NOM BLOG

Brian Brown to Dan Savage: "Game On!"

 

Dan -- I accept and will look forward to debating you at your dining room table. As I said in my challenge to you, anytime, any place.

While I appreciate the invitation that you have extended to my wife, she will not be able to attend. She is a full-time mom with seven beautiful children and an eighth on the way.

I have no objection to Mark Oppenheimer from the New York Times covering the discussion, nor to you hiring your own video crew to film the event, provided that I am able to hire my own video crew to be sure there is no creative editing of the discussion.

Not that a New York Times reporter would slant the news, mind you! :)

This will be fun!

65 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Well done Brian!

    We look forward to seeing if Mr. Savage is capable of providing a substantive argument in defense of his proclivity.

  2. Zack
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Awesome! I look forward to seeing this.

    Oh by the way, Dennis Prager has a CD where he debates one of the liberals most intellectual and articulate minds on gay marriage.

    It's on his website and it's $15. Even though I love hearing him speak....I can't afford 15 dollars at the moment >.<

  3. Bev
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    I don't think he really has much ammo, other than to try to insult you the way he did those children who were trapped in a gym with him. I'm looking forward to seeing you take him down!

  4. Jake von Slatt
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    I can not wait to see this video! I am sure that we will all think "our guy" won, but civil debate around the dinner table and critical thought is what will save us in the end.

  5. Ash
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    So excited! This will be good :) Go Brian!

  6. Alice
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Will be praying for you Brian. Go Brian! We are behind you all the way.

  7. AM
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Why his home and not a public forum?
    Why does he want to involve your wife?

    Brian, please read this about Dan Savage before you decide:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/29/Savage-Bully-Gary-Bauer

  8. Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    If profanity, vulgarity, and blasphemy aren't allowed as debate language, this could be a very one-sided debate, with Brian doing all then talking.

  9. Becca
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    What a great debate this will be! Way to go, Brian!!

  10. Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    At his dinner table.

    Brian, you are a man of your word.

    I am starting to think your real name must be Daniel....although it isn't any kind of a "lion" you will be debating in this particular den.

    All right, let's get it on!

  11. Ash
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Don't eat anything at the table, Brian.

  12. 14th Amend
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    "Why does he want to involve your wife?"

    Um... because when you invite someone to dinner at your home, you include their spouse in the invitation. First day living in society, AM?

  13. AM
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    14th Amend
    No but I do read the post before commenting. Where in Brian's post is an invitation to dinner discussed? Take your time, I'm sure it's there somewhere.

  14. Mooshkeeler
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    In Mr. Savage's attack on the students, why didn't Mr. Savage say the same about Islam's position on homosexuality in and verses from the Qur'an? Why did he only choose to attack the Bible? Why didn't he refer to the old testament as the "Torah"? And why doesn't he speak to the issue of Hindu young adults who are allowing their parents to go back to the tradition of arranging their marriages for them? Methinks it is merely because he is following the lead of our media - who ONLY attacks the Christian faith's stance on homosexual activity. Love the sinner - hate the sin.

  15. rachel
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    @AM
    mr. savage, in his full invitation to mr. brown, chose the debate venue as his dining room table, after a meal prepared by mr. savage's neighbor. as mr. savage's partner will be in attendance, he invited mr. brown to bring his wife as (he said) a gesture of hospitality. mr. brown simply didn't include all the details of the invitation here.

    why the concern about mr. oppenheimer's neutrality? I can understand the general discomfort with a writer from the NYT, but i thought mr. oppenheimer in particular wrote a very fair portrait of maggie gallagher. was that not the general consensus? this will indeed prove to be an interesting discussion. i do hope mr. savage will keep his profanity in check, for everyone's sake.

  16. Garrett
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    AM, Brian is referencing Dan Savage's invitation:

    "Where? My dining room table. Place? Seattle, Washington. Here's the deal. We [could] fill a room with your screaming partisans and my screaming partisans and we can both fill a room with our respective peanut galleries and I think both of us have a little bit of grandstander in souls and we will work that and I think that will create more heat than light. And so what I'd like to do is challenge you to come to my house for dinner. Bring the wife. My husband will be there. and I will hire a video crew and we will videotape sort of an after dinner debate.

