions, what Joe and Matt should really be debating the deeper presuppositions fueling their assertions. How about the nature of existential or teleological ethics vs. deontological ethics? Matt should ask Joe for the basis by which he knows the purpose of marriage and life is one’s personal happiness and fulfillment (existential/teleological). Joe should ask Matt to justify his claim that marriage should have an objective definition based on duty (deontological). Is it a duty to God or natural law? This conversation requires going beyond marriage to address the presuppositions they hold to form these surface beliefs. In other words, where is God in this conversion? Third, imagine Joe Rogan’s naturalistic world, devoid of divine purpose, which is also a random product of Darwinism, driven by a struggle for survival, and understood only as perceived by the individual. Outside the individual, there is no higher authority to establish morality, communicate truth, bring about justice, or exemplify beauty. What the hell does one’s opinions of marriage even matter? Why does Joe care so much?

[@Baby_Yoda_Fan2311]

Sounds like something Doug would say 😁 and that is a compliment

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast between Rogan and Walsh, they get into the Christian world view and Walsh points out in that discussion he intentionally avoided bringing his religious views into the debate up to that point …. The clip ending where it did is misleading by omitting the context that follows

[@Baby_Yoda_Fan2311]

@@Pickle312 that’s good to know. I think a lot of the point still stands that trying to leave God out of the marriage discussion at all leaves no basis of truth for any claims made. Why leave God out of even part of the discussion?

[@joemorgenstern9846]

@@Pickle312 How many times are you going to post this reply? Are you working for Matt?

[@KalliBella1]

JR invoking the divorce rate in our modern society, IS precisely why I think "marriage" is counter cultural. That is to say, no man or human institution would come up with a concept about relationships like "marriage." The fallen nature of men would prevent the mind from coming up with a situation where a man and a woman would naturally gravitate toward a very unique and exclusive and demanding type of relationship. The point is, fallen humanity would have come up with a much easier and less binding arrangement that would allow them the selfish enjoyment of the other person solely for personal reasons only while the relationship is rewarding. But when things get complicated with duties and responsibility and fidelity, fallen humanity would not set up a system whereby they must abide by the promises of "for better or worse." Biblical marriage is not man-invented or conceived. It is a most unique relationship and the reason why homosexuals/opponents of Biblical marriage don't have an alternative definition of what "marriage" is proves that left to our own fallen ways we can't even come up with an alternative to marriage. The best we can come up with is to pervert what marriage is and call the perversion the alternative.

[@nathanielkeane8462]

Very true. Every pagan society devolves into polygamy and orgies. Purely monagamous marriage with very little wiggle room for divorce is the opposite of what fallen man does.

[@AuthenticSwoal]

Well said!

[@richardgonzalez6583]

Then why involve the state into your marriage if you marry through biblical standards there is no divorce

[@CiliPB]

Very helpful reaction to give us tools to be clear about the meaning of marriage and the true foundation behind it.

[@jeremybrown-HelloJayBird]

Joe Rogan treats marriage like a business agreement or an LLC formation.

[@ds29912]

To be fair. If you've read any of the laws governing marriage and divorce, you will find that the state considers marriage to be a business agreement or an LLC formation.

[@jrconway3]

That's basically how modern society treats it so that's not shocking.

[@delbert372]

In other words, a mere contract rather than a holy Covenant.

[@DM-dk7js]

That’s literally exactly what it is.

[@OneMan-wl1wj]

@@DM-dk7js That should've been Walshs angle. The word "marriage " carries a sacred connotation (and that's what everyone really wants in on) and it's what we're preserving. You can have a G.S.C. a "government sanctioned union" all day... but not a "marriage ". Marriage is a religious institution.

[@mommacita2069]

Thank you for breaking these videos down, they are very insightful and helpful.

[@susanburger4348]

A hearty AMEN Pastor Doug!!! Thank you so much!

[@rwren]

I tweet Doug and asked him to do this reaction video! Thanks Doug! -- probably others did too. ; )

[@daffy4Christ]

Awesome!! Good stuff!! Love you Doug!!

[@robertbuciu]

Been waiting for this one! Thanks Doug !

[@sourcaroline7178]

This was really well explained and balanced. Thanks, Doug! I was frustrated a few weeks ago with CrossPolitic’s assessment of Matt Walsh. This is much more well-presented and thought through. Thank you!

[@repentorperish1386]

I don't think their assessment could be compared straight up to this but I kind of agree

[@RedNeck_Zeus]

Marriage is a covenant that 1 man and 1 woman make with God, to serve God together as one.

