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? 

Comments

  1. Mike in the Tundra says

    “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.

  2. Michaelandfred says

    “I wouldn’t dirty myself by being on the same stage as Savage” coming in 3….2….1….

  3. Dave says

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

  4. HadenoughBS says

    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.

  5. Jimbo says

    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.

  6. terry says

    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.

  7. Matt says

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

  8. Matt says

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

  9. mary says

    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.

  10. Zlick says

    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.

  11. rapscallion says

    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.

  12. intristin says

    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.

  13. mary says

    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.

  14. Paul R says

    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.

  15. Chadd says

    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.

  16. says

    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.

  17. anthony says

    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….

  18. Ralph says

    If Dan Savage sticks to the New testament teachings of Christ you know the whole “whatever you do to the least of my brethren that you do unto me” … “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” … ‘when your enemy smites you you turn the other cheek”… the stuff that over-rules the Old Testament stuff that these ‘christian’ philistines ( and islamic extremists for that matter) rely on to justify their hate. Could be an interesting fighting fire with fire type of thing to ask these assholes why they choose to ignore the teachings of christ in the new testament
    But Brian Brown will back down.

  19. Mic says

    “…Urghhh… Wish Savage would crawl back into whatever hole he came out of. Such an embarassment to the gay community. Posted by: Matt…”

    The only kind of person who’d say his (twice) is a Paid NOM Troll as eXposed by their own, embarassing, internal documents.

    We got your number NOM…and it sounds lie this;

    BWAHAHAHAHA…

  20. Tim says

    I would trade my Madonna tickets for this. It would and could become the fight of the century.

    True Dan can be over the top, mouthy, and even offensive, but LOUD is what we need.

  21. jamal49 says

    Here’s the problem I have with Dan. He thinks he is always preaching to the choir. Being right (that is, the logical, fact-based, intelligent point-of-view) is one thing. Being arrogant about being right is another.

    Talking to a group of high-school journalists and using the word “bullsh*t” was stupid, ill-advised and low-class, quite frankly. Mr. Savage is eloquent enough that he could have found another less-vulgar epithet to use to describe his personal opinions about the Bible. That he then went and called those who walked out of his speech as “pansy-@ssed” only added fuel to the fire.

    Dan, these are high-school students. They are not 35-year old sex-columnists, radio commentators, or talking heads on news shows. They’re kids, for crissake! Calling those students who walked out semi-vulgar names because they did so virtually defeated your entire argument about bullying in a snap.

    Are you are really going to debate Bryan Brown about the veracity of the Bible, Dan? If so, I can tell you now: it’s a debate you will lose because–whether you like it or not–belief in the bible is a personal choice. You can choose to believe that the bible is the “true, inerrant, divinely-inspired Word of God” and no amount of facts will ever change that. Remember the Scopes Monkey Trail a century ago. The battle was won but the war was lost.

    If, however, you debate Bryan Brown on whether or not the bible can be used as a foundation or basis for secular law, then you might have a chance.

    Dan, I love you. You’ve done wonderful things (the It Gets Better Project) and you have stood up for the LGBTQ community time and again with wit, humour and courage. But, Dan, vulgarity never wins. Never. Vulgarity in a speech to high school students never wins. Calling christian students or others who walked out because you chose to bash their bible and their beliefs “pansy-@assed” instead of respecting their right to have done so only shows that you need to grow-up just a little bit. Maybe take some classes in “public maturity”.

    We need many debates with the bible-believers but those debates are best done when questioning the bible as a basis for any laws. That type of debate exposes the hypocrisy and surely would silence any of your (and our) detractors.

    Considering that Amendment One is headed for passage in North Carolina by a wide margin, Bryan Brown and Maggie Gallagher and the Catholic Church and the myriad of other enemies who are religiously-biased against us will have yet one more electoral victory to tout that “when Americans are permitted to vote on preserving marriage as between one man-one woman, they resounding vote in our favour”.

    Snarky, petulant, vulgar comments to high-school students do not help our cause. Debating Bryan Brown might not either, but if you are going to do so, Dan, then keep the topic to the use of the bible and its myths as a basis for legislation in a secular society.

    Dan, grow up. You got the balls to face down our enemies. But at this stage of the game, the ONLY thing that is going to work is educate, educate, educate which means telling the truth but in a way that is mature and responsible.

    I have enough of my own horror stories of gay friends and acquaintances over the years who have been beaten, attacked, hurt, raped, bludgeoned, hospitalized, fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, rejected by their families, died alone and forsaken in public shelters or public hospital wards.

