Comments by "Jason Dashney" (@jasondashney) on "Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage" video.

How is Matt Walsh a bad person? Also, don’t forget that your grandkids generation will think that your generation is bigoted and gross. Be careful when you cast those stones.
19
I’m blown away that everyone on here can’t see the hypocrisy in their statements. Many people have said the same thing you just said and I don’t get it. Joe has his ideas and Matt has his. Neither change their opinion yet all the commentors are saying that only Matt is closed minded and that Joe is an open minded freethinker. They both did exactly the same thing in this conversation so I can’t figure out why everyone keeps saying that Joe clearly won. People are only saying that because their ideology agrees with Joe’s.
9
In this clip Joe is 100% trying to push his view on Matt though. He’s doing it in a nice way but he’s certainly has his point of you and he’s making his point of view very clear. He’s not giving up much ground if any to Matt.
6
Almost this entire comment section is people dunking on Matt even though Joe and him both had their idea and they weren’t budging from it. Matt seems to be invoking the slippery slope argument and that we’ve already descended down that hill somewhat. I don’t agree with his views on marriage but I get where he’s coming from and I think it’s a valid argument. Most of the commentors here think that only Matt is close minded and that he got destroyed in this.
5
Agreed. Matt is more talking about marriage holistically and is concerned about things that are slowly chipping away at the nuclear family. I don’t think gay marriage hurts the nuclear family in any capacity but I get where Matt is coming from and why he would feel that way.
4
I don’t think so. Matt is defining it as it was defined in Western society for ages. In 2013 Hillary Clinton publicly expressed the exact same views. It’s not fair to change the definition of something and then tell the person who believes in the traditional definition that it’s their own personal version of it as if they are being a stubborn child.
4
@garyallen5574 it's unreal. The video is called Joe and Matt Walsh disagreed over gay marriage. That means they are disagreeing. That is literally pushing your view. Just because he's not yelling it doesn't mean he's not doing it.
3
R.Dub for sure Joe pushed his views but most of the commenters agree with Joe and disagreed with Matt, therefore Joe is the bastion of open minded understanding, and Matt is the terrible close minded bigot.
2
@afterawordfromoursponsor It's 2023: Anyone who agrees with you just states "reality" and is open minded, wonderful and kind. Everyone who disagrees with you is an inflexible, awful bigot.
2
@dougbelford4565 And this is why conversation is so difficult. You are I are clearly arguing, but about different things so there's no real point. I'm going to stop responding to this thread and leave it here. Time to make myself some delicious fajitas and watch a movie now. Have a good one. Cheers.
2
@Vjestica7 " I agree, tbh I listened the whole episode and for me it was little bit painful to listen to this second part of the episode where they were discussing gay marriage." I couldn't agree more. That said, I'm very happy that these two are still allowed to respect each other and were calm and civil about it. That is so much better than most of what you get out there. I still look at it as a victory. Both of them thoroughly understand that the other has very entrenched views that are not likely to change. Getting that out calmly is better than two people yelling at each other, and at least they both can still appreciate the overlap in their beliefs.
2
@kurosakilito " because one is saying this is what I believe but people should be allowed to make their choice. Matt is saying I disagree and they (gays) shouldn’t have their choice as a Americans to marry whom they choose." Matt seems to be stuck in a game of semantics. If he were king I doubt he would outlaw gay people having civil rights, he would just outlaw them being allowed into something that they were previously not allowed into, which is the specific wording of marriage. He really seems to wrestle with his idea that people should be free to choose how to live their life, versus his religious convictions. He pushed back way more on the idea of marriage then he did about some sort of civil union. He only objected to the civil unions on religious grounds, not ones that he would wish to enshrine in law. He just personally frowns upon it is all. I don't think him and Joe were as far apart as it would seem. I do find it funny that he is super convinced that marriage is first and foremost about children, and that children are a necessity and the be-all end-all to existence. Marriage has also very much about retaining power and joining kingdoms and families. It's also about the stuff Joe is talking about like legal rights for you with your hospitalized partner, and for some people it's just an explicit act of fidelity that they've been conditioned to feel is important.
2
Exactly, and that’s why there will never be a perfect resolution to the issue. Both of them do make salient points because the reality is messy.
