YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → How to TRAP a Homophobe With His Own Logic

How to TRAP a Homophobe With His Own Logic — Transcript

by Rationality Rules · 6,108 words · 965 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00What happens to Massachusetts under your
0:02vision?
0:02>> Massachusetts, basically if unless
0:04there's a reformation revival in
0:06Massachusetts [music]
0:07such that they came to a biblical view
0:09of marriage, I believe that they should
0:10be expelled from the United States.
0:13>> So you're not really sending it back to
0:14the states. You just contradicted
0:15yourself big time.
0:18>> That right there is a pastor explaining
0:20that an American state should be thrown
0:22out of the United States for allowing
0:24gay marriage unless it converts to his
0:27specific views first. And he's the same
0:29man who when the conversation turned to
0:31gay people opened with this.
0:33>> I believe that they should have all the
0:35rights that all the rest of us have.
0:37>> So that was a lie.
0:38>> So how on earth does an interviewer get
0:40a man from reassuring us that gay people
0:43should have the same rights as everyone
0:44else to kicking a state out of the
0:46country for granting those very rights?
0:49And how much of it comes down to
0:50interview technique and in particular
0:53the order he asks his questions in?
0:55>> You cannot say send it back to the
0:56state. When I tell you a state wants to
0:58do its own thing, you say we'll expel
0:59them from the union.
1:00>> I didn't say I wanted to send it back to
1:03the states. I was simply telling you
1:05what the impact of Obergefell was.
1:07>> I'm not implying anything.
1:08>> Why hello my fellow apes? I hope you are
1:11well. We're back on Zeteo and back with
1:13the same interview on Mehdi Unfiltered.
1:16And by this point the guest has already
1:18found out what unfiltered means.
1:20>> So the man decides who to vote for.
1:22>> Yeah.
1:23>> Okay, that took a bit of time but we
1:24finally got there.
1:25>> The host for anyone new is Mehdi Hasan,
1:28the former MSNBC anchor who when the
1:30network canceled his show went off and
1:32founded his own media company. One that
1:34now has hundreds of thousands of
1:36newsletter subscribers and more than 2
1:38million here on YouTube. He's also the
1:41author of Win Every Argument. And as we
1:43saw last time he means it.
1:45>> That's under the current system. Under
1:46your system who gets to decide who to
1:48vote? You dodged my question.
1:49>> His guest is Doug Wilson, pastor of
1:51Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and a
1:53self-described Christian nationalist.
1:55>> Would you define yourself as a Christian
1:57nationalist?
1:58>> Yes.
1:59>> We've been through a few of the reasons
2:01he's so controversial, from the pamphlet
2:03he co-wrote, which holds up the
2:04slave-holding South as a model of mutual
2:07intimacy and harmony, to what he's
2:09written about the death penalty for
2:11homosexual acts under biblical law. And
2:13we've seen how far his reach goes, too.
2:15The Communion of Reformed Evangelical
2:17Churches, the church network he
2:19co-founded, counts the US defense
2:21secretary among its members. And here's
2:23that defense secretary at the Pentagon
2:25in March, leading the same monthly
2:27prayer service that Doug had preached at
2:29a month before.
2:30>> Let every round find its mark against
2:32the enemies of righteousness and our
2:34great nation.
2:36Give them wisdom in every decision,
2:38endurance for the trial ahead,
2:40unbreakable unity,
2:42and overwhelming violence of action
2:44against those who deserve no mercy.
2:47>> So, Doug is a lot more than a pastor
2:49dreaming up a fantasy America in his
2:51spare time. What he wants could shape
2:53the real one, and getting a straight
2:55answer out of him is where today's
2:56lesson comes. It's preparation once
2:58again, but a different side of it. Last
3:01time, it was about what Medi knew,
3:03Doug's own words, and where he'd run
3:05when they were read back to him. This
3:07time, it's about the order Medi asks
3:09things in, because when you know where
3:11an answer leads before you ask it, you
3:13know which questions to ask and when.
3:16>> You're judging me again, and then later
3:17you'll say you're enthusiastic. I'm
3:18dragging these answers out of you.
3:19>> Now, in our previous episode, we covered
3:21the part of the interview about what
3:23Doug's America would mean for women.
3:25Before that, much of the conversation
3:27had been around the Constitution, a
3:28document that Doug loves so much that
3:30he's called it a work of theological
3:32genius.
3:33>> That is the theological genius that I'm
3:35talking about. They didn't trust men.
