The Smackdown in Seattle


The Smackdown in Seattle

By Frank Schubert

My friend and NOM's President Brian Brown absolutely put a smackdown on Dan Savage the other day in their grand debate about marriage in Seattle, Washington. For those who don't know him, Savage is the foul-mouthed face of the gay marriage movement. To understand how badly Brian demolished Savage, consider this: Savage is complaining about the subject chosen for the debate (which his hand-picked moderator selected); he's complaining about the location (his own dining room table, also his choice); The New York Times reporter who moderated decided to write a kitschy odd-ball article about the encounter (including how he was drunk), rather than a substantive review of the debate, and Savage has buried the video of the debate down near the bottom of his own website.

In other words, Brian so demolished Dan Savage that gay activists and the media now want to bury it.

Let's begin at the beginning. You may remember when Savage was a keynote speaker at a national conference for high-school journalists, held in Seattle. The creator of the "It Gets Better" anti-bullying campaign, Savage is himself a renowned bully. During his "lecture," Savage was true to form and used the occasion to berate the young Christians in the audience who were compelled to attend, mocking their faith, calling the bible "B...S..." and ridiculing people who accept the bible's teaching on homosexuality. After this diatribe had gone on for a while, some students began to walk out, and they were targeted by Savage with hateful and insulting comments. You can watch the video here, but be forewarned—Savage seems unable to communicate without resorting to cursing and invective.

Anyway, Brian saw the clip of Savage berating the teens and he immediately called him out in an email to NOM supporters, challenging him to a debate anytime, anywhere. "I'm here, you name the time and the place," Brian wrote. "Let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back." A few days later, Savage accepted the debate challenge in a three-word post that included an f*bomb. (Savage's incessant use of the f*bomb and similar language reminds me of the great line from the film "Broken Trail," when the character played by Scott Cooper asks the foulmouthed matron of a bar, "Do you kiss your mama with that mouth?")

I don't imagine that Dan Savage realized what he was getting himself into. It's my sense that our opponents have a view of us as bumpkins and boobs, reliant solely on our belief in God, and unable to defend our position on the basis of reason and rationality. But if you know Brian Brown, you know that he's an Oxford University-educated and intellectually gifted advocate who can combine philosophy, religious history, natural law and economics in mounting a reasoned defense of marriage. He's one of our movement's many brilliant advocates, not the least of whom include NOM's co-founders Maggie Gallagher and Robby George.

Dan Savage picked the location of the debate—Savage's own house. Savage picked the debate moderator, New York Times reporter Mark Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer, a supporter of same-sex marriage, picked the topic: "Resolved, Christianity is bad for LGBT persons," which both Savage and Brian accepted. And Savage insisted that the debate be recorded, no doubt relishing the thought of pushing out clips to a waiting gay activist community, anxious to see him take on the "evil" Brian Brown. Brian agreed, asking only that both sides get the full video to make publicly available.

I don't know too many people who would accept a debate under such circumstances, where even the moderator is openly on the other side. Yet Brian not only accepted, he embraced the opportunity… and he went on to demolish Savage!

As a political consultant, I've seen my share of debates. I could tell immediately that Savage was not up to the challenge. He appeared nervous and stilted, and he had pages of notes in front of him. No doubt he'd been very heavily coached. He managed to avoid the use of the f*bomb entirely, but was not able to avoid the occasional reference to bull excrement. Brian on the other hand was comfortable, confident in his subject matter, laughed easily, and had no notes.

The debate lasted just over an hour. Some of you have already watched it in its entirety. But I realize that not everyone has the time in their busy schedule to watch the full debate, so I went through the video and picked out about ten minutes of highlights. Please take a few minutes to watch.

What you will see is a passionate, reasoned, articulate defense of marriage, and a presentation of the profound public good it serves. You will see Brian demolish Dan Savage's arguments that the bible cannot be believed when it comes to marriage. You will see Brian make a case about the inherent nature of marriage, and how that nature cannot be altered. It is what it is and it cannot be redefined. Gay "marriage" can never exist, Brian explains, because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman.

