Name: Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage
Uploaded: 2022-11-08T18:42:23.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2022-11-08. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2022-11-08. Transcript available.

- The Joe Rogan experience.
- I think if marriage is a certain thing,
which is the context for procreation,
for the building of the nuclear family.
- What about people that get married
that don't have kids?
Are you opposed to that?
What if they get married and they decide,
"You know what, we don't need kids, I'm gonna get fixed.
You get your tubes tied, let's travel the world."
- Well, what do you mean am I opposed to it?
I mean, I think that every married couple
should be open to life.
- But what if they don't want to?
Are you opposed to them being married?
If marriage is only for procreation
and to bond a family together,
what about people that are deeply in love
that never want to have children?
- I don't think it's, it's not only procreation,
but that is one of the fundamental definitional
aspects of it.
Of course, there's more to marriage just than that.
- And what about people that are infertile?
They fall in love and they realize
that they can have babies
and they don't really necessarily want to adopt.
Is that okay for them to be married?
Because then you're, by definition,
marriage falls into a completely different thing.
Because then it's a bond of love.
It's a union of love.
- Sure, I mean, that doesn't change the nature
of marriage though.
It's a little bit like,
I say that, what's the definition of a woman?
Well, a woman is someone who by her nature
can conceive children in her womb and bear children.
And then the response is always,
what about women who are infertile?
Does that destroy your definition of woman?
And it doesn't because it's still a woman's nature
to bear children.
Not every woman will.
And there will be disease and infertility and old age
and all these things that will preclude that,
but it's still of her nature to do so.
And I would say the same thing for marriage.
I mean, it is natural in a marriage
for procreation to occur.
It's not always going to happen in reality though,
but that's still one of the natural functions of marriage.
And married couples who can't conceive children.
There are other ways to be parents,
like adoption, for example.
- If they want to.
Right, but if people want to be married
and don't want to ever have children,
are you opposed to them being married?
- Well, I'm not, I wouldn't advocate a law
that would prevent it.
- But would it change the definition
of what their marriage is to you
because they don't want to have a family?
They just want to have a loving bond?
- I think this would be a couple
that is rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage.
And they should be open to life.
I would hope that in the future they would be, but.
- But isn't that just a personal choice?
I mean, you can have a very fulfilling life
if you just follow your pursuits and your dreams
and your interests and you find someone that shares
those interests with you and you share time together.
It's very fulfilling and loving.
- Yeah, it's a personal choice in that I'm not advocating
for like a law that says that if you're married,
you have to have X number of kids.
- But then why are you opposed to two gay people doing that?
- Well, because again, it's not about choice.
It's about what this institution, marriage is an institution,
and what is it, and what purpose does it serve?
And I do not agree with tearing down or changing this definition,
especially because the people who have changed the definition
haven't come up with a new one.
So they say, well, that's not what marriage is.
So for thousands of years, we said marriage is the procreative union.
And then we had the other side who came along and said,
well, it's not that.
Okay, well then, like, what is it exactly?
And I know you said, well, it's people who love each other,
two people love each other.
Well, but then why two people?
Why do they have to love each other?
You know, all these kinds of questions.
You get into what if they're in the same family?
What if brothers and sisters want to marry?
And I know every time that comes up, you know,
the advocates for gay marriage will say, well, that's a slippery slope argument.
That's a fallacious.
But it's actually not.
It's like we're trying to get to what do you even think this institution is now,
since you've rejected out what we were saying it was.
And I've never found a compelling definition.
And any definition offered, it's like, well, what's even the point then?
Why do we even need this now?
I just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage.
I don't, I don't see it at all.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
It just seems to me that people want to be, look, if you, if you wanted to look
at logic,
especially in our modern society, which is pretty fucked when it comes to
relationships,
it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages ended divorce anyway.
They don't make it.
You know, if, well, I don't know if anything would damage marriage and damage
the institution
of marriage.
It's the option of divorce.
I don't think gay people and gay people getting married in any way, shape or
form changes a
bond that you have with your wife.
It's just called marriage.
It's a human invented thing.
If we decide that gay people can get married too, I just don't see how it
damages anything.
I don't think it tears down the definition of marriage in any way.
It just opens up the possibility that people who are gay won't be discriminated
against.
Yeah.
I don't, I don't think that a gay couple existing directly impacts, you know,
there's a gay
couple and you know, wherever, and, and I'm with my wife in our house, like
obviously there's
not, um, but I'm talking about, I'm not talking about on the, on the individual
level.