3:37>> We're skipping that stretch, but the
3:39phrase is worth holding on to, because
3:41it's going to come back to bite him. For
3:43now, though, we pick them up just as
3:45Medi moves from women's rights to gay
3:47people.
3:48>> And it's not just the 19th Amendment
3:49you're against in women's rights. Um
3:51you're also in favor, as you said at the
3:52start of this interview, of overturning
3:54Obergefell, the Supreme Court decision
3:55that legalizes legalized same-sex
3:57marriage um over a decade ago. In your
3:59vision of America, you said earlier
4:01Muslims, Hindus wouldn't be harassed or
4:03persecuted. Could gay people exist, live
4:05free, equal lives in your Christian
4:07America?
4:07>> All right. As we pick up, Mehdi is
4:09working from what Doug has already told
4:11him, and he's laying it out without a
4:13hint of spin. So, Doug can't call any of
4:15it a mischaracterization. But, it's the
4:17way that Mehdi ends the question that
4:19shows how closely he's been listening.
4:21>> You said earlier, Muslims, Hindus,
4:22wouldn't be harassed or persecuted.
4:24>> You see, that line about Muslims and
4:26Hindus was Doug's answer to a charge.
4:28Earlier, Doug had explained that anyone
4:30taking office in his America would have
4:32to vow to uphold his Christian
4:34constitution. And Mehdi, who's a Muslim
4:36himself, called that what it is.
4:38>> The only discrimination is quite a major
4:40one, that I can't stand for office. I
4:42can't represent my constituency or my
4:43community.
4:44>> Right. And Doug's reply was that it's
4:45merely a limitation, not persecution.
4:49>> It is a limitation, but it's not
4:50persecution.
4:51>> They just can't hold office without
4:53taking that vow. And that is why Mehdi
4:55isn't asking about persecution here. Had
4:58he asked, "Would gay people be
4:59persecuted?" Doug could have given the
5:01same answer he gave about Muslims and
5:03Hindus, and escaped the question with a
5:05technically honest no, while telling us
5:08very little about how gay people would
5:10actually be treated. So, instead, Mehdi
5:12is asking whether they could be equal in
5:14Doug's ideal America.
5:16>> Could gay people exist, live free, equal
5:18lives in your Christian America?
5:20>> Obergefell is the 2015 Supreme Court
5:22ruling that made same-sex marriage a
5:24right in every US state. Now, if Doug
5:27says yes, he has to explain how gay
5:29people could be equal in an America
5:32without Obergefell.
5:33So,
5:34could they?
5:35>> Could gay people exist, live free, equal
5:37lives in your Christian America?
5:39>> Well, they they certainly
5:41um would exist. They certainly could
5:43exist, and I I believe that they should
5:45have all the rights that all the rest of
5:47us have. The right to keep and bear
5:49arms, the right to free speech, the
5:50right to assemble, all all of those
5:52things. But, they wouldn't have the
5:54right to call to to say that triangles
5:57have four sides.
5:58>> Here we go. Rather than say no outright,
6:02Doug is listing rights that gay people
6:04would keep. Guns, free speech, assembly.
6:06It all sounds wonderfully equal, doesn't
6:09it?
6:10>> Not [music] a chance.
6:10>> But who here was proposing to take any
6:12of those away? The right in question is
6:14marriage, and that's nowhere on Doug's
6:16list. It only turns up at the end as an
6:19exception, and even then he never
6:22actually says the word. Instead, we get
6:24geometry, and the geometry is how he is
6:27attempting to get away with it. Notice
6:29how he puts the exception.
6:30>> But they wouldn't have the right to call
6:33to to say that triangles have four
6:35sides.
6:37>> So, as Doug tells it, a gay couple
6:39asking for marriage isn't asking for a
6:41right at all. They're asking the rest of
6:43us to go along with something that
6:45simply isn't true, and nobody has the
6:47right to that. Medi asked a question
6:49about equality, and Doug has quietly
6:51turned it into a question about what's
6:53true. And once it's about what's true,
6:55he can refuse gay couples without taking
6:57away anything from them. By that logic,
7:00a gay man has exactly the same right as
7:02every other man, the right to marry a
7:05woman.
7:06>> You are technically correct.
7:08>> Talking of controlling the narrative,
7:09watch what happens when three outlets
7:11agree on every single fact, and yet
7:14still can't agree on what the story
7:16actually is. Trump reverses course on
7:19publicly funded TV political ads. Now,
7:21nothing here is contested. Trump had ads
7:24praising himself running on federal
7:26money, at least 1.5 million dollars of
7:29it, and one of them even has a chorus
7:31singing love me.
7:33>> America will never be a communist
7:36country.
