Brian Brown's model --challenge the other side to a conversation--is catching on!
In the article “Former priests speak out against marriage amendment” (May 17), retired priest Father Tim Power said, “… if voters approve the constitutional amendment, that would cut off the dialogue Minnesota is just beginning to have about gays and lesbians and what kind of recognition their unions should have.”
As an ex-gay Catholic who left the “gay lifestyle” with the help of Father John Harvey’s Catholic group COURAGE, I will be happy to have such a dialogue with any of these former priests. Let’s have the dialogue you say will be denied.
... The Catholic Church teaches that marriage — like the priesthood — is a vocation. Marriage has always been for the expressed purpose of uniting two people of the opposite sex into a union of “one flesh” for the purpose of raising families.
... Let’s set up a time and place for this dialogue. I’ll be there. -- Winona Daily News
16 Comments
"Brian Brown's model"?? Wasn't it Dan Savage that offered the invitation to Brian?
This blog is a good place for healthy debate, yet many of us "dissenters" are moderated out here. Jeremy Hooper, the creator of "goodasyou(dot)com" I'm sure would invite all you regulars here to comment over there. Check out the site. I can't provide the link (that's why it's spelled out above), as that's a no no here.
Of course the dialog has been happening in MN for well over a year. That was when the MN legislature voted to put the amendment on the ballot.
And in truth the dialog has been going on for much longer than that. In 2010 the opposition was gloating that 2011 would be the year they would force fake marriage upon the citizens. At that time Gov. Pawlenty was the only person standing in their way. He vowed to veto their fake marriage bill.
If MN citizens fail to pass the marriage amendment this year they'll have fake marriage forced upon them by activists judges, just like Iowa. There's a case working its way through the system as I type this.
There are a few months remaining for this debate in MN. Then it's time to put up or shut up. If the amendment fails, MN will soon have fake marriage forced upon them.
Davey, Brian called Dan out in one of the NOM Newsletters. Dan accepted and offered to have the debate at his house; but it was Brian's idea/model.
@Davey
Exactly what AM said.
Ash said it better, Zack
Serious-minded people do not have "dialogues" about whether phony businesses run by quacks merit patronage. Pray-away-the-gay is bogus, as bogus as an exorcism, and as bogus as anything in "Christian Science." Pray-away-the-gay is obviously non-scientific, and anti-scientific, as it is fueled by a negative judgement against homosexuality. Being gay is not an illness, but even if it were, no legitimate medical professional would engage in casting aspersions on the patient. Stigma still attaches to alcoholism, for example, but no doctor stigmatizes a patient who is alcoholic. Every quack who sells Pray-away-the-gay snake oil engages in stigmatization of their gay victims.
Well, Scott, that's quite a rage ball vent there, buddy, but you have insignificant problem.
Ex-gays.
Thousands of them.
Posting everywhere.
Including here.
Your faith-based worldview suffers from this notable defect.
Just sayin'.....
@AM
I meant to write Ash. Heh heh, it's the heat daggone it!
Lol ex-gay, let us know when you come back out of the closet.
No Davey: You got it backwards. You are not fully informed (how backwards). It was Brian Brown who, after some High Schoolers walked out of Dan Savage's lecture, and Savage bullied them as they left the room, challenged Savage to a debate on the Nomblog. How confident you are that you are correct, while being incorrect(!)
Give Scott a Rose. I will challenge you on the scientific aspect of gay marriage, if you can find one. 'Anyday, anyplace.' But, first, show me any current piece of legislation for 'gay-marriage' in the whole USA, State or Federal. Take all the time you want, to find one. And, yes, you can include links in comments at nomblog, but each blog has its rules. If you add a link through your silly dotcom maneuver, you think the moderator doesn't read it? Who would want to post a comment amongst 200+ ad hominem irate comments not moderated by a real person?
@Little Man: Actually the kids while yes Savage took the wrong approach, were still rather ridiculous for being unable to take a joke. Also your post to Scott honestly had very little grammatical sense. I could barely understand what you were asking Scott. Try talking with a tad more grammatical correctness and then maybe people will respond to you with answers. Honestly, I read your post and couldn't help but ask myself: 'What is he asking? I'm confused.'
"Marriage has always been for the expressed purpose of uniting two people of the opposite sex into a union of “one flesh” for the purpose of raising families."
People, people, people, we are allowing homosexuals to frame this so-called debate for us. We get wrapped up in purpose of marriage because homosexuals claim that marriage is a right. Whereas, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT no more than being a man or a woman is a right or being a dog is a right. Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman, period.
When a same-sex couple says they should be allowed to get married, the reply should be, "That's impossible, because you are of the same sex. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman." "Why is marriage the union between a man and woman?" Why is a man a person with a penis? Why is a woman a person with a vagina?
All arguments then flow from definition not rights. Rights are full of slippery slopes and subject to emotional persuasion. Definitions are fact; no discussion permitted. Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years; you want to change that on what basis? Because you want rights flowing from that definition? Bulls!t, go seek your rights elsewhere, not by games of semantics.
We let our smarts and propensity for intelligent debate get in the way of the obvious, folks. There is no debate when the facts are stipulated.
I should add that in the Loving case and all cases preceding it, the definition of marriage was implicitly stipulated. What Loving really stood for is that you cannot deny a mixed race man and a woman couple from being called married, because by definition they can form a marriage. A contrary result would be akin to saying a Black man is not a man because he is Black. A Black man does not have a RIGHT to be called a man; a Black man IS a man. Fact.
Here's an analogy for ya: I want the "right" to print my own money. I can argue ad infinitum about the injustice of the government's monopoly on printing money, or I can argue that money IS defined by the fact that the government prints it. Your "money" is not money, end of story.
Sean: Can you take a joke? It would be very easy for me to ridicule you, and see how much you can take. Don't understand? I understand why. That's funny. Why would i care if anyone answers my comments? You did, so i succeeded? That's funny too
You mean Savage went to give a lecture on Journalism, and instead was just joking around? It is quite funny they way he showed his ignorance. Even students saw right through it. Next time he gets invited by a school maybe he will instead go into explaining how two men can engage in his 'novel' version of 'sex'. That's not the sexual act - that's punishment! Funny. You have more jokes?