NOM BLOG

Dan Savage, Pick On Someone Your Own Size! NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

By now you've probably heard about the incredibly squalid performance of President Obama's anti-bullying advisor, Dan Savage.

If not, go watch this video here:

 

Invited to address the issue of bullying before a captive audience of other people's children, Dan Savage chose instead to belittle these high-schoolers' faith, to repeatedly curse at the Bible, and, when a group of rather brave students quietly walked out, to curse directly at them.

He has refused to apologize for any of it, except for directly cursing at the teens who left.

As a father of seven, watching it makes my blood boil.

Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I'm here, you name the time and the place and let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It's easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let's pick on someone our own size!

Here's Dan Savage following up on that performance with an incredibly filthy and obscene attack on the Pope from the Hammerschmidt Memorial Chapel at Elmhurst College in Illinois. Warning: It's sexually-explicit and disgusting language. Please do not play it where children can hear.

 

I'm here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage. You will find out out how venal and ridiculous your views of these things are if you dare to accept a challenge.

But our greater challenge is to Pres. Obama and the White House, which is continuing to host and promote Dan Savage's anti-bullying campaign It Gets Better.

Pres. Obama needs to disassociate our nation's White House from a man who behaves in this fashion.

Savage himself told the Seattle Times there was nothing unusual about his speech. It's at the heart of how he defines "anti-bullying":

"Savage said the speech is one he has repeatedly given in promoting 'It Gets Better,' his hugely successful project to help gay, lesbian and transgender youths cope with bullying. The project has at least 40,000 videos—testimonials meant to offer encouragement—including one by President Obama, and an accompanying book that debuted on The New York Times best-seller list."

Dan Savage actually told the Seattle Times, "It wasn't like I sneaked up on a Bible study class and commandeered the podium. ...I'm like the Devil. You have to invite me in."

So far Dan Savage has been invited in and warmly welcomed to the White House, on the White House website, as well as MTV. It's unseemly to say the least.

Thanks to the thousands of you who have already responded to our call to Pres. Obama: Drop Dan Savage!

And I really need you to send the petition request to all your friends and relatives. Let them see the man Pres. Obama is standing by, at this point.

Let them see what real unabashed and unashamed hatred looks and sounds like.

If you haven’t yet signed our petition, go here and please do so.

For all our children's sake, and for the sake of civilized discourse in this beloved and God-blessed land.

On Tuesday, we will wake up and find out whether the people of North Carolina have voted for the Marriage Amendment.

Those who oppose the amendment have chosen to raise millions to spread blatant falsehoods to North Carolina voters.

The campaign to dehumanize supporters of our marriage tradition has been stepped up as well, with reports that as many of half of all pro-marriage signs have been vandalized.

Yes, a pro-marriage amendment teenager stole a neighbor's sign and videotaped himself shooting it and posted in on YouTube. This teen was properly visited by the police to make sure he meant no harm to any person and they also properly cited him for destruction of property. Let me reiterate NOM's persistent call to mutual respect and civility in the midst of these important moral questions that we believe ought to be decided by the people as a whole.

No gay person, or gay-marriage advocate, should be afraid in our great democracy to stand up, speak, organize, or donate for the things they believe in. Violence, threats of violence, and name-calling have no place in our democracy.

Will Joe Solmonese or Evan Wolfson or any other major gay-rights leaders stand up and say the same? Will they tell their people: Respect the rights of "anti-gay marriage" citizens, even as we fight for what we think is right?

I hope so. I'm waiting to see.

I was there in California during the Prop 8 campaign when so many people faced harassment and threats just for standing up for marriage. So when the NC campaign released a report that an elderly woman was physically attacked for having signs that said "Yes on the marriage amendment," I was shocked but not surprised.

This story has not received media attention. But we posted the police report on the NOM blog.

According to the police report, this elderly lady went to a home looking for her sister. She told police that a man who lived there told her they needed to "talk about this marriage amendment." She said she didn't want to speak about it, but as she tried to back out, this man stuck his head in the window and would not let her leave. Her glasses got knocked off somehow. When she tried to retrieve them, he started banging the car door against her four or five times, cussing at her very angrily because she supported the marriage amendment. The police officer noted what looked like bruises on her back and that she was very upset and crying.