7:37>> Objections came from both parties, and
7:40Trump said that his PAC would cover it
7:42going forward. And yet, you'll find
7:44three completely incompatible accounts
7:46of it. This is exactly the problem that
7:49Ground News solves. It's an app and a
7:51website that pulls thousands of articles
7:53into one place, sorted by story, with
7:56each one tagged for bias, factuality,
7:58and ownership. You can follow along at
8:00ground.news/r.
8:03From the left, Common Dreams, rated high
8:05factuality, they went with this.
8:07Swapping one illegal scheme for another,
8:09Trump says super PAC cash will now fund
8:12his propaganda ads. So, you've been
8:14handed the ruling before you've even
8:16been handed the news. From the far
8:18right, the Gateway Pundit with very low
8:20factuality, they ran this. Trump says he
8:23will pay for the ads after leftists lose
8:26their mind over non-partisan
8:27government-funded public service
8:29announcements. Now, notice the two
8:31swaps. Self-promotion has become a
8:34public service and bipartisan objection
8:37has become a leftist meltdown. Then
8:39there's the center, where The Hill,
8:40rated high factuality, wrote, "Trump
8:43says he will pay for patriotic ads
8:45himself after facing backlash from
8:48Democrats." It's somber and measured,
8:50sure,
8:51but it's still quietly hands the
8:53backlash to one party when it came from
8:56both. A crime, a tantrum, a partisan
8:59squabble, and yet it's all the same
9:02press statement. Ground News puts all
9:03three of them side by side so that you
9:06can work out which one, if any, has
9:08really earned your agreement. So, grab
9:1040% off the Vantage plan at
9:12ground.news/rr.
9:15The link's in the description or scan
9:17the QR code on screen now. It supports
9:19independent media and this channel at
9:22the same time.
9:23Thanks.
9:24Now, a triangle is a very peculiar
9:27choice of example because a triangle is
9:29defined as a shape with three sides.
9:31That makes a triangle has three sides
9:34what philosophers call an analytical
9:35statement. It's true purely because of
9:38what the words mean. And just to get a
9:39few more of them in your head, there are
9:41plenty of other examples, such as a week
9:44has 7 days or a bachelor is unmarried
9:47because being a bachelor means, by
9:49definition, not being married. So, a
9:51married bachelor is a contradiction in
9:53terms. The point is, you don't need to
9:55go out and measure a single triangle or
9:57interview a single bachelor to know that
9:59they're true. Whether two men can be
10:01married, though, is a totally different
10:03sort of question altogether. And that is
10:05what makes this a false analogy. He's
10:07likening a question about marriage to a
10:09fact about triangles when the one thing
10:12he needs them to share, you know, being
10:14true by definition is the one thing they
10:16don't. It's a common trick, too. When
10:18you want a contested claim to sound
10:20ironclad, you compare it to something
10:22nobody could possibly dispute, and
10:24suddenly you don't have to defend it.
10:26Well, anyone who disagrees with you
10:28sounds as though they can't count to
10:29three. But, while a triangle's three
10:31sides are fixed by definition, marriage
10:33is not. It gets redefined decade by
10:36decade and society by society, Christian
10:39ones included. Until the 1970s, there
10:41wasn't a state in America where a man
10:44could be prosecuted for raping his wife.
10:46And it took until 1993 for every state
10:49to make it a crime. In Louisiana, until
10:521980, the husband was the head and
10:55master of the couple's property, free to
10:57mortgage the family home without asking
11:00his wife. Until 1967, interracial
11:03couples couldn't legally marry in 16
11:05states. And the judge who sentenced the
11:07Lovings in Virginia wrote that almighty
11:10God created the races and did not intend
11:13for the races to mix. And under the
11:15English law that the American colonies
11:17inherited, a girl could be married at
11:2012. And in some states,
11:22still can.
11:24So, Doug, is that the marriage that
11:27you'd like to go back to? The good old
11:29days of Christian dominion?
11:31I'd certainly hope not.
11:33>> No.
11:33>> But, the moment that Doug agrees that
11:35marriage can change, his triangle falls
11:37apart and he's left with the argument it
11:39was getting him out of. Why this change
11:42is the one we shouldn't have made. Until
11:44he makes it, though, he can carry on
11:46insisting that nobody's losing a thing.
11:48So, as far as Doug's concerned, his
11:51promise still stands.
11:52>> But, they wouldn't have the right to
11:54call to to say that triangles have four
11:57sides.
11:59>> What about the right to be with their
12:01partner?
12:02>> No.