Most of all, you will see Brian make a reasoned argument about the very nature of marriage as society's way of connecting children to their parents, and about how marriage is and always must be about something more than satisfying the desires of adults. If marriage is only about the public recognition of the relationships adults want for themselves, Brian asks, then why would this recognition be limited to just two people? Why not three, or four, or even more? Dan Savage struggles with the polygamy/polyamory argument, first bristling about having to answer it, and then articulating (poorly) what is essentially an economic argument against the practice—that under a polygamist regime, high-status men will accumulate many wives because of their status, which would create a shortage of women for less accomplished men. That would be unfair, Savage argues. Hmmm. I can think of a lot of arguments to mount against the inherent immorality of polygamy, but an appeal to economic equity isn't one of them.

As an aside, take a look at the statue of Jesus behind Dan Savage in some of the clips. Notice how he has it adorned with what appears to be press passes and convention tags, along with a "NYC Pride" badge. That tells you all you need to know about how the nation's leading gay marriage advocate feels about the role of faith in America.

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the marriage debate over the last few years is the way elitist judges and media commentators sanctimoniously contend there is "no rational basis" for maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This pabulum is served up regularly on the editorial pages of The New York Times and others in the elite media. And it's what the corrupt gay former federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled in declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. As the campaign manager for Prop 8, I was on the list of potential witnesses that Ted Olsen and David Boies were to call at the trial. Regrettably, they didn't have the guts to put me on the stand where I could deliver a reasoned, passionate defense of the institution of marriage.

The other day in Dan Savage's dining room, Brian Brown spoke for me, and for millions of others, and he did so brilliantly.

Sometime later this year, the US Supreme Court will very likely accept a case that will be the Roe v Wade of marriage. They will be set to determine if there is, indeed, a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Brian Brown answered that question resoundingly in the affirmative during the Smackdown in Seattle. Someone ought to forward a copy of the debate to the justices of the Supreme Court. If they see it, it will be game, set and match.

Bravo, Brian!

Frank Schubert is NOM's National Political Director. He managed the successful marriage campaigns in California, Maine and North Carolina and is managing all four campaigns on the November ballot this year.

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.


  1. Posted August 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink


    Great piece.

    Frank, your work on the campaigns has been absolutely amazing- I still think "whether ya like it or not..." is the greatest political ad in US history.

    It is a rare treat to get to see you at work behind the word processor.

    I would especially love to know your assessment of the current state of the campaigns in MN, MA, WA, and MD.

    I would like to start prioritizing my resources as a volunteer and as a financial contributor.

  2. Posted August 27, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    You must not have watched the same debate I did. While the topic ("The Bible") was irrelevant as it pertains to civil marriage, I thought Savage acquitted himself well, and presented cogent questions. Brown never presented a reason why his church should hold sway over civil proceedings. And at one point, he had an oogy strand of spittle or something suspended in his mouth. Nasty.

  3. Zack
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I don't know if it was a total "smack down" but this was definitely the best I've seen Brian Brown. Dan Savage made some good points, but emotional arguments only get so far and don't hold water when debating statistics or any amount of facts.

    Brian Brown did a good job referencing history, I even learned a few things. Heh heh.

    At the intellectual level, Brian Brown won the debate hands down.

  4. Richard
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Miller pronounced the entire night a waste of time. “Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty,” Mr. Miller wrote in an e-mail. “In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.”

  5. Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Who is "Mr. Miller", and why should we care about his conflation of reasoned debate with "cruelty"?

  6. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    A person who champions virtue, would never take offense at Brian's words, or the words regarding marriage and/or moral sexual behavior from the Scriptures.

  7. Richard
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    @Rickster, you don't have to care, just another perspective that Brian doesn't come across as a hero to everyone, mainly only to the choir. Personally, I saw his behavior to be pretty much as depicted by Mr. Miller.

