Matt Walsh
Matt Walsh is an American far-right, anti-LGBT political commentator and author. Walsh hosts The Matt Walsh Show podcast and is a columnist for The Daily Wire. He has authored four books and starred in The Daily Wire online documentary film What Is a Woman?. Walsh is a former talk radio host for stations in Delaware and Kentucky. He is outspoken against the LGBT movement, especially the transgender community, and has campaigned against people and hospitals providing transgender health care to minors. Walsh has authored four books: The Unholy Trinity: Blocking the Left's Assault on Life, Marriage, and Gender (2017), Church of Cowards: A Wake-Up Call to Complacent Christians (2020), Johnny the Walrus (2022), and What Is a Woman?: One Man's Journey to Answer the Question of a Generation (2022). You can find the books mentioned in Joe Rogan & Matt Walsh's conversation below.
Books Mentioned on The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) #1895 - Joe Rogan & Matt Walsh
Book Title: Irreversible Damage – The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters
Author: Abigail Shrier
Book Title: The Unholy Trinity – Blocking the Left’s Assault on Life, Marriage, and Gender
Author: Matt Walsh
Book Title: The Bible
Joe Rogan and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage
Marriage has been a subject of debate for many years. Some people believe that marriage is solely for procreation and building a nuclear family, while others believe that it is a bond of love and companionship. Joe Rogan, in his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, discusses his thoughts on marriage and its purpose.
Rogan believes that every married couple should be open to life, but he is not opposed to people getting married without having children. He acknowledges that procreation is one of the fundamental aspects of marriage, but there is more to it than just that. He also believes that married couples who cannot conceive children can still be parents through adoption. Rogan also discusses the topic of gay marriage and how it has become a subject of controversy. Matt Walsh argues that changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples would be detrimental to the institution of marriage.
Key Takeaways
- Marriage is a complex topic that has been debated for years.
- Procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, but there is more to it than just that.
- Changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples is a controversial topic that could have a negative impact on the institution of marriage.
Understanding Marriage
Marriage is commonly understood as the union between two individuals who commit to sharing their lives together. It serves as a legal and social contract that provides certain rights and responsibilities to the couple. However, the purpose and definition of marriage have been a topic of debate for centuries.
According to Matt Walsh, one of the fundamental aspects of marriage is procreation. Marriage provides a context for the building of a nuclear family and the continuation of the human race. Although not the only purpose of marriage, procreation is a defining characteristic of the institution.
Matt Walsh also acknowledges that not all married couples want or are able to have children. However, he believes that every married couple should be open to life, and that the possibility of procreation should be a natural aspect of the union.
Marriage is also a bond of love and companionship. Couples who are deeply in love and committed to each other can choose to get married, even if they do not plan to have children. However, Matt Walsh believes that if a couple rejects procreation as a fundamental aspect of marriage, they are rejecting one of the defining characteristics of the institution.
Matt Wlash also addresses the issue of gay marriage. He believes that marriage is an institution with a specific purpose and definition, and that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would be a mistake. He argues that the purpose of marriage is to create a procreative union, and that allowing gay couples to marry would fundamentally change the nature of the institution.
In conclusion, marriage is a complex institution with multiple purposes and definitions. While procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, it is not the only purpose. Marriage is also a bond of love and companionship, and serves as a legal and social contract between two individuals. However, the purpose and definition of marriage continue to be a topic of debate and discussion.
Marriage and Procreation
Marriage has historically been viewed as a context for procreation and for the building of the nuclear family. While it is not the only purpose of marriage, it is considered one of the fundamental aspects of it. Married couples are expected to be open to life, although not every couple will conceive children due to infertility or other reasons.
There are cases where couples choose not to have children, and some may even decide to undergo sterilization procedures. While this is a personal choice, it is viewed by some as a rejection of one of the fundamental aspects of marriage. However, the decision to not have children does not necessarily preclude a loving bond between two people.