12:04>> That didn't take long, did it? As soon
12:06as he's pressed on the actual right in
12:08question, Doug's forced to give a
12:10straight answer, and it's a resounding
12:12no.
12:14>> No.
12:15>> And it's been this quick because Medi
12:17knows what to leave alone. Doug has just
12:19handed him plenty to argue with, namely
12:22a list of rights that nobody was
12:23threatening and a deliberately insulting
12:25false analogy. But an argument about
12:27triangles and definitions is one that
12:29Doug could go on about for a very long
12:31time, and trust me, he would. So, Medi
12:34isn't touching any of it. Instead, he's
12:36cutting to the heart of the issue, the
12:38very thing that Obergefell protected.
12:40And whether gay couples could be
12:42together in Doug's America isn't a
12:44question you can answer through
12:45wordplay. It's yes or no. Doug has had
12:49to pick one, and with it his reassurance
12:52disappears.
12:53>> What about the right to be with their
12:54partner?
12:56>> No.
12:57>> How would you enforce that?
12:59>> Well,
13:00it would vary from state to state. I
13:02would basically
13:03>> at the federal level? Obergefell is a
13:04federal Supreme Court decision.
13:07>> No, well, ba- basically the Obergefell,
13:10if it were overturned, it would return
13:12like like Dobbs did with Roe, it would
13:14return the whole thing back to the
13:15states. I think marriage law ought to be
13:18a state
13:18>> be okay with Massachusetts having gay
13:20marriage in your version of America?
13:22>> Now, this is smart from Medi. Doug has
13:24just told him that in his America, gay
13:26couples wouldn't have the right to
13:28marry. But asked how he would enforce
13:30that, he appeals to state-level freedom.
13:33>> Like Dobbs did with Roe, it would return
13:35the whole thing back to the states. I
13:37think marriage law ought to be a state
13:39>> okay
13:39>> overturned Obergefell, he says, the way
13:42that Dobbs overturned Roe, and marriage
13:44goes back to the states, which is where
13:46he explicitly thinks it belongs.
13:49Hold on to that.
13:50>> I think marriage law ought to be a state
13:52>> Now, back to the states seems like a
13:54safe space for Doug to stand. It sounds
13:57modest, even democratic. After all, who
13:59could object to letting each state make
14:01up its own mind? You know, just like
14:04what the Confederates wanted with
14:06slavery.
14:06>> Foreshadowing is a narrative device.
14:08>> But if you think about it, that is the
14:10last thing that Doug should be saying.
14:13If marriage belongs to the states, then
14:15a state that wants gay marriage gets to
14:17have it. And so, in Doug's America, gay
14:20couples could have the right to be
14:22together after all. And one state
14:24already has a law of its own ready and
14:26waiting, Massachusetts, which became the
14:28first in the country to let same-sex
14:30couples marry back in 2004. So, Medi
14:33isn't arguing with the principle at all.
14:36He's granting him and asking whether
14:38Doug can live with the result.
14:40>> So, you would be okay with Massachusetts
14:42having gay marriage in your version of
14:43America?
14:44>> Well,
14:45um, that's I wouldn't say okay with
14:48because I think that Massachusetts
14:49>> permissible in Doug Wilson's ideal
14:51America? Would it be legally
14:53permissible? You just said send it back
14:54to the states.
14:55>> Again, this is fast and efficient from
14:57Medi. He's rewording his question here
14:59because Doug's attempting to steer it
15:01somewhere easier.
15:02>> Well, um, that's I wouldn't say okay
15:05with
15:06>> You see, by objecting to okay with,
15:09Doug's turning Medi's question into one
15:11about personal preferences. But opinions
15:13are like
15:15>> Everybody has one.
15:16>> He can tell us all day that he
15:18disapproves of gay marriage and nobody's
15:20going to be surprised, but that was
15:22never what Medi was asking. Doug has
15:24only just said that marriage should be
15:26left to the states, and if he means it,
15:28letting Massachusetts permit it should
15:30be his answer.
15:31>> I think marriage law ought to be a state
15:33>> would be okay
15:34>> But Medi's not letting him wriggle out
15:35of it. Out goes okay with and in comes a
15:38question about what's allowed.
15:40>> Would it be legally permissible?
15:42>> And he's using legally for a reason. It
15:44takes personal preference off the table
15:46and leaves only the law. So, Doug can
15:49disapprove of Massachusetts as much as
15:51he likes. The only question now is
15:53whether his America would let it happen.
15:56That's a hat-trick for Medi, by the way.
