Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 2, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

38:28

Ep. 309 - The Courage To Be Sane

Today on the show, Mario Lopez is still being attacked for saying that three year olds can’t choose their own gender, despite issuing a groveling apology. We’ll talk about the need for both sanity and courage in our increasingly insane culture. Also, CNN investigates whether white robots are racist. And scientists try to create monkey-human hybrids. Date: 08-02-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, we're going to hit some stories we missed from the week, starting with Mario Lopez.
	He said that three-year-olds can't choose their own gender, and he's since cowardly apologized for it.
	So we're going to discuss the need in our culture for not just sanity, But also courage, which is sorely lacking in so many cases.
	Also, is it racist to have white robots?
	CNN has asked that very important question.
	And scientists are trying to create a human-monkey hybrid.
	We'll discuss the many moral problems with that today on The Matt Walsh Show.
	So a scientist writing in Psychology Today has written an article and he's saying that when we first, this is what he's arguing, he's saying when we first meet aliens we may have to kill them in the name of scientific progress so that we can dissect them.
	And he wrote this article and he published it on the internet.
	And I've just read it just now.
	And here's my point.
	It's the internet.
	The aliens can read this too.
	So you just announced to the aliens your plans to kill them.
	Think about that.
	Now, considering these waves go out into space, they can be seen by the aliens, I would just like to make it clear that I oppose the plan to kill aliens.
	So just keep that in mind to our future alien overlords when they do come.
	I do not support this.
	All right, today, Friday, I think it's going to be my chance to go back through the week and hit some of the stories that I didn't get a chance to talk about, mainly because of the stupid debates.
	But there were several interesting items.
	Aside from dissecting space aliens that I think are worth talking about.
	And we're going to start with this, which surprisingly enough I didn't discuss during the week, and that is Mario Lopez.
	The cautionary tale of Mario Lopez.
	As you've no doubt heard by now, Lopez ended up in the left's crosshairs this week.
	And this is an outrage, by the way, that has not subsided for him.
	I just read an article just published, I think last night, on NBC News.
	Blasting Mario Lopez. So they're they're not over it yet.
	They're still very upset The reason why they're upset is because Lopez
	In an interview that I think was actually back in June, which only now for whatever reason got everyone's attention
	He made the extraordinary claim
	extraordinary correct claim that That three-year-olds are psychologically incapable of
	choosing their own gender So he now he was he was on the Candace Owen show when he
	said this I Want to read what he actually said because it's very
	important that he did stipulate three-year-olds in what he said
	And it's important for us to realize that when we look at all the outrage and everything.
	So he said, look, I've never wanted to tell anyone how to parent our kids, obviously.
	And I think if you come from a place of love, you really can't go wrong.
	But that's not true.
	You can still go wrong.
	But at the same time, my God, if you're three years old and you're saying you're feeling a certain way, or you think you're a boy or girl, or whatever the case may be, I just think it's dangerous as a parent to make this determination, then, well, okay, then you're going to be a boy or girl, whatever the case may be.
	Okay.
	And that's all he said.
	Saying, in other words, if a three-year-old boy says, I'm a girl, my gosh, he's three years old, that doesn't mean anything.
	It's dangerous to take that seriously.
	Sadly, yet predictably, Lopez, of course, has since issued a groveling apology for saying something that any sane person ought to recognize as completely unavoidably, unassailably true.
	Under pressure from the radical left-wing smear machines like the Human Rights Campaign, the media, in fact, the media headlines that you probably saw earlier in the week about this All the headlines were along the lines of Mario Lopez comes out against supporting trans kids.
	Just so disingenuous.
	So Lopez folded like a cheap lawn chair and disavowed his comments, calling them ignorant and hurtful.
	We'll get back to his apology in a minute.
	But first, because it's apparently necessary to clarify this.
	Um, we should establish that the truth, first of all, may indeed be hurtful to people who are grasping desperately to a delusion.
	So it may, it may hurt them in a way.
	Um, it, it, it, it may hurt in the same way that, you know, getting a shot or something at the doctor hurts or, you know, it's, but it's something that they need.
	Um, But there's certainly nothing remotely ignorant about observing the fact that three-year-old children are immature and neurologically underdeveloped because they're three years old.