[@richardgonzalez6583]

That’s complete bullshit because why are you involving the state a marriage license is nothing but a contract between two people it has nothing to do with religion

[@GregMunro]

Great video, I was in a beautiful marriage before my now ex wife left me, i still love her and most times I cant stop thinking about her, i am doing my very best to get rid of the thought of her, but i just cant, i love her so much, i don't know why i am bring this here for, i cant stop thinking about her.

[@peterwilliams6361]

its always difficult to let go of someone you love, i was in a similar situation my wife for 12 years left me, i couldnt just let her go i did all i could to get her back, i had to seek the help of a spiritual adviser who helped me bring her back

[@GregMunro]

@@peterwilliams6361 wow, how did you get a spiritual adviser, and how do i reach her?.

[@peterwilliams6361]

@@GregMunro Her name is Sylvia Regina White,and she is a great spiritual adviser who can bring back your ex.

[@GregMunro]

@@peterwilliams6361 Thank you for this valuable information,i just looked her up now online. impressive

[@mrmonay]

Sounds like you idolized her, and still do, and frankly while most women claim they want that, it doesn't take long for them to be turned off by it. God wants no idols before him, that includes women and wives.

[@alsteiner7602]

fabulous content Doug

[@TherealAmySquirrel]

Speaking of marriage, I really enjoyed Decluttering Your marriage. Thank you for making that available this month

[@ericmoore6498]

After listening to Joe Rogan, I hear "Feelings, nothing more than feelings" playing in my mind.

[@DM-dk7js]

He won the debate lol

[@DM-dk7js]

@@Charles.Wright problem is your premise is false. Marriage is not the pretext for procreation. It’s a legally binding socially concocted contract between two people. Procreation isn’t mandatory or required. And people can procreate outside of marriage.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@Charles.Wright what fallacy did I commit again? You left that part out. At least name the fallacy if you’re going to accuse me of such. What was it? A false equivalence fallacy or a red herring fallacy?

[@DM-dk7js]

@@Charles.Wright yeah sorry I didn’t commit a fallacy.

[@DaBigArmyDude]

Rogan is an excellent definition of “pseudo intellectual”. Instead of asking “why do you want to keep gays out of marriage” the question to ask is “why do gays want into marriage”.

[@DM-dk7js]

That’s an easy question to answer. To get tax breaks that couples get, and for the same reasons of symbolizing their love just like straight couples. Hope that helps. So now that you’ve been informed of this very simple concept, you have to demonstrate why that’s a bad thing and they should be prevented from getting married because it’s bad.

[@H1N1777]

@@DM-dk7js Marriage is the God-ordained union of one man and one woman. This definitionally excludes homosexuals, groups of people, etc. If you want a tax break, vote Republican.

[@kamarwashington]

@@DM-dk7js They could just be allowed civil unions. Marriage is defined by the coming together of man and woman

[@tankiebot704]

@@DM-dk7js homosexuality is immoral why would we give moral criminals tax breaks?

[@elijahgrajkowski2505]

Getting married to claim a tax break ignores the fact that we are drowning in mountains of burdensome taxes to start with. Perhaps we should be eliminating the tax burden in the first place, thereby eliminating the need for the “breaks.”

[@rds9872]

Doug Wilson kind of looks like Matt Walsh’s dad lol

[@chaseorosco9017]

I've been waiting for this ever since I listened to Walsh's abysmal performance on Rogan's program with this subject. Thank you guys!

[@DonnyDelco]

"Couples who dont have kids arent harming anyone." Tell that to Japan where they have one of the oldest populations in the world. Walsh should have said, if every married couple chooses not to have kids for selfish reasons, it harms everyone.

[@megankissinger8269]

If Japan wants people to have kids, then they drastically need to improve their work life balance. You can't tell people to have more kids when they're expected to work around the clock. You know what's harmful? Telling people with no parental instinct that they have to have kids they'll never want that will end up scarred by parents who never wanted them. If society expects people to permanently damage their physical and mental health doing something they don't want for the benefit of strangers (none of whom would help them raise their kids) that's pretty screwed up. Imagine claiming to care about society, yet advocating for people to create unhappy families.

[@JohnSmith-cb9hb]

It's hard to believe that Rogan can't see how the meaning of marriage being limited only to the individual rather than society doesn't see that as a change let alone a downgrade.

