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.
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.
86 Comments
My favorite moment of the debate:
"Because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean you make it illegal."
Spoken by Brian Brown, at 47:52 in the video.
I like Brian 's articulate response to what marriages will be like 40 years from now if we continue down the road of allowing same-sex marriages. I felt kind of sorry for Mr. Savage he clearly had met his match.
Savage's utterly facile talking points from the so called "new atheists" are as vacuous as the "new atheists" are. He has zero credibility, and the American people in due course will realize he's on the "losing side of history."
High-speed internet challenged.
I need to hear how this went!
Is there a transcript somewhere?
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason."
Thomas Paine
"Because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean you make it illegal"
Brian Brown
I found Mr. Savage to be articulate and informed, which made Brown's response the more awesome.
Brown clearly "won" the debate: He had tradition, logic, natural law, and modesty on his side, and was able to eloquently express this and made Savage look weak and pathetic. I do not dislike Savage, I felt genuine sorrow for him. Brown looked like the Patriarch and Savage came across like a teenager.
Brian Brown was destroyted, per usual.
Mr. Savage should know better than to pit his tiny cherry-picked casual familiarity of the Bible against the vast knowledge of Brian. Maybe it's enough to convince a few people with little or no knowledge, but the Biblical discussion was a solid win for Brian.
Why isn't there more research on same-sex couples raising children? Big laugh. Just look at what happened to Dr. Regnerus. Who in their right mind would even want to take on the subject?
Mr. Savage continues the opposition's penchant for bringing up extreme examples to make their point. Really, the Menendez brothers? Brian called him on that one immediately.
Mr. Brown proved, just like the PropH8 trial, you have no case.
Oh, and another of my favorite parts was when Mr. Brown was asked if there was ever any kind of evidence or study done that proves ssm harms nothing or no one if that would change his mind. Betcha can't guess what he said.
Wouldn't the definition of some who is intolerant be some who will not see another point of view no matter what? Just askin'.
elias:
If there was ever any kind of evidence or study done that proves ssm harms someone, would that change your mind?
elias:
If there was ever any kind of evidence or study done that proves ssm harms someone, would that change your mind?
Question for the NOMmies...IF Romney becomes president and he starts pushing his mormon religious opinions and starts signing into law the mormon way to do things and that takes away from the catholic way or the jewish way, etc., would you think that is right? Should that be allowed? Would you allow it?
Rick,
You're diverting just like Mr. Brown did throughout the entire "debate".
The whole argument of the OT laws Bible comes down to ritual law vs moral law. The laws that were kept in the New Testament were the moral ones (don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc) while the ritual laws were done away with through Jesus (no shrimp, no mixing of garments, etc). Also, many of those ritual laws were not sins in themselves, they made you unclean. It was a convenant God made with the Israelites.(Menstruation for example). Dan is confusing the ritual laws with the moral laws. Martin Sheen did the exact same thing in "west Wing".
Dan doesn't know his Bible history too well..
@eliasasm,
You mean like the way Obama lied about being a Christian and then started demanding everybody embrace his secular religion as the truth according to him, or the way he pretended to defend DOMA in court when he was actually working to undermine its defense?
The most striking aspect of this debate for me was in Savage's refusal to address valid counter-points; and his penchant for leaning on blatant half truths and falsehoods in defense of his demands for special rights for the mythical "Gay."
Savage was completely disingenuous throughout.
“Nobody is being hurt by this…”; followed by “yeah, but they deserved it…”
Eliasasm, are you suggesting that Mr. Romney would do that which President Obama has done, which is to create and enact legislation, via the Executive branch of government, without the consent of congress as the legislative branch? I venture to say that if Mr. Romney did no such thing as governor of Mass., we can expect him to follow the rule of law as President. Baseless fearmongering (and so silly, at that), does your argument for neutering marriage, no good.
NOM's Brian Brown endorses equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Brown said: "Because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean you make it illegal."
Dan did make the point that his movement is about sexual desires and not about traditional family values.
If opposition to same-sex marriage is bigoted by nature, as Savage wrongly thinks, that means that virtually everybody who has ever lived is a violent, hateful bigot, including the greatest minds, artists, thinkers, philosophers, statesmen, saints, religious leaders and humanitarians that the world has ever produced, including Christ himself.