  8. Posted August 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Well, in that case my condolences to Mr. Miller, who will judge debates better when he learns the difference between honest disagreement, and "cruelty".

  9. John
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Savage first said the Bible was wrong on slavery, when Savage himself was wrong about the type of slavery the Bible condones..indentured servanthood. Savage also completely misunderstands the laws of the virgins and takes it out of context. He also confuses the ritual laws that God ONLY gave the Israelites vs the moral laws which God gave to everyone. And here's the thing..the Israelites ACCEPTED THE TERMS. They didn't have too. God made a covenant with them. When Jesus came, the ritual laws were done away with because he fulfilled the law. The moral law, however, was not abolished.

    Savage also keeps trying to say his behavior is okay because Christians do this and that..but that does nothing to exonerate his behavior. It's like saying "well, some Christians beleive divorce is okay, so I believe adultery is okay as well." No, it's not. You can't justify one behavior by questioning another.

    Finally, Savage likes to think that because he feels the Bible is wrong, then the whole Bible needs to be thrown out. The BOT condemns adultery, murder, cheating, lying, stealing, bearing false witness (which Savage does by his false claims on the tax exemption and on Biblical slavery), fits of rage, etc. Should that also be thrown out? No. He wants to throw out hte baby with the bath water, and he can't. It boils down to this. Brian had the facts straight. Savage didn't. And all Savage could do to defend his behavior was attack other behaviors, which does not in any way excuse his.

  10. Michelle Roberts
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    "Unique and special."

  11. byrd
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Savage is wrong on just about everything he says and thinks. Savage emits more ignorance in one
    minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
    In many ways, I feel bad for him and who he has become. He epitomizes what he claims to fight against.
    Such a shame.

  12. leviticus
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    What about all the innocent and helpless little children that are indoctrinated into homosexual identity politics like this?

  13. Little man
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    Beware of the people who think they know so much about the Bible - like Mr. Savage is the son of a minister. When they preach their opinions in circles that are out to discredit the Bible message, they are used to getting pats on their back, and so they get overconfident. Sooner or later they meet up with someone with more in-depth knowledge of the Bible and a reasonable interpretation, and it is a shock to them. Their world crumbles away. Savage's argument is that same-sex civil marriage is not accepted by society because so many people believe the Bible. Actually same-sex civil marriage proponents have done so well BECAUSE of Christians who don't believe the Bible. They "cherry pick" which parts of the Bible they want to believe and are not submissive to the Bible's message. Ideologically, they set themselves ABOVE the Bible; that is, their limited knowledge and brain power is what they use as a starting point. Therefore, the Bible cannot teach them anything they don't already accept themselves. I mean, look at the Bible, a set of books that includes the idea of miracles, the idea of resurrection, and the idea of prophesy (telling the future). That's no mere book on morality. But it is a book that somehow creates changes of will in people. Yet it also says some are :

    Romans 1:28
    King James Version (KJV)
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    All religious people have a right to vote. Yes, if we could, lying would be prohibited more strictly. We just don't have the votes because most people are liars.

  14. Chairm
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 3:31 am | Permalink

    The encounter had Savage play his favored role of attacker but he could not score the slamdunk that his arrogance had promised. He performed badly under the basket as well as at the 3-point line - to continue to basketball metaphor.

    Brown answered Savage's charge of "BS" and that left Savage with little more than a defiant attutude minus the substance to justify his defiance and arrogance and hostility. It illustrated the usual pro-SSM vogue.

    Frank Schubert summed-up how he'd score the debate by assessing Savage's own follow-up.

    If there are pro-Savage commenters here, what criteria would you use to score the debate? And what are the highlights you would put together in a short compilation of video clips?

    Readers might be interested in the substance-to-emotion ratio in the pro-Savage assessment.