[@megankissinger8269]

Marriage is for the individual. It isn't any of society's business who gets married or not and their reasons for it.

[@JohnSmith-cb9hb]

@@megankissinger8269 You don't get the point of marriage either.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@JohnSmith-cb9hb find a better hobby than obsessing over who random dudes have sex with

[@JohnSmith-cb9hb]

@@DM-dk7js Find a better hobby than obsessing over random people's opinions on the internet.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@JohnSmith-cb9hb I will. When your bigotry is defeated. Might be here a while. Also. THATS the difference between what you’re doing and what I’m doing. I’m not being a bigot. You guys are. And yes. You are. The fact that you can’t realize this shows religion is poison.

[@LindaMethod]

I married when I was past the age to have children because I loved the man. I didn't marry him for children, I married him for love. And that is valid.

[@moderndayheretic]

Subscribed!

[@mike16apha16]

by Joe Rogan's logic incest and pedophilia should be fine as long as they really really reeeeally love each other. every single argument he used can be used to justify those as well. every single one

[@billbeen9350]

And a gal and her German Shepherd, and a guy and his dead girlfriend, and a ventriloquist and his doll, and a gal and her redwood tree, and……

[@CornerTalker]

That's what the "Plus" means.

[@DM-dk7js]

That would obviously be an exception because those things are illegal and immoral. Gay marriage isn’t immoral or illegal. Bit of a false equivalency fallacy.

[@zachzimmerman4092]

@@DM-dk7js who decides what is moral or not?

[@DM-dk7js]

@@zachzimmerman4092 we do. As humans. By weighing the actions of our consequences and making a conscious effort to maximize good and minimize the bad.

[@gregsquire9704]

being deeply in love does not mean you must have children. before anyone gets a wrong idea about my statement. marriage as defined by God is one man and one woman. everything else is a mirage

[@jasoncoetzeeadadjjzjdatune9617]

.. the thumbnail. Lmao. You had to fit Walsh and Rogan, Doug and computer. I get it, so you got em cheek to cheek its beautiful. Wow

[@grimknight1452]

My definition of marriage is the legal and or symbolic union of two or more people who love each other and want to be in a relationship with each other for as long as they are willing to stay together and support each others interests.

[@peanutpablo9596]

How is Joe gonna say marriage is an end-all-be-all to these groups over here but then turn around and say that marriages are likely just gonna end in divorce anyways so who cares? Like, you have to pick one, fam

[@christophertaylor9100]

The divorce rate is not 50%. Yes, if you add up all marriages and divide by the number of divorces its close to 50% but a good half of those marriages are people who have had a divorce some time before in their past. They're weighting the odds down. If you find out how many individual people have had a divorce, the number is around 35%, not 50%.

[@hannahcrabtree599]

14:25 is at the heart of it all

[@agustintadeo]

Thank you Doug, I hear that click and I was like "man give him an answer" Matt went around and around.

[@jasonbabilonia3037]

To Matt's defense joe was asking all the right questions and kitchen got hot especially when you ignore the one who created marriage.

[@noxvenit]

Walsh demonstrates nicely how poorly the natural law to which he appeals works in application, and how poorly it works in convicting of sin.

[@kirkjungles4901]

St Paul seems to think God reveals Himself through nature and that people can know of His law (which is inscribed on our heart) through natural means. Confer Romans 1:19-21, 2:14-16. Of course the fullness of truth can’t be shared without talking about God’s ordering of marriage from the beginning, but if you use that as a starting point, you simply won’t be asked to come on the podcast. We live in a hyper-secularists world and we have to do everything in our power to share whatever we are allowed to share of the truth.

[@tankiebot704]

Not really he's just making a bad argument.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@kirkjungles4901 not the same thing. “Natural law” proponents are promoting that separate from any concept of God

[@noxvenit]

@@kirkjungles4901 Thank you, I know what Paul seems to think. But, as you acknowledge, it is the scriptures that convict, not nature. Walsh may not be asked to come back, but if he is just going to show up with bad arguments grounded, why worry? And the idea that we share only the truth that secularists "allow" us to share doesn't square very well with the Christian's calling. If they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not hear anyone less. Cf Luke 16.31.

[@noxvenit]

@@cosmictreason2242 "Natural law proponents" -- yes, chief among whom are Roman Catholics, for example, Walsh.

[@ImDanWhoAreYou]

If your approach is reason alone, Rogan is right. You can’t argue for the sanctity of marriage while ignoring the One who sanctified it. Don’t leave your sword at home if you’re going out for battle.