	What you'll notice, as always, about the people that are coming out against Lopez is that none of them can explain or have even attempted to explain why his comments were wrong.
	I've read several outraged articles, including the one I mentioned in NBC News, saying, oh, he's so terrible for saying this.
	None of those articles are explaining, okay, what part of it was wrong exactly?
	And in what way was it wrong?
	So to just tell me, oh, it's going to hurt someone's feelings if they read it.
	Well, I don't care about that.
	That's not, because that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true.
	So in what way was it untrue?
	Even Lopez himself in his mea culpa didn't go into specifics about what part of his statement was incorrect.
	You know, if he's gonna come out now and say, oh, you know, never mind, I was wrong about that.
	Well, what new information did he stumble across in the last few days that made him realize, oh, you know what, actually, children can choose their own gender?
	Well, of course, there's no new information.
	The left has no coherent reasons or rational defenses when it comes to this issue, and so many other issues as well.
	They have only ideology, and they have emotion, which all signify nothing.
	Here's the reality.
	A three-year-old child cannot reliably make any choice in any context.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	I've had three three-year-olds in my house.
	They can't make choices.
	You take a three-year-old to Baskin-Robbins, you ask him which flavor he prefers, and he's going to give you 14 different answers before he collapses into tears.
	He literally can't decide.
	You let a three-year-old decide what outfit he's going to wear for the day and he's going to come from his room with one shoe, no pants, a diaper on his head.
	He has no idea.
	You let a three-year-old decide, let him go into the kitchen, choose anything he wants for dinner.
	What he's going to end up with is a bowl full of ketchup with a side of gummy bears covered in whipped cream.
	Because a child at that age has not developed, which doesn't sound like a bad dinner actually, But, all the same, a child at that age has not developed a cognitive ability to assess a variety of options and decide the correct course, the safest course, the healthiest course, the most sensible course.
	Children at that age can't do that.
	And they're not going to have that ability for several more years.
	And if a child grows up to be a leftist, they're never going to develop that ability.
	So you certainly can't expect three-year-olds to have that ability.
	Now, of course, When we're talking about this we should stipulate that nobody can choose his or her own gender.
	So when I say someone at three years old can't do it, well yes, but nobody can do it.
	So it's not like I'm saying that once you get older maybe you can.
	Nobody can do it because that matter is irrevocably settled by our chromosomes and our reproductive organs and that's it.
	But the leftist position on this topic is so preposterous, so absurd, that even if you grant them the premise that gender can theoretically be chosen, even if I were to say, okay, sure, you can theoretically, you could choose your own gender.
	I'm not granting that, but let's just say for the sake of argument, I did.
	They would still be wrong for thinking that someone at three years old can choose it.
	So even if it was possible to choose your own gender, it would still be the case that of course you can't at three years old.
	There's a reason why toddlers are not entrusted with any legal powers or responsibilities.
	They can't drive.
	They can't vote.
	They can't take out a mortgage.
	They can't buy a gun.
	They can't buy a ticket for an R-rated movie.
	They can't buy alcohol.
	They can't buy cigarettes.
	They can't buy anything because they're simply too young to do so.
	And we all realize that.
	Young children, um, This is important to realize about young kids.
	They cannot grasp the distinction between fantasy and reality.
	They can't grasp it.
	They don't know the difference.
	If you tell a toddler that Batman isn't real, he's going to stare at you blankly.
	Because the term isn't real doesn't mean anything to him.
	He doesn't know, what do you mean isn't real?
	That is a phrase empty of meaning for a young child.
	I remember my oldest son, maybe I've told this before, my oldest son at about four years old, he's six now, I once caught him on the second floor of our house Nearly about to leap over the banister on the balcony to the, you know, to plunge 15 feet to the first floor.
	Now, I stopped him just in time, and I warned him very sternly, you cannot do that.
	You can't do it.
	You'll go to the hospital.
	You might die if you do that.
	You can't do it.
	But he explained to me that, well, but Spider-Man does that stuff all the time.
	Spider-Man does it.
	I've seen Spider-Man jump over down, you know, off of entire buildings.
	And I explained to him.
	I tried to explain to him.
	Look, Spider-Man isn't real.
	Okay?
	He's not real.
	That's not a real thing that people can do.
	And then he said to me, no, you're wrong, daddy.
	I've seen him on TV.