Marriage is not solely about procreation, but it is still considered a natural function of the institution. Infertile couples who fall in love and choose not to adopt can still be considered married, as their bond is based on love and not solely on procreation.
The definition of marriage has been a topic of debate in recent years, particularly with regards to same-sex marriage. Advocates for traditional marriage argue that marriage is a procreative union between a man and a woman, and that changing this definition would undermine the institution. However, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that love and commitment are the defining characteristics of marriage, and that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is discriminatory.
Ultimately, the purpose of marriage is subjective and symbolic. It means something different to every couple that chooses to marry. While there are certain expectations and traditions associated with marriage, it is up to each individual couple to define their own reasons for getting married and what their marriage means to them.
Marriage Without Children
Marriage is often viewed as an institution for procreation and building a nuclear family. However, what about couples who choose not to have children? Some argue that every married couple should be open to life, but what if they don't want to have kids? Is it okay for them to be married?
According to Matt Walsh, marriage is not solely about procreation, but it is one of the fundamental aspects of it. He believes that married couples who cannot conceive children should consider adoption as an option. However, he also acknowledges that not every couple wants to have children and that it is a personal choice.
Matt Walsh does not advocate for a law that would prevent couples from getting married if they do not want children. However, he does believe that such couples are rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage. He hopes that they would be open to life in the future, but he does not believe that a law should prevent them from being married.
Matt Walsh also addresses the issue of infertility and how it relates to the definition of marriage. He believes that while infertility and disease may prevent some couples from having children, procreation is still a natural function of marriage. He compares it to the definition of a woman, stating that even if a woman is infertile, it is still her nature to bear children.
Overall, Matt Walsh believes that marriage is a personal choice, and couples who choose not to have children should not be prevented from getting married. However, he does believe that procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage and hopes that couples will be open to life in the future.
Infertility and Marriage
Marriage is often seen as a context for procreation and the building of a nuclear family. However, what about couples who are unable to conceive? Is their marriage still valid? According to Matt Walsh, marriage is not solely for procreation, but it is one of the fundamental aspects of marriage.
The speaker believes that every married couple should be open to life, but if a couple is infertile, it does not change the nature of marriage. Infertility is a common issue that many couples face, and there are other ways to become parents, such as adoption.
The speaker also addresses the question of whether a couple who does not want to have children should be married. While the speaker is not opposed to them being married, he believes that they are rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage and should be open to life.
Overall, the speaker believes that marriage serves a purpose beyond procreation and is a bond of love. While infertility may prevent some couples from having biological children, it does not change the nature of marriage.
Personal Choice in Marriage
Marriage is often seen as a context for procreation and the building of a nuclear family. However, what about couples who choose not to have children? Is it acceptable for them to be married? From the perspective of the speaker in the video, every married couple should be open to life. While procreation is one of the fundamental aspects of marriage, it is not the only one. Marriage is also a bond of love and union between two individuals.
However, what about couples who are infertile and cannot have children? The speaker in the video argues that this does not change the nature of marriage, as it is still a natural function of marriage for procreation to occur. If a married couple cannot conceive children, they can explore other options such as adoption.
But what about couples who choose not to have children, even if they are deeply in love? The speaker believes that this is a personal choice, but it is also a rejection of one of the fundamental aspects of marriage. While he does not advocate for a law that would prevent such couples from getting married, he hopes that they would eventually be open to the possibility of having children in the future.
The speaker also addresses the topic of same-sex marriage. He believes that marriage is an institution with a specific purpose, and changing its definition would be detrimental to its fundamental nature. However, he does not think that same-sex marriage directly impacts traditional marriage in any way.
Overall, the speaker in the video believes that marriage is a subjective and symbolic institution that holds meaning for those who choose to enter into it. While procreation is an important aspect of marriage, it is not the only one, and couples who choose not to have children can still have a fulfilling and loving marriage.
