 I just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage. A while back conservative commentator, Matt Walsh, was on Joe Rogan's podcast and they got into a whole debate about gay marriage. It is here that I think Matt Walsh made a crucial mistake. Let's dive in and maybe you'll see it too. I think of 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, 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 wanna 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? At the end of the day, we're talking about definitions and foundations. The key questions that we're asking here is what is marriage? And how do we know what marriage is? People love to debate the first question, go back and forth and debate, and yet clarity really comes in the second question. How do we know what marriage is? What is your foundation? That is where we get the definition. You see, I've appreciated some of Matt Walsh's content and based on what I've seen, he maybe identifies as a Christian or a Catholic, but yet here he fails to identify his foundation. Now, on the other hand, if you've watched Joe Rogan, you recognize that he really has no foundation at all. You'd be hard-pressed to find any kind of consistent worldview coming out of his podcast. But as we'll see here, Matt Walsh loses all of his leverage because he abandons his foundation to get on the same level as Joe Rogan. Here, Matt chooses to utilize the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman because of procreation. Now, I totally believe that the reality that procreation can only take place between a man and a woman is a clear indication of God's ultimate design. But when then you look at Joe Rogan's worldview, for him, it's like, okay, so what? They can have children, good for them. How does that impact a gay couple that just wants to get married? You know, that's just, well, who cares? We go back to foundations again. Is there an objective command or standard that we need to return to? Is there even a God that made us with intention and a particular purpose and design? To Matt's point, yes, God designed it that married couples, one man, one woman would bring new life into this world. But even before children, he made it so that the man and the woman would be a play, a glorious divine play of God that the bride would represent the church and that the husband would represent Christ, that it would be a beautiful God-glorifying union even before children that man should leave his father and his mother and become one flesh with his wife. Why? Well, you might not wanna hear this answer, but because God designed it that way, and we as Christians need to be willing to stand on God's word as authoritative. God's word and his foundation will not return void for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing the divisions of the soul and the spirit of joints and of marrow and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 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 this 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 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. But then why two people? Why do they have to love each other? You know, all these kinds of questions. Okay, so here, Matt Walsh is basically verbalizing the stable society argument that marriage between a man and a woman produces the most stable, flourishing societies and families and culture in general. And I don't disagree with that. But is this the primary argument that I would make? No, like I said, I'm a foundations guy. I don't want to just be pragmatic. And Matt Walsh's argument, he's saying that this is what we've done forever. It's worked. Why change it? And then you get those on the progressive side as always that put forward numbers of reasons on why they should change it. This is always the battle between conservatives and progressives that conservatives are saying, you know, we should do this because this is always how we've done it. And progressives say, well, we need to push it because we've been doing it wrong. This is why I want to rely on the foundation and the structure of scripture, not just traditions of man and thinking that, oh, this is the way we've always done it. So that must mean they're good because that's not even necessarily true. Ultimately, I want to be holding to the word of God. That's why these things are beneficial. That's why we should be clinging to these things. Notice the difference in ultimate authority. Is it the pragmatic results that, oh man, this benefits our culture, so let's do it this way? Or is it the word of God? And what God has said, is that our ultimate authority? Is the highest determining factor of our morality a positive outcome? Or is it abiding by what God ordained? Okay, I know what you're saying. What about all those people that don't care what God has to say? What about they don't want to honor God? I believe that obedience comes out of a restored relationship with God. And so when we're talking to unbelievers, honestly, I'm not too concerned about trying to convince them that same-sex marriage is wrong. I want to convince them that they are a guilty and a sinner before God. I mean, ultimately with the conviction of the Holy Spirit that draws them to that conclusion. But I want to tell them like, hey, this is the problem that you have in your life, and this is how you can have a restored relationship with God. And then through that, they actually want to pursue obedience and what God has commanded of them. Because I believe when somebody submits their life to God in that way, all those other dominoes will fall. This next part is interesting. Matt Walsh makes reference to the fact that they don't actually have a new definition, these progressives that are saying, oh, why can't we just have gay marriage? They don't have another definition of what marriage is. So wouldn't that mean that just anything could go about and five dudes could get married and three ladies and three ladies and five cisgender and non-binary people could all get married? It's like, what's going on here? You don't have another definition. But honestly, that kind of slippery slope argument really only works if those on the other side are concerned about what's down the slope. But honestly, in our culture, I don't think based on what I'm seeing in media and entertainment and culture that they're too concerned about what's down the slope. In a lot of ways, I think this argument would have been effective like 10 years ago because then you start telling people, oh man, where is this gonna go? Is there gonna be all sorts of weird marriages that are taking place because the standards, the boundaries have been taken off and people might, yeah, equally be concerned. Yeah, well, no, no. It's just this one thing that we got going on and yeah, all that other stuff is bad. These days, I don't believe so. Based on what I'm seeing, I