What Savage doesn't know, makes him the ill-informed, blistering moron that he is.
Who was the one to interrupt during the other's time in this debate? -- Mr. Savage (not even his real name).
He broke the rules. Why? Because he could. Fundamentally, he likes breaking rules.
He's in his own home (which is why he wanted it that way).
And then the moderator became a debater on Mr. Savage's side. A total set up, but Mr. Brown is well immersed on the actual facts of the issue, and there's no way around them. Public policy is not built on sympathy alone.
This was an intelligent defense of the public policy of marriage (exclusively as 1man and 1 woman), tying to the historical understanding of what marriage essentially is for the good of society (not for the good or comfort of a few individuals).
As public policy, there's also a reverence for the man-to- woman-union - a reverence beyond the reverence for friendship. Yes, friends can adopt if no one else wants the child. But, who wants the teenage children available for adoption? Not even they (the same-sex homosexual couples).
Mr. Brown is equipped with authoritative and logical answers that Mr. Savage did not know of (he just thought himself knowledgeable).
Mr. Savage talked down and insulted Christian journalism award winners in the conference on journalism. These Christians who walked out of his lecture were ridiculed and called names (bullied). And he believed an apology fixed everything. He makes his own rules.
Let's see when and where Mr. Savage can do the same with someone 'his own age'. Notice the pencil or pen twirling around, and notice how his temper gets the best of him. 10,000 illogical arguments don't count as one good one, Mr. Savage. You reason from your cherished self-serving conclusion, backwards (and i mean 'backwards'). Don't we all, sometimes?
I just wanted to add one little detail about the topic of slavery, which according to Mr. Savage is an argument pro-same-sex marriage (not just pro-'gay'-marriage which is never considered for public policy), because allegedly the Bible promoted slavery, and therefore that justifies going against anything the Bible teaches. It didn't - it promoted surviving in the work system which included slavery, and molding it from the inside out (from slave owners, out to the abolition of the institution of slavery).
What made slavery cruel was the merchant trade in slaves from one society to another, across the oceans in cramped trade ships driven by sails; and most slaves in the US were taken from their society's and transported to the US territories by cruel means. What Christian would agree to that? Unfortunately, some did, and it caused the Civil War.
But the issue, at first, was the good treatment of slaves, not slavery per say, generally in zones where slaves were needed to support an agricultural infrastructure. Then came the de-humanizing factories.
Even today, we have slaves - they are illegal Mexicans who work under inadequate conditions in farms, at way below the Minimum Wage. And many Americans just look the other way.
Before the invention of the steam, coal, or gasoline engines, slavery was a crude and cruel way of getting cheap labor. It was only possible and stable as public policy through relatively good treatment of the slaves.
Notice the biblical writers do not tell the slaves to rebel. To do so would be suicidal for both. Nor does the bible tell people to rebel against Kings (also suicidal, in those days).
The Bible changed the institution of slavery from the inside out, first telling slaves to obey their masters. Christianity at the same time promoted scientific advances with a philosophy that nature can be understood by human reason (an assumption derived from Scripture) and the scientific revolution did away with the pragmatic endorsement of all kinds of slavery, by making it unnecessary (replacing the worker with machinery, an ongoing evolution).
It was Christians who recognized slavery in the Bible was not the kind of slavery they were seeing as an international, cruel, trade in human life, and most captives died during cruel transport in the ships crossing to Europe or the USA. It created a racial minority within the USA.
Mr. Savage attempts to begin with a topic we all agree on, and by slide of hand lead the argument to sympathize with homosexual friendships, and finally lead to - not 'gay' marriage - but same-sex marriage as a public policy. There's incredibly big jumps in associations and analogies in Mr. Savage's argument.
No. The Bible did not promote slavery. It first made it livable, and ultimately replaced it with something better - MOTORS.
Even if the Bible promoted slavery and we ignored this as a biblical teaching, does not justify everything we would want to institute as public policy.
Mr. Savage is the one cherry picking what parts of the Bible he likes and which he doesn't.
Rick: If you download the video, first, then you can watch it running continuously on your computer. It was amazing!! Packed with ideas, though not always relevant.
"Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean that you make it illegal." - Dan Brown
Hypocritical BS! Then what he said to defend himself is absolutely stupid! THIS is why people have turned against religion!
Brian Brown was superb in this debate....