	And I realized that it's just, there's no... So then I had to say, okay, yes, Spider-Man can do it, but you're not Spider-Man, though.
	Okay?
	So that's why.
	The whole concept of Spider-Man not being real didn't mean anything to him.
	I was at the lake with our current three-year-old.
	He's about to be three years old.
	And we were at the lake a few weeks ago.
	And I was going to put him in his life jacket so he could go in the water.
	And he was insisting to me that he doesn't need to wear a life jacket.
	And I said, you do need a life jacket.
	It's not safe.
	And he said, but I'm a fish, daddy.
	But you know what I did?
	Even though he told me he was a fish.
	Here's the crazy thing.
	This is how oppressive I am as a parent.
	I still made him wear the life jacket.
	I said, OK, Nemo, but you still got to wear the life jacket.
	Isn't that crazy?
	He didn't want to.
	He insisted he was a fish.
	But as a parent, I knew that wasn't true.
	And so I forced him to do the safe and sensible thing as a parent.
	Yes, I think that is what we're supposed to do.
	Are we supposed to believe?
	That people, kids, who are this ignorant and immature, innocently detached from reality, they have an excuse to be ignorant.
	I mean, literally ignorant, as in they lack information.
	That's what ignorant means.
	Are we supposed to believe that they can make meaningful declarations about their own gender?
	A boy who says he's a girl doesn't even know what a girl is.
	That's the thing.
	Now, adult leftists, they don't know what a girl is either.
	And I've talked about this many times on the show.
	I've put this challenge out to adult leftists.
	Say, can you define the word woman?
	They can't do it.
	And you defeat the entire transgender argument, as I've explained, with that question.
	It's done.
	You've defeated it.
	Just ask them.
	Next time someone tells you about this, just say, what's a woman?
	Define it.
	They can't.
	You win, they lose.
	It's as simple as that.
	But children especially can't define these terms.
	They don't know what it means.
	So, if you're tempted to take a three-year-old seriously, three-year-old boy seriously, when he comes and says, I'm a girl, if you're tempted at all to take that seriously, before you go and buy him dresses and start scheduling the hormone treatments, maybe just ask a simple follow-up question.
	And that question is, okay, little Johnny, Uh, what's a girl?
	Real simple.
	How is it that all these parents are saying, I have a transgender kid?
	How is it you've never asked that question to them?
	Have you ever asked them what they mean by that?
	It's amazing to me that parents can be this stupid, that you would never ask that question.
	Because if you ask that question, I guarantee you, What you're going to hear in the answer is something along the lines of, well, he's seen his sister playing with the dollhouse, and he wants to play with the dollhouse, too, because he thinks it looks cool.
	What he's really saying is he is interested in the things that he, in his little toddler brain, associates with girls.
	He is interested in girl-associated things, which is fine.
	If he wants to play with the dollhouse, let him play with it.
	Doesn't mean he is a girl.
	As adults, it is our job to help children sort through these things.
	To help them understand what they really mean.
	Yes, that's what we're supposed to do because they don't know what they mean.
	They don't know anything about anything.
	It's up to us to tell them.
	But Lopez, as I said, so he apologized.
	Let me read his apology.
	He said the comments I made were ignorant and insensitive, and I now have a deeper understanding of how hurtful they were.
	I have been and always will be an ardent supporter of the LGBTQ community, and I am going to use this opportunity to better educate myself.
	Moving forward, I will be more informed and thoughtful.
	More informed.
	More informed.
	He said three-year-olds can't choose their own gender, and that means he needs to be more informed.
	No, as I said, all the people, Mario, who are coming after you, did any of them present you with information you didn't have before?
	What's the new information?
	You say, oh, I lacked information.
	Okay, well, what information did you stumble upon that made you realize, oh, never mind, actually, they can choose their own gender?
	What you see here from Mario Lopez, I don't mean to pick on him because he's just a C-list celebrity in Hollywood.
	I don't even know what he does now.
	Game show host or something.
	So what do you expect?
	It's not like I put all my hopes and dreams on Mario Lopez fighting the good fight here.
	But still, it bears pointing out that what we're seeing here, this is just enormous Craven cowardice cowardice on an almost inconceivable level Or it would be inconceivable if it weren't so if we weren't so accustomed to seeing it And it goes to show again Because I think about the cowardice here you are Because some people were mad
	You are now denying biological reality.