She told police she had "never experienced anything like this."

I'm so sorry this happened to her. But of course she is not alone. You and I know that apparently even in North Carolina it now takes courage to stand up for marriage.

The students at TFP Student Action have just released their own video about what it's like to be a young man holding signs on the street saying positive things: "One man, one woman = marriage."

The hatred generated against these young people is profoundly antithetical to the basic principles of fair play and democracy. But too many gay-marriage leaders are determined to create an equation in which opposition to gay marriage = hatred. They have convinced themselves of this, among many other untruths, and they are convincing others to act on it.

They think it's a strategy for victory, clearly. But it amounts to an attempt to write out of civilized society at least half or more of the American people. And it's going to fail.

Meanwhile a dramatic story is unfolding in North Carolina, where voters will go to the polls on May 8 to decide the future of marriage in that state.

As pro-gay-marriage advocates began to blanket the state with ads claiming that the marriage amendment will strip single women of domestic-violence protection, I began to get a little worried.

But the NC campaign fought back with the truth.

"I am concerned about the false and misleading claims that are being made by opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment," said Rockingham County District Attorney Phil Berger, Jr., Vice President of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. "Citizens should have no concern that the marriage amendment will impact domestic violence prosecution, because it will not."

And so were so many others who have fought for marriage in North Carolina.

So after showing some initial slippage, the polling now shows gay-marriage advocates heading for a massive defeat at the polls.

The latest SurveyUSA today poll shows the Marriage Amendment ahead by 20 points!

The most amazing thing about the support for marriage is its breadth. SurveyUSA reports that the measure passes 57 percent to 37 percent, "with majority support among men and women, black and white, rich and poor, and in all parts of the state. Opposition is most strong among Democrats and independents, but rises to a majority only among the relatively small number of voters who identify themselves as liberals."

Read that again closely. Majorities of blacks and whites, rich and poor, men and women, and Republicans and Democrats oppose gay marriage.

This is not surprising to you and me; we know the truth, which is rooted in Truth itself.

Don't stop fighting now, in North Carolina—or anywhere else! Victory is within our reach!

Thanks to all of you who have written to express your support and concern about the massive illegal attacks on NOM, most recently through the release of federally-protected IRS tax returns.

We believe that both the IRS and other legal authorities are responding appropriately with a serious investigation and we want to respect the legal process as it moves forward.

Please pray for the safety of all the voters in North Carolina, both those who favor and those who oppose marriage.

But please remember especially in your prayers this week the one elderly lady who says she was viciously attacked for standing up for God's vision of marriage, and for all the teens in Dan Savage's audience.

With charity towards all, with malice towards none, we will fight for the right, as God gives us the power to see what's right.

God bless you and may God bless America.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

63 Comments

  1. M. Jones
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Romney needs to get in office, and use all legal means to investigate and prosecute these attacks on religion.

  2. homer
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Romney needs to get in office, and use all legal means to investigate and prosecute these attacks on homosexuals.

  3. Thaiea
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the Dan Savage clip. He is totally correct. The bible got many many things wrong.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Thaiea,

    What did the Bible get wrong?

  5. Randy E King
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    The religious bigotry of the marriage corruption movement must be addressed. The right of conscience is recgnized as immutability under the U.S. Constitution; sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.

  6. Jane
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Savage's surname is entirely appropriate and sums up the content of his character.

  7. Posted May 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Amazing. I have also laid down a challenge for Mr. Savaga AND done a post on the TFP video.

    http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2012/04/dan-savage-vs-word-of-godchallenge-for.html

  8. Kathy Baldock
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    staged walk out, students placed in front, camera person positioned to catch the walk out which started on the first words by DS. Staged for effect and milking it. Nice job that it worked out so nicely for you. Manipulation.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Kathy Baldock,

    You should be more careful; it is starting to look like denial is a lifestye for you folks.

  10. Troubled Republican
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    I find it sickening that this "man" gets up in front of a group of people, for the sole purpose of talking about bullying, and then proceeds to bash religion.
    Honestly, I don't care that he's gay. I find it offensive that he would use a legitimate platform to do nothing but bash others and incite hate.