15:58The triangle, the states, and now okay
16:00with. Each time Doug has offered him
16:02some vague ground to argue on, and each
16:04time Medi has zeroed in on the heart of
16:07the equation. And the question's on
16:08Doug's own terms, his ideal America, run
16:12on the solution he just proposed. So,
16:15what Medi's after here is a commitment,
16:18and he's asking for it while saying yes
16:20still looks perfectly safe. After all,
16:22the answer's already built into that
16:24solution. So all Doug has to do is agree
16:26with himself.
16:27>> Would it be legally permissible? You
16:29just said send it back to the states.
16:30>> Yeah.
16:30>> So Massachusetts chooses to have gay
16:32marriage at state level. Would your Doug
16:34Wilson federal government come in and
16:35stop it?
16:36>> I believe that two scripture says can
16:39two walk together except they be agreed,
16:42and I think that we really have two
16:44Americas right now.
16:45>> So what I asked Doug Wilson is in a
16:46short amount of time, what would happen
16:48to Massachusetts under your church's the
16:50CREC's vision of America?
16:52>> This is how you deal with a
16:54artist. Doug's trying to change the
16:56question again, this time into one about
16:59scripture, and Medhi's not letting him
17:01waste their precious time together on an
17:03exegesis for biblical passage. He asked
17:05what Doug's America would do about
17:07Massachusetts, and that is what he
17:09demands a clear answer to.
17:11>> What would happen to Massachusetts under
17:13your church's the CREC's vision of
17:15America?
17:16>> You know, a lot of my opinions are
17:18connected to things that I call
17:19arguments, right? And and sometimes
17:22>> one right now, and I'm trying to get to
17:23the bottom of where you stand. You're
17:25dodging me again, and then later you'll
17:26say you were enthusiastic. I'm dragging
17:27these answers out of you. What would
17:29happen to Massachusetts under your
17:30vision of America?
17:31>> So [clears throat] arguments do indeed
17:33take time to set out, but what Doug's
17:35performing here is a filibuster. He's
17:37filling the air with noise, and
17:39Massachusetts can wait.
17:41>> Scripture says can two walk together
17:42except they be agreed.
17:44>> No one knows what it means, but it's
17:45provocative.
17:46>> This time the noise is about theological
17:48reasoning, but Medhi hasn't asked him
17:50why he holds his view. He's asked what
17:53would happen to Massachusetts in Doug's
17:56America, and all that takes is one
17:59sentence to answer. The reasons can come
18:01later. As for Medhi's lying about
18:03enthusiasm,
18:04>> You're dodging me again, and then later
18:05you'll say you were enthusiastic. I'm
18:06dragging these answers out of you.
18:07>> That goes back to our previous episode.
18:09Doug had to be asked again and again
18:12before finally admitting that under
18:14household voting, he'd have it so that a
18:16man is the one who decides who the
18:18household will vote for, While the woman
18:21merely gets to contribute and doesn't
18:24get a vote at all.
18:25>> The teenage kids contribute, the wife
18:26contributes, they have a discussion.
18:28>> 9:15, let's have a great day, EVERYBODY.
18:30>> CUT THE
18:31>> YEAH, LET me ask you straight up. Under
18:32your system of household voting, the
18:34husband wants to vote Republican, the
18:36wife wants to vote Democrat, who goes to
18:38vote in the ballot box and who decides
18:39who they vote for?
18:40>> The head of the household would cast
18:42>> Who is the head of the household, Doug?
18:43>> If the if the man is there if the man is
18:45present in the household, he's the head
18:47of the household.
18:48>> So, the man decides who to vote for.
18:50>> Yeah.
18:51>> Okay, that took a bit of time, but we
18:52finally got there.
18:53>> So, that's the history that Medi's
18:54drawing on, and he's pairing it with a
18:56prediction of what Doug will claim once
18:58he's been dragged to an answer here. Put
19:00them together, and he's planting a
19:02thought in the audience's mind. This is
19:04a man who won't give a straight answer
19:06and won't admit afterwards that he
19:08didn't. Oh, what's more, Medi isn't
19:10opening up a new front here, either.
19:12Doug could easily turn this into an
19:13argument about whether he's getting a
19:15fair hearing, but the accusation arrives
19:17with the same concrete question right
19:19behind it. Doug still hasn't answered
19:21it, but he hasn't escaped it, either.
19:23>> What happens to Massachusetts under your
19:25vision of America?
19:26>> Basically, if unless there's a
19:28reformation revival in Massachusetts
19:31such that they came to a biblical view
19:33of marriage, I believe that they should
19:35be expelled from the United States.
19:37>> Wow, expelled from the United States.