Brown can't debate his way out of a paper bag. Christians don't own the definition of marriage. It's all about intolerance and 100 years from now (hopefully sooner) they'll be regarded the same way as the ones who burned people at the stake for being left-handed, something we now know to be a natural occurence, just like homosexuality. Get used to it folks. Dan Savage rocks.
Wow... this savage guy is right from the play-book. Wow, what a lightweight,, a total shotgun approach in his introductory statement were he mentioned everything from slavery, to homeless gay youth, to the recent gay parenting study.
Brian Brown on the other hand had real cohesion to his thought and articulated his points in a comprehensive way.
Fitz (and others), what bubble are you living in? Really, you can't be serious, although I'm sure you are. Brian was eaten alive, throughout the debate. Both he and Savage were respectful towards each other, but Brian's arguments are exactly why marriage equality will be the norm. May not be tomorrow, this year, or even next year, but it will happen. Then the rest of you can resume your sad lives, as though nothing ever happened. You'll never even realize any change.
Brian, congratulations.
Your insistence that, given same sex marriage, there can be no logical basis to deny polygamous marriage, stands unrefuted and unrefutable.
Slam dunk for Brown.
Stefan
You basicly declared victory and then engaged in triumphalistic declarations of "inevitability"..
Not
My not was a response to Rick. I'm not declaring victory. What ever happens will happen. It's certainly nothing I have any control over. I thought (and I hadn't even heard of Savage prior to a few months ago) Savage raked Brian over the coals, hands down, but of course that's just my opinion. I'll continue to support what I feel is right as will you. I do feel that marriage equality will be the norm at some point and that it's just a matter of time. Either way, it won't impact me other than my straight marriage having more meaning to me once marriage equality is granted to all couples.
If it happens, what will it mean to you?
It would mean that marriage has been redifined, that nothing about a Father or Mother is essential in raising children and that those who believe marriage is between a man & woman will be considered bigots by their own goverment.
here's a better way to say it..
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
@Fitz
Is it quotes time? Okay.
"“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.
As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.
As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government."
Jan van Lohuizen, Republican pollster for George W. Bush.
Feel free to disagree that times are changing, though.
Moderator: "Are you, for example, in favor of making divorce illegal again?"
Brian Brown: "No, just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean you make it illegal." Hummm...
I wonder, should SSM become the law of the land in any of these commenters' home states, and the chances of repeal becomes close to nil (re: Canada, The Netherlands, etc), would you continue to encourage your heterosexual children to enter into this now contaminated, politically co-opted union? Or would you find a new word for the heterosexual union so magical it requires its own designation?
(and before I get comments of how I've "admitted" a secret gay agenda, please note that my descriptions of "contaminated, co-opted", etc are, as ought to be clearly visible, sarcastic.)
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It's never been the union of a man and a man, nor a woman and a woman.
If homosexuals want to commit to someone that is the same gender, why don't they come up with their own name for their thing.
ADD to our culture rather than *subtract* from it.
Insisting that their new thing be called "marriage" takes away society's recognition of the uniquely special union of a man and a woman.
The union of a man and a woman isn't something we may recognize as special?
Why do homosexual "marriage" advocates want to take away our recognition of the uniquely special union of a man and a woman?
When did we lose the right to have a ceremony, and a recognition of marriage vows and this unique coupling.
It's obviously unique, and special, because it results in children so often.
The union of a man and a man can't be made equal to the union of a man and a woman. They'll always be different.
"Most gays are not interested in marriage. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, there have been only 5,000 among the state's 130,000 gay men."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-marriage-letter-20120423,0,2538700.story
Is it all just about, "as good as you"? Equal? I say, "different".
Why can't homosexuals come up with their own thing?
I feel like they're fighting to take something away from us, and it really seems like the activists hate us.
We can make the laws such that people in the "gay marriages" have the same rights as married couples.
But that can never be enough for them -- because then they'll trot out, "separate but equal" isn't equal. If you can win something by suing, sue? Right or wrong? Just convince yourself you're right?
Here is a subculture that wants to be different, but have the law treat their pairings as equal to heterosexual couples -- different though they may be -- because they don't like being treated differently (or they just don't like the way they're treated, so desperate to demand that everybody accept "it's okay to be gay").
So it's got to be "marriage". Nothing else will do.
Why? "Because we can." (If they can.)