  11. Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    No one can decide what is 'BS' in the bible.
    Because what of it isn't? And God meant every-single-word?

    "If you cause one of Mine to sin, it would be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and you dropped in the middle of the ocean."

    Savage could have easily addressed the bible, as well as ALL religons, in an educational and non-offensive manner. That way, more would be on his side.

  12. Byron
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    To Savage and Obama. Cowards, wimps and pimps. Nice when you got the soap box aint it. See you when it all fades . Time is a harsh truth
    teller and the bell tolls for you as it does for all.

  13. Charlie
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Christianity is a destructive lifestyle choice responsible for most of the worlds most despicable atrocities. It condones incest, bigamy, slavery, ignorance over rationality. There is no Christian gene so you have to actively recruit, pressuring impressionable children with your recruitment tools of Sunday School, Boy Scouts, Church camps, etc... You are obsessed with controlling women, gay sex, forcing your mythology on people rather than trying to convince people it's the "right" thing because you will always fail if you rely solely on the power of persuasion. Your priests rape little girls and boys and you protect those filthy priests by hiding them from the law and paying for them to be reassigned to new parishes to begin their rape and abuse anew. You claim to follow Christ's teaching except for the topic he most spoke of, helping the poor, the sick, the needy and less fortunate and instead you hate the least of his children, bear false witness, commit adultery, worship idols, gossip, steal and every other act of depravity you accuse others. You are hypocrites and liars.

  14. Byron
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    There comes a time when your legacy is spoken by other than your own lips. How will your name fare?

  15. Steve
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    On what authority does Dan Savage, or an other SSM-proponent, stand-on to validate their beliefs are right & moral?

  16. John
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    I doubt Savage has the guts to take up the challenge. I would certainly love to see it debated on national television for all to see.

  17. Steve
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    First question for the Brown/Savage debate: "Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer like Newt Gingrich have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?" Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    What I believe really needs to be addressed is the misapplication of language being used in the discussion. The marriage corruption movement at once reefers to men perverts as 'Gay" and then comes back and refrences all memembers in the LGBT as "Gay People."

    This is unacceptable on so many levels. how are these miscreants being allowed to coopt the language used in this debate without beeing challenged by a single individual in academia. This is Orwellian Newspeak on steroids.

    These folks are not only being permitted to challege the laws of nature, but they ar being afforded the right to refear to their proclivity as being anything other than what it is; a decadent and peverted lifestyle.

    Here we are in an educational environment and this miscreant is referring to himself as Gay, his proclivity as Homosexuality, and his community as "Gay People" and he left unchallenged by the adults in the room who where intrusted with the previledge of educating other peoples children.

    This is blatant state sponsored indoctrination.

  19. Good News
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Nice offer Brian. Maybe too nice. He doesn't deserve to be in the same room with you, nor to be seen or heard by anyone.

    @ Mantronikk, great work! Thanks. Excuse me for not being as eloquent in the following.

    He insults me, my country, my family and the growing young adults and children of my community. What makes it outrageous is that he is encouraged to do exactly just that by the US government and its psychological warfare on its own people. I challenge he that gives Dan such authority. Be it high school or university leader, government official or party leader. If Obama accepts 'educating' our citizens this way, than I challenge Obama to a duel. Sword, gun, knife or bat (dishonorable drone hits and computer hacking excluded). To first blood, or first dead. Extremes of national degradation and perversion, call for extremes of national dignity and honor. If there are any legal codes restraining such a duel, I'm sure we can easily pass through the courts some law changes. At the rate our culture's moral norms are changing, it should not be hard to legalize a fight to the death in our land of liberty.

    As for little Danny boy. I will have to address him in his own language (so some might not want to read on): “Danny's gay! Danny's gay! Ha. ha. Danny's gay! Ha. ha. Dan likes men. You're a homo Dan. Danny's afraid of girls! Danny's a sissy. A pussycat. Ha. ha. queer, queer Dan.” Or as the President of Italy said, after being found in dishonorable relations with some women: “well, at least I'm not gay!” And for that fact he smiled with great comfort, pride and satisfaction. Welcome to your world Danny fag. Maybe we'll build you an outhouse on Mars. Don't anyone feel offended or outraged by such disrespectful, unacceptable and not-funny remarks. Its only me and Dan in a friendly chat. We understand each other. We only say things for effect, not for content. Thanks for the education my nation. Lesson well learned.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Steve,

    So your point is that nobody has the right to point out how wrong your side is because of how wrong somebody else is

    What are you 5?