    And the trick here is you have to knowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality and I have to acknowledge yours by extending my hospitality to you."

    (You can hear the invite here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/22/noms-brian-brown-said-i-could-name-the-time-and-the-place)

  17. 14th Amend
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    AM - If you've been paying any attention, you'd know that it was, indeed, a dinner invitation. Use your Google machine sweetie.

  18. 14th Amend
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for helping out AM, Garrett.

  19. Zack
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    @Garret

    That's hardly an invitation. I can't take someone like Dan Savage seriously.

  20. AM
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    14th
    You shouldn't assume everyone follows Dan Savage.
    Thanks for the info, Garrett.

  21. AM
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    14th
    Please don't assume everyone pays attention to Dan Savage.
    Garrett, thanks for the reference.
    ( this comment may show twice, as it didn't go through the first time.)

  22. Garrett
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Would you prefer it sent by courier, Zack?

  23. Leo
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Brian, don't go to his house you may catch something.... have the meeting in a public setting, where you are 6 feet apart during the debate. lol

  24. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    Godspeed Brian!

  25. Dan
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    Given Savage's track record for savagery, I concur with those who recommend not eating or drinking anything while there. I believe the challenge was to meet for a debate, not for a meal.

    Moreover, wear gloves or, at the very least, bring hand sanitizer -- and use it often.

  26. C Warren
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    Mr Brown
    When he mentions equality, make sure you point out that he has all the same rights that you do and that any differences are because of personal choice.
    When he claims honosexuality is not a choice, make him explain how it is not a choice and don't fall for the "when i you choose" routine. Simply say you o not have to choose to be normal; one chooses to deviate from the norm.
    When he brings are the divorce rate, ask how ssm will change it.
    When he mentions adultery etc ask why he wants to be part of an institution with which he finds so much fault.
    Please do not be afraid to say that as inividuals they are equal but as couples they are inferior to normal couples.
    They have no new material and he will no doubt be prepared to debate scripture and argue that the country is secular not religious.
    Good Luck and Godspeed.

  27. C Warren
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 3:37 am | Permalink

    Sorry about the typo's.

  28. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    "When he claims honosexuality is not a choice, make him explain how it is not a choice and don't fall for the "when i you choose" routine. Simply say you o not have to choose to be normal; one chooses to deviate from the norm."

    In order for that argument to be reasonably, you would need to define normal. Is normal based on biology, morality, both, something else? So can you eleborate on that?

    That said, I think the statement is fundamentally flawed anyway. Choice always implies two or more options. If you imply that you can choose to be gay you must also imply a second option: in this case not to be gay. I think that hardly any straight person made a concious choice to be straight, so why do you think that a non-straight person did make such a decision?

  29. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    As for the Dan / Brian debate... If the debate is actually going to take place (because I have some doubts about it really getting done) it will probably end up something like this. The debate will rehash all the same arguments for the umpteenth time. Then after the debate all the marriage equallity supporters will claim that Dan defeated Brian no questions asked. At the same time NOM and its supporters will claim that Brian was victorious and Dan had no arguments whatsoever.

    So in the end the discussion about marriage equality will be exactly where it is now, with no real effort to come to some sort of middle ground.

  30. Bryce K.
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Johan, that's because neither side believes there is a middle ground. Either you support full recognition of legal rights for same sex couples, or you oppose it. Because anything in the middle is either not enough (to the pro SSM side) or starting down a slippery slope (to the anti SSM side).

  31. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    My last comment didn't go through, but I would respectfully ask a moderator to put it online. Thank you.

  32. Pete
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Randy King is looking for a substantive argument out if Dan. Well, we've been waiting for one from NOM for years. Perhaps Brian will follow Randy's example and just call Dan a pervert. We have Ash calling him distrustful and others calling him diseased, NOMers are so civil.

  33. Leo
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    JDV,

    You can't create a middle ground if one does not exist.. There is no middel ground to smoking and not smoking; there is no middle ground to having sex with the same sex, and not engaging in the act. right is right, wrong is wrong.