[@brickbear6296]

This is the same Matt Walsh who says you can make this debate without God. He failed miserably and leaving God out is why

[@CornerTalker]

7:00 Once again, that false claim of 50% marriage failure. Everyone wants to repeat this: no one wants to back it up.

[@mak88119]

It's almost 60% and 80% of all divorces are initiated by the woman.

[@CornerTalker]

@@mak88119 cite your source - otherwise kzbin.info/www/bejne/rl6mk6Wpn8h8m6M

[@NathanRose-dh1jp]

It's like 43, close enough to 50 to know it's not the best bet

[@CornerTalker]

@@NathanRose-dh1jp def risky

[@victoriathorlacius874]

Walsh is trying his best to (appear to) leave God out of it because his interviewer (and a large part of the audience) simply won’t accept any religious arguments. He’d speak differently to an expressly Christian audience.

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast between Rogan and Walsh, they get into the Christian world view and Walsh points out in that discussion he intentionally avoided bringing his religious views into the debate up to that point …. The clip ending where it did is misleading by omitting the context that follows

[@joemorgenstern9846]

@@Pickle312 LOL

[@victoriathorlacius874]

@@Pickle312 Thank you. I tried to listen to the whole podcast but a few minutes in Rogan started dropping F-bombs and I have small children around so I had to stop. I had assumed he would discuss God but I am not surprised he entered the argument via a secular approach first.

[@Linglefamily]

I am a huge fan of Matt Walsh and Wilson

[@MapleBoarder78]

Joe’s stance is clear at multiple aspects of the conversation. Life to him boils down to finding deep earthly satisfaction and pleasure before you die. The notion of crucifying your flesh to please God is foolishness to him. If he has no fear of God, are his comments any surprise? Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die! God’s design, purposes, and Gospel of salvation are foolishness to those who are perishing. ✝️

[@tfleenor]

The people that are deeply in love but don't want children -are- deeply in love, but not with each other. They love pleasure and themselves.

[@mak88119]

Wrong, I would never what to bring up a kid in this wicked world. I see nothing wrong with not having kids as long as NO abortion is taking place. Abortion in any form is murder.

[@tfleenor]

@@mak88119 Not interested in populating the Earth with Jesus worshipers?

[@tfleenor]

@@mak88119 I'm not sure what exactly I said that would make you think I'm an unsaved person. May God continue to reveal the full measure of His love to you, friend.

[@DM-dk7js]

No lol. Nonsense. Who the hell are you to make such a claim about people you know nothing about? It’s amazing you guys say such absolute nonsense with a straight face.

[@tfleenor]

@@DM-dk7js I think you'll find that the opinion "married people should have children" is backed by scripture and "lol no. Nonsense" is not.

[@systemrevolt7309]

I’m so thankful you did this segment. This is making the rounds and stirring up the same bad arguments. Walsh makes good ones, but most respectably doesn’t back down. Pastor, make a part two. That’s the religious part.

[@rjmacready8830]

You can be married and not want children. What about older couples who remarry? Or even younger couples. Who are you to force people to have children?

[@fourzerosixmusic]

You gotta love "What if" arguments

[@TheSergio1021]

Joe Rogan is describing this beautiful wonderful marriage between two "charitable fulfilled people" that doesn't exist. You mean to tell me Joe, these fulfilling and charitable people dont want to GIVE their generosity to their own children?

[@josephscottadams39]

If you think you were created for nothing out of nothing then Rogan's argument makes sense. But we are created by God. Not sure why a Catholic is even arguing with an atheist on marriage. You cannot appeal to God. Therefore you have to argue from a secular stance. Matt is trying to do the impossible.

[@JCNewsom]

“It gives them a feeling” well then there you have it. Lol

[@thetruth8295]

I Love real Christians for saying the truth , I'm Muslim Syrian i hope more of your ppl go back to their tradition and religion please . 🌹❤️❤️

[@janetaganna]

Islam is a lie denying the very divinity of Jesus repent reject your man made Islam come from death unto life eternal life thru JESUS CHRIST OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR

[@Texasguy316]

I pray one day you follow the true God, our Lord Jesus!

[@THXx1138]

Thank you for this. Leaving The Creator out of this conversation seems a betrayal.

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

Cool name by the way. If you want religion to own marriage, sure. But keep it out of government. Let people be happy and unite equally under the view of government and get the benefits and challenges equally. Call marriage under religion something else and be happy with your other names and define it as you will. I won't care and they can be happy. If you want to stop other people from being happy because of your opinion, then what kind of person are you really?