  15. David in Houston
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    I find it interesting that the author "can think of a lot of arguments to mount against the inherent immorality of polygamy", yet doesn't have a problem with Brian making a slippery slope argument about polygamy that literally has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. Historically, polygamy has always been between one man and multiple women. It was legal in the U.S. until 1899. So if Brian is truly concerned about the threat of polygamy (highly doubtful), then it might be best to ban opposite-sex marriage since it's already led to polygamy in the past.

    If marriage were only about "society's way of connecting children to their parents" then one would assume that the state and government would have a very strict criteria that straight couples must qualify for in order to take part in that institution -- suffice to say, the ONLY criteria is that you have to be straight. If the state only cares about marriage because of procreation, then why do they oversee marriages involving senior citizens or infertile couples or straight couples that don't want children? Even Brian admitted during the debate that straight married couples aren't obligated to have children. Which makes one wonder how anyone can use hypothetical children as an argument to disenfranchise gay couples, when they don't use that same exact argument to disenfranchise non-procreating straight couples? A childless straight couple, for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same as a childless gay couple. In fact, some gay couples (like Dan and Terry) ARE raising children. Which would actually make them MORE qualified to be married than a straight senior citizen couple --- if the care of children is the main reason why the state regulates marriage.

    When actual logic proves too difficult for Brian, he resorts to circular reasoning by saying that, "Gay marriage can never exist because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman." You might as well say, "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, because marriage is between one man and one woman." That's not a reasoned argument. He's simply stating his chosen ideology.

    I agree with Mr. Schubert about supplying a copy of the debate to the Supreme Court. When they hear Brian say, "Just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn't mean you should make it illegal.", it truly will be game, set and match. Just not the way Frank expects it to be.

  16. B DeCicco
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I think the most important thing about this debate, and its being aired on video, was the contrast in the emotional tones of Brown and Savage.

    Savage seemed sullen and irritable, as if he had a bone to pick, whereas Brown seemed controlled, soft, and calm: At times it was like viewing a calm father attempting to use reason on a self-righteous and demanding teenager.

  17. Kim
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    I wouldn't call this debate a smackdown because Brian Brown wasn't able to articulate the full rational definition of marriage. Clearly the state can not define marriage. It can only issue licenses to recognize what the majority of the people define as marriage. If most people in a population (as we have now) think marriage is simply a relationship entered in to for their personal pleasure, then the state can't do a thing about that. If people are going to abuse the idea of marriage by insisting on getting a license when they can't even join together sexually (like the Mendez situation) or thumbing their nose at the idea that this union is something permanent by demanding divorce or ignoring the fact that one of the ends of sexual union is the creation of children by deliberately sterilizing their acts through contraception, then there is absolutely nothing the state can do. The problem with this whole marriage debate is that the heterosexuals have destroyed the meaning of marriage and are therefore unable to coherently defend it (quite frankly, most heterosexual married people don't even seem to want to defend it). It is probable that our society will have to lose marriage entirely in order for it to be able to re-discover again the only logical definition of marriage upon which a society can survive: that it is the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman who are open to the procreation of children. That's not a religious definition, it is the only rational definition that prevents marriage from becoming solely a relationship for the personal pleasure of any combination of humans. The state can't force that rational idea on anyone; the people have to figure that out for themselves. And If the Churches are unable to articulate and convince people of that rational definition of marriage, then they will have to suffer some pretty bad consequences, not the least of which is the loss of religious freedom.

  18. Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    @ Kim #15:


    You are that most dangerous of all things, an honest thinker.

    I am something much less.

    I intend to fight to preserve what remains.

    But your argument above is resplendently truthful.

    I could not refute a syllable of it even if I had a mind to try.

  19. Jon
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    If the debate was such a smack down, why are the vast majority of YouTube comments in support of Savage, and why do they claim that Savage easily won the debate?

    Honestly, NOMers who watched the debate are going to think Brian Brown clearly won, and SSMers are going to think Savage clearly won.