I'm talking about on the, on the societal level.
I would agree that, um, divorce, especially, uh, you know, uh, there's no fault
divorce,
rampant divorce.
I don't think it's as high as 50%.
I know that that's the, that's often quoted.
I'm not sure where that comes from, but, um, it is high.
It's like, it's too high.
And Chris Rock has a great joke about that.
And those are just the people with the courage to get out.
It's like how many cowards stay, but it's also, it's also true that the
advocates for
what we call now traditional marriage, which I just call marriage, but the
advocates for
traditional marriage put themselves at a disadvantage by allow, especially in
the churches, like
allowing this rampant divorce to occur.
Um, and then you've all, you've already sort of given up on some marriage is
supposed to
be monogamous and, uh, and permanent as well as procreative.
Well, you've given up monogamy and permanence.
And so now it's not, that's, that's, that's two of the three legs gone.
And so now this assault was waged on the procreative part of it.
And it was just, it was, it was difficult to withstand it because the
institution had already
been weakened.
So I agree with you there.
Um, but my answer to that is to try to reinforce what marriage is, not to just
give up on it
entirely.
And I, I still think you're left with this question of like, if marriage is not
what I'm saying
it is, then what, why do we even need it?
What's the point?
I mean, you're saying it's a, it's a manmade institution.
Yes.
But you, but you're also like the way that you're presenting it.
It's, it's a, it's also, it's a totally meaningless institution.
No, they don't need it at all.
No, it's not meaningless because it means something to the people that get
married.
So it's just, it's just a subjective, symbolic thing.
I mean, what?
Yeah.
So if you're kind of what it is, look, there's a massive responsibility when
you're married
and when you have children to keep your family together and you raise and keep
everybody happy
and healthy.
And there's great reward to that.
Yeah.
But it doesn't always work out.
It's not, it's not a, it's people change.
People are fucked up.
That doesn't, it doesn't always work.
And so I don't think it should be outlawed because 50% of the people fall apart.
Just like, I don't think it has any effect whatsoever on a straight couple.
If a gay couple decides that they want to make it official and that's what it
is to them.
It gives them a feeling that, that they're accepted and appreciated and that
they're not discriminated
against because they happen to be homosexual.
So what you're articulating to me is the damage that's done by gay marriage to
the institution
of marriage.
But how is it done?
How is that in any way damaged straight people?
Because we are making the institution meaningless.
But it's not meaningless.
It's very meaningful to the people that have it.
Subjective, symbolic, and it's about your own personal feelings.
Isn't it though?
Well, no, I would say that it's not.
Well, if it's not subjective and it's not symbolic, then it codifies and
protects and
gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which are man, woman, couples
creating people,
creating babies.
But not always.
Right, but that's still the nature of the union.
But what are the percentage of people today that are married that don't have
children?
I bet it's pretty high amongst heterosexuals.
Probably.
Is there something wrong with that?
I think there is something wrong with that.
I think there is something wrong with, you know, getting married and saying, oh,
we're
just, we don't, we're not going to have any kids at all.
But why is there something wrong with that of someone's personal choice?
Why would that, why is it wrong?
The two people are like, you know, I am deeply committed to work and I don't
want to sacrifice
any of my career and I don't want to ruin a kid because I'm constantly at the
office, but
that's where I get deep satisfaction and, and that's, that's what I'm focused
on.
And the woman says, that's great because I don't want children either.
I really am attached to my interests in my career and what I like to do.
That's not damaging your relationship with your wife and your family.
It's, I don't certainly, I certainly don't think of it as a threat to my
marriage or my family.
Yeah, it's, uh, it is a personal choice.
Right, but shouldn't people be allowed to make those personal choices?
Like, isn't that a fundamental aspect of what it means to be American, to have
that freedom?
Well, right, yeah, but right now we're not talking about what people are
allowed to do.
I'm not saying that-
Well, we're talking about marriage, gay marriage.
Okay, we were, we were, we were just discussing straight couples who choose not
to have kids.
Straight couples choose, that's also a personal freedom issue, isn't it?
Right, yeah, but, and I'm not saying that, that straight couples should be
legally required
to have kids, but I, you know, if you're asking me, do I think it's the right
choice
to just get married and choose not to have kids ever, I, I, I do not think that
that's
the right choice.