    I also have my own horror stories of how counter-productive my outrage and anger has been when confronting the bible-based homophobia that infects our society and our world (witness Africa and Latin America and the rise of evangelical influence there).

    We are getting very close to our own “armageddon” in America where LGBTQ rights are concerned. It has been a long, difficult struggle fought by many caring, committed, righteously angry and, yes, foul-mouthed people (I being one of them). But, here we are in a legal fight for our life where LGBTQ rights are concerned.

    The bigger picture is this: Mitt Romney (depending on who his VP choice will be) could very well defeat Pres. Obama in November AND the House republicon majority could increase AND the Senate could have a republicon majority and no one–least of all you, Dan–needs to be told how DISASTROUS that will be for women, for minorities, and for us LGBTQ people.

    Such a scenario guarantees several Constitutional amendments being sent to the states by Congress–marriage is hereby defined as only between one man-one woman and no other civil relationship permitted; reproductive decisions made by consenting women being forever prohibited, whether it is abortion or contraception; the declaration that the only legal sexual acts are those between the marital union of one man and one woman; the criminalization of gay sexuality.

    Anyone reading here who believes such things can NOT happen in America had better take a couple of shots of Red Bull and wake the hell up. It can. And, it will if we continue to have these senseless debates about whether or not the bible is “true”.

    Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass someone wants to believe it is true or isn’t true. I gave a rat’s ass if laws are being legislated to govern a secular society based on so-called biblical “truths”.

    These are dangerous times, Dan Savage. Debate Bryan Brown at your own peril. But, if you do, at least make it a debate worth having and tone down your smirky, snarky, arrogant demeanor.

    It works on Bill Maher’s show. It didn’t work with those high-school students. And it sure as hell won’t work in a debate with one our most repugnant yet pungent enemies.

  22. Clint says

    I appreciate Dan’s sentiments, but we really need a progressive theologian to debate about Biblical authority, not a radio personality. His previous rant tells me he doesn’t have the right words to say what he’s trying to say, and there’s nothing more frustrating than watching someone debate something and knowing that someone else, even someone you know personally, could do better than the one (self-)appointed.

    It’s this simple, really. For Christians, Jesus is the Word of God, and the Scriptures point to him, sometimes very imperfectly. All Scriptures are inspired by God, for better or worse, but Jesus IS God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, of one substance with the Father. Not the Bible. This is classical Christian language that turns this debate on its head. But I doubt that Dan Savage is conversant enough with the tradition to grind this shithead into the ground. That’s really too bad.

  23. says

    @ Mary the Troll: Whether The Bible is “true or not” IS the issue. This compendum of fairy tales has been used to wage war against us overall, and murder and torture us in speficied instances. You and yours have declared war on us “Mary>’

    Good.

    I take no prisoners and I hope Dan won’t either. I can’t imagine Brian Brownshirt backing down. He has no idea of what he’s in for. As the “Religious” have made abundantly clear our existence is The End of Them.

    Good.

    The faster the better.

  24. TEC says

    I would rather see Brian Brown try to debate Mel White, a guy who has been to seminary and really knows the Bible – that’d be something! But I’m sure Brown would never take that chance. Savage is probably an easier target for Brown and his cronies to trash after he gets his butt kicked in the debate.

  25. Randy says

    The debate is NOT about the veracity of the bible. It is not even about whether there are admonishments against gays.

    Dan’s premise, for those who actually saw his video, assumes that the bible has veracity and condemns gays. He basically gives up the argument and agrees that it does.

    What he IS saying is that the bible says a whole lot of other things. It promotes slavery, and has been used to promote slavery for thousands of years. It promotes treating women as second class (at best) and has been used to denigrate women in society for thousands of years. It has been used to promote racism and all sorts of things.

    Today, though, Christians over look those parts of the bible and even go so far as to write them out of current editions. Christians conveniently ignore those passages. Dan is merely saying that if you can get past God’s approval of slavery and God’s insistence of treating women and minorities as some sort of necessary evil, then they can and should get past their hangups on gays.

    That’s all.

    If Dan sticks with that, it’s a winner, because of course the bible promotes slavery and was used to uphold that peculiar institution. Most people, and most Christians, don’t understand that. Brian certainly doesn’t. But he won’t be able to deny the actual words of the bible.

    I’m looking forward to this.

  26. jexer says

    They need a moderator or it will just end up with both of them talking over and past each other for the full ‘debate’.