    For example, B DeCicco says that "Brown seemed controlled, soft, and calm: At times it was like viewing a calm father attempting to use reason on a self-righteous and demanding teenager." I, however, thought it looked like Brown was agitated, had gotten red in the face, was leaning forwards awkwardly and was over-dressed for the occasion, which was not helped by the unnoticed spittle between his lips in one of the close-up shots of him later in the debate. On the other side, Savage was relaxed, calm, and obviously more prepared with facts and statistics (a big pile of reference papers and books on his side, only a notebook for Brown).

    I think Brown looked like a fool at a few times:

    1) When he was asked about how heterosexual marriages would be negatively affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage, he could come up with nothing besides a) he would be called a bigot, b) the idea of marriage as the unity of the two halves of humanity would no longer exist, or, in other words, there would be no real effect.

    2) When asked about his stance on divorce, he used the reasoning, "Just because you don't believe something is right, that doesn't mean you make it illegal." Oh really??

    3) When asked if there was any evidence that could ever change his mind, he said no (Savage said yes and explained what kind of evidence would convince him to change his position). This basically is admission that the debate is pointless, his position is not based upon evidence but on some notion that a same-sex marriage cannot ever be a marriage even if we call it one because his definition of marriage does not include it (note: marriage is created and defined by man).

  20. Cathy
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    I watched the entire debate, and while I applaud Mr. Brown's efforts to explain and support the traditional definition of marriage, I am concerned with some gaping holes in Brown's defense. I think Brown did an excellent job of debunking the myth about the Bible being pro-slavery as well as pointing out that to change the definition of marriage is to open up the institution to any combination of people and things. Brown of course didn't have the time to discuss everything in the span of an hour and I can imagine it was difficult to address all of Dan Savage's claims and the blatantly biased moderator's allegations in the heat of the moment. However, I don't know how one can have an effective argument favoring traditional marriage without being frank about the harmful physical, mental and emotional consequences of active homosexuality.

    Regarding the Mark Regnerus study, Savage mentioned that opponents of the study said it was flawed because, and I quote, "only two of those 248 kids were raised from birth by same-sex couples." That right there shows a red flag, that there's a clear problem in same-sex relationships not lasting long enough to raise a child from birth, or even more than a few years. In Holland, where same-sex relationships are widely supported, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam . AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years . (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York . 1984)

    The allegation of pro-traditional marriage organization FRC voices about the risks of homosexual pedophilia is paramount and is more controversial than ever, given the shooting and their being labeled as a "hate group". Why didn't Brown come prepared to discuss this hot button issue? I wish he could have at least shared some key points from their studies to explain how they came to this conclusion.

    Sharing of studies regarding the homosexual person's lifespan, overwhelming susceptibility to STDs and other physical and mental health problems, high suicide rates that are identical worldwide, even in countries where homosexual lifestyles are widely accepted would have been very helpful examples of the problem with allowing homosexuals to marry and raise children.

  21. David Argue
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I think the title 'Resolved, Christianity is bad for LGBT persons' was totally off the point of SSM. If you want to argue the Bible, that's fine. But if one person believes it is the word of God and the other believes it is stories made up by men, you are never going to come to an agreement. I would have liked to see the title be; 'Resolved - SSM is bad/good for society' @Jon - marriage wasn't created by men, it was just defined. Society saw men and women getting together and producing children and decided that this is the kind of relationship they wanted to promote by bestowing certain benefits upon couples who did this. When that happened, the definition of one man - one woman became intrinsic . It is backed up by science and nature. Two people - two genders. I would have liked to see more discussion on just how SSM would be good for society, taking into account the consequences of the decision. I thought Brian made a good point of that. More harm would come from allowing SSM than would be the good that may come from it.

  22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I think, in response to Jon, it would be more accurate to declare, "[I don't personally see] that there would be any effect (to removing the oppositel-sexed requirement for marriage)."

