
Tucker Carlson is stunned as guest finally confronts issue that terrifies conservatives: 'Everyone is afraid to say it'
The former Fox News anchor said the extreme view was one that even ardent right-wingers may struggle to fully support, but admitted that he 'agreed' with the premise.
Podcaster Matt Walsh railed against gay couples for not being able to 'create a family' naturally, and argued that laws that allowed for them to adopt children in need was 'not progress.'
'It's progress in the sense that cancer progresses,' he fumed on the Tucker Carlson Show.
'There are some basic civilizational truths that we have moved away from in recent decades, but I don't think there was any good reason to move away from them.'
Carlson brought up the topic, citing a tweet from Walsh calling for surrogacy and gay couples adopting children to be made illegal, which Carlson said he had 'never heard anybody say' even in right-ring circles.
Carlson appeared confused by how to react to the strong stance, but said he felt it was 'worth pondering.'
'It tells you something, if every civilization, none of which that we know of had contact with each other, all came to the same conclusions,' he said.
Conservative commentator Matt Walsh railed against gay couples for not being able to 'create a family' naturally, and argued that laws that allowed for them to adopt children in need was 'not progress'
Carlson and Walsh dove into the controversial issue despite admitting it would not be a popular one even for most Republicans.
Walsh - best known for his satirical documentary Am I Racist? - continued to say that the stance is only found among 'social conservatives' who he feels 'still get a bad rap.'
Carlson countered that even though he 'agreed' with the notion, he had never heard other right-wing figures make the same argument before.
'I don't think I've ever heard someone say that, everyone seems to be afraid to say that,' he said.
'Most people are,' Walsh agreed. 'That's why social conservatism isn't very popular, even on the right.'
The filmmaker went on to argue that because gay couples didn't have the right to adopt children for generations, they shouldn't be allowed to today.
'If human beings did something a certain way for literally millennia, in every civilization that we know of, it's probably right,' he said.
Walsh posited that gay couples had never 'started a family' in previous centuries, saying society has 'always been a man and woman start a family,' with exceptions for polygamy.
'Now, I don't support polygamy, but there was a logic to it,' he added. 'Especially in ancient times - you had to create people.
'But a family headed by two gay men... it's an abomination.'
Walsh added that in his view, surrogacy is essentially 'renting a womb.' He said that the conversation had shifted from adopting orphans in need of a family to 'the objectification of a human being, treating them like an object.'
He went on to say that although surrogacy and gay adoption rights are seen as progressive, it was 'progress in the sense that cancer progresses.'
Carlson joked that America could be in 'stage four gay right now,' as Walsh laughed and replied, 'Oh yeah, full on stage four... it's a terminal case.'
After laughing at the joke, Carlson said that it was worth noting 'how things were always done' in societies.
'We should pay attention to how things have always been done, because we can learn something,' he said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
The Epstein saga continues to affect Washington: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Tuesday! In today's edition, our Congress team breaks down how the Jeffrey Epstein saga is freezing up the House of Representatives. And speaking of the House, Steve Kornacki analyzes how mid-decade redistricting by Republicans in a few key states could alter the math of the midterms. — Scott Bland House cancels last day of votes before summer break as Epstein consumes Capitol Hill By Scott Wong, Kyle Stewart and Syedah Asghar The GOP-controlled House is cutting short its last workweek before the summer recess because of a fight on Capitol Hill over the release of the government's files on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The House was scheduled to hold votes on Thursday before lawmakers departed for their five-week recess. But Republican leaders informed rank-and-file lawmakers on Tuesday that the final vote of the week would now be a day earlier, on Wednesday afternoon. The shift in schedule occurred because of a standoff on the Rules Committee, which decides how legislation comes to the floor but has been ground to a halt by the Epstein issue. The panel, which is closely aligned with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., typically passes a rule for legislation on Monday that sets up debate and allows bills to come to the floor for the week. But Democrats had promised Monday to force the committee to take more votes on whether to require the Trump administration to release all remaining files from the Epstein case. To avoid embarrassing votes on Epstein, Republicans decided to recess the committee and not attempt to pass a rule for bills this week. Without a rule, Republicans would be left with nothing to vote on after Wednesday. The Epstein saga has dominated chatter on Capitol Hill for more than a week as many Trump supporters have clamored for the release of all documents related to the convicted sex offender and the president and his administration sought to downplay the issue. It appeared to be dying down in recent days, but the Trump administration breathed new life into the story Tuesday morning, when the Justice Department announced that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will meet with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in the coming days. By Steve Kornacki In the coming weeks, Republicans in Texas and Ohio are expected to redraw their states' congressional maps. Their intent is transparent: to bolster their party's chances of protecting its super-slim House majority in next year's midterm elections. As it stands now, there are 220 Republican districts, meaning the party can afford a net loss of no more than two seats in 2026 and still keep the House. In theory, the redistricting effort could shift as many as eight seats from the Democratic to the GOP column, although the ultimate yield will depend on how aggressive the GOP gets — and how much the courts and voters will tolerate. It could also be offset by similar measures from Democrats in blue states like California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to do a redraw of his own but faces a far trickier process. Yet even if Republicans do emerge from a fresh round of redistricting with a batch of new, safe seats, it may still be woefully insufficient to keep the House, given the dramatic losses that the party in the White House often endures in midterm elections. It was during the first Trump presidency that the GOP coughed up a net 40 House seats in the 2018 midterms, easily losing control of the chamber. But the structure of the current Republican majority is much different than it was back in '18. Far fewer GOP seats now are in districts that are politically hostile to Trump and a far greater share are in politically safe Trump landslide districts. Nor are there as many marginal GOP incumbents in districts Trump carried only narrowly in the most recent presidential election. If successful, the redistricting push would amount to another big difference from 2018: It would give Republicans far more opportunities to play offense this time around.