It might, it's their, it's their choice, but people can make choices that are
wrong.
Um, and you can disagree-
But how is it wrong if they have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with
that choice?
If their, their thing is that they just want to have a bond between the two of
them to
just like, take it to the next level, let everybody know, like, we are married.
If I die, my money's going to go to Helen, and if Helen dies, you know, I, you
know,
I'm going to mourn her because she was my wife and now I'll be a widower.
Like, to some people, that distinction gives them peace and security and makes
them feel
better about the relationship, that they're both so committed that they've
legally signed
documents that say that they're bound by law and under the eyes of God or
whatever you believe in.
You know, they're, they're able to make that choice, but I think you're, you're
still rejecting
one of the purposes of marriage.
And in the scenario that you just outlined, you're also deciding to live a
really self-centered
life.
You're saying-
What if you're not?
What if your work is very charitable?
What if it benefits humanity in a deep way?
What if you spend a lot of time doing, you know, healthcare work and, you know,
and social
work and you're, you're deeply committed to your community?
It's not selfish at all.
You're just dedicating your time to something other than raising new human
beings.
Yeah, that's a-
But you're dedicating your life to enhancing other human beings that are around
you.
That's a hypothetical.
It is a hypothetical, but so is yours, right?
Yeah, but I, I think most of the people that choose, like, we're not going to
have kids
and the, and the, the rate of, uh, those rates are declining.
Um, and the age when people first have kids is also going up and all of that.
Yeah.
And I, most of the people that are making these choices, I don't, I don't think
it's because
they're involved in charity work.
I do think that it is more the, the scenario you outlined in the, in the first
time around,
which is just like, well, I, this is what I'm doing.
You know, I have my job.
I don't want to give it up.
Um, but don't you think that people should have the freedom to live their life
in that
way?
I think human beings vary widely in a huge way.
And I think there are some human beings that find a very fulfilling life, just
reading books
and traveling and experiencing different things and seeing art and doing
whatever the fuck they
want to do.
And they don't necessarily have to have kids to live a fulfilling life that way.
And if they choose to do that with someone who they have a loving bond with and
who they
get married to, I don't think it's a bad thing that they don't want to have
kids.
Well, I think, I guess we have to, maybe we're running into a question of, of,
you know,
now you get to the real fundamental question.
I think it's a fundamental freedom thing.
Yeah.
We're not disagreeing, I guess, on the freedom aspect of it, because again, I'm
not saying
that you should be required to have kids.
You're imposing your sensibilities and what you think is important in life to
other people.
But everybody has a different idea of what's important in life without hurting
anyone.
The thing is like, what I'm saying is these people that are, that are married,
that don't
have children, they're not harming anyone.
They're not harming these unborn children that they never have.
They're not harming anyone.
And it doesn't affect your relationship with your family and your marriage at
all.
Yeah.
But I'm also not, I'm not imposing myself on them or harming them by answering
a question
about, about how I feel about their choices.
Right.
But nor are gay people doing that to you.
I think the harm comes from, on a societal level, when we start breaking down
these basic
central institutions, like the institution of the family and of marriage, that's
where
the harm comes from.
And the more that people believe, the more that we build a society where it's
believed
that marriage is objectively meaningless, right?
It's entirely subjective.
It's just about, it's just about making you feel better.
The more that we build a society like that, I think that's where the harm comes
in, the
worse it is.
And people are going to reject marriage.
And, and that means more, you know, fewer kids are being born.
Also, more kids are being born in a context where they don't have that stable
family structure.
So the harm definitely comes.
It may not be this immediate, you know, connect the dots thing, but, and we can
already see
that.
Thank you.

Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage

- The Joe Rogan experience.
- I think if marriage is a certain thing,
which is the context for procreation,
for the building of the nuclear family.
- What about people that get married
that don't have kids?
Are you opposed to that?
What if they get married and they decide,
"You know what, we don't need kids, I'm gonna get fixed.
You get your tubes tied, let's travel the world."
- Well, what do you mean am I opposed to it?
I mean, I think that every married couple
should be open to life.
- But what if they don't want to?
Are you opposed to them being married?
If marriage is only for procreation
and to bond a family together,
what about people that are deeply in love
that never want to have children?
- I don't think it's, it's not only procreation,
but that is one of the fundamental definitional
aspects of it.
Of course, there's more to marriage just than that.
- And what about people that are infertile?
