Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 22, 2012
Breaking News Dan Savage vs. Brian Brown: The Dinner Table Debate
Posted by David Schmader on Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM
1
I'd watch but you know what? There is nothing and Christian, Jew, or any other of the various religious beliefs has to say that has any relevance in the 21st century.
I'm sure Dan did a great job but arguing faith, or the Bible or the power of Jupiter is just a waste of resources better spent actually fixing real problems.
I'm sure Dan did a great job but arguing faith, or the Bible or the power of Jupiter is just a waste of resources better spent actually fixing real problems.
3
Spoiler alert:
Brown says that the NT sanctions limits on slavery over time ("indentured servitude") but his last point in the end is that he stands for civil marriages that must never end absent the death of one of the spouses as his ideal marriage regime.
And somehow, despite the clear harm this would cause the adults and children around these marriages, this is more preferable to society then allowing unrestricted ownership of human beings by other human beings, because that is not something that makes for a better society due to the harm it causes adults and children around the slavery transaction.
Were I to have the opportunity to follow up, my talking point would be that unless Brown/NOM/et. al. is in favor of limited human ownership of other humans as sanctioned in the NY (and which is lesser a sanction than the OT), then he accepts that civilly, we are better off in our nation having laws that extend the direction of the change of sanctions even further and eliminate all human ownership of other human beings.
Then, having crossed that Rubicon once, unless he is prepared to go and cross back over and re-introduce even limited slavery into our civil laws, he does not get to get away with arguing that his, or anyone's for that matter, religious interpretations apply in the restriction of liberty via un-endable contracts of marriage.
Not that a contract that is without end is enforceable in the first place, and he must know that. So wouldn't a nationwide regime as he suggests is ideal of marriage contracts that cannot be ended be tantamount to no marriage at all short some sort of magical separability clause (good luck with that!).
So Brian Brown is now on the record as radically suggesting, because I am sure he didn't make this up on the spot, that the ideal civil marriage regime in the US is no enforceable civil marriages at all?
And that is better how? Can you consider hammering on that point?
Alternatively, he./they have already settled on the Bible as not authoritative in civil, secular society once (wrt slavery) and so the onus is on him to stop claiming that it is not possible to do so at all, and then the onus is further on him to stop claiming no settling is possible wrt marriage in civil, secular marriage.
Can't have it both ways. Either he regrets the end of slavery, or he is willing to look past his religion's claims of influence on civil marriage laws.
More...
Brown says that the NT sanctions limits on slavery over time ("indentured servitude") but his last point in the end is that he stands for civil marriages that must never end absent the death of one of the spouses as his ideal marriage regime.
And somehow, despite the clear harm this would cause the adults and children around these marriages, this is more preferable to society then allowing unrestricted ownership of human beings by other human beings, because that is not something that makes for a better society due to the harm it causes adults and children around the slavery transaction.
Were I to have the opportunity to follow up, my talking point would be that unless Brown/NOM/et. al. is in favor of limited human ownership of other humans as sanctioned in the NY (and which is lesser a sanction than the OT), then he accepts that civilly, we are better off in our nation having laws that extend the direction of the change of sanctions even further and eliminate all human ownership of other human beings.
Then, having crossed that Rubicon once, unless he is prepared to go and cross back over and re-introduce even limited slavery into our civil laws, he does not get to get away with arguing that his, or anyone's for that matter, religious interpretations apply in the restriction of liberty via un-endable contracts of marriage.
Not that a contract that is without end is enforceable in the first place, and he must know that. So wouldn't a nationwide regime as he suggests is ideal of marriage contracts that cannot be ended be tantamount to no marriage at all short some sort of magical separability clause (good luck with that!).
So Brian Brown is now on the record as radically suggesting, because I am sure he didn't make this up on the spot, that the ideal civil marriage regime in the US is no enforceable civil marriages at all?
And that is better how? Can you consider hammering on that point?
Alternatively, he./they have already settled on the Bible as not authoritative in civil, secular society once (wrt slavery) and so the onus is on him to stop claiming that it is not possible to do so at all, and then the onus is further on him to stop claiming no settling is possible wrt marriage in civil, secular marriage.
Can't have it both ways. Either he regrets the end of slavery, or he is willing to look past his religion's claims of influence on civil marriage laws.