1
@Goldshot123 To each their own is as close as you can get to a compromise, especially since most of the hard-core Christians are conservative and they believe in personal freedom so much. When you hit them with that one, you might make headway whereas you will never ever make headway with a hard-core liberal if you talk about God's rules.
1
You must be young. One man one woman was how marriage was defined in the western world going back ages. That was changed very recently.
1
@KaiValentino-r5w and that's fine. You do you. That still has nothing to do with the fact that the changing of the definition of marriage to include gay people is an extremely recent phenomenon. In 2013 Hillary Clinton was in televised interviews saying one man one woman. Oddly enough, Donald Trump was the first president ever elected to his first term who didn't oppose gay marriage. Obama was one man one woman on the campaign trail before his first term. I certainly wouldn't qualify it as Matt making up his own definition, when he is just fighting back on a very recently changed definition that had been long-standing.
1
@sh0cktim3 divorce is an interesting one. I've watched interviews with people from traditional backgrounds were divorce was very frowned upon and they talked about how it was good in a way because it forced you to reconcile and work together because there was no out. I can definitely see there being advantages to that. I would not wanna be in that situation but I can appreciate how that necessity would cause you to work together as opposed to just getting angry at each other because you can get out of it anytime you want.
1
@wolfjaeger7 What did I say that has you so convinced you know my political and religious beliefs? Be specific please. No inferring, no reading between the lines.
1
@KaiValentino-r5w why are you asking me that? I haven't given my opinion on anything. Go back and look at my comments. This is why it's so frustrating to talk to people. Nobody wants objectivity. And everyone thinks that as soon as you say anything against them that you are a proponent of everything they disagree with. Like I said to Wolf Jager, what did I say that has you convinced you know my beliefs? Be specific please. No inferring, no reading between the lines.
1
@wolfjaeger7 I said "What did I say that has you so convinced you know my political and religious beliefs? Be specific please. No inferring, no reading between the lines." I noticed you were unable to do so.
1
@KaiValentino-r5w there are not words to express how little I care about your opinion on whether same-sex marriage is valid or what your opinion on religion is. Gay marriage is certainly not common throughout the history books. It happened more than zero times, but as a percentage throughout history the number is so small it may as well be rounded to zero for the purposes of the topic which is whether or not a man and a woman was the common definition for marriage for 99.999% of people up until very recently. So stop trying to convince me of anything because I do not care. Again, nowhere have I given my opinion on the subject in any capacity. I have no interest in discussing that. I was just pointing out that Matt still believes in the same definition of marriage that almost everyone you talk to on the street in any country on earth would've very short time ago.
1
@wolfjaeger7 so you're personally attacking me but literally can't provide a single shred of evidence despite only having a couple paragraphs to source from. The research couldn't be simpler. If there's something specific, pointed out. If not, then have fun personally attacking me because I'm not sure what it's getting you other than frustrated with yourself because if you had something on me you would've stated it already. Twice now I've asked you to back up your claims and you haven't which means I win unequivocally. Sorry, that's just how logic and reason work.
1
@KaiValentino-r5w you are so fascinating. I have told you over and over that I have not given my opinion either way and I invited you to go back through the comments and find where I did. Instead of doing that, you come out and ascribe to me opinion that I never expressed and then attack me for them. I see this over and over and people. They read between the lines and then take their own interpretation as gospel, despite all evidence to the contrary, and then they try and hang you with it. It's the strangest thing. I will ask again. Please point to where I gave my opinion. You seem convinced that I want to control people and insist that marriage is only for straight people. Please find where I said that. Be specific.
1
@wolfjaeger7 I've asked you over and over to provide me with evidence of the thing you are "accusing" me of. You have not. Why? There's so little writing you need go through to find it if it's there. If there's evidence, please produce it. Please produce something other than personal insults. If you can find the rope to hang me with, then do it.
1
@wolfjaeger7 "Even though you didn't wrote it down, it's pretty clear, " So you know what I'm saying better than I do? Impressive. Imagine if our justice system work that way. Imagine if we went on intuition instead of facts and evidence. "You just could have said, that you're not a right conservative and everything would have been fine. Instead you hold on to "evidence", which I gave you now. " So your "evidence" is that I did not deny being a right leaning conservative? Is that what you are taking as evidence? I'm very curious to know. I will answer your last questions very directly and very specifically if you address what I have posted here first because you're not dodging the question again.