	You are pretending to not understand reality.
	It would be no different.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	As if Mario Lopez had said 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	And then a bunch of mathematic relativists got angry about it.
	And he said, you know what?
	That was ignorant of me to say that.
	It was thoughtless.
	It was hurtful.
	There are many children all throughout the country who, when they are doing mathematics tests, they'll say 2 plus 2 equals 6, or 8.
	And so I was wrong to insist that it equals 4.
	It's the same thing!
	There's no difference!
	Between that and Mario Lopez pretending that, you know, he doesn't understand arithmetic.
	So this is where we are.
	And it goes to show again that our country will be dragged, finally, and irrevocably into utter madness, into utter lunacy.
	We will be dragged into the dark to wallow there forever if the sane among us do not have even the slightest bit of courage.
	That's the most important thing in our culture today.
	The first is the ability to recognize basic truth.
	Because that's what we're down to now, is we are fighting over the most basic and fundamental truths.
	And these are the most important.
	There are still some conservatives who say, that's a sideshow issue.
	This doesn't matter.
	This is basic elemental truth.
	This is just about basic reality.
	How can we say, ah, reality doesn't matter.
	We can give up reality.
	What do you need that for?
	No, this is a starting point.
	We need to have this.
	Or there's no hope in arguing about anything else.
	But aside from having the ability to recognize truth, the second important thing for us to have is A little bit of courage.
	Don't need much.
	Just enough courage to say, for instance, listen, you're upset about it, but boys are boys, girls are girls.
	I'm sorry.
	That's just the reality.
	Enough courage to say that.
	There's a crisis of courage, unfortunately, among the sane people.
	And that's why we're giving up reality.
	And who knows what kind of world my kids are going to grow up in.
	All right.
	Speaking of giving up on reality, CNN ran an article yesterday with this title.
	And this is not a joke.
	This is real.
	The title is, Robot Racism?
	Yes, says a study showing humans' biases extend to robots.
	Now, the researchers in the study, and I swear to you, I know this is a cliche at this point, but when I saw that headline, at first I really thought it was the onion.
	I really did.
	I thought it was a joke.
	It's not.
	The researchers in the study make the point that most of the robots you see are white.
	And if you watch one of those clips of the robots being unveiled in Japan or whatever, and usually they're white, right?
	As in they're painted white.
	And this is racism, you see.
	So let me read a few very real sentences from this very real article.
	An article that does in fact exist in the actual real world.
	And even when you read the article, if you didn't see CNN at the top, you would still think, well this is a parody, this is satire.
	It's not.
	So, the article says in part, Robots and Racism, a study conducted by the Human Interface Technology Laboratory in New Zealand and published by the country's University of Canterbury, suggests that people perceive physically human-like robots to have a race and therefore apply racial stereotypes to white and black robots.
	These colors have been found to trigger social cues that determine how humans react to and behave toward other people and also, apparently, robots.
	Christoph Bartnik, Explained that the bias against black robots is a result of bias against African-Americans.
	The bias against black robots.
	He really said that.
	With a straight face.
	It's amazing.
	Continuing.
	It's amazing to see how people who had no prior interactions with robots show racial bias towards robots.
	The researchers think this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
	If robots are supposed to function as teachers, friends, or carers, for instance, then it will be a serious problem if all of these roles are only ever occupied by robots that are racialized as white.
	Alright.
	First of all, what you see here again is... Well, the first thing we could say here is this is just amazingly stupid.
	Even by the already very stupid standards of our society, this is incredibly Fantastically stupid.
	Second thing is, you find this projection a lot these days, where this person is saying, oh, these robots are racialized as white, and they go, no, that's, you are doing that.
	The rest of us aren't.
	I have never in my life even contemplated the race of a robot, or ever thought of it in those terms.
	And if you're telling me that we, okay, so a white robot has been racialized as white, then what?
	I mean, this white piece of paper, is this, am I rationalizing this as a white person?
	Someone made the point yesterday, I forget who, on Twitter, that, you know, toilets are white.
	So what is that?
	And what do robots do?
	They serve humans.
	Robots are slaves to humans, essentially.
	So, what does that mean?
	It means if most robots were black, what would these researchers be saying?
	They would say, oh, it's racist because black people, you know, black robots hearken back to slavery.