Gay Marriage: A Debate
The debate on gay marriage centers around the fundamental purpose of marriage. While some argue that marriage is solely for procreation and the building of a nuclear family, others maintain that there is more to marriage than just that.
Opponents of gay marriage often argue that it goes against the natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. However, this argument falls apart when considering infertile couples or those who choose not to have children. In these cases, marriage is still seen as a bond of love and commitment.
Advocates of gay marriage argue that love and commitment should be the defining factors of marriage, not just procreation. They argue that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is discriminatory and goes against basic human rights.
The definition of marriage has evolved over time, and opponents of gay marriage argue that changing it further would be detrimental to the institution of marriage. However, advocates argue that marriage has always been a dynamic institution that has evolved to meet the changing needs of society.
While some argue that allowing gay marriage would damage the institution of marriage, others maintain that divorce and infidelity have already done far more damage. Ultimately, the debate on gay marriage centers around the definition and purpose of marriage, and whether it should be limited to heterosexual couples or open to all.
Impact of Divorce on Marriage
Marriage is traditionally viewed as a union between two people for the purpose of procreation and building a nuclear family. However, what happens when couples decide not to have children or are unable to conceive? Does this change the nature of marriage?
According to the speaker in the video, while procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, it is not the only defining characteristic. He argues that marriage is a bond of love and that couples who cannot conceive children can still have fulfilling marriages. However, he also believes that every married couple should be open to life and that those who reject this aspect of marriage are rejecting a fundamental component of the institution.
Divorce, on the other hand, can have a significant impact on marriage. The speaker notes that divorce rates are high and that this can weaken the institution of marriage. He argues that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than same-sex marriage, as it undermines the traditional values of monogamy and permanence that are supposed to be part of the institution.
Despite the challenges that divorce poses, the speaker believes that marriage is still a meaningful institution for those who choose to enter into it. While it may not always work out, there is a great reward in keeping a family together and raising children in a healthy and happy environment. Therefore, he does not believe that marriage should be outlawed simply because many marriages end in divorce.
In summary, while procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, it is not the only defining characteristic. Divorce poses a significant threat to the institution of marriage, but it is still viewed as a meaningful union between two people.
Defining Traditional Marriage
According to the speaker in the video, traditional marriage is a union that serves as a context for procreation and the building of a nuclear family. While there is more to marriage than just procreation, it is considered one of the fundamental aspects of the institution. The speaker notes that married couples who cannot conceive children can still adopt or pursue other means of parenthood.
The speaker also acknowledges that there are individuals who are deeply in love but do not want to have children. While he does not advocate for a law that would prevent them from being married, he believes that they are rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage. He hopes that they would be open to life in the future.
The speaker compares the definition of marriage to the definition of a woman, stating that a woman is someone who can conceive children in her womb, but not every woman will be able to do so. Similarly, while not every married couple will have children, procreation is still considered a natural function of marriage.
The speaker also discusses the impact of divorce on the institution of marriage, noting that the high rate of divorce weakens the institution. He advocates for reinforcing what marriage is rather than giving up on it entirely.
In regards to same-sex marriage, the speaker believes that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would tear down the institution of marriage. He questions what the point of marriage would be if it is not what he considers it to be. However, he does not believe that a gay couple existing would directly impact a straight couple's marriage.
The Societal Level of Marriage
Marriage has historically been viewed as a context for procreation and building a nuclear family. While not every married couple has children, openness to life is considered a fundamental aspect of marriage. However, this is not the only defining characteristic of marriage. Marriage is also a bond of love and union, and it serves a symbolic and subjective purpose for couples who choose to enter into it.
Married couples who are unable to conceive children can still adopt or find other ways to become parents. While the inability to procreate may preclude one of the natural functions of marriage, it does not necessarily invalidate the union. Marriage is a personal choice, and couples who do not wish to have children are not prevented from marrying.
The societal level of marriage is a complex issue that has been subject to debate and change over time. The definition of marriage has evolved, and some argue that it should continue to evolve to include same-sex couples. Others believe that the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, should be upheld.