They fall in love and they realize
that they can have babies
and they don't really necessarily want to adopt.
Is that okay for them to be married?
Because then you're, by definition,
marriage falls into a completely different thing.
Because then it's a bond of love.
It's a union of love.
- Sure, I mean, that doesn't change the nature
of marriage though.
It's a little bit like,
I say that, what's the definition of a woman?
Well, a woman is someone who by her nature
can conceive children in her womb and bear children.
And then the response is always,
what about women who are infertile?
Does that destroy your definition of woman?
And it doesn't because it's still a woman's nature
to bear children.
Not every woman will.
And there will be disease and infertility and old age
and all these things that will preclude that,
but it's still of her nature to do so.
And I would say the same thing for marriage.
I mean, it is natural in a marriage
for procreation to occur.
It's not always going to happen in reality though,
but that's still one of the natural functions of marriage.
And married couples who can't conceive children.
There are other ways to be parents,
like adoption, for example.
- If they want to.
Right, but if people want to be married
and don't want to ever have children,
are you opposed to them being married?
- Well, I'm not, I wouldn't advocate a law
that would prevent it.
- But would it change the definition
of what their marriage is to you
because they don't want to have a family?
They just want to have a loving bond?
- I think this would be a couple
that is rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage.
And they should be open to life.
I would hope that in the future they would be, but.
- But isn't that just a personal choice?
I mean, you can have a very fulfilling life
if you just follow your pursuits and your dreams
and your interests and you find someone that shares
those interests with you and you share time together.
It's very fulfilling and loving.
- Yeah, it's a personal choice in that I'm not advocating
for like a law that says that if you're married,
you have to have X number of kids.
- But then why are you opposed to two gay people doing that?
- Well, because again, it's not about choice.
It's about what this institution, marriage is an institution,
and what is it, and what purpose does it serve?
And I do not agree with tearing down or changing this definition,
especially because the people who have changed the definition
haven't come up with a new one.
So they say, well, that's not what marriage is.
So for thousands of years, we said marriage is the procreative union.
And then we had the other side who came along and said,
well, it's not that.
Okay, well then, like, what is it exactly?
And I know you said, well, it's people who love each other,
two people love each other.
Well, but then why two people?
Why do they have to love each other?
You know, all these kinds of questions.
You get into what if they're in the same family?
What if brothers and sisters want to marry?
And I know every time that comes up, you know,
the advocates for gay marriage will say, well, that's a slippery slope argument.
That's a fallacious.
But it's actually not.
It's like we're trying to get to what do you even think this institution is now,
since you've rejected out what we were saying it was.
And I've never found a compelling definition.
And any definition offered, it's like, well, what's even the point then?
Why do we even need this now?
I just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage.
I don't, I don't see it at all.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
It just seems to me that people want to be, look, if you, if you wanted to look
at logic,
especially in our modern society, which is pretty fucked when it comes to
relationships,
it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages ended divorce anyway.
They don't make it.
You know, if, well, I don't know if anything would damage marriage and damage
the institution
of marriage.
It's the option of divorce.
I don't think gay people and gay people getting married in any way, shape or
form changes a
bond that you have with your wife.
It's just called marriage.
It's a human invented thing.
If we decide that gay people can get married too, I just don't see how it
damages anything.
I don't think it tears down the definition of marriage in any way.
It just opens up the possibility that people who are gay won't be discriminated
against.
Yeah.
I don't, I don't think that a gay couple existing directly impacts, you know,
there's a gay
couple and you know, wherever, and, and I'm with my wife in our house, like
obviously there's
not, um, but I'm talking about, I'm not talking about on the, on the individual
level.
I'm talking about on the, on the societal level.
I would agree that, um, divorce, especially, uh, you know, uh, there's no fault
divorce,
rampant divorce.
I don't think it's as high as 50%.
I know that that's the, that's often quoted.
I'm not sure where that comes from, but, um, it is high.
It's like, it's too high.
And Chris Rock has a great joke about that.
And those are just the people with the courage to get out.
It's like how many cowards stay, but it's also, it's also true that the
advocates for
what we call now traditional marriage, which I just call marriage, but the
advocates for
traditional marriage put themselves at a disadvantage by allow, especially in
the churches, like
allowing this rampant divorce to occur.
Um, and then you've all, you've already sort of given up on some marriage is
supposed to
be monogamous and, uh, and permanent as well as procreative.
Well, you've given up monogamy and permanence.