[@reginaford8575]

Correct since marriage is God’s creation

[@stevenhayes1611]

Marriage is a divine institution-ordained by God and defined by God for His purposes. If you’re doing something other than that, don’t call it marriage.

[@mak88119]

One man and one woman is a marriage. However, I don't see an issue with not bringing up kids in this wicked world as long as there is no abortion being performed.

[@YSLRD]

Very well said.

[@DM-dk7js]

Lol no

[@stevenhayes1611]

@@mak88119 God’s purpose for marriage is procreation of a “godly seed” (Mal. 2:15). If we live in a dark and ungodly generation, that purpose is all the more important, even necessary.

[@mrmonay]

@@mak88119 God did not say go forth an multiply until you feel like it's not the best time... there was no expiration date on that command.

[@SJQuirke]

I did not hear this interview myself but we have passed the point where it is necessary to say "Because God said so - what is your infinite reference point - that makes your proposition absolute?" I understand Joe Rogan's interviews are long and his questions are deeply searching - so I would not want to trivialise Matt Walsh's responses - but this slice reminds me that we need to have out theology clear on these questions.

[@ruizheli1974]

The interesting thing is that, pastors that I have known (online or personally) are able to give very good answers to the question of "why biblical marriage matters", while the political pundits cannot. In a sense Matt Walsh was left in this conversation speechless. I think clearly this shows that pastors do a better job "connecting the earth together" than the pundits.

[@lapboard340]

In his next Rumble video, Matt Walsh explained exactly why he left God out of the interview. Matt included God in his explanation big time!

[@tankiebot704]

The issue isn't that he left God but that his argument made no sense. He should have explained why homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

[@thetruth8295]

@@tankiebot704 right, if he believes why not say it in the face of someone who disagrees with him

[@byronrhodes1659]

This is the Achilles heal of the Daily Wire, they refuse to use God’s word as the standard, and the definition of how we should operate in the world.

[@Telkor]

If you want to know more about God's word you can go to God's word. You don't need the DW to teach you about God.

[@byronrhodes1659]

@@Telkor I agree with you, I don’t go to the DW to learn about God.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@byronrhodes1659 have you also seen “the daily wire goes proto woke” and “why gay conservatism will never win?” Both excellent videos by Toby sumpter

[@byronrhodes1659]

@@cosmictreason2242 no haven’t seen that, I’ll have to check it out.

[@malibudolphin3109]

Love grows. Children are part of marriage. Children are gifts, gifts can't be demanded, are not rights.

[@FirstPennsylvaniaRegiment]

Doug, I sure would like to see him invite you on his show. He needs to hear what you have to say.

[@brianbrownell689]

Another great one from Doug Wilson. Also grateful to Matt Walsh for defending marriage on Joe Rogan.

[@hiker-uy1bi]

Rogan's take on marriage is very post-modern.

[@oldmovieman7550]

I like Matt. He has been given a lot of truth. But his unwillingness to make the theological argument really hurts him.

[@Telkor]

To whom? It hurts him? He's done more to stop the transgender destruction of children than any Christian organization has.

[@jordansmith7895]

I would pay ppv money to see Doug on Joe Rogan

[@deacondean7607]

All praise honor and glory to our risen Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth

[@repentorperish1386]

I hate that line... "you can have a very fulfilling life when you pursue your dreams" or hobby or whatever. I would say yes some can, but most cannot and by most I mean like 90% minimum. Most people need structure such duty, responsibility, and a companion with whom you share the responsibility, love, and joy of tiny humans to raise and invest into. I got this from the words "be fruitful and multiply".

[@megankissinger8269]

It's up to each person to know whether or not they need tiny humans to raise. Who cares if someone doesn't want them.

[@repentorperish1386]

@@megankissinger8269 ok 👍

[@THXx1138]

@@megankissinger8269 There is something wrong with married couples who are AGAINST procreation.

[@megankissinger8269]

@@THXx1138 We're not against procreation. We just don't want it for ourselves.

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

Excellent Reaction! A dose of logic and reasoning is what this culture needs.

[@dariostarsky8124]

A dose of logic and reasoning? Sorry but once the deciding argument is "God said so" or "it's the will of God", it is no longer logic. I am not trying to upset ot undermine anyone's beliefs, but let's be honest - one could try to end every argument with the "God" argument, but logic it would not be. Kind regards

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

@@dariostarsky8124 What do you have in mind when the term GOD is being used?