I am homosexual. Here me roar?
By being a special interest group, they've found they can exert great influence over the law, far disproportionately to their numbers.
I'm sorry, but after almost four year of caring about this, I still care about the future that our children will inherit. I don't agree to the redefinition.
@ Andy
Yes a new word would be in order. (Or rather, of course a new word would be needed.)
So in properly educating our growing babies and children we will be able to say (without prejudice or hate) such things as, “I would like to see you “*****” when you grow up.” Meaning: would like to see you joined to the opposite sex in committed union. And or, our children at 5 years of age, will be able to say such things as, “mommy, I want to get “*****” when I grow”. Expressing: I want to join to the parts of the human species that are not part of my own body - and so become a completed human species.
And I want to have my own biological babies and biological family if possible. And I want to give you the gift of biological grandchildren etc. I want to become that thing that symbolizes the mother and father, that unique union that independently creates human life.
Maybe the following will help you to understand: (though its just an aide, for correlation is not identical.)
Same-sex union and opposite-sex union are no more alike to us than are a man and a woman to a gay person. We cannot pretend that one is the same as the other. Calling the two unions the same thing (and or trying to think of them as the same thing is impossible – or hurtful, harmful and oppressive). It would be like asking a gay person to stop making a distinction between a man and a woman when in their sex habits. It is psychologically impossible and intellectually undesirable for us to think that a man-man union is so similar to a man-woman union that they could be called the same thing.
But if we would not be allowed a new word to name the opposite sex committed union, (and the powers that be will do all in their powers to keep such a new word from coming into play) then we would at that time be living unjustly oppressed – (in the closet if you prefer).
What did the man-woman union do to you (except give you life) that such an eventual unjust state of affairs as this should come about?
A new word you ask? Of course one would be needed. And I have some good ideas. But I'll keep them to myself for now. For I don't want the gay community and friends running after me demanding that it should apply to them as well. In their continued attempt to efface and water down in our children's minds the uniqueness of the man-woman union. Yes, it would only be fair to our children if the word marriage were to continue to identify a man woman union, (identify the human species in its completed form).
The SSM movement is fresh out of arguments, and fresh out of ideas.
Let us hope it is also fresh out of bullets.
@Andy King - This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government."
If you don't want government interference in your life, then why are you advocating for government acceptance of your lifestyle, with all the regulatory social and legal benefits that come with it? You can live your life the way you want now. Just call yourself 'married' and go on with your life, and the government will leave you alone.
Rick,
The equal rights movement has not ran out of ideas or arguments. You, like Mr. Brown, divert the arguments or call them lies. Mr. Brown had nothing more than his religious opinions which he claims are facts and any facts that do not agree with his opinions are wrong. Mr. Brown proved the old saying that you all live by, 'my mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts. Mr. Brown blew the "debate" and proved what you people are all about, intolerance. You are right and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong.
And Rick, still waiting for an answer to my question that you diverted from.
A state's redefining marriage also legislates into law, LGBT indoctrination of small children, and does not allow parents who disagree with this to "opt out" their children from the class; for example, David Parker of Massachusetts.
It's up to PARENTS to decide when it's age-appropriate to teach their children about sexuality and reproduction.
Teaching children not to bully others who are different does NOT include LGBT indoctrination.
Geo, the pro-marriage movement has always been about what's best for society, not just beliefs alone. Redefining marriage is not best for society, while in some instances, divorce is. Family is the basic structure of society, we ought to be more careful how we seek to redefine it.
@eliasasm,
It was Savage that went straight for the Bible to justify his position. Brian had no other choice but to refute Savage's blatant lies and falsehoods.
The fact that you folks work this hard at avoiding a conversation on the merits only serves to prove that you have no foundational support for your demands. You are out to change the meaning of what it is to be married for everybody; you are demanding that society acknowledge the acceptability of your depravity; that your proclivity has value beyond the temporal gratification you perceive when you rub your reproductive organ against a same gender companion.
You will find no willing victims here.