  21. Scrounger
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Randy, Steve's point goes to credibilty.

  22. Good News
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    @Steve
    Because marriage is a man and woman. You have to bring all the organs and chromosomes of the humans species to the table if you want to become married . (Deformations, and amputations and people unable to procreated are accepted. It is the symbol of the ONE-human-species, when it is in finally completed form, that is being named with 'marriage'. Two people of the same sex cannot create that symbol. Becoming married means becoming the ONE-human-species in its completed form. Saying, “I'm married” tells to the listener that, “I have become the completed ONE-human-species”.) If two people of the same sex want to make an honorable union for themselves than they need to invent one, along with a word to name it, and a definition that applies to it. And they need to be confident about their union enought to stand by it alone.

    As for Newt. It has nothing to do with same sex unions. But yes, he is basically an unfaithful polygamist (multiple marriages). He is unfaithful to his women and his children by leaving them, rather than keeping them. But you do know that our country has laws, and in the USA, marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

  23. Pete
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I hope Dan takes on the challenge, it will be very entertaining. Dan will strongly debate with facts and Brian will regurgitate those tired NOM talking points. Remember how Brian got laughed off the John Stossel Show? Yeah, good times.

  24. Pete
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I hope Dan takes on the challenge, it will be very entertaining. Dan will strongly debate with facts and Brian will regurgitate those tired NOM talking points. Remember how Brian got laughed off the John Stossel Show? Yeah, good times.

  25. AM
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    This Christian apologetics blog has a good response to Savage:
    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5069

  26. Pat
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, he's not so great.

    Of course, attacking a religion is actually an expression of religious freedom (the alternative is being required to practice a certain religion), so y'all are telling the literal opposite of the truth. Again.

    NOM, YOU pick on somebody your own size. Or, better yet, don't pick on anybody at all. Just go away.

  27. Bryce K.
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. An absolute PARAGON of circular reasoning.

  28. Posted May 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Bryce K:

    Marriage is, of course, exactly the union of the two genders in a stable relationship from which children commonly result and within which union they are best nurtured.

    It is true that in a democracy, it is occasionally possible for Alinskyite lunacy to advance to the stage where we can vote on the issue.

    But since you will lose every time there also, I conclude that there must be some deeper agenda driving the haters we see in the various TFP incidents.......

    And so there is.

    The deeper motivation- and as your political defeat becomes more and more obvious this becomes even much more clear- this deeper motivation is a profound, vicious, implacable hatred of the Christian faith.

  29. Posted May 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    In the face of so much opposition to decency and civility, this is a timely message:

    (speaking to a group of women, many of them mothers)
    "Elder Andersen said that although it is a privilege to live during great days of destiny, individuals must be armed with righteousness and the power of God as they fight in the spiritual war that is raging for the souls of men and women.

    'We recognize the enemy and understand his plan,' Elder Andersen said. 'The pride of the world seeks to destroy faith by casting doubt on the existence of God or, if not His existence, His personal care and concern for His children.'

    These tactics of the adversary aren't new and have been around since ancient times, he said. It is through being armed in righteousness that individuals are able to withstand and feel the power and promises of their Heavenly Father.

    'The spiritual battle rages because those who have chosen wickedness, darkness and self-conceit are never happy to go their way alone,' he said. 'They form unholy alliances with what Paul calls the principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness in high places, determined to take others with them' (see Ephesians 6:12).

    Those tactics are especially strong for the youth, he added.

    'While wanting us all, they especially pursue the young, the unsure, the undisciplined, and the weak, hoping to destroy any hope of Christ in the fragile and vulnerable,' he said. 'You know all of this. You are on the battlefield, right in the crossfire. The conflict will not diminish but intensify in the years ahead. How will we—how will you—withstand the attack?'