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Steve Kornacki: How redistricting could change the fight for the House majority
In the coming weeks, Republicans in Texas and Ohio are expected to redraw their states' congressional maps. Their intent is transparent: to bolster their party's chances of protecting its super-slim House majority in next year's midterm elections. As it stands now, there are 220 Republican districts, meaning the party can afford a net loss of no more than two seats in 2026 and still keep the House. In theory, the redistricting effort could shift as many as eight seats from the Democratic to the GOP column, although the ultimate yield will depend on how aggressive the GOP gets — and how much the courts and voters will tolerate. It could also be offset by similar measures from Democrats in blue states like California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to do a redraw of his own but faces a far trickier process. Yet even if Republicans do emerge from a fresh round of redistricting with a batch of new, safe seats, it may still be woefully insufficient to keep the House, given the dramatic losses that the party in the White House often endures in midterm elections. It was during the first Trump presidency that the GOP coughed up a net 40 House seats in the 2018 midterms, easily losing control of the chamber. But the structure of the current Republican majority is much different than it was back in '18. Far fewer GOP seats now are in districts that are politically hostile to Trump and a far greater share are in politically safe Trump landslide districts. Nor are there as many marginal GOP incumbents in districts Trump carried only narrowly in the most recent presidential election. If successful, the redistricting push would amount to another big difference from 2018: It would give Republicans far more opportunities to play offense this time around. Consider the distribution of GOP losses in 2018: As you can see, there was a lot of low-hanging fruit for Democrats, who flipped 22 of the 25 Republican-held districts that Trump lost in the 2016 presidential election. They also picked up about two-thirds of the GOP seats from districts Trump had carried by relatively small margins (less than 7.5 points). But the damage for Republicans was largely limited to these two categories, though they did suffer a few upsets in solidly pro-Trump districts. Now compare the GOP majority heading into the 2018 midterms to what it looks like today, heading into 2026: A bigger share of the current House majority is politically insulated. Fully 61% of Republican seats (134 of 220) are from districts Trump carried by at least 20 points. In 2018, fewer than half of the GOP's seats were in this category. And more than 80% of GOP seats now are from districts Trump won by at least 12.5 points, compared to 66% in '18. And at the other end of the scale, there are now just three GOP seats from anti-Trump districts. Notably, one of them belongs to Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who actually survived the 2018 midterm in a Clinton-won district in Pennsylvania. Another is held by Rep. Mike Lawler in New York; whether he opts to run for governor or seek another House term may determine whether Republicans have a realistic chance of retaining the seat. The third is held by retiring Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, and it is probably the clearest Democratic pick-up target on the map. Obviously, Republicans can afford to lose barely any seats. To have any chance of retaining the House, they'll need to have more success protecting those seats from marginally pro-Trump districts than they did in 2018, when most of them flipped to the Democrats. But if they can limit those losses, that's when redistricting could come in. For Republicans, it holds the promise of expanding this category: For all of their setbacks in 2018, it's worth remembering that Republicans did actually flip three Democratic-held districts, all of which had voted for Trump two years prior. Two were in Minnesota, and the other one was in Pennsylvania — where a new, court-drawn map went into effect in 2018, with that redistricting essentially blowing up a previously Democratic district. Redistricting in Ohio and Texas would likely mean more districts like this for Republicans to target. For instance, Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes now represents an Ohio district that only barely voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris last year. Under a redraw, those lines could shift to make it a solidly pro-Trump district. Similarly, Democrat Marcy Kaptur already represents another Ohio district that went for Trump, but a redraw could make it much redder — and much harder for her to hold on in 2026. With the margins in the House so fine, the majority could depend on it.


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Kornacki: More Republicans are in ‘truly safe' districts heading into 2026 midterms compared to 2018
Kornacki: More Republicans are in 'truly safe' districts heading into 2026 midterms compared to 2018 NBC News National Political Correspondent Steve Kornacki joins Meet the Press NOW to explain how Republicans could hold on to control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections compared to their sweeping losses in 22, 2025