Dan Savage To Debate Brian Brown!
Yesterday, 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?
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.
Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 5, 2012 1:54:23 PM
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.
Posted by: mary | May 5, 2012 1:54:54 PM
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.
Posted by: jrocket | May 5, 2012 2:16:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Paul R | May 5, 2012 2:18:34 PM
@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.
Posted by: Chris | May 5, 2012 2:25:56 PM
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.
Posted by: Oliver | May 5, 2012 2:35:52 PM
If this happens, it should be televised live, nationally. It's at lesat as timely and interesting as those inane, endless repug primary debates!
Posted by: jim | May 5, 2012 3:01:58 PM
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.
Posted by: TJ | May 5, 2012 3:12:39 PM
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.
Posted by: mary | May 5, 2012 3:23:06 PM
Ya think Dan will wear the same shoes that he wore on RuPaul's Drag Race?
Posted by: Beef and Fur | May 5, 2012 3:52:39 PM
It'll never happen. Brown will wuss out just like that homophobe Ken Hutcherson.
Posted by: Joseph Singer | May 5, 2012 3:56:10 PM
Go Dan! I would so love to see this go down!
Posted by: Middle Aged Gay | May 5, 2012 4:21:08 PM
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.
Posted by: wtf | May 5, 2012 4:41:30 PM
If it ever comes to pass, Dan will wipe the floor with this imbecile-he has the truth on his side.
Posted by: Molc | May 5, 2012 4:55:57 PM
@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.
Posted by: Paul B. | May 5, 2012 6:12:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom | May 5, 2012 6:13:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Savage Lover | May 5, 2012 8:36:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Todd | May 5, 2012 9:36:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Kyle Michel Sullivan | May 6, 2012 12:16:13 AM
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.
Posted by: proprop8 | May 6, 2012 2:43:24 AM
and on whose door does the victor get to nail
the 95 tweeties?
Posted by: littlebadwolf | May 6, 2012 5:06:19 AM
presented live on fox tv from the larry craig memorial mens room in minneapolis?
Posted by: littlebadwolf | May 6, 2012 5:08:42 AM
@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.
Posted by: Paul R | May 6, 2012 8:36:57 AM
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.
Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | May 6, 2012 8:54:41 AM
"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.
Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | May 6, 2012 9:00:06 AM