  27. Paul R says

    Would some of you shorten your comments? Please? We’re not looking for dissertations.

  28. Chadd says

    @Paul R. Agreed. A “comment” really should not be longer than the original post.

  29. Seattle Mike says

    I bet Brian Brown will get a convenient message from “the Lord” telling him not to do it.

  30. FuryOfFirestorm says

    Photo caption: “This invisible penis is SO chewy! I’m biting and pulling as hard as I can!”

  31. Drift2 says

    @PaulR / Chadd: That long comment was the most intelligent response I’ve read so far. Brian Brown is a snappy speaker, it’s by no means a walkover by Dan – and I’m a Dan fan! But most commenters on Slog and here on Towleroad are living in their own echo chamber and have no idea how the enemies’ minds work. WAKE UP.

  32. Gary says

    Yes, it could be very entertaining. I’ll bet Dan won’t be the one to lose his cool!

  33. says

    Savage can’t help but win. you show me an anti-gay “Christian” and i’ll show you an anti-semite, an anti-woman misogynist and one whose life of piety and hypocrisy dangles on the wrong side of honesty and reality.

    this will be freakin’ hilarious.

  34. says

    If Dan refrains from using various words that would make certain people dismiss his speech outright, I think he can hammer home the the various points against this ignoramus until Brown loses his cool. Then shift the debate to “should the Bible be used to form law-making policy in this country?” That trap might work.

  35. says

    here’s the thing, folks – the debate will only (if it even happens…) reinforce what every intelligent mind here already knows – you can’t get blood from a stone.

    intelligence, debate, logic, facts, reason, consistency, historical awareness? they’ll be ignored by Brown and his goons.

    check out the video online of Richard Dawkins talking to Wendy Wright (of Concerned Women for America)….. he is calm, rational, logical, factual, cites his evidences, backs up his statements, and she responds (if you can even call it “responding”…) will your general and expected inane blather and ongoing willful ignorance.

  36. Leroy Laflamme says

    Thanks Towleroad for the new pic of Brown! That old one always caused me to throw up in my mouth a little. Not that this one’s any better – that’s still a face that’s begging to be slapped. I only found out recently that Brown has seven kids. Beats me how soome woman would let a man who looks like a rabid chipmunk poke her seven times …

  37. says

    Over at JMG they quote Savage as calling Brown a Mother——- in his acceptance. This is terrible. It shows that Savage is a self destructive queen and will probably use a ton of profanity, which will effectively bury our winning arguments.
    But of course, he’s paid by commercial media, which has used us as a scapegoat for fifty years. They have no intention of letting us win this fight, or loosing us as a distraction.

  38. Daniel Berry, NYC says

    Mary, this debate is about what place, if any, the bible should have in public life. cherry picking texts to throw in people’s faces is a no-win for conservatives: all Dan has to do is refer to passages in Joshua or I Samuel in which the god commands genocide and any decent person will be disgusted. Funny how those parts are overlooked all the time by conservatives – except Zionist extremists and Nazis.

  39. says

    take a breathe, folks. some of you are getting your panties in a bunch. i get it – you don’t like savage. uh, ok.

    but if you think for one second that “language” will be the reason Savage’s points will be lost, you’re insane.

    his point will be lost because the “opposing side” has opinions that can only be maintained by remaining willfully ignorant of reality, and adhering to consistent logic.

    unless traditional marriage includes marrying your rapist, you can’t say that traditional marriage is being protected by banning gay people from marrying.

    at some point you need to realize that religiously-fueled bigotry is the EXCUSE, not the REASON, for the bigotry.

  40. mary says

    Yes, Kiwi, Dan may “win,” but the question is what will he win? I know the people you are trying to reach because until recently I was one of them. What you will “win” is larger numbers of them going to the polls to vote against any one or any thing they deem “gay.” There is evidence that some of these people, including even some in the Christian Right are starting to soften their anti-gay rights stand and develop a more nuanced position that grants more respect and civil rights to gays. Although this is partly due to the fact that they feel the anti-gay cause is a lost cause, it’s still a good development for you. You shouldn’t allow anything to get in the way of this change. Scoring points in a public debate is worth very little because most people are not deciding this issue on the basis of ideas, but on emotions.

    I’m trying to keep it brief because Paul R does have a point about the length of posts. But what was wrong with my suggestion that Jonathan Rauch debate Brown on gay rights in general rather than the topic of the Bible? I assume that you’re familiar with Rauch’s writings. He has even been given credit on Commentary magazine’s website.