	People are painting their robots black, and that shows that they have an innate desire to enslave black people or something.
	You know that's what they would say.
	You know it.
	It is racist if you do, racist if you don't.
	This is one of the most perfect examples of that in action.
	All right, let's see what else here.
	Here's a story that I've had in the doc for a few days.
	I'm going to use the word shocking.
	And I think that it is, I can say that without hyperbole, I think it is a shocking story.
	This is from the MIT Technology Review.
	And the headline is, scientists are making human-monkey hybrids in China.
	So let me just read a little bit of this to you.
	In a controversial first, a team of researchers have been creating embryos that are part human and part monkey, according to a report from the Spanish daily El País.
	According to the newspaper, the Spanish-born biologist Juan Carlos, who operates a lab at the Salk Institute in California, has been working with monkey researchers in China to perform the disturbing research.
	The objective is to create human-animal chimeras, in this case, monkey embryos, to which human cells are added.
	The idea behind the research is to fashion animals that possess organs, like a kidney or liver, made up entirely of human cells.
	Such animals could be used as sources of organs for transplantation, and then it goes on from there.
	This, of course, this kind of research is banned in the In the United States, but it's not banned in China, which is why they're doing it there in China.
	I think what you find here, now ostensibly they're doing this because, as it said there, I guess they're looking to create animals that can be harvested for their organs.
	If you could grow human organs inside animals.
	But what you find here again, and this is the problem with stem cell research, with IVF, With all these things that we do with humans at the embryonic level, what you find, it's the commodification of the human person, where we look at people as commodities.
	And that's why you find in IVF labs, you have a bunch of leftover embryos.
	You throw them in the freezer, like it's leftover chicken or something.
	You just put it in there.
	And this is a big problem.
	When we start to see... Look, you're either going to see human beings as sacred, as beings of infinite, almost mystical value.
	You're going to see them that way.
	Or you're going to see them as commodities, as things that can be used.
	And experimented on and stored in freezers and so on.
	I think those are the only two ways to see a person.
	It is sort of a, that's the dichotomy.
	If you go with the latter option and you see them as commodities, it's not hard to see where it leads.
	It's not hard to see the slippery slope.
	If human beings are commodities at the embryonic level, then you just keep going further and further down the stage of development.
	And you start to see people in general that way. So this is a very concerning
	Development. All right, we're gonna do some some emails which I haven't had a chance to do the last few days
	Matt Walsh show at gmail.com Matt Walsh show at gmail.com is the email address
	Let's see here it says This from Cassandra says hello. Mr. Walsh. It is my son's
	14th birthday today and both my boys. Enjoy your podcast My older son actually requires us to pick up the candles to blow them out after your birthday cake episode.
	Could you wish my son Derek happy birthday?
	He'd like that.
	Happy birthday, Derek.
	And so Derek is not your oldest son then, I guess, based on that.
	But I would urge Derek, yeah, we did talk about this.
	When you blow out the birthday candles, Derek, make sure to pick up the candle, pick it out out of the cake and blow it.
	Because you don't want to blow your germs and your mucus all over the cake.
	The cake does not, and I know it's your birthday, the cake does not need a covering of Derek mucus.
	It doesn't need it.
	This is why I don't eat birthday cake.
	It's very traumatizing for germophobes like myself at every birthday when you see someone blowing... Now I'm going to go on a whole thing about this.
	In what other context would you ever eat food that someone else has blown on?
	Like if the waitress was bringing you a steak, and said, it's a little hot, hold on a second, and started blowing on it, and then gave it to you, would you eat it?
	No.
	Stop blowing on your cakes, people.
	Don't tell me it's a tradition.
	There are a lot of things that have been traditions in human society, but we develop, we become civilized.
	People used to go out and use the bathroom in a hole in the ground, in the backyard, or in a pot.
	Which they would then dump into the street.
	Okay?
	We don't do that anymore.
	Happy birthday, Derek.
	Let's see, this is from Kyle says, uh, Matt of Colossal Intelligence.
	I'm not sure if I have to subscribe to email you, but I recently saw this on an Instagram story and could not believe what I was seeing.
	This is a, she has an attachment and it's a meme that says, if you go on a mission trip to see the kids in Mexico, but support a man whose goal is to put these kids and their families in cages because they were fleeing the same poverty and violence you're trying to help, then you didn't go on a mission.