[@dariostarsky8124]

@@apostolicapologetics4829 My point exactly! There are too many religions to single out the one God! And given how much crap the world has witnessed in the name of you-know-what, it all boils down to the fact we should think and act according to OUR conscience and empathy - that is always going to be more "logical", than blindly repeating or acting upon dogmas and doctrines; not only does it inevitably create hypocricy, but it also makes people to stop thinking for themselves, which in tun gives them excuses to do very bad things. I believe in god, in my own way, but I would not tell, let alone force anybody to adapt to my way of thinking, especially if it does not agree with what I truly feel is right! I don't believe God is vindictive, and so long as you act according to your HEART, you're ok.

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

@@dariostarsky8124 you stated, "I believe in god, in my own way, but I would not tell, let alone force anybody to adapt to my way of thinking.." So, are you stating you do not think your truth matters or believe that the truth is worth fighting for, or there is such a thing as objective truth for all people?' What would you say to a person who thinks there should not be laws against sex trafficking because it ruins their business and forces their truth among those that are trying to make money?

[@dariostarsky8124]

@@apostolicapologetics4829 Do not be putting words into my mouth; truth does matter, but what we believe (have been told) is true differs from what we know and have experienced to be our subjective truth. I said what I said, and have no wish to be dragged into a major religious/political or any other debate; those are intrinsically destined to have no one-and-only correct answer. I just wish people would think more, and listen and blindly obey less. I respect your pont of view, just wanted point out the lack of "logic" in the "because god said so" argument. Both logic and reasoning are subjective and as such are not up for debate. Be well.

[@jacobkoder4903]

Marriages falling apart all around you certainly has an effect on other marriages... not directly but indirectly. It creates a culture that discourages those who still are, and devalues it to those who would entertain it.

[@-Truth-Is-Singular]

Matt Walsh tried desperately to define marriage without using the bible because he understood that Joe was not a believer. First Matt would have to convince Joe the bible has divine validity in order to bring the bible and God into the role of marriage. And we all know Joe does not believe in the divinity of the bible.

[@ryanhass8716]

It blows me away that this seems to go over people's heads. How many people that regularly listen to Joe Rogan would be swayed by "The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, checkmate"? They would dismiss the entire point of view as just being superstitious nonsense, assuming there is no other reason to think the way Walsh does because his argument is built on foundations they don't accept in the first place. I get the impression that criticizing Walsh's tactics is like a religious version of virtue signaling. Like religious people would rather argue against gay marriage by citing the Bible and making no progress rather than pointing out damage done to the institution and society's view of it and making progress. It's so frustrating.

[@Telkor]

I agree. Further I think Joe was trying to push the conversation in that direction. He was wanting Matt to appeal to a biblical worldview. Once there now the conversation moves from the discussion about gender and definition of marriage and things Matt wishes to talk about and puts the conversation squarely in the corner of Matt having to defend the very existence of God himself so he can establish authority for his world view. And he'd have to do it in front of an audience of millions while being questioned by a rather well learned atheist. Anyone that has seen Joe grill theists knows he can and I think rather enjoys disassembling their arguments. Or attempts to anyway. Because if he was grilling an apologist, he'd lose I think. But Walsh is not an apologist.

[@delbert372]

I think you meant “the inspiration of the Bible”

[@ryanhass8716]

@Aaron - Go to NeedGod net I love when KZbin removes my very long responses, it's so good 😡 But to answer your question, giving a secular person a secular reason for why gay marriage isn't good does seem to work better than giving a secular person a religion based reason. That is, unless you have concrete proof of the existence of God, then they might be about even. But even in that scenario where you had the silver bullet for not just atheism, but every religion other than Christianity, they could still say that to them, God's view of homosexuality makes Him unworthy of their worship, so you'd still have to give non religious arguments if you wanted to change their mind. Please understand that I'm not saying to avoid preaching the Gospel to gain influence. I'm pointing out that to give non religious people religion based arguments for why they should put shouldn't do something is to bake into the argument the absolute easiest way to dismiss it.

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast between Rogan and Walsh, they get into the Christian world view and Walsh points out in that discussion he intentionally avoided bringing his religious views into the debate up to that point …. The clip ending where it did is misleading by omitting the context that follows

[@WGPower_Nonchalant_Cafe]

People like Joe live their lives looking for things they can Get. They'll never understand what it's like to be a generous giver.