  41. jrocket says

    NOM trolls and other such wackadoodles: fageddaboudit. I can spot your dreck right away, so I move on without reading your full comments. Also, Dan apologized for his “pansy ass” remark.

  42. Paul R says

    Goodness. Curse words? Several of you must be right. I certainly never heard anyone curse until I was 21. Definitely never in high school! That must be the true issue. Who curses? Especially in front of evangelist students. How could they take such talk?

    Also, I smoke a ton of crack and don’t know that losing is spelled with one O. I would never have any idea that it’s not loosing. So gosh do I feel stupid. Oh wait, this paragraph is a complete lie.

  43. Chris says

    @MAry the NOM troll
    so you are suggesting we take just let NOM spew lie and hatred, because there might be s few Christians somewhere, who might be “softening” their position on gay rights???

    How about this? Since you are using the name “Mary”, I assume you identify as female. Let’s start an organization, financed with millions of dollars, solely dedicated to creating laws supporting Timothy 2:12, or 1 Corinthians. You know, the parts of the bible about women remaining silent.

    Then how do you feel about debating the merits of such laws. Since you claim to be a bible believing Christian, I assume you followed these parts of the bible with the same dedication that is directed at the few mentions of homosexuality. Actually, adultery is mentioned hundreds of times in the bible, yet an organization dedicated to preserving marriage rarely mentions that.

  44. Oliver says

    Can’t wait! I hope Savage goes in drag, dressed as a nun. I mean, let’s face it, the only people who would watch such a debate are the wackadoodle NOM supporters and Our Team. So it’s someone moot from the get go.

  45. jim says

    If this happens, it should be televised live, nationally. It’s at lesat as timely and interesting as those inane, endless repug primary debates!

  46. TJ says

    CHADD & PAUL R – if you don’t like long posts, or simply haven’t the attention span, don’t read them. Of course, you may miss out on a well-reasoned comment – you might even learn something – but hey, who wants to learn, anyway? Too much work. Limit all thought to sound bytes.

  47. mary says

    No, Chris, I don’t think you should let NOM go unchallenged. I just said you should focus on gay rights rather than whether the Bible is true and that Rauch rather than Savage would make an ideal spokesperson.

    As to American laws that might be anti-woman, I would oppose them on the basis of fair play. But I have never advocated that American law be based on the Bible – not once. And deep down in their hearts everyone in the Christian Right knows why we can’t base American law on what is in the Bible – because we are not a damn theocracy. The Bible is used as a reason for opposing gay marriage because social conservatives are too terrified to use the only legitimate argument against gay marriage (the possibly adverse effect it could have for society by providing competition for heterosexuals.) This argument requires worrying about what will happen in future decades when a lot of us will no longer be here. It also requires us to stop being paralyzed with fear every time we admit that two groups are being treated “unequally.” Social consevatives have no faith that the American people will ever accept such an argument. Hence their constant insinuation that they would love to be liberal, but can’t because Jesus won’t let them.

    DanielBerry, thank you for at least not telling me to go soak my “queer-hating head” the way you did recently.

    Paul R, sorry for the length of this post.

  48. Beef and Fur says

    Ya think Dan will wear the same shoes that he wore on RuPaul’s Drag Race?

  49. Joseph Singer says

    It’ll never happen. Brown will wuss out just like that homophobe Ken Hutcherson.

  50. wtf says

    Once again what many of you fail to realize is that no group in American history has ever just been GIVEN rights; you TAKE THEM. If you don’t have the stomach to fight or lead, then get out of the way. Fighting for freedom and equality isn’t for wimps, nor is it for the soft-spoken. (Unless you have a ‘big stick’ like the black panthers, alas we have none.) It’s as dirty a fight as it was when it started with drag queens and gayboys and women throwing bottles and flipping cars in ’69. Get some education, get a CLUE and support those who are fighting for YOUR RIGHTS.

  51. Molc says

    If it ever comes to pass, Dan will wipe the floor with this imbecile-he has the truth on his side.

  52. Paul B. says

    @WTF…you’re right and having been around during the black panther movement…you know as well as I that it took “taking” their rights, now…our rights. It should be clear to us all by now, as it was (and still is) to the blacks that it’s all about “taking”. I don’t think white hetero males have ever willingly shared rights. Not with women, not with blacks not with gays. We “take” or we lose…period.

  53. says

    Mary, Brown doesn’t want to debate Jonathan Rauch. If he wanted to do that, he could have done it anytime over the past five years. And very few people outside of our community would have paid attention. While Rauch might (and it’s by no means certain) create a more useful outcome, it hasn’t happened thus far for a reason. Brown isn’t interested in a serious debate.