And so now it's not, that's, that's, that's two of the three legs gone.
And so now this assault was waged on the procreative part of it.
And it was just, it was, it was difficult to withstand it because the
institution had already
been weakened.
So I agree with you there.
Um, but my answer to that is to try to reinforce what marriage is, not to just
give up on it
entirely.
And I, I still think you're left with this question of like, if marriage is not
what I'm saying
it is, then what, why do we even need it?
What's the point?
I mean, you're saying it's a, it's a manmade institution.
Yes.
But you, but you're also like the way that you're presenting it.
It's, it's a, it's also, it's a totally meaningless institution.
No, they don't need it at all.
No, it's not meaningless because it means something to the people that get
married.
So it's just, it's just a subjective, symbolic thing.
I mean, what?
Yeah.
So if you're kind of what it is, look, there's a massive responsibility when
you're married
and when you have children to keep your family together and you raise and keep
everybody happy
and healthy.
And there's great reward to that.
Yeah.
But it doesn't always work out.
It's not, it's not a, it's people change.
People are fucked up.
That doesn't, it doesn't always work.
And so I don't think it should be outlawed because 50% of the people fall apart.
Just like, I don't think it has any effect whatsoever on a straight couple.
If a gay couple decides that they want to make it official and that's what it
is to them.
It gives them a feeling that, that they're accepted and appreciated and that
they're not discriminated
against because they happen to be homosexual.
So what you're articulating to me is the damage that's done by gay marriage to
the institution
of marriage.
But how is it done?
How is that in any way damaged straight people?
Because we are making the institution meaningless.
But it's not meaningless.
It's very meaningful to the people that have it.
Subjective, symbolic, and it's about your own personal feelings.
Isn't it though?
Well, no, I would say that it's not.
Well, if it's not subjective and it's not symbolic, then it codifies and
protects and
gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which are man, woman, couples
creating people,
creating babies.
But not always.
Right, but that's still the nature of the union.
But what are the percentage of people today that are married that don't have
children?
I bet it's pretty high amongst heterosexuals.
Probably.
Is there something wrong with that?
I think there is something wrong with that.
I think there is something wrong with, you know, getting married and saying, oh,
we're
just, we don't, we're not going to have any kids at all.
But why is there something wrong with that of someone's personal choice?
Why would that, why is it wrong?
The two people are like, you know, I am deeply committed to work and I don't
want to sacrifice
any of my career and I don't want to ruin a kid because I'm constantly at the
office, but
that's where I get deep satisfaction and, and that's, that's what I'm focused
on.
And the woman says, that's great because I don't want children either.
I really am attached to my interests in my career and what I like to do.
That's not damaging your relationship with your wife and your family.
It's, I don't certainly, I certainly don't think of it as a threat to my
marriage or my family.
Yeah, it's, uh, it is a personal choice.
Right, but shouldn't people be allowed to make those personal choices?
Like, isn't that a fundamental aspect of what it means to be American, to have
that freedom?
Well, right, yeah, but right now we're not talking about what people are
allowed to do.
I'm not saying that-
Well, we're talking about marriage, gay marriage.
Okay, we were, we were, we were just discussing straight couples who choose not
to have kids.
Straight couples choose, that's also a personal freedom issue, isn't it?
Right, yeah, but, and I'm not saying that, that straight couples should be
legally required
to have kids, but I, you know, if you're asking me, do I think it's the right
choice
to just get married and choose not to have kids ever, I, I, I do not think that
that's
the right choice.
It might, it's their, it's their choice, but people can make choices that are
wrong.
Um, and you can disagree-
But how is it wrong if they have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with
that choice?
If their, their thing is that they just want to have a bond between the two of
them to
just like, take it to the next level, let everybody know, like, we are married.
If I die, my money's going to go to Helen, and if Helen dies, you know, I, you
know,
I'm going to mourn her because she was my wife and now I'll be a widower.
Like, to some people, that distinction gives them peace and security and makes
them feel
better about the relationship, that they're both so committed that they've
legally signed
documents that say that they're bound by law and under the eyes of God or
whatever you believe in.
You know, they're, they're able to make that choice, but I think you're, you're
still rejecting
one of the purposes of marriage.
And in the scenario that you just outlined, you're also deciding to live a
really self-centered
life.
You're saying-
What if you're not?
What if your work is very charitable?
What if it benefits humanity in a deep way?
Wh