I'll answer your question, Ms. King. Yes, I will teach my children that marriage is one of the greatest choices they will ever make in this life. Who we marry affects our posterity for generations. We teach our children correct principles. For example, when discussing SS"M," we're able to point out that, unlike a real marriage, a couple is missing either the husband or the wife, and their children are missing out on a father or a mother. Kids can see the difference, especially when they have both a mom and dad, and value those relationships. Further, when children enjoy a good relationship with both sets of grandparents, and all the cousins, on both sides of teh family tree, and know where they belong, they understand the blessing of that, and the loss, if they were cut off. Futher, when they can look at a family pedigree chart, and see generations of their own ancestors, and hear the stories of their extended family, they know their heritage, and feel the love. They know they'll pass that legacy on to their own posterity. And they'll make sure to pass on the value of no lost family.
It's interesting to note that NOM has copied the original YouTube upload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG804t0WG-c) and linked to a separate one that they uploaded with an embedded NOM logo.
Is the reason because the YouTube comments on the original are overwhelmingly in favor of Savage? Perhaps, or maybe NOM just wants to boost their web traffic by having the video link directly back to them.
Maybe NOM just wanted to upload the video with an embedded NOM logo, or maybe it's part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Excellent job by Brian Brown. It's good to see that the "best" the other side has to offer is so disjointed as to be incapable of cohesive argument.
You read my mind, David Argue!
How logically inconsistent it is to argue for state involvement in and regulation of relationships that don't concern society while lecturing others on the values of limited government?
SSMers don't have good arguments. But Republicans who try to argue for ssm from a small-government perspective engage in some of the worst buffoonery imaginable. I sometimes wonder if they actually understand what they're saying. It's one thing for a libertarian to say that they don't want government involvement in marriage because of small-government aspirations, etc. (I disagree with them). But to argue for *ssm* under the guise of personal liberty is just plain ridiculous.
Dear Mr. Brown and Mr. Savage,
I watched the debate on another site and felt compelled to come to your sites and comment. I never understood the man/woman argument against gay marriage. From your arguments, Mr. Brown, I can say that now I do. What to be done about it? I don't know? But I thank the two of you for the civil discourse. From the debate many issues became clear to me that were not before. Each side has valid arguments. The fact that you two brave men decided to speak face to face shows that progress can be made and I hope it will happen on this issue and many others from the "left/right" that are plaguing our Nation. Mr. Brown, I see your argument that harm can come to the institution of marriage (and therefore society) if the definition of marriage is changed. In fact, I would say that you 'won' the debate on that argument. However, I cannot look to you, Mr. Savage, and tell you that you cannot have what others do; it isn't moral. I believe you, Mr. Savage, 'won' the debate on the theoretical harm vs. actual harm. In short, you are both right. Therefore, it seems that we as a society must come to a decision that pleases neither side completely. I think what the two of you have done is historic and indicates that we can come together as a Nation. In fact, the words "The world may little note, nor long remember" come to my mind. Thank you both so, so very much for your bravery and your humanity. It is my sincere hope that you will continue to work together and understand the power and transcendent possibilities inherent in your debate on this and therefore so many more important issues.
Sincerely
@Tori
I have yet to watch the debate but based on the comments I've read. Yours was the most civil, void of name calling and filled with complete understanding.
I shall watch it in a bit.
There are about 50 comments here and about 1500 on youtube. The youtube comments are overwhelmingly in support of Dan Savage's arguments. This gives me hope that popular opinion is shifting in favor of equality.
Hooray equality!
I feel sorry for a poor kid in that home that is being lied to about the importance of mothers. I wonder if the poor kid will have experience the horrific outcome of same sex parenting that Regenerus found in his research.
Brian did very very well. He does an excellent job representing and defending true Christian ideals.
Obviously Mr. Savage thinks heterosexuals are bad parents, but I have never heard anyone more irresponsible or vulgar. He has a slanted view of history and believes that the end justifies the means. I loved how Brian said that apples aren't oranges and there is no discrimination because homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage.
@Jim said: "The youtube comments are overwhelmingly in support of Dan Savage's arguments"
I did a Google search on "Dan Savage Brian Brown," and the only sites covering this debate besides NOM are all the homosexual and leftist sites. Main stream Americans generally don't seek out homosexual issues; they think it's inconsequential to their lives.