    No, Brown made the challenge to Dan Savage in hopes of getting more people to read about what Savage said and make himself look righteous. I doubt that Brown will follow through anyway.

  54. Savage Lover says

    I’ve read the Bible, all of it. It is full of nonsense and contradictions. Dan Savage will use that to full advantage. No logical, sensible or reasonable person will be persuaded by a Bible quoting bigot, unless they too are in that NOMnuts camp.

    Dan has a certain style, that apparently some posters don’t like, but I think it works just right. I hope that debate happens, but I doubt it will.

  55. Todd says

    Thoughts on how to use the proceeds to sold tickets…I say AIDS charities or wounded soldiers charities…both? No really in another post I said I’d blow Dan if he accepted the challenge. My number is 772-***-****, when ever your ready Dan.

  56. Kyle Michel Sullivan says

    Love the name, NOMnuts! Still laughing. And while I don’t like popcorn, if this gets televised, I’m making some so I can throw it at the screen whenever the NOMnut speaks.

  57. proprop8 says

    Is Dan Savage a false flag agent for NOM?

    Please, please, please, let America see this foul mouthed punk with a Napoleon complex go up against a pro.

    Do you people have the remotest clue how grateful we are for Dan’s shenanigans?

    Every time he opens his mouth we get 10,000 more votes for marriage in NC.

  58. littlebadwolf says

    presented live on fox tv from the larry craig memorial mens room in minneapolis?

  59. Paul R says

    @TJ: Thanks. I’m an author. I graduated college when I was 19. I’m pretty sure that my problem isn’t being stupid. It’s repetitive, boring, poorly written comments that state the obvious.

    But hey, keep writing them and I’ll keep ignoring them.

  60. St. Theresa of Avila says

    jamal49’s post was long, but really on target and well-reasoned. Dan Savage shouldn’t have taken the tone he did with the high school students, and accepting the debate is, in all likelihood, only going to give him a chance to dig himself deeper.
    As others have said, you can’t win with these people. Most of run-of-the-mill moronic supporters out there are incapable of critical reasoning; unfortunately Brian Brown is a little more clever than that and will have some success, at least, at countering Savage. He has a degree from Oxford after all. He didn’t just fall off a pumpkin cart and become the president of NOM. The best Dan can do is to be civil yet trick Brown unto being uncivil. It’s all about appearances, unfortunately, not substance.

  61. St. Theresa of Avila says

    “I’ve read the Bible, all of it. It is full of nonsense and contradictions.”

    Yeah, but your mind is actually capable of comparing one thought it was exposed to 10 seconds ago to another thought. A lot of these people’s brains are not even capable of that.

  62. David Hearn says

    And this is how Christianity finally met its demise- in a mud wrestling grudge match between a sex advice columnist and some psychochristian.

    I might even pay-per-view to watch this on HBO without commercial interruption.

  63. TJ says

    PAUL R – sometimes, boring and repetitive is in the eye of the reader. All I ask as that you speak for yourself when you say “we” don’t like “dissertations.” Some of the best things I’ve ever read here have been more than Twitter bits, and some of the commentary I’ve posted here has seemed to generate more interest when I explained my position.

    But hey, you, like most people these days, already seem to know everything, and the Internet is your perfect playground, to talk at, and not with, others. The Internet, as I have learned, seems the place to only confirm opinions, not challenge them.

    Sorry if this has already gone past your post limits. By the way, what are they, so that we don’t offend you in the future? Cuz I haven’t seen the rules posted anywhere.

  64. Randy says

    Bryan is the one more apt to lose his cool. Dan is experienced being a talking head on tv and in various debates. Bryan isn’t. That alone will help determine the outcome here.

    Bryan will probably request so many rules and requests to tilt the debate to his side that Dan will just give up, and then Bryan can claim “victory.”

  65. Lars says

    He’ll back down and make lame excuses as to why he can’t debate Savage. Just wait for it. These guys are all cowards when it comes down to it.

  66. Savage Lover says

    I don’t know what the current practice is in all places, but typically when one went to a major university for a PhD and was found to be unqualified for that degree a consolation prize was given out, namely a master’s degree. Maybe that’s what Oxford did to move Brian Brown through the system.

    Then BB chose to become a Roman Catholic as an adult!! Many people are born into a faith, but to chose one in later life is a very different thing. To chose to publicly say that one believes in miracles, virgin births, the forgiving of sins, etc. does not indicate a high level of intelligence.