    It is through putting on the whole armor of God—as described by Paul in the New Testament (see Ephesians 6)—that individuals are able to withstand the attacks.

    'As you arm yourself for battle, your protection comes from God who is our Father,' he said. 'You have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and you take His name upon [you]. You are commissioned as a disciple of Christ, as defenders of the faith."

    http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62292/BYU-Womens-Conference-Armed-with-righteousness.html

  30. Pete
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Bryce, look how Rick takes your circle and adds his fringe. Pretty!

  31. marlowe
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    If lil Dan Savage was picked on when he was a kid, he probably deserved it.
    The "anti-bully" now uncovers himself to be the worst bully around.
    I hope he chokes on his outrageous hypocrisy one day.

  32. Geoff G.
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    "I'm here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage."

    Looks like he's accepted your offer. This should be interesting.

    http://bit.ly/JIL8hX

    (Link shortened to remove profanity, which is also present in Savage's post.)

  33. Dexter Brown
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Dan Savage was right on! Those kids were there voluntarily and were intellectually stunted if they thought what he said was offensive. As to your "challenge" to him, you'd better grow an extra pair, because you'll need 'em!!

  34. Joe B.
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Brian Brown is gay. He needs to accept it and celebrate it. It is what God would want.

  35. Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Ohhhhh yeah......

    This will be epic :-)

  36. Randy E King
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Savage will have the unenviable position of haveing to explain that he did not say what he said. The right of conscience and the free exercise thereof dictates Heightened Scrutiny for people of faith; Savage will attempt to prove that the last two hundred years of U.S. history never happened.

  37. bman
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    Steve->Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer....have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?"

    The fundamental right to have monogamous bride-groom marriage sanctioned by society does not imply a fundamental right to have other types of relationships sanctioned by society.

    Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed

    Possibly its because society views a commitment to sin [gay sex] as worse than a failed commitment to righteousness [marital fidelity] .

    Furthermore, Its not the public purpose of society for couples to divorce. And, when society approves the re-marriage of such persons its not endorsing "disposable marriage" as you suggest, but its giving the person another chance to get it right this time around.

  38. michael
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    I cannot wait till Dan takes you on! He's gonna eat you for lunch and the world is going love it! The world loves Dan, God loves Dan and now lets watch God work his mysterious ways! This is going to be awesome!

  39. KAK1958
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    bman - isn't adultery a sin?

  40. KAK1958
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    So, do yawl just want gay people to "fake it" and get married to someone of the opposite sex so that the appearances meet your expectations? I mean, sure, they could do that, but then marriage becomes even more of a sham than it already is.

    In this culture, we don't believe in arranged marriages. There is supposed to be some attraction, some connection, some feeling between the two parties beside the money exchanged between two families. A forced fit marriage is probably doomed.

  41. Posted May 5, 2012 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    "So, do yawl just want gay people to "fake it" and get married to someone of the opposite sex so that the appearances meet your expectations?"

    >> Of course not. Why fake it? Either get married, or don't. But if you mean to suggest that we ought to call every kind of cohabiting sexual hookup a marriage, then let me assure you with one hundred per cent certainty: your neighbors will never go along with that.

    See NC next Tuesday for details.

  42. bman
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    KAK1958->bman - isn't adultery a sin?

    It is sin.

  43. bman
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    KAK1958->So, do yawl just want gay people to "fake it" and get married to someone of the opposite sex so that the appearances meet your expectations? I mean, sure, they could do that, but then marriage becomes even more of a sham than it already is.

    You pose a false dilemma since there are other options to gays besides that one.

    They can also choose to not marry or they can privately enter a gay relationship without interference from society.

  44. Randy E King
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    bman,

    There is no such thing as a "Gay." These miscreants know that they have no credibility as they are, so they refeer to themselves as if they were something else.

    The "Gay" is equivelant to the mythical Unicorn. These tyrants have spun a fairy tale designed to paint a favorable picture of thier proclivity. These are true Hollywood and Wallstreet villians seeking to cultivate willing victims.

  45. AnonyGrl
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Oh, Brian, you are so going down on this fight. Dan Savage is a much stronger biblical scholar than you are.