I think Brian and all supporters of "traditional" marriage have a steep uphill battle before them because most heterosexual couples are okay with sterile sex which makes their private behavior no morally different than the private behavior of Dan and his husband. Heterosexual couples have already re-defined marriage as being solely about the mutual pleasure of the two people involved, so I can totally get Dan and his crowd being a little upset that their sexual behavior is randomly exempted from this new definition of marriage which has been brought on our society by all those contracepting heterosexual couples. As far as I can see, the only way our society will return to a "traditional" marriage structure is if a vast majority of heterosexual couples can be convinced of the effect their personal contracepting behavior has had on dismantling the only logical definition of marriage. So as long as our society continues to embrace contraception, we don't have any chance of stopping same sex marriage, or polygamy or whatever other definitions of marriage we can come up with.
Not only that Overcame. But they feel that simply talking about homosexuality or thinking about it is not healthy or helpful to life. They are right.
(We are in a dirty, filthy fights)
As a partisan it's hard not to say that "my guy won and yours lost". However I will acknowledge that it was a good debate and Dan Savage made some good points, however a good portion of his arguments were strawmen and emotionally based. Also from his works, Savage does not believe in monogamy or fidelity which confuses me because he said that Marriage should be between two adults. I think there's a conflict of interests there.
Brian Brown argued from history and from the truth that men and women are inherently different and give something unique to a child that no two people of the same gender can't. I think there were a few times where he seemed to have gotten a bit emotional(or passionate as some would say) but overall he did a wonderful job of articulating the case for Traditional Marriage.
The debate from an intellectual stand point goes to Brian Brown. He won the debate on historical, intellectual and logical grounds.
The emotional argument is won by Dan Savage.
As a partisan it's hard not to say that "my guy won and yours lost". However I will acknowledge that it was a good debate and Dan Savage made some good points, however a good portion of his arguments were strawmen and emotionally based. Also from his works, Savage does not believe in monogamy or fidelity which confuses me because he said that Marriage should be between two adults. I think there's a conflict of interests there.
Brian Brown argued from history and from the truth that men and women are inherently different and give something unique to a child that no two people of the same gender can't. I think there were a few times where he seemed to have gotten a bit emotional(or passionate as some would say) but overall he did a wonderful job of articulating the case for Traditional Marriage.
The debate from an intellectual stand point goes to Brian Brown. He won the debate on historical, intellectual and logical grounds.
The emotional argument is won by Dan Savage.
@Zach
I am happy you watched the debate. I don't know much about the prior public statements from either Savage or Brown. What I do know is that they tried to listen to one another and I think it has the potential to come to good. I hope that all comments on all sites will at least acknowledge this and that the two men will continue to listen to one another. Our country is quite literally depending on this kind of discourse.
Are NOM's supporting commentors still talking about logic and intellect? Your god commands you to remain "simple like a child". Please, leave things like logic and intellect to the adults that don't have imaginary friends...
@JRSJ,
Must marriage corruption supporters take everything out of context?
"Come to me as a child not knowing."
Which means you do not tell God what he means; the Bible is not open to interpretation. It is how we reach enlightenment through a living a God.
This is part and parcel with these truths we hold to be self evident. Marriage corruption supporters can never understand the true meaning of freedom because they refuse to understand the source of our freedom.
Speaking of children where was the child? Why didn't the reporter ask if the child misses his mommy?
@elias #42:
"The equal rights movement has not ran out of ideas or arguments. "
>> Let us hope and pray they have run out of bullets.
"You, like Mr. Brown, divert the arguments or call them lies."
>> Your arguments are based on a foundational bit of illogic- that husbands are not male and wives are not female. All arguments based on such lunacy are easily defeated.
"Mr. Brown had nothing more than his religious opinions which he claims are facts and any facts that do not agree with his opinions are wrong."
>> The fact is that all husbands are male and all wives are female.
"Mr. Brown proved the old saying that you all live by, 'my mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts."
>>The fact is that all husbands are male and all wives are female.
Mr. Brown blew the "debate" and proved what you people are all about, intolerance. You are right and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong."
>> Everyone who denies that husbands are male and wives are female is wrong, as a matter of fact
"And Rick, still waiting for an answer to my question that you diverted from."
>> You mean the one *you* diverted from.
Yes.
Here it is again:
elias:
If there was ever any kind of evidence or study done that proves ssm harms someone, would that change your mind?
Unique and special, unique and special, unique and special. I WIN.
I apologize for the multiple posts....I can never tell when my posts make it through moderation.
@Tori
Exactly
F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You. F*** You.