    "In order for that argument to be reasonably, you would need to define normal. Is normal based on biology, morality, both, something else? So can you eleborate on that?"

    I think it is safe to say that normal is when 96% plus of the population participates in heterosexuality. Normal is when you are not at risk to contracting a deadly disease like Aid due to adnormal behavior. Did I answer your question for you or will you ignore the obvious?

  34. 14th Amend
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    The anti-gay side's idea of middle ground is "I get to keep all my rights and you only get the rights I think you're worthy of"

    That's simply unacceptable.

  35. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Remember, Brian, that marriage is for men and women because men and women are the only combination of sexes that can create a baby. Man + woman =- baby, it is really that simple. That's the point that homosexuals like to skip over, yet it is the very essence of the institution.

    Given that, ask Savage what he believes the essence of marriage is; how he believes marriage would exist but for the fact that men and women make babies. How DOES Savage define marriage? I suppose the answer would be loosey-goosey based on "love" and whatever other variable parameters the partners feel like including in their little friendships. The essence, then, is nothing but whatever the partners decide it to be. It is marriage dismantled.

    So-called SS"M" exists only as an imitation of heterosexual couples; but for male-female marriage there would be no suggestion of so-called SS"M," no pairings of men and men and women and women.

    If same-sex couples want government benefits, they should seek them through other legal venues and prove how their relationships are of equal importance to society as opposite-sex relationships.

    Marriage is not about rights; it is about the complementary union of the two sexes that reproduce in the human species. Whatever rights surround the issue flow from the procreative element.

  36. Zack
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    @Garret

    If you know how Dan Savage talks, you will know that he is mocking Brian while inviting him.

  37. Zack
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    @Johan

    The purpose of the debate is to not convince supporters nor liberals, but to gain support among the middle ground folk.

  38. James
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage? Heck, I'd be thrilled if half the "Bible-believing" churches out there weren't calling for the execution of gays and teaching their children to tap-dance on the graves of dead "homos":

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/aint-no-homos-gonna-make-it-to-heaven_n_1555735.html

    They said Nazi Germany couldn't happen again. Don't kid yourself, folks.

  39. Max
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    @33--It really is amazing how much of your own Hate y'all project on Dan. To my perception, Dan does a much better job of walking that 'hate the sin; love the sinner' line than any of you.

    Yes. We here on the Left do hate your stupidity. But we love you. Every last one of you.

  40. Louis E.
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Johan,
    one chooses to "be gay" when one decides to identify oneself with one's weakness for same-sex sexual activity and seek comfort in the delusion that there can ever be a valid reason to engage in such activity.One gets over it by admitting that homosexual orientation offers no more excuse for homosexual activity than kleptomania does for stealing or alcoholism does for getting drunk with impunity.

    14thAmend,
    What's unacceptable is anyone's defense of same-sex sexual relationships.Protection from one's homosexuality is a right,protection of it a totally illegitimate desire.

  41. Bill
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Where to begin? Let's try here: Marriage is a vow made before God to honor and cherish one's partner. How can one make such a vow before a God that condemns the *ACTIVITY* of G/L couples? NOT the individuals, but their ACTIONS. As to equal "rights" - there are those provided by God, and those offered by the State. One cannot claim to be 'owed' rights from a God whom one either dismisses or rejects. If one accepts God, one must accept the whole package - not pick and choose which parts one likes or dislikes. God is not pleased by the activity of the G/L lifestyle, but he will not condemn anyone to Hell on that basis. Civil rights of ANY two persons can be legislated - such as visitation rights or survivors rights, MARRIAGE, as an institution, is a RELIGIOUS ceremony done before a holy God. Should G/L couples be offered CIVIL protection? Most likely, the answer is yes. To call that protection MARRIAGE is the whole crux of the contention between the two sides. As has been stated before - there is no middle ground. I won't convince you; you won't convince me. We each have to convince ourselves based on a study of the issue. Problem is, most people - on EITHER side - won't STUDY the issue before reaching their conclusions. Study the history of MARRIAGE in society throughout recorded history, as set against personal sexual preference. The two were NEVER confused, until the modern generation - say, beginning around the 1960's. And that's my two cents (inflation adjusted).