The question of whether allowing same-sex marriage would damage the institution of marriage is a contentious one. Some argue that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine the traditional definition of marriage and weaken the institution. Others argue that same-sex marriage would have no impact on the institution of marriage and that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is discriminatory.
Ultimately, the societal level of marriage is a complex issue that is influenced by a wide range of factors, including cultural and religious beliefs, legal considerations, and individual preferences. While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of what marriage is or should be, it is clear that marriage serves a symbolic and subjective purpose for many couples, regardless of their ability or desire to have children.
Reinforcing the Institution of Marriage
Marriage is traditionally viewed as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and building a nuclear family. However, some couples choose to get married without the intention of having children. While this is a personal choice, it goes against one of the fundamental aspects of marriage.
Marriage is a natural institution, and procreation is one of its primary functions. However, not all married couples are able to conceive children due to infertility or other reasons. In such cases, adoption can be an option for couples who wish to become parents.
The institution of marriage should be reinforced to maintain its sanctity and importance in society. Divorce rates have been on the rise, and this has weakened the institution of marriage. It is important to promote monogamy, permanence, and procreation within marriage to ensure its longevity.
The definition of marriage has been a topic of debate in recent times, particularly with regards to same-sex marriage. While some argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, others believe that love should be the only requirement for marriage. However, it is important to define the purpose of marriage and its role in society to avoid diluting its meaning.
In conclusion, reinforcing the institution of marriage is crucial to maintain its significance in society. While personal choices should be respected, it is important to promote the traditional values of marriage to ensure its longevity and relevance.
Marriage: A Subjective Symbolic Institution
Marriage is a subjective symbolic institution that has been defined in different ways over time. While some people view marriage as a context for procreation and the building of the nuclear family, others see it as a bond of love and commitment between two individuals.
According to the speaker in the video, the fundamental definitional aspect of marriage is procreation. However, he acknowledges that there is more to marriage than just procreation. He also recognizes that not all married couples have children, and that infertility and other factors can prevent procreation from occurring.
The speaker argues that while procreation is a natural function of marriage, it is not the only purpose of the institution. He believes that married couples who cannot conceive children can still be parents through adoption.
When asked about people who are deeply in love but do not want to have children, the speaker believes that they are rejecting one of the fundamental aspects of marriage. However, he acknowledges that it is a personal choice and that he is not advocating for a law that would prevent them from getting married.
The speaker also discusses the topic of same-sex marriage. He believes that marriage is an institution that has been defined for thousands of years as a procreative union, and that changing this definition would be detrimental to the institution. However, he also acknowledges that allowing same-sex marriage would not directly impact heterosexual marriages.
In conclusion, the speaker views marriage as a subjective symbolic institution that can be defined in different ways. While he believes that procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, he also recognizes that there is more to the institution than just procreation. Ultimately, he believes that marriage is a personal choice and that individuals should be allowed to define it for themselves.
Responsibility and Reward in Marriage
Marriage is often viewed as an institution that serves as a context for procreation and for building a nuclear family. However, it is not solely limited to procreation as there are other aspects to it. Responsibility and reward are two important aspects of marriage that are often discussed.
Married couples have a massive responsibility to keep their family together, raise their children, and keep everyone happy and healthy. This responsibility can be challenging and requires a lot of effort and dedication. However, there is also a great reward to it. Creating a loving and supportive environment for one's family can be fulfilling and satisfying.
It is important to note that not all married couples want to have children. While procreation is one of the fundamental aspects of marriage, it is not the only one. Couples who are deeply in love but do not want to have children should not be opposed to getting married. It is a personal choice, and marriage is a union of love.
Married couples who are infertile can still be married, as procreation is not the only natural function of marriage. There are other ways to be parents, such as adoption. It is up to the couple to decide if they want to adopt or not.