Tori, thank-you for your comments. (I thank others as well) But Tori your remarks are so heartfelt. And so non-conditioned by ideology.
Ideology is not necessarily a bad thing but I just wanted to say personally I appreciated your coming here and sharing your reactions.
I hope this debate is the beginning of somethign new.
Probably not, but hope is important.
I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ALL AWFUL PEOPLE. YOU ARE DENYING HUMAN BEINGS THE RIGHT TO MARRY THOSE THAT THEY LOVE.
I SUGGEST YOU CEASE KISSING UP TO THAT HOLY BOOK OF YOURS, AND JUST LIVE AND LET BE!
ALSO, I THINK THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE COULD REALLY USE SOME EXPANSION. I MEAN, IS POLYGAMY REALLY THAT BLASPHEMOUS? I ADMIT, I DO FIND IT KIND OF PECULAIR. BUT WE ARE A DIVERSE SPECIES! IF THAT IS WHAT MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY WHY WOULD YOU RELENTLESSLY ATTEMPT TO DESTROY IT?!
JUST RELAX... SO THE REST OF US CAN FINALLY RELAX TOO.
The odd thing is that rarely does "doing whatever makes you happy" really make you happy. There's something about maturity and responsibility and a sense of the bigger picture that comes with true happiness.
graham #72:
Thank you for your honesty.
Those who support gay marriage also, logically, support polygamy.
Fair enough.
Those of us who support neither, are urgently requested to vote against pseudo-marriage and Barack Obama.
Thank you.
Excellent point, Leviticus!
Great job, Brian. Kudos to both of you for your respectful demeanors to each other during this debate.
Now, as to Mr. Savage’s “Christian“ claim…
“Christian” means “Christ-like”, a follower of Christ, a believer of Jesus' words and, therefore, obedient to Him. Therefore, how can one, such as Mr. Savage, refer to the same text which Christ referred to as authoritative on so many occasions (consider Jesus’ reference to the creation account in Genesis where marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, for example) and claim that same text is wrong on issue A, B, and C and yet, in the very same breath, refer to themselves as “Christian“? I’m sorry, but any casual observer can see the logical inconsistency therein. You simply can’t claim you’re any kind of follower of Jesus while saying the texts which Jesus pointed to as authoritative are “lies” and “B.S.”. Mr. Savage’s position on this is simply an untenable one at the most fundamental level.
Of course, this is to say nothing of the logical conundrums that develop for him in light of all the New Testament writings, which, in the course of instructing Christians how to live, clearly condemn engaging in homosexual acts. Many of these NT writings were penned by the Apostle Paul whom, having had a personal experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus, converted to Christianity from Judaism. [And yes, I am well aware that some wish to contend the Pauline epistles are “lies” and “B.S.” as well, but it still doesn’t change the fact that those same NT writings are all part and parcel of the very texts which testify, just like the OT, to the same Christ which Mr. Savage is claiming for his Christianity. So for one to claim these NT writings are also “B.S” and “lies” only further undermines that individual’s claim to be “Christian”.]
On a side note, here’s some interesting reading on the myth about homosexuality in animals:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/08/18/news-to-note-08182012#five
Be sure to also read the article linked therein. Here’s a shortcut:
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
"The fact that you folks work this hard at avoiding a conversation on the merits only serves to prove that you have no foundational support for your demands."
This actually can be argues for both sides. Let's be honest, few to no NOM supporters here will think that Mr. Savage made a good point. Likewise, few to no gay rights supporters will think Mr. Brown made a good point. The whole Brown v. Savage debate is a good reflection of the overall state of the debate. Both parties think they are right, no one is going to give in, each discredits the other's research and everybody says the other makes no point.
The whole debate is moot. It has become stuck in a perpetual cycle where all the same arguments are spit out again and again. Posting here or at a pro gay rights site is good for killing time, but nobody is going to be swayed by arguments on either side.
Gnarly Gnelly: With a user name like that, who would believe your prophesies?
Mr. Brown did explain his remark very well: "No, just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean you make it illegal."
There are many doctrines in the Christian religion (and other religions, and other philosophies) that are not lobbied to make into civil law. Like we don't force everyone to bow down 5 times a day to pray. We don't force everyone to keep the Sabbath (though would be good for Christians too.)
Do i need to number them? But some are more important than others.