  42. Lefty
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Have a nice time at the dinner! Probably nothing will be settled either way, but it'll be interesting to see the different videos of the conversation.

  43. Little Man
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Garfield: Why does Brian have to accept the invitation, as is? Is this a debate about the tradition of 'invitations'? Why would Brian have to accept to have only the opposition's video crew present? The invitation is a call into the wolf's mouth, so to speak. Note it was Brian who suggested the debate.

    So the first allegation from the savage will be: Why can infertile pairs get civil marriage? As if they were fertile. The real question is: how do we test everyone for fertility? Who pays for it? The government doesn't even require a blood test as a prerequisite for a marriage license. . .

  44. Little Man
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    James: Just because you are homo (man) - phobos (fear) doesn't mean Christians are out to -kill- you. You live in your imagination, not reality.

  45. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Leo (#29): The vast majority of people is right handed. In fact, in the Middle Ages left-handed people where often considered to be possesed by the devil. Yet nowadays we don't consider left-handedness not normal. Saying right is right and wrong is wrong is meaningless, because the majority of people have no issues with people who have a same sex attraction. Are all of those people wrong? Why should I take your "right" at face value?

    Zack (#33): I actually posted a lengty response to Bryce (#26) that dealt with my opinion on what I consider the middle ground. Much to my frustration, that post never made it online, and I am pretty sure I will never hear from any of the moderators why that was. The bottom line was that I agree with some points raised by NOM, some points raised by HRC and some issues I dislike from both. There is no absolute black and white in such a complex issue.

    Louis (#35): I do not accept your premise that same sex attraction / "activity" is a weakness. That is your opinion which I respect, but it is not a fact. The relationship in a same sex couple is considered is just as real and strong as an opposite couples relationship. In fact, I see no reason whatsoever to "get over it".

  46. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Little, you know that if the President was attempting to repeal a death penalty for gays, we would be having the same debate, and your arguments will be the same.

  47. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    *your sides arguments would be the same.

  48. Byrd
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    James,
    How insincere. Typical of the ssm mob. Take one quote or one video and label hundreds of millions of Christians in your slanted and bigoted worldview.
    Stereotype much???

  49. Little Man
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    How do you debate someone a-rational, who is selective as to facts? The project is doomed to failure. a) It is philosophy against sophism once again, like in old Greek times. b) In reality, the 'gay' movement is a religion as 'religion' is defined by the US Supreme Court. c) With that realization, everything makes sense. Catholics admit they are part of a religion, but the 'gays' don't want to admit it. It's like if Catholics claimed they were 'born that way'.

  50. Little Man
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Albert C. Kliwer's argument: 'You know that i am correct'. I do? Well, i could say the same. Circular reasoning. Oh, my. . . what Brian is to face. . . Sodomy has been Nationally made lawful, based on the concept that it is part of a philosophy/religion, practiced in private. Check out Lawrence v. Texas, and specifically Justice Kennedy's assertions. Also his assertion: it does not automatically mean Same-sex Marriage becomes legal Nationally.

  51. Posted May 30, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    @Johan #25 - you are right, this will accomplish nothing, they will rehash the same old arguments and just waste time and money and energy. These guys are professionals, they get paid more the more they waste time and accomplish nothing.

    @OvercameSSA "Remember, Brian, that marriage is for men and women because men and women are the only combination of sexes that can create a baby."

    And to this Savage will bring up elderly and infertile couples that cannot create a baby, like Johan says. And Brian won't challenge him, he will just talk about "in principle blah blah" like Keyes did six years ago. But the fact is, Dan Savage, like John Corvino and all the rest, secretly believe that same-sex couples will soon be able to make babies together, and they very much demand to be allowed to do that, they can't wait. If Brian would just say "that would be unethical and should not be allowed" we'd finally get somewhere. But I'm not sure he believes that, I think he might agree with Savage. Wish I knew.