[@accord_aero_r]

You assume with all that money Joe does absolutely nothing for charity? A quick Google proves you wrong with a few examples. That kind of closed-mindedness and willful ignorance is part of what annoys me about Christians; you think you're the only ones who care about your fellow man - as if it's not even _possible_ for anyone else to care at the same level as you.

[@Rgrin1133]

The entire problem with this is the assumption of God (existing or not existing) and the argument that church and state (should or should not) be separated. However, I see no reason why church and government should not be separated. The history of combining church and state leads to oppression, violation of human rights, and straight-up totalitarianism. If you don't think otherwise, please explain why.

[@daveeturner]

Doug needs to go on Joe’s podcast.

[@leanneg4040]

I couldn't understand why he (Matt in the Rogan clip) wasn't explaining what marriage is, he seemed to avoid talk of God, creation, sin and went around in circles. His work with "What is a Woman" is amazing, but his defense of marriage was bad. Thank you Lord for using Doug Wilson to respond to this. And thank you Canon Press!!!

[@Pickle312]

Listen to the rest of the podcast between Rogan and Walsh, they get into the Christian world view and Walsh points out in that discussion he intentionally avoided bringing his religious views into the debate up to that point …. The clip ending where it did is misleading by omitting the context that follows

[@DM-dk7js]

Probably because none of that is relevant

[@cosmictreason2242]

Matt isn’t Christian that’s why

[@jhealey93]

@@cosmictreason2242 Matt is Christian

[@tylerpedersen9836]

Rogan comes across willfully obtuse here, as much as I think Matt’s defense could have been stronger.

[@thunter10709]

Thank you for this commentary summed it up with a bow it boiled down to the will of God vs will of man. I agree it should have been clarified or explicitly expressed marriage is not man made therefore we do not get to change the definition based on our "feelings." Matt did the best he could considering he is a political commentary and not apologist( to my knowledge). This reiterates the point Paul made be ready always to give a defense of the faith in you. Matt Walsh's view is downstream of his faith centered in God therefore it's important to bring it to that.

[@acd..]

Walsh keeping God out of his reasoning, was what made this so much more difficult to discuss about what marriage is. Doug is cleaning the discussion up real nice for us.

[@righteousgod8376]

Rogan doesn't believe in God. He would have responded to Walsh with "that's what your imaginary friend tells you or what you read from a book put together by men." Now What?

[@CmRoddy]

Pastor Doug, would you ever consider going onto Joe Rogan’s podcast and having a conversation with him? I would love to see that!

[@thereisnopandemic]

The problem is that Joe Rogan won’t have men like Doug Wilson, Michael Horton, John MacArthur or Dr James White on. Rogan is not as open minded as many believe.

[@UnityFromDiversity]

@@thereisnopandemic Rogan is a establishment lefty. He's afraid to talk to anybody socially right wing. Joe values promiscuity and government guaranteed promiscuity insurance.

[@jpfiero]

I think Rogan would be afraid of Wilson, I would be afraid that mcarthur would fumble the interview. His main problem is that he doesn't think presuppositional, he also doesn't believe that Christians can speak to culture. This makes him horribly inconsistent on issues outside the basic church structure.

[@DM-dk7js]

😂

[@diefenbakersown]

Matt Walsh is a good example of why many of our Catholic friends will welcome the great reset if it is successful; they know the true right and wrong on many issues but are building convictions on the not-so-firm foundation of human wisdom (Aquinas in this case).

[@Telkor]

That's not how Matt Walsh saw it. He posted this on his Twitter account. If he had appealed to the God given world view of the definition of marriage to an atheist he would have been backed into defending the existence of God himself in order to establish that authority. At that point he would been arguing two things. In order to establish the authority for a biblical world view of marriage he would have had to go through a very large battle (defending the existence of God himself) in order to get to the point he was ultimately trying to make anyway. Essentially that Marriage is and can be seen as a common sense approach and so therefore useful to even people that do not agree that God exists. In other words it has value still as an argument. It had nothing to do with his catholicism.

[@daven8905]

I understand why he chose that approach. But God DOES exist, so making an argument without is largely irrelevant.

[@Telkor]

@@daven8905 relevance was the entire point. Joe's audience and indeed Joe himself would have challenged the relevance of a biblical world view, by explicitly denying the authority or "relevance" of the Bible itself. Matt was not on Joe Rogan to discuss the existence of God. Which I honestly believe Joe was trying to rope him into.