4
Someone on Joe.My.God commented:
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
Amen.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
Amen.
6
@5 - Tell you what, you go ahead and watch it, and I'll keep an eye on you from out here. If it looks like you're getting upset, I'll just scratch lightly on the glass to remind you to lighten up. If that doesn't work, I'll run in and stab you a whole bunch. If that doesn't relieve your anxiety, I don't know what will.
8
At :27 the taxidermied buffalo head is wearing a sub pop hat. So great. Also, I'd be confused what to serve to a goofball nutjob who based his life and existence on outdated nutjob scripture... Gnocchi was it?
9
The way Brian Brown repeats his talking points it's as if he's desperately reminding himself of what he believes. He knows his Biblical history, and he's carefully crafted his language, but he doesn't understand the core concept at hand.
Not to be petty, but he literally starts frothing a little at the 40 min mark.
Not to be petty, but he literally starts frothing a little at the 40 min mark.
10
A little after the 55:00 mark Brian Brown admits that no amount of evidence could ever convince him that marriage equality is a good idea.
11
The Bible is a collection of stories from different people at different times that were collected by a committee to suit the members' religious/political aims at that time.
This was kind of mentioned when Brian Brown was talking about the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD.
And it is important to note that JESUS was NOT there.
Nor was Jesus present when the New Testament was finalized around 700 AD.
So what you end up with is a book of stories where some stories are pro-slavery and some stories are pro-slavery-but-be-nice-to-your-slaves.
Which is why, as Dan later mentioned, that you can find good people who opposed slavery based upon the Biblical teachings ... and bad people who promoted slavery based upon the Biblical teachings.
But deciding which people are "good" and "bad" is what we do NOW based upon our SOCIETAL changes since the civil war.
Jesus COULD have made it very clear that he was against slavery.
But Jesus did NOT do that.
Brian Brown is arguing that "good" people (using today's anti-slavery morality) are "good" and that they must have the correct Biblical interpretation because they are "good" and since Dan's interpretation is different then Dan's interpretation is "bad".
PS: Kudos to the moderator. Great job!
This was kind of mentioned when Brian Brown was talking about the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD.
And it is important to note that JESUS was NOT there.
Nor was Jesus present when the New Testament was finalized around 700 AD.
So what you end up with is a book of stories where some stories are pro-slavery and some stories are pro-slavery-but-be-nice-to-your-slaves.
Which is why, as Dan later mentioned, that you can find good people who opposed slavery based upon the Biblical teachings ... and bad people who promoted slavery based upon the Biblical teachings.
But deciding which people are "good" and "bad" is what we do NOW based upon our SOCIETAL changes since the civil war.
Jesus COULD have made it very clear that he was against slavery.
But Jesus did NOT do that.
Brian Brown is arguing that "good" people (using today's anti-slavery morality) are "good" and that they must have the correct Biblical interpretation because they are "good" and since Dan's interpretation is different then Dan's interpretation is "bad".
PS: Kudos to the moderator. Great job!
12
I want to watch this, but I'm at the point where Brown starts talking and I cannot stand his voice. He sounds whiny.
Is it worth the pain to watch to the end?
Is it worth the pain to watch to the end?
13
Wow. I'm really surprised he showed up for this. Not sure until I have time to watch it, but I may have to hate BB just a tiny bit less for following through on the deal.
15
@11 I don't think you can equate the Bible's non-comdemnation of slavery w/ the the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. The economics of the ancient world made slavery a practical necessity. If the the early Christians had rejected slavery the faith would not have survived. On the other hand ancient civilizations held many different views about homosexuality. The ancient Greeks and the ancient Hebrews had completely opposite attitudes toward male homosexuality, yet both civilization were built on the backs of slaves. The early Christians could have decided butt-sex was OK and still created a viable religion, but they didn't.
17
Geez, I was expecting to watch and laugh at the crazy fundie. Instead, I'm seeing where the other side is coming from. Dan kinda breaks down when dude brings up polygamous marriage. Comes off like, "Because I'm not personally interested in polygamous marrying, I don't support it... but the gay marriage thing, well, it should obviously become law because that's what *I* want." Makes marriage seem totally arbitrary.
23
@17,
Yes, it is totally arbitrary, as is Brown's opposition to polygamy since the Bible is a-okay with it.