1
@wolfjaeger7 You still refuse to back up your claim then? That's unfortunate. And also, I'd have no problem admitting if I was right wing because you act like that's inherently a pejorative. That's incredibly dismissive and divisive. I guess keep coming in with ad hominem attacks if that's your preferred method, but I'd prefer you come straight with a single answer instead of beating around the bush and providing me with actual evidence. I stand behind 100% of what I've said and I don't even have to go back and look because I haven't lied.
1
@abdullahharoun6680 Constantly disagreeing with someone IS pushing your views, full stop. You are literally saying their views are wrong and yours are right. That it's pushing your views is not even up for debate. Of course it is.
1
@dougbelford4565 "and at one time African Americans were defined as 2/3 of a person" Check out Thomas Sowell's telling of this on YouTube. He explains quite eloquently how this was a plan by the north to make it so the south couldn't win the game of politics. Having them count as 2/3 meant they didn't have the representation and Washington required to have their way with everything. This was a brilliant play that was ironically anti-racist.
1
@dougbelford4565 it's not homophobic. Matt is trying to obey his religion, a religion that is protected by the way, just the way gay rights are. It's such a tricky one because it's like the case of the gay wedding cake. It's literally reconcilable because both sets of rights can't exist in the same space, yet they both are from a legal standpoint. Noticed that every time Matt says something that is anti-gay, he's always saying it within the purview of his religious beliefs. If God came down tomorrow and said gays are A-OK, Matt would suddenly be fine with them. That's how the religious are. When it comes to religious people I believe it's more a case of "Don't shoot the messenger". It's the same as an interview I saw with Islamic fundamentalists that laughed when the interviewer asked if she should be killed. The guy laughed and calmly said that it wasn't him that wanted her dead, it was Allah.
1
@zandorachan " "ok, so what is marriage now defined as, if it's no longer just 1 man and 1 woman?"" Just as Matt kept dodging the question when Joe asked specifically what he would do when it comes to gay couples if he were king, Joe dodges the question of what exactly is a marriage. He loves the question what is a woman, but he's not as keen on the question of what is a marriage.
1
@dougbelford4565 "that’s why I’m not a fan of Jesus or most of his followers" I disagree with you there. Religion has some goofy ass rules but overall, I'm not afraid to leave my car unlocked in a church parking lot. The regular, run of the mill person who tries to live a Christian life is usually a pretty decent person. I might roll their eyes at some of their beliefs but overall they are usually rather pleasant people.
1
@dougbelford4565 " there were a lot of people who thought that interracial marriage would ruin the institution too. They were also wrong" I agree completely. I'm not sure that's related to my point though. My point was that Matt was using the definition of marriage that had been around for ages.
1
@dougbelford4565 "there were a lot of people who thought that interracial marriage would ruin the institution too. They were also wrong" Great, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that Matt was using a traditional definition of marriage. I'm just being objective about the situation. I didn't actually weigh in with my opinion either way so you are arguing a point that nobody is making.
1
@dougbelford4565 OK now you're just attacking me. The only actual opinion either gave on this subject in any capacity with something you agree with. You're just so conditioned to cheer for your team but anytime anybody criticize you all you think is that they are from a different ideology and they must be attacked. I feel bad for you. I really do. Seeing the world that way has to be exhausting. I literally haven't defended Matt in any capacity other than the logic of him talking about "traditional" marriage because obviously he's correct. I mean the definition. I don't care who thinks gay marriage is good or bad or otherwise. I don't care if you like Tucker Carlson or not. I do think it's weird that "I'm just asking questions" can be considered a bad thing by anyone. Questions are never bad unless they are asked to ideologues who are afraid to answer honestly.