  46. Andrew
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    It looks like he's taken up the challenge. This 'debate' will probably not change any hearts and minds, but I guess at the least it could prove to be good theater.

  47. Layne
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Randy, what's your deal? Are you another Exodus alumni? And why are you obsessing over the word gay? It's been used to describe homosexuality since at least the 19th Century.

    You act like it some modern-day, liberal Hollywood conspiracy.

  48. KAK1958
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    "they can privately enter a gay relationship without interference from society."

    Not sure what "privately" enter means...like no-one else would know about it? When I think privately entering into relationships, I think illicit affairs.

    There is nothing more gay couples would like than to not have interference from society. Just give them the same rights as married couples since they're already living like married couples anyway.

  49. Pete
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Go Dan!

  50. akork
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how Brian Brown will back out of this debate. Perhaps he will say he does not see the need to lower himself to Dan Savage's level. Perhaps he will claim that Dan Savage does not need to have more of a spotlight. I'll be curious to see in what manner he spins his chickening out.

  51. Posted May 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what ridiculous expedient to which Dan Savage will resort to get off the hook here.....maybe demanding the debate take place without a moderator, ground rules, or podium security, in the middle of a gay bar in the Castro?

  52. bman
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    KAK1958->Not sure what "privately" enter means...

    I was thinking mainly of the Lawrence case there.

    It said, " The present case does not involve... whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

    A private relationship is one not formally recognized by government.

    Since gays have that option they are not compelled to enter the "fake it" scenario you described, which was merely a false dilemma.

  53. akork
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Woo good one Rick, perhaps Brian Brown will use Dan Savage's choice of location as a way to chicken out of the debate. Perhaps that is even why he invited Mr. Savage to choose the location in the first place, to be able to use that as an excuse should Mr. Savage accept the challenge.

    I mean why say "you name the time and the place" if you would back out if the time and place are not what you wish?

  54. Posted May 5, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    akork:

    Quick! Pass it on to Mr. Savage!

    I am sure he will fasten onto it like a chicken on a June bug :-)

  55. Posted May 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    akork:

    Quick! Pass it on to Mr. Savage!

    I am sure he will fasten onto it like white on rice :-)

  56. Posted May 5, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    akork:

    Knowing Brian, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he showed up at a gay bar in the Castro with no moderator, podium security, or ground rules :-)

    I know who my money is on in any case :-)

  57. akork
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I suppose we shall have to wait and see. Most times I've seen though when internet demagogues beat their chests and issue debate challenges nothing ever comes of it.

  58. Posted May 6, 2012 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Yes, you are quite right about Dan Savage there, akork.....

  59. Andrew
    Posted May 6, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Rick -

    When exactly did Dan Savage "issue [a] debate challenge"?

  60. dn
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I can't wait to watch Dan Savage ridicule your pathetic arguments.

  61. bman
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    bman->"they can privately enter a gay relationship without interference from society."

    KAK1958-> Not sure what "privately" enter means...like no-one else would know about it? When I think privately entering into relationships, I think illicit affairs.

    I noted before that a private relationship is one not formally recognized by government.

    That does not exhaust the meaning of "private" though.

    While a gay sexual relationship is no longer illegal, its still immoral.

    If gays openly declare their relationship they defy public morality and invite open moral rebuke and public rejection.

    In effect, they contribute to the rejection gay teens perceive coming from society, as well.

    An open and notorious gay sexual relationship or gay marriage displays a determined disrespect for social and religious morality that gay pride marches represent.

    Public pride about immoral behavior should not be viewed as something to celebrate.

  62. forked tongue
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    I certainly hope this debate takes place--Dan has enthusiastically proclaimed his willingness--and I hope you have a good answer ready for why you eat shrimp, or at least don't think it's immoral to.

  63. bman
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    I hope you have a good answer ready for why you eat shrimp, or at least don't think it's immoral to.

    The answer is readily available via a simply web search.

    Here is one example for starters:

    http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-eating-shrimps-is-not-like-homosexuality/

One Trackback

  1. [...] the NOMblog Brain Brown attacks Savage and his ties to Obama. The piece has a political flavor in it suggesting [...]