The definition of marriage has been debated over time, and some argue that it is a man-made institution with little meaning. However, marriage is still meaningful to the people who choose to get married. It is a subjective, symbolic thing that has a different meaning to different people.
In conclusion, responsibility and reward are two important aspects of marriage. While procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage, it is not the only one. Couples who do not want to have children should not be opposed to getting married, as marriage is a union of love. The definition of marriage may vary from person to person, but it is still meaningful to those who choose to get married.
JRE 1895: Matt Walsh on What Is A Woman | Joe Rogan Experience
The documentary "What is a Woman?" has received widespread attention for its thought-provoking exploration of the concept of gender in modern society. The film was created as a response to the growing mainstream acceptance of transgenderism, which has raised questions about the definition of womanhood and the implications of including individuals who identify as women but were born male.
The documentary takes a unique approach by allowing individuals who promote gender ideology to speak freely and explain their views without interruption. By doing so, the film exposes the inconsistencies and incoherences in their arguments, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the complexity of the issue at hand.
The Genesis of the Documentary
The documentary on gender confusion was a result of several years of observations and questions that started back in 2017. At that time, the transgender movement was gaining mainstream traction, and it became apparent that the people promoting this movement had a problem. They were asking society to accept someone like Bruce Jenner as a woman, but what exactly did that mean? What were they asking society to accept in mass?
The documentary's creator had a basic question: What is a woman, and what are they trying to say about womanhood now? Attempts to get an answer to this question on Twitter and other social media platforms failed. The creator realized that they needed to find a way to put this question in front of the people promoting this movement.
The documentary's objective was three-fold: to convey a message, to entertain, and to give gender ideology a chance to hang itself by its own incoherences. The creator believed that if they went on a tour around the country yelling at people, it would only prove what people already knew, which was that two sides yell at each other. Therefore, the creator decided to ask questions and let the people promoting the movement explain themselves.
The documentary's motivation was to challenge the incoherences of gender ideology and give people a chance to think critically about the issue. The creator wanted to make it clear that the documentary was not meant to be confrontational, but rather a way to let people explain themselves in their own words. The documentary's success was evident in the reactions of people who watched it. Many found it to be eye-opening and one of the most comprehensive pieces on gender confusion in our culture.
Objective and Approach
The objective of the documentary was to explore the concept of gender identity and its impact on society. The approach taken was to ask individuals who promote gender ideology to define what they mean by terms such as "woman" and "man." The documentary makers wanted to give gender ideology advocates a chance to explain their views and to hang themselves by their own incoherences.
The documentary makers wanted to create a piece of entertainment that would also convey a message. They chose to ask questions rather than engage in confrontations, and they wanted to show how difficult it can be for advocates of gender ideology to define basic terms.
The documentary makers spent several years developing the idea for the documentary. They noticed that as transgender issues gained mainstream attention, there was a lack of clear definitions and explanations regarding gender identity. They wanted to put this question in front of gender ideology advocates and explore their responses.
The makers of the documentary wanted to create a piece of entertainment that would be informative and engaging. They chose individuals to interview based on their advocacy for gender ideology and their political influence. They aimed to show how difficult it is for gender ideology advocates to define basic terms and to highlight the incoherences in their arguments.
During the documentary, the makers asked individuals who promote gender ideology to define what they mean by terms such as "woman" and "man." They also explored the impact of gender ideology on society, including issues such as restroom access and sports teams. The makers of the documentary aimed to provide a balanced and neutral exploration of the topic.
The Intriguing Question: What is a Woman?
The question of what constitutes a woman has become a topic of intense debate in recent years. The rise of transgenderism and gender fluidity has challenged traditional notions of gender and identity. The documentary "Gender Ideology: What is a Woman?" explores this issue by asking individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary to define what a woman is.
The documentary was created by a conservative filmmaker who was frustrated by the lack of clear answers to this question. He believed that proponents of gender ideology were promoting a message without fully understanding the implications of their beliefs. He set out to ask this question to those who advocate for transgender rights and gender fluidity.
