Brian Brown | Dan Savage | Gay Marriage | NOM | Religion

Dan Savage To Debate Brian Brown!

Brian brownYesterday, Andy reported that the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown has offered to debate Dan Savage about the contents of the Bible:

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

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

(In case you somehow missed it: What's got Brian so hot'n'bothered is Savage's almost month-old speech to a bunch of high school journalists, in which Savage explained that the Bible is no more a warrant to bully gays than it is a warrant to stone wives or keep slaves. You can read about that here.)

Dan Savage has now accepted Brian's offer:

I will name the time and the place, per your offer, as soon as possible. Looking forward to it, NOMnuts.

Think Brian will lose his nerve? 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Cannot wait!! Glad to have found towleroad!

    Posted by: CR | May 5, 2012 9:29:51 AM


  2. "Let's pick on someone our own size!"

    Hey Brian, you wish you and Dan were the same size. Although, I suspect Dan may have the bigger brain.

    Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | May 5, 2012 9:33:16 AM


  3. "I wouldn't dirty myself by being on the same stage as Savage" coming in 3....2....1....

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | May 5, 2012 9:35:12 AM


  4. Don't Be surprised if Brian Brown throws a bucked of holy water on Dan Savage for instant gratification.

    Posted by: Dave | May 5, 2012 9:37:38 AM


  5. This is going to be great...

    Posted by: Dev | May 5, 2012 9:39:25 AM


  6. I'll believe Brian Brown accepting Dan Savage's offer to debate him when I see with my own two eyes both of them on the same stage ready to rumble. If this "debate" goes forward, I would hope it could be transmitted to as wide an audience as possible. But, first things first, let's just see if Brownie backs down or lives up to his own offer to debate Savage.

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | May 5, 2012 9:47:58 AM


  7. Oh, you know how this will go down. This NOMnut will find an excuse/scheduling conflict/physical ailment and this debate will NEVER happen. Although, I'd pay good money to watch it.

    Posted by: Jimbo | May 5, 2012 9:47:59 AM


  8. He'll back down, no doubt in my mind.

    Posted by: JerzeeMike | May 5, 2012 9:49:52 AM


  9. It's a no win for Savage. You can't debate a book of fiction with facts. NOM will fall back on the arguement of who you going to believe god or dan savage and then declare victory. dan can not prove he's not a witch and so he must be.

    Posted by: terry | May 5, 2012 9:56:29 AM


  10. Urghhh... Wish Savage would crawl back into whatever hole he came out of. Such an embarassment to the gay community.

    Posted by: Matt | May 5, 2012 10:17:22 AM


  11. Urghhh... Wish Savage would crawl back into whatever hole he came out of. Such an embarassment to the gay community.

    Posted by: Matt | May 5, 2012 10:17:24 AM


  12. Mr. Brown's remarks come across as really sexist here. This probably isn't what he's intending, but it's reading (to me, at least) like this:

    "Go ahead Dan. Prove you're a real man by debating me. I mean it's easy to make high school girls cry, after all, they're female and not really capable of handling intellectual debate. But we right-wing MEN can take you on!"

    Not NOM's best day when in an attempt to appear tough it ends up appearing sexist even to a socially conservative woman (i.e. yours truly.) Another case of socon "foot in mouth" disease.

    Posted by: mary | May 5, 2012 10:21:09 AM


  13. Yes, a consistently eloquent, witty, charming, no-nonsense, committed, aggressive, compassionate for gay rights and sexual liberation - total embarrassment. Sheesh.

    Ever wonder why he's always turned to by news organizations to be the spokesman for our cause and thus is the de facto spokesman for our cause? Read the preceding paragraph again.

    Who else is out there with that set of attributes? Oh, um, yeah - No One.

    Posted by: Zlick | May 5, 2012 10:23:59 AM


  14. This will be good.

    Posted by: Reality | May 5, 2012 10:26:01 AM


  15. Matt and Zlick, nice try! Dan Savage is a tremendous spokesperson for gay rights and the vast majority of politically aware gay people are very proud to have him as such. Brown is a mental midjet with no scruples.