1
@dougbelford4565 "Anyone who watch the video of Joe Rogan & Matt Walsh and try to emphasize with Matt, clearly has an agenda." Yes I have an agenda. Objectivity. I call out things that are illogical and irrational on all sides equally. I get called a communist, alt right, a bootlicker, I get called everything under the sun by all ideologues. The fact that you believe that anyone who would come to Matt's defence for any reason whatsoever has to be a terrible person is a fantastic example of why we are so polarized in this country. Nobody gives a rats ass about logic and reason anymore. Evidence no longer matters. All people hear is "You didn't lambaste the person I don't like so you must believe everything that person believes and you are the enemy no matter what". How are people ever supposed to have a reasonable conversation when that's the starting vantage point? Fine for the record I'll actually state my opinions. I disagree very much with Matt's version of what marriage is for. I think marriage was originally about a combination of fidelity, family, and often about keeping power and wealth. In many circles, especially royalty back in the day, marriage was very strategic. These days marriage is more about the commitment to the person, as well as legal advantages like taxes and rights when it comes to medical care etc. I don't give a damn if a trans man marries a man or rutabaga. I'm indifferent if they adopt 10 children. It doesn't positively nor negatively affect my life in any capacity. I'm also not religious in the very least, and I'm as politically homeless as it gets. I very, very seldom support any political party, but I've supported both sides of the aisle. I like long moonlit walks on the beach and I enjoy tacos. Is that clear enough for you?
1
@dougbelford4565 the lack of tolerance went both ways. Equally. Neither person budged a millimetre. By the way, your last comment is arguing a point nobody's making. You literally just wanna fight with me. That's the problem I have with social justice warriors. They literally want the fight. You're still trying to convince me that Matt is wrong about religion. Did I say Matt was right about religion? If so please quote me and I will apologize profusely. So even after the last reply where I clearly explain where I'm coming from, you still wanna put thoughts and ideas into my mouth and then attack before then. You guys literally want the fight. Every time I see social justice warriors win, they shift the goal post so they can remain angry and defiant. I see literally no difference in any capacity between the far left and the far right. You guys are equally intolerant, and hammers searching for nails.
1
@dougbelford4565 There it is. There's the confirmation that you aren't making rational arguments, but rather emotional ones. Everyone is worth criticizing and everyone is worth defending. The fact that Matt said some thing that was true is the point. I don't care if Hitler himself says something that's rational, I'll defend it. What's funny is I told you that I disagreed about every single thing Matt said other than the fact that marriage has for an extremely long time been one man one woman, is so interesting to me. Over and over I have people call me all types of names and stuff when I actually agree with them on 99% of the subject matter. But if I so much is defend someone they don't like in any capacity, then I am just a reprehensible human being. Being objective makes it very hard to communicate with people because very very very few people think rationally as opposed to logically.
1
@dougbelford4565 if you commented that Hitler was wrong about it being Tuesday, then yes I would speak up. Also, stop being obtuse because you know that's not what I meant. I meant if Hitler said something sounded rational that I would defend it no matter what. If he talked about the importance of maintaining a countries infrastructure or the importance of health and physical fitness, I wouldn't attack it in any way. I wouldn't look for the little loophole or read between the lines so that I could attack him simply because he's Hitler. I would take each thing said at face value. I do that with everyone. I think AOC is an absolute barking lunatic who does far more harm than good but she has also said some rational things and had some valid criticisms and when she does, I wholeheartedly agree with her. The fact that I absolutely hate that woman does not affect whether I agree with an individual thing she said or not. You directly and specifically attacked me simply for defending Matt, wholesale. That's when you played your ideological card.
1
@degenerate3288 the western world is much more racist, by literal definition, than it was 20 years ago. It is openly acceptable to separate people by race and gender and all kinds of things now. If you tried that 20 years ago you would've been kicked out of society for being a bigot. Nowadays it gets applauded as progressive in the most ridiculously ironic ways.
1
@oneselfishguy Yup. I'm unmarried and don't want kids. At all. But I get the reason behind the institution completely. On an overall societal level it provides for superior. outcomes
1
Neither of them budged in their views. Why is only one of them closed minded?
1
@ZapparoniWorks conservatives want change, they just want to preserve institutions. They like change, just not wholesale change. Also, to be fair, pretty much everyone wants their ideas internally. Conservatives just happened to often agree with the people that came before them more than liberals do but I guarantee if you asked a radical progressive if they think their ideas are white should run the world forever they would say yes.
1
@ZapparoniWorks Agreed. The modern definition of a bigot is anyone with views different than yours. It's common in all of humanity, but all man is it the worst with progressives these days. Their ideas used to at least feel like they largely came from a place of genuinely wanting things to be better for everyone but lately it seems like it's just about a hateful ideology.
1