  52. Arlekin
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    The point of this dinner and debate is for the two sides to come together and see the humanity in one another. It's hard to wish somebody ill will when you can see them as a living, breathing human being and not just the talking head for an opinion you disagree with. As others have pointed out, this debate isn't going to change the minds of anybody who's all ready decided one way or the other. It's for everyone else who's still trying to make up their minds. To that end, I hope both sides can present their arguments in a mature, cogent manner that doesn't rely on silly tricks or irrational rhetoric. And I hope that Brian and Dan can find some humanity in one another and have a good dinner. :)

  53. Little Man
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    'Anytime, anyplace'? In his shower?

  54. Ash
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    That was funny, Little Man. And I don't even know if you were trying to be funny.

  55. leo
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    JDV,

    Your rebuttals are weak, typical off the marriage opposition...

    "Leo (#29): The vast majority of people is right handed. In fact, in the Middle Ages left-handed people where often considered to be possesed by the devil. “
    JDV, we're not in the Middle Ages, so no comment on your non-comparison analogy to my last post.
    "Yet nowadays we don't consider left-handedness not normal."
    Again I can't comment much on something I don't know to be true. However, assuming what you say to be factual, will only say this: being left handed don't causes HIV/AID; left handed people are not now trying to create laws to marry only left handed people; you did not establish any proof that left handed people were trying to indoctrinate and enforce right handed people to eat with their left hand and if they didn’t they were considered bigots (participating in coercion into accepting left handed people)? Or, maybe those who oppose lefties realized over time that lefties don't cause warm to society at large, thus, they contributed to humanity.

  56. leo
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    "Saying right is right and wrong is wrong is meaningless, because the majority of people have no issues with people who have a same sex attraction. Are all of those people wrong? Why should I take your "right" at face value?"
    Now you are attempting to state a fact without any evidence. I'll only say this to your opinion, I'' bet your wrong, in fact I'll bet the masses tolerance for gay people is wearing thin and is reaching the boiling point.
    Instead of damning religion, you should be embracing Christians whole heartedly. If it wasn't for them there wouldn’t be a gay population percentage to talk about... Your food for thought!

    "

  57. leo
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    NOM, sorry about my last post(s) I wasn't sure the first post got through..

  58. Judy
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    I think Dan is being very kind to extend this invitation. Have an enjoyable evening.

  59. mominvermont
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:44 am | Permalink

    Will Savage's children be at the dinner? Will that make it more difficult for Brian to advocate for a child's right to both a mother and a father?

  60. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Leo (#55): I'll agree that the left-handed argument came out a bit constrained and not as I intended. My intention was to indicate that "normal" (which the comment was about) can be defined in many, many ways, biologically being one of them. I also indicated that same sex attraction being normal can be indicated by public majority feelings, which is true in most, if not all, western countries. Defining normal is simply not a black and white issue but a grayscale at best. You are somewhere along that grayscale line and I am somewhere else, even though we both consider our opposing views normal.

  61. Little Man
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    I would take body guards - at least to protect the video track. Aside from that peril, it will be mostly about The Bible. It is much easier to critique by taking passages out of context or historical context than it is to interpret the writings for what they mean, in context. They will try clout the issue pointing to 300 translations, and then to one obscure 'expert' interpreter who knows Greek and has come up with an elaborate (yet erratic) construct to admit homosexuality as God created into the churches. That 'expert' has been debunked, and he didn't like that at all :)

  62. Chairm
    Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Savage's invite included this bit of idicoy"

    "And the trick here is you have to knowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality and I have to acknowledge yours by extending my hospitality to you."

    What a crock.

    Savage's humanity is not the issue. Nor is Brown's humanity.

    The issue is a conflcit of ideas.

    My advice to Mr Brown is not to make this a couple's meeting. Make it a meeting of two minds in discussion about the two ideas in conflict: the marriage idea versus the SSM idea.

    This is not a dinner but a debate. What part does Savage expect his friend and Brown's wife to play in that?

  63. Chairm
    Posted June 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries

    Same-sex sexual behavior is not normal based on biology, based on morality, based on reason.

    Rather than make the discussion about defining normal, start by defining same-sex sexual behavior. Then proceed to stating the criteria for moral assessment of that behavior.

    If you would distinguish between biology (and human physiology perhaps) and human morality, then, the next step would be to explain such a distinction. If you would not so distinguish, then, you would need to explain same-sex sexual behavior in other terms exclusive of biology (and human physiology perhaps).