19:42>> It took some chasing, but Medi has his
19:44answer, and now it's in Doug's own words
19:47rather than hidden in biblical language.
19:50>> The scripture says, "Can two walk
19:51together except they be agreed?"
19:53>> In English, please.
19:54>> I believe that they should be expelled
19:56from the United States.
19:57>> So, that's where he was going. If states
20:00can't agree, they can't walk together,
20:02and one of them has to go. Doug's just
20:04told us which one, and funnily enough,
20:08it isn't his state.
20:09>> Sometimes foreshadowing is relatively
20:11obvious.
20:11>> I believe that they should be expelled
20:13from the United States.
20:15>> So, you're not really sending it back to
20:16the states. You just contradicted
20:17yourself, big time. You said you want to
20:19get rid of a burgerfilth to send it back
20:21to the states, but only if the states
20:22vote the way you want them to.
20:23>> No, I didn't say
20:25>> of hypocrisy, Doug Wilson. You cannot
20:27say send it back to the state when I
20:28tell you a state wants to do its own
20:30thing, you say we'll expel them from the
20:31union.
20:32>> I didn't say I wanted to send it back to
20:34the states. I was simply telling you
20:36what the impact of Obergefell was.
20:39Um
20:39>> You said you very I I don't have the
20:41transcript, we can get it afterwards.
20:42You were very clearly in favor of
20:44sending it back to the state.
20:45>> It's okay, Mehdi. We have the video. So,
20:49let's play it back.
20:52>> Obergefell, if it were overturned, it
20:54would return like like Dobbs did with
20:56Roe, it would return the whole thing
20:58back to the states. I think marriage law
21:00ought to be a state
21:01>> be a
21:01>> Okay, so you hear that. He says, "I
21:04think marriage law ought to be a state."
21:08And he was about to say the word
21:09decision. Yes, he first described what
21:12overturning Obergefell would do, but
21:14then, crucially, followed up with
21:16normative language. He said, "I think"
21:19and used the word "ought," which is
21:22telling us what he believes should
21:24happen.
21:25>> I think marriage law ought to be a state
21:27>> be a
21:27>> So, yes, Mehdi cut him off mid-sentence,
21:30but by then Doug had already committed
21:32himself. And moments later, Mehdi held
21:34Doug to that answer with a question
21:36about Massachusetts in his ideal
21:38America.
21:39>> Would it be legally permissible? You
21:40just said send it back to the states.
21:42>> Yes.
21:42>> Which means that Doug is now rewriting
21:44his previous answer because the original
21:47can't survive next to expelled. So, now,
21:50apparently, when he says "ought," he
21:52merely means "would."
21:54>> You said you very I I don't have the
21:55transcript, we can get it afterwards.
21:57You were very clearly in favor of
21:58sending it back to the state.
22:00>> No, I was telling you that that's what
22:01would happen. When Roe was overturned,
22:04it went back to the states. And I think
22:06>> so let me restart now. You wasted a lot
22:07of time with this. Let me start again.
22:09>> [laughter]
22:09>> Go, Mehdi, go.
22:10>> Let me start again. Forget about the
22:12states then because you're not actually
22:13consistent. In your vision of America,
22:15any state that allowed gay marriage
22:17would be expelled from America.
22:19>> Yeah. Yeah, we'll do that.
22:20>> Oh.
22:21Well,
22:23so much for just telling Mehdi what
22:26would happen, Doug.
22:27>> Yeah. Yeah, we'll do that.
22:29>> That's a great How would you do that?
22:30Put that in the Constitution? Is this
22:31just a religious dictatorship?
22:34This is what I said to you earlier. You
22:35don't really love the Constitution
22:36because the Constitution doesn't allow
22:37you to kick out states when they do
22:38things you don't like.
22:40>> Um does everybody
22:41>> love our Constitution.
22:42>> Did everybody who voted for any one of
22:43the amendments after the Constitution
22:46was ratified not love the Constitution?
22:48>> Hmm.
22:49>> [clears throat]
22:49>> Interesting.
22:51The slippery little weasel is at it
22:52again, covering an offensive position
22:55with his most reasonable facade.
22:57Because, of course, you can love the
22:59Constitution and still want to amend it.
23:01And that's what makes his question so
23:03handy. It puts him in the company of
23:05everyone who ever voted for an amendment
23:07as just one more American hoping to
23:10improve the document that he loves. What
23:12Doug has actually proposed, though, is
23:14two things, and they can't both be
23:16constitutional. The first is the one
23:18that we've already heard. Overturn
23:20Obergefell, and marriage goes back to
23:23the states. That part, the Constitution
23:25can do because the 10th Amendment
23:27reserves to the states any power it
23:29doesn't hand to the federal government.