Civil marriage for opposite-sex couples is regulated for the benefit of society, not only because it is a fundamental concept in the Christian religion. Secular society sees (and can count) the benefits of civil marriage for opposite-sex couples. That's enough to make it law, according to our US Constitution.
But Mr. Savage (not his real name) did bring forth a revelation: That the matter is really one that pits true Christians against wishy-washy Christians (Christians by convenience). Mr. Savage's project is anti-Christian because without the Bible there wouldn't be any Christians, except by name only.
Where does Mr. Savage's flexible biblical interpretation end? Should we also give up on the dignity of all human beings?
Clearly, cloudy crystal balls attend many such twisty monikers.
@ JS,
If I'm not mistaken, you missed one in line 3.
Anyway, looking forward to chapter two.
Kim: With contraceptives or not, marriage by the State has to save the government money, and it does so my offering regulatory marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples.
There is no needed proof that love abounds in each of these couples. They are regulated by the State just in case they engender children (just sign on the dotted line). Whether they divorce or not - they are regulated and are responsible to the Family Court when things go wrong.
With contraception of not (and, by the way, it doesn't always work) 31 or 32 States have passed laws defending marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman (only).
Up-hill battle? yes. What effort for State Constitutional Amendments do you think are 'down-hill' easy projects?
Because contraceptive pills or gadgets are not 100% effective (maybe read the disclosure on the box), the State still needs to regulate civil marriage.
The point is civil marriage is NOT about love at all. It is love that might lead some couples to sign a marriage license, but love cannot be proven and therefore cannot be the basis for marriage by the State. Hopefully, couples love each other. But obviously, the State makes no requirement as to how long the couple has to stay married, if they can get no-fault divorce. Marriage, is therefore about children, not the love between adults (whether love exists or not). One can get a young wife from the Philippines for some $25,000, without love.
Brian doesn't get it. Like modern atheists, the pro-samesex marriage proponents are NOT arguing on the ontological value of same-sex marriage. They are exclusively on the legalistic/legislative level. It's NOT ABOUT MORALITY. it's about what is feasible under the law.....and in a country where
abortion is "health" and fetuses are not "legal persons" (and nuclear bombs are reasonable) ANYTHING is possible. Brian needs to get on their level to better counteract their "reasons".
@ mortimerzilch
Good input.
With that in mind, what might be some argument points that you would bring up against same-sex marriage (and or Dan's 'reasoning')?
graham hagenah wrote,
>
> I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ALL AWFUL PEOPLE.
At least we're not shouting.
> YOU ARE DENYING HUMAN BEINGS THE RIGHT TO MARRY THOSE THAT THEY LOVE.
The definition of marriage does that, not us -- except to the extent that we don't accept the re-definition you want us to swallow.
> I SUGGEST YOU CEASE KISSING UP TO THAT HOLY BOOK OF YOURS,
I'm an agnostic. I'm not kissing up to the Bible, Quran (which also maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman), or any other holy book.
> AND JUST LIVE AND LET BE!
If your side believed in "live and let live," y'all wouldn't be militantly insisting marriage be redefined.
> ALSO, I THINK THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE COULD REALLY USE SOME EXPANSION.
I respectfully disagree.
> I MEAN, IS POLYGAMY REALLY THAT BLASPHEMOUS?
I wouldn't know.
> I ADMIT, I DO FIND IT KIND OF PECULAIR. BUT WE ARE A DIVERSE SPECIES!
And your point would be?
> IF THAT IS WHAT MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY WHY WOULD YOU RELENTLESSLY ATTEMPT TO DESTROY IT?!
Who's trying to destroy polygamy?
So you advocate changing marriage laws to legalize polygamy?
> JUST RELAX... SO THE REST OF US CAN FINALLY RELAX TOO.<
I've been plenty relaxed.
If you mean by "relax",that we should let homosexual special rights lobbyists redefine marriage, I'd have to ask why they haven't.
You first.
Rick,
I transcribed it. Here's the transcript ...
http://www.truthforamericans.org/2012/08/dan-savage-vs-brian-brown-the-dinner-table-debate/
reply to "preserve marriage":
I don't get it. if you're an agnostic what could possibly be your issue with homosexuals?
if you believe that it's just unnatural, then why does it arise NATURALLY?
homosexual behaviors among animals isnt completely uncommon either.
is that your stance??