    Posted by: rapscallion | May 5, 2012 10:29:35 AM


  16. No, Matt, you are the embarrassment.

    Posted by: Michael | May 5, 2012 10:30:11 AM


  17. Heh heh he said nomnuts

    Posted by: TJ | May 5, 2012 10:30:28 AM


  18. Dan can win if he remains claim and simply states the facts. My worry is Dan will be Dan, raise his voice, and start with the name calling. This would cause him to loose even with the facts on his side. Brain is going to go out of his way to try and make Dan loose his cool, and he will most likely be successful. Lets face it, Dan is his own worst enemy.

    Posted by: intristin | May 5, 2012 10:32:25 AM


  19. I posted last night that Dan Savage is an impressive person who would be most useful as one preaching to the choir. For efforts to convert the opposition you'd do much better with Jonathan Rauch as a spokesperson. And here is a perfect example of why. This debate between Dan and Brian will not be a cakewalk for Dan. And even if it were, it won't help the gay community win people over. I guarantee you this. It will help NOM. And this is why Brian made the offer. Because now the issue isn't gay rights. It's whether the Bible is true or not - a wholly separate issue where the gay community loses even if it "wins." The reaction by center/swing voters? "First the gays wanted rights. But now they want to say that the religion I base my life on is a lie? Screw them. I don't need this. They have enough rights already."

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there it is. Jon Rauch would never have walked into a trap like this. Dan should decline. And this has nothing to do with who is the better debater or who is smarter.

    Now here's the debate Dan would win -"Is American law based on the Bible. And if not, should it be?" Brian would never accept a debate with this as the topic - for very obvious reasons.

    Posted by: mary | May 5, 2012 10:36:54 AM


  20. I agree that there's not much point to this debate.

    Brown: I believe in the Bible.

    Dan: I believe in gay rights.

    And we're basically done, but it runs an hour.

    Also, a Brown Savage debate sounds a bit racist.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 5, 2012 10:45:44 AM


  21. Dan's high school speech would have been much more effective if he had not used swear words and language that was only demeaning to the other side. Those are not good debate tactics. I hope that he can refrain from that type of language when he debates Brian. However, referring to Brian as "NOMnuts", funny as that might be, sets the stage that Dan is going to be Dan and just give more fodder to the right about how uncivil / intolerant / radical / etc that we all are. If Dan is going to present himself as a spokesperson for the gay community, he should treat that designation with a certain degree of dignity.

    Posted by: Chadd | May 5, 2012 10:49:03 AM


  22. Mary, I think you're wrong.

    The debate is about the Bible and about SOME Christians misusing it. I'm not sure, but last I looked Rauch wasn't a particular specialist in Christian scripture.

    Dan was raised Catholic. He had a piece recently on NPR about his reaction after his mother's death: she was a devout Catholic all her life, and he felt comforted by going to church, though obviously he has issues with belief and with the hierarchy.

    I think Dan knows the material better, as evidenced by the original speech. He'll probably prepare well and come out with irrefutable points (such as he used in the initial speech).

    It is NOT about whether the Bible is "true" or not. It's about whether parts of the Bible are ignored by most Christians. You're making the same leaps the so-called "Christians" were making. Dan didn't attack the Bible and he didn't attack all Christians. He just pointed out that some Christians misuse the Bible by ignoring some parts while clinging to others -- for their own convenience.

    Posted by: KevinVT | May 5, 2012 10:52:42 AM


  23. Beavis debates Butthead!

    Posted by: Stuffed Animal | May 5, 2012 10:52:45 AM


  24. Yes....I would even pay for a seat in that auditorium.

    It should be a most interesting debate.
    As for a Biblical Debate that should be a cake walk, for the Bible was written by people and using their imaginations- then revised over the thousands of years.

    I so look forward to this....

    Posted by: anthony | May 5, 2012 11:07:33 AM


  25. Do I need to buy the popcorn

    Posted by: Beto | May 5, 2012 11:07:58 AM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Now Playing: 'The Avengers'« «