Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

Rogan just won't listen to Walsh's point on the meaning and purpose of marriage. Rogan can only see it in the standard "what's wrong with gays getting married?" angle and personal choice. He cannot grasp what marriage is actually for, having and raising offspring in a stable environment, and that people pretending they're married and calling it that waters down the meaning and the respect for the institution. He just keeps whining on and on about "but what's the harm?" The faggots and child-free idiots can just call it co-habitation or something.

Rogan just won't listen to Walsh's point on the meaning and purpose of marriage. Rogan can only see it in the standard "what's wrong with gays getting married?" angle and personal choice. He cannot grasp what marriage is actually for, having and raising offspring in a stable environment, and that people pretending they're married and calling it that waters down the meaning and the respect for the institution. He just keeps whining on and on about "but what's the harm?" The faggots and child-free idiots can just call it co-habitation or something.

(post is archived)

[–] • 7 pts

People have been so fucked up in the head by the perversion of our society over the past fifty years or so, that they can't even wrap their minds around a traditional concept of marriage, such as the one Walsh is struggling to convey to Rogan.

[–] • 5 pts

Matt constricted himself by trying to argue that marriage is valuable for people who dont plan on having children, in that constraint then faggots have just as much reason to get married as hetero couples. Joe actually did a good job bringing that up which should have forced matt into outright saying homosexuals shouldnt be allowed to have kids and that marriage is only important for families, if you dont plan on having kids your relationship is only for pleasure and security and is meaningless.

Matt didnt make that argument, the arguments he stuck to would only work on someone who already agrees. Joe was playing the skeptic and saying the obvious things people would say if they disagreed which opened Matt up to go for the kill but he refused and we all know why: it would be too based.

[–] • 0 pt

Matt is controlled app like Rogan. It's too obvious.

[–] • 5 pts

I watched it and i have to say matt didnt really argue his point well.

The fact is it is the degradation of the meaning of words which is important. Nobody cares if fags announce they are monogomous or whatever and want to have a secure relationship (not true but you get the point) that isnt the issue, its the chipping away at the meaning of words that is the issue.

Frankly marriage is the purpose of creating a family, if you are not creating a family then its worthless and meaningless. Yeah to all you people who fuck for fun or are career focused your marriage is pointless. Nobody gives a fuck if you get married to your sweetheart and have no kids, you can break up and its just a matter of dividing contents. who gives a fuck.

Matt was a little too wishy washy on that, i get why, he probably didnt want to cede on the idea of sex before marriage since that is a strong Christian point, but the reason for that is that decent contraception didnt exist back in the days and the only way to ensure you werent a nigger leaving women with unloved bastard children was marrying before fucking.

Its all about the family unit, career focused relationships arent as valuable as family ones. They are as meaningless as gay marriage.

Matt would also have to state that faggots shouldnt have kids, which they shouldnt but too many arent prepared to hear it and he probably wasnt prepared to argue for that since he presents himself as fairly moderate and accepting (which is perfectly fine, he can lead people from one side to the other)

Joe to his credit was playing the devils advocate, he was giving good arguments to pressure matt, which is a good thing, only matt either hasnt refined his position or didnt want to outright say faggots dont deserve to be in relationships and shouldnt have kids because they are degenerates.

If matt used the statistics on gays he could go nuclear, but that would probably be a bit too controversial for him (which in spite of being 'controversial' with his 'what is a woman' documentary, hes honestly quite moderate)

Basically what it boils down to is whether hes willing to argue outside of the left wing rhetoric or having to present the best argument in their framework. He hamstrung himself by using their framework in order to protect himself from jewish labels.

Joe was doing what he should be doing and pressuring Matt for his best argument, Matt didnt bring his best argument. We know the score, we can say it loudly here, but in politeworld he has to follow the rules.

The argument should have been 1 gay relationships are meaningless, 2 hetero relationships that dont lead to kids are meaningless, 3 marriage has significant meaning for families, 4 if people arent planning on having kids then they dont deserve marriage, 5 homosexuals should be banned from having children by default which should immediately disqualify them from marriage.

You can see the obvious problems with making hard arguments like that with someone who plays the role of someone who is unbiased like joe.

[–] • 1 pt

Good points. I wish Walsh had just called these other "marriages" best friendships or partnerships, because that's all they are. The legal benefits muddy the waters because people just want the tax breaks by being legally married. Should have always been a civil union to decouple it from marriage. In fact those benefits shouldn't be given to anyone except a man and woman married who are having kids, because that's the whole fucking point (or should be) of giving benefits to married couples: it is essential for the country's future. This is like in Poland(?) where they upped the benefits for families having multiple kids.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

  1. You get married, eek out a healthy kid with medical help for infertility, and then the kid chokes on a peanut and dies at age 2. It took $80k to have that kid and you're out of money.

  2. You have three kids ages 17-22 and all three die together in a car crash. Wife is too old for more kids.

  3. You have two kids ages 25 and 29 and they're both married and you're an empty nester, too old for more.

So... if marriage is for having kids it might be good to elaborate on the above scenarios. Answer specifically, if marriage is for kids, why is it for life? Also, if all the kids die is marriage still for life?