don't think it's gonna be long before we have men and boys that people come forward and say, hey, look, the boy's mature or like it's okay. Like it's all consensual. I don't think it's gonna be too long before we're seeing something like that. And honestly, that's why I'm much more concerned about individual transformation. So they begin to see sin as sin. Because when you reject God's objective moral standard, all you're left is with your own devices, your own opinions, your own subjective standards. And so who's to say that it's just not gonna continue to go down? That's why you need heart transformation. So then you want to cling onto what God has told us to do. As some of you know, I just quit my job. So I am full-time in this ministry and that is so exciting because I love equipping people to follow Jesus daily through the social media content on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram. It's my passion. It's what I love. And through the support of people on Patreon, that is able to be a possibility. If you want to get behind what I'm doing, that would be amazing. If you want to get behind the mission or just really enjoy the content, it would be a huge blessing to me. So check out the link in my description. There are all sorts of perks on there. We do video calls, there's exclusive videos, there is merch discounts, and there is a Discord. So there's a lot of things for you to check out when you are part of that community. It would be an amazing, amazing blessing. So check it out down below and we'll get back into the video. Marriage 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 bought. Look, if you wanted to look at logic, especially in our modern society, which is pretty when it comes to relationships, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages and a 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. Now here Joe Rogan tries to point out some of the apparent cracks with the pragmatic argument against same sex marriage. He points out the divorce rate and he says, hey, look at the rampant divorce rate. It looks like straight marriage isn't super good for society, either because of all the broken families running around. Now you might come back with a rebuttal that the divorce numbers are hyperinflated, especially within the church and it's not as bad, but now you're just getting in the debate of statistics. The fundamental questions are not, does it work or doesn't it? Does it impact us? Does it have an effect on our life? How does it impact society? Like these are important questions to ask in general, but they're not the primary question that we should be asking to get to the fundamental moral root of this issue. First and foremost, we need to be asking, is it right or isn't it? And if you want to go more in-depth about what God says about homosexuality, check the video links up here. We are making the institution meaningless. But it's not meaningless. Well, but you just- 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. 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. I could just feel that Matt Walsh was getting so close to identifying his foundation. He knew it wasn't subjective. He knew it wasn't just this fluffy thing that man created and yet he didn't want to identify why he knew that or how he knew that or how he wanted to support that belief that it wasn't just a man-made thing. If I were talking to Joe Rogan, I would say no, it's not just subjective symbolic man-made. It is ordained by God. God created us and he set this up as a picture of who he is and what he wants to do on this earth and his relationship with us. And it's this beautiful connection and covenantal relationship that he has ordained in a particular way for his glory. So no, it's not just whatever you want it to be. This is what God has said. Now you might be saying, well, Joe doesn't believe in the Bible, so why would you use the Bible to back up your arguments? And my question for you is, why would you abandon the foundation, the firm foundation that you're standing on to get on somebody else's house of sinking sand just to have a debate with them? That makes no sense. You're losing all of your leverage. You're losing what truth you're standing on. Now there's a piece in the scripture where it says, answer a fool according to his folly, where you draw out the full ramifications of what that person is saying. You be consistent according to their worldview. That's a solid practice, but if you're never taking them from that place of inconsistency of just absurdity into actual truth, you're missing out. No, Joe asks an important question. He says, what does a gay couple have to do with you and your marriage? How does that affect you? And Matt Wells says, well, nothing actually, it's just kind of a more cultural scale because right now they're arguing about kind of cultural ramifications right now. They're arguing about pragmatic results of these decisions. So they're saying, hey, like if there's a gay person, there's a gay couple that gets married, nothing's really gonna happen to culture and the other person's saying, no, that would be really, really bad for culture. We gotta ask, what is the ideal end for this kind of debate or this kind of conversation? Is it just to win somebody over to the gospel of societal improvement or personal life improvement to say, oh, you know what, the same-sex marriage, it will damage culture in some ways. And they say, oh, you know what, you're actually right. I want society to be a good uplifting, fulfilling place. So I agree with you. Is that the end result that would be ideal for all of us? My goal isn't to just win somebody over to moral principles or biblical principles because ultimately they have better impacts on culture in general, so you should be for them. I want them to place their lives and their hearts in submission to God so that all those other dominoes fall into place that they want to honor God with their lives and how they act and with their marriages and how they orient everything about themselves that we can obey God and his commands, trust that they are ultimately, yes, best for culture, but even when we can't see the results right away, we can know that he is working things out for our good and his glory and we can trust him in that. I don't know who said it, but it definitely applies here. You can tell me in the comments if you know, but what you win them with is what you will win them to. If you win them with pragmatic arguments, you'll win them to more pragmatic arguments. If you win them with God's word and his authority, that is what you'll win them to. Hey guys, thanks so much for watching this video. If you enjoyed it, subscribe because I'm putting up new videos like this all the time. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this in the comments down below and I will see you next time. God bless.