    And, if one ignores existing laws which DO take into account the two-sexed nature of marriage, one might arrive at the same conclusion. However, even a brief glance at existing law demonstrates that the law fully acknowledges the fundamental differences and complementarity of the male+female. For instance:

    1)consanguinity law: Two opposite-sexed individuals (be they gay or straight) cannot marry, if they are close kin, according to the state definition of kinship. And why is that? Because the state acknowledges that only an opposite-sexed couple is a reproductively complementary pair, and does not wish to endorse or encourage incestuous behavior, or procreation. SSM, of course, makes this argument of no consequences as it does not acknowledge fundamental distinctions between the male and female in marriage.

    2)presumption of paternity: acknowledges that a woman is the bearer of the children, and frequently the sex more burdened, if the father of her child does not fulfill paternal responsibilities. The state supports the wife's claims for support, by implementing presumption of paternity. This law, is, of course, of no consequence if the state begins to ignore the roles of wife and mother, in exchange for Partner A and Partner B.

    These are two examples of the state's acknowledgemeent of the fundamental differences between the two halves of the human race, which SSM promoters choose to ignore as of no consequence.

  23. Kim
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    @Rick DeLano: Thanks for the feedback. To be clear, I too will fight, but right now I've become convinced the most important thing my husband and I can do is model for our three children what marriage is supposed to be. There is a phrase in the bible somewhere that talks about how blessed is the man who can live to see his grandchildren. Quite frankly, given the incredibly self-centered messages our culture gives to our kids today, if I can live to see my children have their own children, I too will feel very blessed. And that is how I intend to win this battle!

  24. Zack
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink


    "If the debate was such a smack down, why are the vast majority of YouTube comments in support of Savage, and why do they claim that Savage easily won the debate?"

    Simple, because most YouTube users are young and have a liberal outlook on life.

    Liberals want so badly to think their boy Savage won that they were blinded by the fact that Savage spent most of his time berating the bible and studies he didn't agree with than actually discussing the points Brown had brought up in regards to history and what happened in states like Illinois and Massachusetts.

    Brian Brown could have done a better job in my opinion. I would have rather see someone like Dennis Prager(yes I'm a huge fan of his) debate Mr. Savage on this very issue.

  25. Chairm
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    Re Polygamy and polyamory.

    1. Polygamy is twosexed, not one-sexed nor sex neutral. It is a series of man-woman unions. The first wife does not marry the second wife. Neither marries the third wife. The sexes are united and paternity is also organized within polygamyous practices whereby the husband is presumed the father of children born to each wife.

    However it is not true to the marriage idea whereby the marital relationship is comprehensive and, as such, is a bodily union. Coital relations is not possible between three or more human beings. Also integration of the sexes is diminished in principle and in practice. The polygamous communities tend to become clannish through intra-marriage along family lines. This diminishes responsible procreation. Overall, in empirical terms alone, polygamy leans on group identity and authoritarianism and otherwise disintegrates the unity of the sexes both privately and publicly.

    2. Polyamory is a group rather than a marital type union. It abandons all major marital norms. But it is no less a subset of non-marriage than SSM.

    It is a rejection of the core meaning of the social institution. It is a rejection of sex integration for it iss focus is on the group's disintegration of sexual fidelity as something to manage rather than forestall. When childbearing and childraising enter the polyamory picture, it does not provide for responsible procreation. It is in practice more like extramarital sexual behavior and extramarital procreation. Polyamory does not unite motherhood and fatherhood. It depends on extrinsic forces to bring order to the arrangement; that is ironic given that the polyamory idea is to privatize how individuals manage these things.

    Anyway, the SSM idea asserts the two person limit but can produce no sound argument to backup that asserted norm. Likewise the SSM idea does not provide sound argument for limiting the one-sexed scenario to just two persons or just one SSM at-a-time. SSMers often shrug at the prospect of dropping the twoperson limit and,like Savage, claim that this is not their cause.

