Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage

I think of marriage as 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 decide, you know what, we don't need kids, I'm going to 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? 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 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 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 and her woman bear children. And then the response is always, well, 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 would 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 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 a law that says 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. Why two people? Why do they have to love each other? All these kinds of questions. What if they're in the same family? What if brothers and sisters want to marry? And I know every time that comes up, 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 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 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 end in divorce anyway. They don't make it. 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 think that a gay couple existing directly impacts, you know, there's a gay couple and, you know, wherever. And I'm with my wife in our house. Like, obviously, there's not. But I'm talking about it on the individual level. I'm talking about on the societal level. Right. I would agree that divorce, especially, you know, there's no fault divorce, rampant divorce. I don't think it's as high as 50%. I know that that's often quoted. I'm not sure where that comes from. But it is high. It's too high. Chris Rock has a great joke about that. Those are just the people with the courage to get out. It's like, how many cowards stay? It's also true that the advocates for what we call now traditional marriage, which I just called marriage, but the advocates for traditional marriage put themselves at a disadvantage by allowing, especially in the churches, like allowing this rampant divorce to occur. And then you've already sort of given up on some marriage is supposed to be monogamous 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. But my answer to that is to try to reinforce what marriage is not to just give up on it entirely. And 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. Yeah. But you're also like the way that you're presenting it, it's it's also it's a totally meaningless institution. No, you 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 it's people change. People are fucked up that doesn't doesn't always work. And so I don't think it should be outlawed because 50 percent 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 damage straight people? Because we are making the institution meaningless. But it's not meaningless. Well, but you just 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. It codifies and protects and gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which is which are man, woman, couples, creating people, creating, 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 getting married and saying we're not going to have any kids at all. But why is there something wrong with that of someone's personal choice? 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 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 and my career and what I like to do. That's not damaging your relationship with your wife and your family. I certainly don't think of it as a threat to my marriage or my family. Yeah, it is a personal choice. 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 now we're not talking about what people are allowed to do. Well, we're talking about marriage, gay marriage. Okay, we were just discussing straight couples who choose not to have just 10. Straight couples choose, that's also a personal freedom issue, isn't it? Yeah, and I'm not saying that straight couples should be legally required to have kids, but 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 do not think that that's the right choice. It's their choice, but people can make choices that are wrong. But how is it wrong if they have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with that choice? If 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 is going to go to Helen. And if Helen dies, 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. Yeah, they're able to make that choice, but I think 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, health care work and, you know, and social work and 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. But you're dedicating your life to enhancing other human beings that are around you. That's a hypothetical. It is a hypothetical. So is yours, right? Yeah, but I think most of the people that choose, like, we're not going to have kids. And the rate of those rates are declining. And the age when people first have kids is also going up and all that. Most of the people that are making these choices, I don't think it's because they're involved in charity work. I do think that it is more the scenario you outlined in the first time around, which is just like, well, this is what I'm doing. You know, I have my job. I don't want to give it up. 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. 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 – you know, now you get to the real fundamental question. I think it's a fundamental freedom thing. 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. Well, you're imposing your sensibilities on what you think is important in life to other people. 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 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 imposing myself on them or harming them by answering a question 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 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. People are going to reject marriage, and that means 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 connect the dots thing, but we can already see that. Thank you.