23:31So, with the federal protection gone,
23:33marriage is theirs to settle. The second
23:35is what would happen if Massachusetts
23:37then used that power to allow gay
23:39marriage. It would get expelled. But
23:42there's nothing in this work of
23:44theological genius that lets anyone
23:46throw a state out of the union, let
23:48alone for using a power that same
23:51document reserves to it. So, Doug can
23:53have the state deciding, or he can have
23:56the states expelled for deciding, but he
23:58can't have both. And if he wants gay
24:00marriage banned from coast to coast,
24:02there's only one way to get there, an
24:04amendment written into the Constitution
24:07itself. Because that's where any
24:09nationwide ban on a civil liberty has to
24:11live. But suggesting such an amendment
24:14is something that Doug steers well clear
24:16of, and no wonder. Because putting it on
24:19the table would show how far he's
24:20drifted from where he started with
24:23merely states' rights.
24:24>> Did everybody who voted for any one of
24:26the amendments after the Constitution
24:28was ratified, not love the Constitution?
24:31I don't think the Constitution is
24:33scripture.
24:34>> No, neither do I. No, neither do I, but
24:35I don't go around saying it's a genius
24:37theological document that I love and
24:38then actually be opposed to the
24:40religious test, be opposed to states
24:41being part of the union. It's a very
24:43strange system. It sounds like a
24:44religious dictatorship. If you don't
24:46follow Christianity as defined by the
24:48CREC and Doug Wilson, you get kicked out
24:50of America.
24:51>> This is the crucial moment. Medi is
24:53spelling out where all of Doug's careful
24:55wording actually leads from the
24:58limitation that's not persecution
25:00somehow to the rights that nobody was
25:02threatening to marriage going back to
25:04the states. Doug wants a theocracy and a
25:07very particular one. Christianity as
25:09defined by Doug Wilson and his church.
25:12And anyone who won't bend to it will get
25:14shut out or kicked out, whether that's a
25:15Muslim running for office, an atheist
25:18minding his own business, a progressive
25:20Christian who accepts gay marriage, or
25:22even an entire state that votes the
25:24wrong way.
25:25>> There's a charge of hypocrisy in there,
25:27too.
25:28>> But I don't go around saying it's a
25:29genius theological document that I love
25:31and then actually be opposed to the
25:32religious test, be opposed to states
25:34being part of the union. It's a very
25:35strange system.
25:36>> Doug claims to love the Constitution,
25:38and yet the changes he wants goes right
25:40to the core.
25:42By demanding a religious vow to anyone
25:44taking office, he's blown straight
25:46through Article 6, Clause 3, which says
25:48that no religious test shall ever be
25:51required as a qualification to any
25:53office or public trust under the United
25:56States. And now, with Expelled, he's
25:59tearing up the First Amendment, which
26:01opens by saying that Congress shall make
26:03no law respecting an establishment of
26:06religion or prohibiting the free
26:08exercise thereof. The fact is, he can
26:10say states' rights as much as he likes,
26:13but the moment he's telling those states
26:14to conform to his theology or get out,
26:17that is the federal government
26:19establishing a religion. And he's
26:21already shown us as much with what he
26:23said it would take for Massachusetts to
26:25stay in the union.
26:26>> Unless there's a reformation revival in
26:28Massachusetts such that they came to a
26:31biblical view of marriage.
26:32>> So, how does Doug square all of that
26:35with his love for the Constitution?
26:37>> If you don't follow Christianity as
26:39defined by the CREC and Doug Wilson, you
26:41get kicked out of America.
26:43>> All the points, all the the the 98% of
26:46the script of the Constitution that I
26:48applaud and adore and love, and because
26:51the 2% happens to disagree with parts
26:54that you really like.
26:54>> Certainly not 2% from judge on this
26:56interview. So, a lot more than 2%.
26:57>> And Manny's right.
26:58>> Doug's trying to pass the whole
27:00disagreement off as a rounding error,
27:02but even if the 2% were accurate, it
27:05would be a strange way of measuring it,
27:06wouldn't it? A percentage tells you how
27:09much of a document you change and
27:11nothing at all about how important those
27:14parts are. Doug, of all people, ought to
27:17know that. If two Christians disagree on
27:19whether or not it's the sun that orbits
27:21the earth or the earth that orbits the
27:23sun, today, at least, no one's calling
27:25for a heresy trial. But if they disagree
27:27over whether Jesus rose from the dead,
27:29it's a very different story. Because, as
27:32Paul tells the Corinthians, if Christ
27:34hasn't been raised, everything they
27:36believe in is in vain. Either quarrel
27:38might take up a sliver off the book, and
27:41yet only one of them goes to the heart
27:43of the faith.