    They can think only of their favored gay identity group. However the proble with that is their pro-SSM argumentation swallows whole both polygamy and polyamory. This is not a slippery slope. The SSMers imagine that SSM would just rely on the core of marriage to justify the lines drawn against polygamy and polyamory. That is, they arbitrarily borrow those lines from marriage even as they attack and reject the core of marriage.

    SSMers might say there is no core. That is a big concession. Without a core ... intrinsic features ... marriage law would have nothing around which to draw a boundary. And nothing to justify the special status of marriage. And nothing to compare the marriage law against so as to figure out if the law got it right or wrong. This renders the imposition of SSM an arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

    That means the SSMer has no just claim against the marriage law. No basis upon which to make an argument for the two-person and one SSM at-a-time. The SSMer undercuts the pro-SSM complaint that the man-woman requirement of marriage law is somehow arbitrary. The SSMer's own pro-SSM remedy is arbitrary ... left unjustified.

    Savage depended on flawed thinking born of gay identity politics and an anti-marriage argumentation.

    The debate topic was about Religion because of the public BSQ that Savage uttered at that public gathering of students. The moderator picked it. Savage had no clue about the lessons taught theough the account of polygamy in Scripture. His superficiality on that point was his reason for dodging and then mouthing a half-cooked idea about economics. Readers will note that, even with that sliffort, Savage touched on the problem of diminished sex integration in polygamous societies. He failed to recognize his inadvertent reminder that SSM has no such basis for objection to polygamous-like SSM ... which would be hard to distinguish from polyamory anyway. So he looked back to the core of the union of husband and wife.

    That is now documented with video of Savage's own words and shrugs.

  26. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    PS, anyone take note that Regenerus (sp?) was exonerated? Good news indeed!

  27. Little Man
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 5:11 am | Permalink

    Kim: I don't believe in heterosexuals. What evidence do you have they exist? Or, do you take their word for it?

  28. Paul Mc
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    @Daughter of Eve: Study conclusions exonerated, no. Misconduct: exonerated.

    Not the same thing.

    The Regnerus study is now available in full online: read it NOM supporters.

    This is not a study on gay parenting at all!!!!

    This is a study of the failure of heterosexual couples to stay together. Look at page 10: 57% 57%!!!!!! of children with valid responses to the question about biological parents still being married answered in the negative.

    Please don't impose on same sex couple standards you can't apply to yourselves. Hypocrites.

  29. Paul Mc
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    @All NOM: Savage was indeed right about slavery.

    In Luke:
    Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

    Unless you think 'indentured servants" should be whipped.

    Also check out Josephus and Herodotus for the contemporay context of te Greek used in the NT and then come back and tell me the words refer to 'indentured servants. BS do they.

    BB put a lot of store in historical meaning of marriage. If only Christians in the south prior to the civil war had read the Bible according to BB's understanding of slavery then perhaps the slaughter could have been averted. Oh but wait, BB benefits from the doctrine of proigressive revelation. How lucky. Pity that doesn't apply to sexuality.,

    Smackdown? No way.

  30. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Paul, the study stands, because no one else has been as thorough or comprehensive. Misconduct? No. Witch hunt inspired by gay political bias? Yes.

  31. Lester Smithton
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    One of pionts that stand out in this debate is Savage's criteria for labeling FRC as a hate organization. He said that it refers the evidence of child abuse by homosexuals and their couples. His own adoption of a child into his perverse family arrangement now suffers harm from his unhealthy and debiitating lifestyle. Just recently, a news report from England exposed the coverup and duplicity of the social worker in regard to child abuse of several young boys by gay couple. Social worker was hesitant to prevent abuse to his concerns about being labeled homophobic. This gay couple was somehow considered pillars of the community.

  32. Chairm
    Posted September 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    That sort of thing has been reported over the years, Lester, but turning a blind eye is the new default that becomes more and more entrenched with the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics.

    Even people sympathetic to pro-gay politics ought to take note.