Joe Rogan is a fucking idiot (interview with Matt Walsh on gay marriage) | Poal: Say what you want.

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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

•

Joe Rogan is a fucking idiot (interview with Matt Walsh on gay marriage) (www.youtube.com)

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (22).

[–] • 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.

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.

link

[–] • 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).

parent
link