[–] • 1 pt

What's your point? If you had kids you had a family and it is up to you to make it work. Just because your kids have left home it doesn't mean that they are no longer your responsibility, they are your legacy and it is your duty as their parent to help them succeed. Kids are your responsibility for life, your responsibility doesn't end simply because they grew up, your children will inherit your wealth and if you raised them well will give you grandchildren. Divorcing after the kids leave home means losing influence over your grandchildren.

At the point you can't have kids and don't have them but are with someone you love and in a healthy relationship you could choose to adopt orphan kids and ensure that lost and forgotten children don't grow up unloved and become criminals. A childless family can still have value through adoption.

If you lose kids and don't want more then your marriage doesn't have a function so it is irrelevant.

If you are gay you shouldn't have kids regardless so there is no possibility a gay marriage would have value.

[–] • 2 pts

"Joe Rogan is a fucking idiot" - Thank you for recognizing that this guy is a fool.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

There were a lot of things Matt couldve said. Matt is about definition but failed to define marriage traditionally is between a man and woman. Gays can get a civil union, but its not a marriage as was defined by God in the bible. Joe's argument is a common one. Pints with Aquinas has a better take on this discussion. He was blocked from talking about it on jewtube.

https://rumble.com/v1sz5og-responding-to-joe-rogan-v-matt-walsh-on-gay-marriage.html

[–] • 1 pt

Did you know that divorce fuels a huge chunk of the economy (lawyers, housing, therapists, you name it)? Let them get married, they will be divorced many times over.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Listening to these two I was struck by how they appear to be talking at cross purposes. There really isn't much to be gleaned from listening to them here. That's not to say neither ever have anything of value to say or that one or the other is an idiot.

Walsh does seem to struggle making his points. Perhaps he was having an off night?

[–] • 0 pt

Walsh definitely didn't deliver a focused, coherent rebuttal. But Rogan wasn't trying to understand. He kept responding in that whiny "but how are they harming marriage???????"

[–] • 1 pt

Exactly. At first I thought Rogan was taking a contrarian position as much for the purpose of stimulating discussion as anything else. But it becomes clear that he's hung up on that point and just keeps coming back to it. Not a good day for either of them.

[–] • 1 pt

marriage between gays should be called " In Cahoots"

[–] • 1 pt

Someone can choose to wear an orange shirt instead of a blue shirt. But if a person chooses to wear an orange shirt and insists on calling it a blue shirt it does damage those people who say they want to wear an orange shirt because it confuses people it reduces the specificity of the distinction of those people who want to wear a blue shirt. It reduces the social distinctions associated with wearing a blue shirt. It also is often pushed by people who want to intentionally confuse the issue to harm those who wear a blue shirt. It often is pushed by people who frankly are stupid or color blind and literally have reduced perceptions and can't see the distinction between orange and blue.

So calling an orange shirt blue or blue shirt Orange is clearly wrong and harmful to those who want to make the distinction and often that is the goal of those who want to confuse the distinction.

As far as the gay marriage specifically goes if you adopt the term gay instead of homosexual you've already gone so far down the path that you're incapable of making real distinctions about what reality is going on.

And furthermore marriage has never been about love and no one can really define love and anyone who's been in a long-term relationship will tell you that what people have as feelings in the initial part of a relationship and most people call Love actually dissipates quite a bit and is not at all associated with a long-term marriage and a family in the legal distinction. In fact in the past it was routine for marriages to take place between people to raise a family and keep a social order when those people were not in love. Love was and still should be considered sort of a juvenile naive feeling it's a passing. Doesn't mean you don't have special affinity for your partner and a special degree of caring but it is certainly not that thing that young people think they feel that they call love.

And yes quite frankly if you're not going to have kids I don't think you should be allowed to be married. Any benefits in the law that were attributed to being married or specifically designed to give people a break and an advantage because they had the additional expenses of time and resources to raise kids which are so necessary to continue the society. So people who weren't raising kids didn't deserve the benefits of the legal distinction of being married.

[–] • 1 pt

The reason people want to call their partnership marriage is to pretend that they are engaged in something more than they are. That's why they don't want to give up the term. It's a big trick they're playing on themselves to feel like they are contributing and are valuable members of society the way people raising families are. As Rogan admits, it's purely selfish. They just want to pursue their careers or hobbies. The more serious point is that these will always leave a big empty spot in a person (childless women experience this more acutely when they lose their looks/sexual market value).

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Because stop acting like every straight couple is a leave it to beaver family. There are many worse than shit parents who are the types of “wholesome” families you are thinking about. Abuse, alcohol, drugs, incest, porn, infidelities, homelessness, disease, lazy trifling good for nothings come in straight people as well who can pump out kids like rabbits. So, stop being. A narrow minded little bitch.

[–] • 0 pt

Who said man-woman marriages work well? Walsh admits as much in the video. Do you think marriage is some panacea? It's necessary but not sufficient to ensure healthy offspring.