The filmmaker's approach was to allow the individuals to speak for themselves without pushing back or challenging their views. He believed that this approach would allow them to reveal the inconsistencies and contradictions in their beliefs. The documentary features interviews with a range of people, including politicians, activists, and everyday individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary.
One of the most notable moments in the documentary was when the filmmaker interviewed Congressman Mark Takano, who is an advocate for the Equality Act. Takano was unable to provide a clear answer to the question of what constitutes a woman and eventually walked out of the interview.
The documentary highlights the difficulty in defining what a woman is in the context of gender ideology. The individuals interviewed in the documentary often defined a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, but this definition raises further questions about what it means to identify as a woman.
Overall, the documentary provides a thought-provoking look at the issue of gender identity and the challenges of defining what it means to be a woman in the context of gender ideology.
The Politician's Reaction
During the making of the documentary, one of the politicians interviewed was Mark Takano, a Congressman from California who is an advocate for the Equality Act. He sat through about 30 minutes of the interview, answering the easier questions with filibustering answers. However, when the interviewer started asking real questions, Takano appeared visibly uncomfortable and kept looking over his shoulder at his aide who was standing behind the interviewer.
The interviewer asked Takano about the competing claims of males who want to use the women's restroom or locker room and females who do not want to see an individual with a penis in the locker room. The interviewer asked how to balance these claims fairly. Takano abruptly ended the interview, stating that it was over, and walked out. This incident was captured on camera and included in the documentary.
The documentary aimed to challenge the promotion of gender ideology and put the question of what is a woman in front of those advocating for it. The documentary was not confrontational but allowed those interviewed to explain themselves in their own words without pushback. The documentary also aimed to be a piece of entertainment in addition to a message-driven film.
The Equality Act
The Equality Act is a proposed legislation by the Democrats to federalize gender ideology on a national level. This act aims to provide rights to individuals who identify themselves as transgender, and it includes allowing men to use women's restrooms and participate in women's sports teams.
This act has faced criticism from conservatives who argue that it would infringe on the rights of women who do not want to share their private spaces with individuals who have male anatomy. The act has also been criticized for its vagueness in defining what it means to be transgender, and for its potential to harm religious freedom.
During the making of a documentary on gender confusion, the filmmaker asked several politicians, including Congressman Mark Takano, about their views on the Equality Act. Congressman Takano, who is an advocate for the act, was uncomfortable when asked about the potential conflicts between the rights of women and transgender individuals. He eventually walked out of the interview when asked about how to balance these competing claims.
The documentary aimed to present a balanced view of the issue and to allow gender ideology proponents to explain themselves in their own words. The filmmaker's approach was to ask questions and let the proponents hang themselves with their own incoherences. The documentary has been praised for its entertainment value and for providing a fresh perspective on the issue.
The Bathroom Dilemma
The documentary "Gender Confused" explores the issue of gender confusion and the impact it has on society. One of the key issues discussed in the film is the bathroom dilemma.
As more individuals identify as a gender different from their biological sex, the question arises of which bathroom they should use. This has led to controversy and heated debate, with some arguing that individuals should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, while others argue that biological sex should determine which bathroom one uses.
The film highlights the difficulty in defining what it means to be a woman or a man in today's society. The traditional definitions of gender are being challenged, and there is no clear consensus on what it means to be a woman or a man. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and conflict in many areas, including the use of public restrooms.
The documentary features interviews with individuals on both sides of the issue. Some argue that allowing individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity is a matter of basic human rights. Others argue that it is a matter of safety and privacy, and that allowing individuals to use the bathroom of their choice could lead to uncomfortable or dangerous situations.
Overall, the bathroom dilemma is a complex issue that highlights the challenges of defining gender in today's society. The film encourages viewers to consider the perspectives of all involved and to engage in respectful dialogue to find solutions that work for everyone.