    Of course, on each step, human reason needs to be used carefully. In the course of taking such steps you might discover that your own reasoning is lacking and then you would need not further trouble yourself with conjuring up a range of views of what is and is not normal.

    You said, for instance, that "If you imply that you can choose to be gay you must also imply a second option: in this case not to be gay."

    Gay is a socio-political identity. No socio-political identity is inborn. It is a choice.

    Likewise, same-sex sexual behavior is a choice.

    You might object that same-sex sexual attraction does not feel like a choice. Okay, but that is quite a different matter.

    If you are starting with your conclusion and working backwards in search of a rationale to support that conclusion, then, you are not really here to make normality the basis for assessing same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual attraction, or gay identity.

    If you think about that, you might consider what is the basis you would use to assess behavior and how does that basis fit same-sex sexual behavior.

  64. RR
    Posted June 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Will you people please use your own brains instead of parroting what you hear from your father, K-Love, your pastor or Bill O? Not that these people or institutions are bad or wrong in and of themselves, but c'mon.

    Breaking bread with others is a peaceful and common way to acknowledge each other (remember - Christ did that ...), and offering the invitation to the spouse is not only common but courteous and expected. It's a bigger deal that she has rejected the invitation. There are still baby-sitters these days (even for all eight ... and of course we all hope they have more because the world isn't populated enough quite yet and we all know that the one more baby thing has worked so well. But I digress).

    Savage can be a dick (no pun intended) but so was Jesus from time to time in order to make his point (see passages about the money-changers etc). On the other hand, Brian is a pompous bible thumper who gives the rest of you a bad name. This is not going to be a logical debate. How can it be? It's fact, in the real world, vs belief in the infallibility of a book written by many people, long ago, with a vested interest in it's outcome, and based only partially in fact (please tell me you understand that there is a great deal of myth as the basis of the Bible, or there is indeed no way to have a logical debate even on this thread. See also the many myths pre and post Christianity that have similar stories and basis).

    BTW, I'm not anti-spirituality. I am anti-dogma with no basis other than to make people feel good, righteous, and defensive when reality sets in.

    Relax. The debate should be interesting and hopefully productive. I don't expect Brian to change his mind or concede the debate. How could he? It would be an admission of error in his position which would, by default, let everyone down - from his kids, his wife, you people who hang on many of his words, and God hisself - or maybe herself - we don't really know do we? (And don't be so arrogant as to assume you do know, or use the Bible as a crutch on this issue. It's a belief and we all know that. What we don't know is if your belief is any more accurate than other beliefs)

    Nor will Savage concede. How could he? He lives among those who actually love each other without condition, so accepting limitations imposed by Christianity isn't going to happen.

    One last rant: Will you people drop the "there is no basis of morality without Christianity" stuff. There is indeed much empirical evidence that this isn't true and, in fact, some of the greatest atrocities have been committed by folks claiming to act in the name of God, or by such people who "sin" in much worse ways than most unbelievers

    BTW, over 1/2 of America believes the world would be better off without religion. This, contrary to your canned response, isn't because the devil or people like Savage have influenced us and that armageddon is upon us as a result of our turning our back on God, but because people are waking up to fact and to the damage done by people who espouse religion. i.e. it's your own fault that your religion is damned to fail.

    RR

  65. Chairm
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    RR., it is a discussion of the conflict of ideas, not a dinner party.

    You said: "offering the invitation to the spouse is not only common but courteous and expected".

    Not to a debate of ideas.

    And there is only one set of spouses (i.e. husband and wife) amongst the four persons that Savage suggested attend the encounter.

    You have indicated the game that Savage is playing on that note.

    _ _ _ _

    And then you amplified it by proposing that Savage is closely analogous with Jesus and that Brown is despicable in some way that you deem to be worthy of an ad hom attack -- as a courtesy no doubt.

    And your anti-religious bigotry was thrown in as an appetizer. How wonderful of you to drop by, RR, sit down and make yourself comfortable -- perhaps later you will piss on the carpet and spit on the sald.