	You went for a photo op.
	That's the, um, That's the meme that Kyle here is referring to.
	Okay, back to Kyle.
	He says, I believe this is wrong on multiple levels, namely the view of missions that is presented here and the political view.
	I know that you support missions wholeheartedly, and according to this, if you go on a mission trip, it's just for a photo op.
	I could go on for a while about this, but I will spare you a lengthy email and I will let your supreme colossal intelligence handle this.
	I feel like I should say something, but I would like to hear your take on this as well.
	Love listening to your show while I'm at work.
	Thanks for what you do.
	Yeah, obviously I disagree.
	The point this meme is trying to make is, I guess, if you support... Now, they talk about kids in cages, but what they're really saying is, if you support enforcing our borders, and if you support enforcing immigration law, then you're somehow a hypocrite for going on mission trips.
	That, obviously, is ridiculous.
	So that's point one.
	Point two, however, I do think that it is sometimes the case that people go on mission trips as a photo op.
	And anyone who's been on a mission trip, I think they won't deny this.
	Not that it'd be the case for them personally, but they've seen it.
	There are people who want to go on the mission trip because they want to get the pictures for Facebook, and they go down there to wherever it is, wherever they're going.
	and they don't really do much. They swing a hammer, they pose for pictures for Instagram,
	and that's pretty much it. And I do think that can be a problem. So I think there are a lot of
	people who go on mission trips because they have a real passion for helping people, and then there
	are a lot of people who go because it's a trip. It's almost like vacation. And I think that that's,
	you know, we should make it clear to people.
	And this is one thing, you know, you see schools and things, they go, Christian schools, they take, or churches, they get together big buses of people to go on mission trips.
	Again, it's a good idea, I like it, but it's also bad for Christianity if you have a whole bunch of people down there who clearly are only there for the photos.
	And that is a problem sometimes.
	But the point that they're making in the meme, of course, is untrue.
	This is from Andrew says, You recently were talking about the death penalty, and I agree 100% with you, but I was talking with my best friend recently, who's a seminarian, and he presented an argument that made me reconsider my stance on the subject.
	He basically argued that the person in prison can find redemption while living out his sentence.
	The death penalty will end his chances of finding it in God's time.
	I got stumped on this, so I'm wondering how you would respond.
	Thank you for all you do, and I'm ready to face my death penalty like a man when you become dictator.
	Well, that's good to know.
	Because you will, Andrew.
	Yeah, this is an argument I hear a lot from Christians about the death penalty.
	It's an argument when I was anti-death penalty.
	It wasn't my main argument against it, but it was something that concerned me.
	Here's what I would say to that.
	Especially in our country.
	Now, we don't live in a country where we have summary execution.
	Where you're tried, found guilty, they take you out back and shoot you that day.
	That's not how it works in this country.
	In this country, you've got sometimes decades on death row, which I think is too long.
	Now, I could sometimes see the appeal and the efficiency of the summary execution approach, but I wouldn't be in favor of that.
	I think giving people, I don't think we need to give people 20 years.
	I think that's too long.
	But, whatever, a few years, a period of time, A length of time when they're on death row, and if they have that time, which again, people in this country do, then I think that's a lot of time.
	Not only to get right with God, as it were, but you're on death row.
	You're facing your own death.
	You are every day facing your own mortality.
	And so I guess my feeling is, if that's not gonna be enough to drive you to repentance, if that's not enough, you know, if spending five years on death row with death right in the name, you're literally in a row in prison waiting to be killed, if that's not gonna be enough to bring you to repentance, to bring about some kind of spiritual awakening, then, you know, I don't think 30 years or 40 years just wallowing in a prison cell will do it.
	I mean, you could make the argument that as far as giving people a chance to repent, maybe the death penalty is better for that because it does cause people to confront their own mortality and it still gives them time to repent.
	This is from Stephanie says, Hey Matt, big fan of your show.
	Your mix between dry humor and profound thoughts is really refreshing and fun to listen to.
	I'm a young Catholic woman in my mid twenties.
	All around me I see all these beautiful young women with equally beautiful personalities and faith lives who are inexplicably single.
	Where I see, on one hand, a surplus of fantastic single Catholic women being called to the vocation of marriage and motherhood, on the other, I see a lack of good Catholic single men.