    I think those expecting a good show from Brian Brown are going to be sadly disappointed. On the other hand Dan Savage has had some experience in publicly humiliating bigots.

    One should never be quiet in the face of ignorance, bigotry or superstitious nonsense. Unless of course they’ve got you tied to stake. Short of that, don’t kiss their asses, it only makes them rant and rave smugly in the false confidence that they are the smartest creation on earth.

  67. jamal49 says

    Sorry for the length of my comments, friends. I had just gotten off work (3rd shift) and was full of piss and vinegar (and lots and lots of caffeine). I won’t be so lengthy this time.

    I just am so tired of this life-long struggle with evangelical and fundamentalists.

    I grew up in that mess (back then, in the 60s, the bible had the verses to justify segregation and discrimination against people of colour).

    Next, it was used against women’s equality and the ERA. Since then, it’s been used to justify the last, acceptable American social prejudice which is the institutionalized homophobia against gay people.

    And, the homophobes keep winning because, after all, this is God talking here and if God wrote book that says being gay is bad then by God it’s gotta BE bad.

    How in the hell do we ever defeat that?

  68. Paul R says

    @TJ: I made a simple request. You can obviously ignore it. I’m a writer and editor. There are benefits to brevity. Most people won’t read a comment that runs many paragraphs. They move to the next, briefer one.

    I don’t make or follow many rules, on the web or elsewhere. Do whatever you want. Cheers.

  69. Hdtex says

    So many pearl clutching concern trolls on this thread….Guess what? Brian Brown is a M O T H E R F U C K E R!!! See how easy that was? The AFA are A S S H O L E S!!! I for one am sick to death with playing nice with those that want me dead…..YOU can clutch your pearls as they shuttle you off to the concentration camps and into the ovens.

  70. Bob says

    YES, YES — one should only speak for Gays if he acts like a stupid Aunt Tom, says Matt
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    UUrghhh… 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

  71. just_a_guy says

    @Paul R. – fair point on brevity; I work on that. I do like that TR gives commenters freedom to provide complete thoughts, though.

    @Mary/Maggie:
    You say your secret real fear about gay marriage is “the possibly adverse effect it could have for society by providing competition for heterosexuals.”

    Hmm. What??? Please elaborate. You lost me.

    Competition for heterosexuals?? Are you really saying more than that some heterosexual homophobes base their brittle self-esteem on seeing non-heterosexuals as inferior? Do you think we should have prevented african americans equal rights because some white rascists based their self-esteem on seeing non-whites as inferior??

    Please tell us more, Mary/Maggie: Let’s debate this supposed “real” issue. How would you frame it?

  72. mary says

    Just_a_guy,

    Basically its this: I am afraid that in time significant numbers of (presumably straight) individuals will be attracted to same-sex relationships. This percentage will not be a majority of the population, by any means, but it will be enough to have serious consequences for the rest of us. Men will be attracted to the idea of easier access to sex (since man tend to value sex more than women do) and to sex free of the fear of impregnating one’s partner. Also, since men can’t make babies with men, marrying a man may come to have more appeal to men who are ambivalent about fatherhood. And, the more men take up same-sex relationships, the fewer men are left for heterosexual women. These straight women will increasingly turn to each other for relationships, marriage, and child-rearing.

    Same-sex marriage, although seemingly a radical new invention, is in many ways a lot closer to a “traditional” life than many other things in America that were once considered odd or immoral, but have now become somewhat mainstream and accepted. I’m thinking specifically of lifelong singleness, unwed motehrhood by choice, and serial(heterosexual) cohabitation. Same-sex marriage at least offers someone the comfort of having a lifelong mate, a second parent for his/her child, and someone to share financial expenses with. Those whose families are shocked and object to a same-sex marriage will be told that historically marriage has been more about practical matters such as child-bearing/rearing, getting one’s children financially secure, than about romance or even sex itself. Some of these people who are attracted to same-sex spouses won’t have changed their sexual orientation as much as simply “settled” for what they can realistically get. (I put settled in quotation marks so as not to insult those in same-sex relationships by making it seem as if their love is something inferior.)

    Assuming that gay marriage would only affect the people who are not currently identifying as LGBT and that the above scenario were not a possibility, I’d be all for it.

  73. mary says

    sorry for the typo, the correct sentence is:

    Assuming that gay marriage would only affect the people who are NOW currently identifying as LGBT and that the above scenario were not a possibility, I’d be all for it.