27:44>> the 98% of the script of the
27:46Constitution
27:47>> So, by the standards of his own faith,
27:49Doug's 2% is the resurrection. Going by
27:52this interview alone, it reaches right
27:54back into the original articles,
27:56starting with Article 6's ban on
27:58religious tests. Then there's the union
28:00that the Constitution's opening line
28:02sets out to form, or at least any part
28:04of it that allows same-sex marriage.
28:06There's the First Amendment, too, and
28:08the very clause it opens with, against
28:11establishing a religion. And on top of
28:13all of that, there's the 19th Amendment,
28:15and with it a married woman's vote of
28:17her own. Oh, and given that pamphlet of
28:19his on the slave-holding South, I
28:21wouldn't bet on the 13th Amendment
28:23making it into his 98% either.
28:26Take all of that away, Doug, and by
28:28Paul's reckoning, your Constitution is
28:31in vain.
28:32>> I believe that they should be expelled
28:33from the United States.
28:35>> Yeah, Grandpa, now [music] let's get you
28:36to bed, all right?
28:37>> No.
28:39>> I think [snorts] we've all earned a
28:41little bit of a breather after that.
28:43Don't you think? So, at the start, I
28:45asked how much of this would come down
28:47to the order that Medi asked his
28:49questions in, and the answer is a great
28:51deal. It took persistence to get Doug to
28:53expelled, but it was the order that
28:56turned expelled into a contradiction.
28:58>> So, you're not really sending him back
28:59to the states. You just contradicted
29:00yourself big time.
29:01>> And that's the lesson. When you know
29:03where someone's answers lead, what you
29:05ask first is part of your preparation.
29:07It starts with the reassurance. If you
29:09can get someone to set their own
29:11standard, and then confirm exactly what
29:13that standard is, you can test it by
29:15asking about whatever they've left out,
29:18or whatever would contradict it.
29:19>> I believe that they should have all the
29:21rights that all the rest of us have.
29:23>> What about the right to be with their
29:25partner?
29:26>> No.
29:27>> And with the states, this is where the
29:29order really paid off. Had Doug gone
29:31straight to expelled, we'd have had his
29:33extreme position from the start, and no
29:35contradiction to show the world that he
29:37wasn't being straight with us. Instead,
29:39Medi used the same move again. He let
29:42Doug state for himself that marriage law
29:44belongs to the states, and only then
29:46asked what would happen to a state that
29:48did exactly what states' rights allows
29:51them to do.
29:51>> I think marriage law ought to be a state
29:53>> would be okay with Massachusetts having
29:55gay marriage in your version of America?
29:57Would it be legally permissible? You
29:58just said send it back to the states.
30:00>> Yeah.
30:00>> So, Massachusetts chooses to have gay
30:01marriage at state level. Would your Doug
30:03Wilson federal government come in and
30:05stop it?
30:05>> That's why the most useful yes is the
30:07one that someone gives you before they
30:09can see what it's going to cost them.
30:11And finally, there are the exits. Each
30:13time Doug tried to steer the question
30:15somewhere easier, Medi put it straight
30:17back to him, even when Doug's way out
30:19sounded perfectly reasonable.
30:21>> Well, let me tell you something, pecker
30:23face.
30:23>> You know, a lot of my opinions are
30:25connected to things that I call
30:26arguments.
30:27>> And when it all turned into a row about
30:29what Doug had really meant, Medi didn't
30:31try to win it, even though he was right.
30:33He started again and asked what Doug
30:36wanted.
30:36>> Forget about the states then because
30:37you're not actually consistent. In your
30:39vision of America, any state that
30:41allowed gay marriage would be expelled
30:43from America.
30:43>> Get to the point.
30:44>> Yeah. Yeah, we'll do that.
30:46>> You can argue forever about what someone
30:48meant by something they said earlier,
30:50but if clarity is what you need, the
30:52better move is to ask them the
30:54clarifying question and make them stand
30:56behind their position so that what they
30:58mean is no longer up for debate. And
31:00eventually, Doug was truthful. Anyhow,
31:04as always, thank you kindly for the view
31:06and an extra special thank you to
31:08everyone who supports the channel,
31:10including today's sponsor, Ground News.
31:13>> Be sure to like and

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of How to TRAP a Homophobe With His Own Logic by Rationality Rules, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,108 words across 965 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.