	Most of the ones I know lived crazy sinful lives and are now prowling for a good Catholic woman, but not because they had a conversion of faith, but because they've had their fill of the hookup phase and just want a good woman to check a box.
	for nuclear family.
	It's repulsive and frankly insulting and discouraging that this seems to be what's left for single Catholic women who strive for a rich relationship to God, with God, but were not lucky enough to meet their spouse earlier in life.
	My question is, do you have any advice for these women?
	And when you are a supreme dictator, can you implement laws that force young men to stop acting so pathetic and selfish?
	Because while a guy can get married and have kids whenever he wants, us women have an expiration date on our eggs and we can't wait forever for y'all to grow up.
	You know, Stephanie, it's interesting because I get this type of question from young Christian guys all the time, in the reverse, wondering where all the good Christian women are.
	So it seems like you guys are looking for each other, but your signals are getting crossed here.
	You're both getting lost amid the fog of modern culture and amid a fog that is admittedly filled with a lot of Prospects that are not very promising, you know, dating scene.
	But amid that crowd, there are people, men and women, that are sort of looking for each other.
	So what I would say is, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but I do want to mention that you shouldn't hold, you mentioned, you said guys who lived crazy sinful lives, and you said lived past tense.
	I think it is important that you shouldn't hold someone's past against them.
	There are plenty of people who lived crazy sinful lives, as you say, and are now trying to put that behind them and trying to be different.
	So I would say don't judge a man by his past.
	I mean, there are exceptions, right?
	But if there's something really dark and terrible in their past, then maybe I would state to clear that.
	But for the most part.
	Especially when it comes to these things that unfortunately in our culture are just sort of run-of-the-mill.
	If there's a guy who sort of acted like a normal 20-year-old guy when he was 20, it's not an excuse, but if he's now 25 or 30 and he's grown up and he's moved past that, then I would let him move past it.
	I think this goes into something I wanted to talk about, probably still will, maybe next week.
	Haven't had the time yet.
	And that's about the guy who wrote the Why I Kissed Dating Goodbye book back in the 90s, who was a Christian pastor, but he has since, and I didn't realize this until this week, but he, long ago, he renounced that book and apologized for it.
	And most recently, this past week, he announced that he's not actually Christian anymore and he's getting divorced from his wife, which is a sad situation.
	And that's all aside from the point here, but there is a conversation to be had about the idea of Christian purity.
	I think, on one hand, it's good to strive for purity, obviously.
	And much of what's in that book, which I haven't read, but I know the gist of it, From what I understand of that book, I agree with much of it.
	But I do think the concept of Christian purity can have negative side effects.
	And one of those side effects is the idea that a person who has a past, a person who has committed sins, is now somehow stained, somehow defective, somehow ruined by it.
	Like they can't move past it.
	Like they can never be a good Christian.
	And I worry that people believe that about themselves.
	And that maybe some Christians on the dating scene believe it about others on the dating scene.
	Or maybe they look at a guy and they say, oh no, look at it, you know, you see his past, look at his, look at the way he used to live, he's damaged goods.
	Now, I think we're sort of conscious of that problem with women, where we, you know, where a woman can feel that way about herself, wrongly, that she's somehow damaged goods because of her past.
	Guys can feel that way too about themselves.
	Christian guys.
	So I would say watch out for that.
	And as for actually finding the good men out there, all I can say, and this is not going to be very helpful, but all I can say is be decisive and direct and open about what you want.
	You're looking for a serious relationship, one that might be headed somewhere to marriage, maybe, right?
	Ultimately, in good time.
	So be open about that.
	And I think if you're open about that, fact, you're going to automatically weed out most of the
	bad apples because the bad apples are not interested in commitment-minded women. If you find
	a Christian guy, whatever was in his past doesn't matter.
	If you find a Christian guy who appears now to be a decent guy, and he's looking, and you're commitment-minded, and he knows that about you, and he's still injurized, then that's, he's probably, that's good.
	He's probably a good guy.
	Regardless of what he might have done in the past.
	So, that's what I would say to that.
	Thank you for the emails, and remember, mattwalshow at gmail.com for any other emails, and we'll leave it there.
	Have a great weekend, everybody.
	Godspeed.
	If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.

▲