[@Telkor]

@Fighting69th Yes. See how easy that was? It's not an argument. You can believe it or not. I don't care. That was the way Walsh explained it himself on Twitter. If you disagree, your disagreement is with him. Not me.

[@daven8905]

@@Telkor great! Then you can share the gospel in front of a huge audience

[@elliotfrank119]

Pastor would really appreciate if you could answer this question: if Walsh had explicitly come out and said because it is the Will of God, some arguments that can be made are: “I don’t believe in your God”, “How do you know what the will of God is?” It has come so far that sometimes that is an argument made by God believing politicians I.e. in the case of abortion. How can we quickly answer in this case?

[@peterblock6964]

Every word of the Bible was written by a fallible human being. Every claim in or about the Bible was/is made by a fallible human being. Every interpretation of the Bible was/is made by a fallible human being. "God" had NOTHING to do with it.

[@jcservantw6496]

I disagree with the idea that a couple who doesn't want to have children has a sin they need to repent of. After all, Paul talks about not getting married to focus on his ministry, so I see little reason why a couple may decide to forgo childraising because they want to focus in other directions as well. That's to say nothing of couples who simply cannot afford children. It has significantly more expensive than ever to have children nowadays, and going into debt is not a good thing.

[@joefrescoln]

Marrying pets will soon come (already here probably), especially as some folks now are identifying as cats and dogs and other animals. I guess Nebuchadnezzar was ahead of his time.

[@michaelclark2458]

So many passages like this can be preached in ways that our ancestors couldn’t of as a result of this confusion we have allowed.

[@aallen5256]

This “people will marry their pets” hysteria has been pushed by the right for decades. It’s not happening! Equally, that litter boxes in schools shtik is totally baseless.

[@joefrescoln]

@@aallen5256 *sigh* I guess I'm late to the party again. By all means, lets not push for the "people will marry their pets" hysteria. I'm just following the logic, and suspected that it will occur. A simple internet search confirms that this is in fact occurring, so... yea. And besides, what's wrong with it? It's someone's free choice. It's a loving bond and it's not doing any harm to you, is it? The real confirmation of degradation will be when the "50% of animal human marriages end in divorce" hysteria is pushed.🙄

[@DM-dk7js]

Nonsense. Nobody is identifying as a cat or dog that’s a fake news story. And also that’s a slippery slope fallacy.

[@joefrescoln]

@@DM-dk7js Yes, people are identifying as animals. And I pray that a 50% divorce rate of animals and humans is a slippery slope fallacy, otherwise these pets will need lots of therapy.

[@Th3BigBoy]

Joe Rogan is so tiresome.

[@kenobi4582]

I don’t get his appeal tbh

[@keithwilson6060]

Is he the same Joe Rogan who hosted Fear Factor about 2 decades ago?

[@robertoesquivel4447]

@@keithwilson6060 ya

[@alleadonai]

I was excited to see episode this pop up on my Spotify notifications, but it wasn't long into the episode before I felt disappointed lol I appreciate that Walsh was firm about his position despite his flop arguments. I definitely was wishing Doug had responded instead :B Joe's reasoning drove me nuts on these points. There were so many random "what-about-isms" and he seemed almost willfully dense in his rebuttals to what Matt was saying. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@mrcmusic1]

I do not know you but ....Love you Doug Wilson

[@krashton]

If they don’t want children, they aren’t deeply in love? That’s one of the most arrogant things you’ve said, Doug. And you say a lot of all arrogant things.

[@rachillion8328]

You can be married and not want children and be deeply in love. Sadly people still believe everyone who gets married “wants” children.

[@mak88119]

The Bible says, "if you can not control yourself it is better to marry than the burn with lust". It says nothing about mandatory children. I'm 100% against abortion, but if a married couple does not want children I don't see anything wrong with that so long as they do not abort the children. I would not want to bring up children in this wicked world. Life starts at conception and anything that terminates that is murder but married couples should never be forced to have kids.

[@megankissinger8269]

Honestly the way the DW hosts talk, it's worrisome how much they've started attacking childfree people. We're minding our own business and they're criticizing us just because they don't like our life choices. I think if they could force everyone to have children, they would do it.

[@samueljimenez7420]

The lowest hanging fruit that Walsh does not pick up is Joe asking him, “how does gay marriage hurt anybody”. In the full episode this was right after they were discussing transgenderism, transing the kids, etc. Without gay marriage, you don’t have the rest.

[@jaitaiwan1]

If Joe Rogan had Doug Wilson on that would be brilliant