Yes, it is totally arbitrary, as is Brown's opposition to polygamy since the Bible is a-okay with it.
24
@15 "The economics of the ancient world made slavery a practical necessity."
No ancient culture survived without using slaves? None at all? Or even if there wasn't a single ancient culture that didn't use slaves, there's no possible, conceivable way an ancient culture could've functioned without slaves? Sorry man, but no, you're just being a slavery apologist here.
No ancient culture survived without using slaves? None at all? Or even if there wasn't a single ancient culture that didn't use slaves, there's no possible, conceivable way an ancient culture could've functioned without slaves? Sorry man, but no, you're just being a slavery apologist here.
25
@15
"I don't think you can equate the Bible's non-comdemnation of slavery w/ the the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality."
Of course you can.
Or do I need to introduce you to the concept of GOD?
"The economics of the ancient world made slavery a practical necessity."
Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus raised HIMSELF from the dead.
Jesus performed a number of MIRACLES.
But Jesus did not explain how slavery was wrong.
But Jesus did not explain how to make slavery irrelevant.
And The Bible is the Word of God.
"I don't think you can equate the Bible's non-comdemnation of slavery w/ the the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality."
Of course you can.
Or do I need to introduce you to the concept of GOD?
"The economics of the ancient world made slavery a practical necessity."
Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus raised HIMSELF from the dead.
Jesus performed a number of MIRACLES.
But Jesus did not explain how slavery was wrong.
But Jesus did not explain how to make slavery irrelevant.
And The Bible is the Word of God.
26
Mr. Brown kept turning the conversation around to how he and his Fundie ilk are being picked on and bullied because of their beliefs. Poor dears! Too bad saying "I am not a bigot" doesn't make you not a bigot.
27
@17 Dan's point is that there is nobody's really clamoring for legal polygamy at the moment, so why bring it up to attack gay marriage. And isn't there some Constitutional argument why legal polygamy would be untenable? Help me out, I remember hearing that.
At any rate, this went about as I figured it would, with Brown's argument constantly falling back on trying to paint himself and his organization as the "real victims".
As for me, I don't think the government should recognize *any* marriage, gay or straight. Civil partnerships for all! If the fundies want marriage, they can have it.
At any rate, this went about as I figured it would, with Brown's argument constantly falling back on trying to paint himself and his organization as the "real victims".
As for me, I don't think the government should recognize *any* marriage, gay or straight. Civil partnerships for all! If the fundies want marriage, they can have it.
28
I thought Dan took it pretty easy on BB. There were quite a few places where Dan could have pushed harder. That having been said, BB was not good at answering anything with logic. Just reiterating his "beliefs". This was not designed to change Dan or Brian's minds. This was a forum to highlight their different views. This is useful for other people who are still unsure of how they believe. I thought Dan did a much better job of showing how civil marriage rights would not hurt anyone. And he came off as a much more sane person. It is never good to be seen foaming at the mouth. It will be interesting to see if this makes it into mainstream media, and if so, how they spin it.
29
In the autocaptioning, Mark Oppenheimer gets reduced to Margo.
I think I'm going to forego watching this unless it gets captioned, or a transcript (or a summary!!, tho some of the comments here accomplish that, thanks) but at an hour? Nope.
But kudos to both of them for actually pulling this off.
I think I'm going to forego watching this unless it gets captioned, or a transcript (or a summary!!, tho some of the comments here accomplish that, thanks) but at an hour? Nope.
But kudos to both of them for actually pulling this off.
30
I can't even count the number of times he says that Dan is "wrong." I don't hear Dan saying that once. Way to stay classy, Dan.
32
I want to know the identities of the portraits: cub scout, little boy on the bed, and red-haired girl. I was quite mesmerized by them.
33
Not as far as I know.
There is the fact that current marriage law presumes only two people can be married to each other at a time, and some of the thousand+ automatic rights and responsibilities of marriage would likely have to be rewritten or removed to accommodate polygamy. But constitutional law doesn't factor into it.
Meanwhile, accommodating same-sex marriage requires very little revision to existing law.
And isn't there some Constitutional argument why legal polygamy would be untenable?
Not as far as I know.
There is the fact that current marriage law presumes only two people can be married to each other at a time, and some of the thousand+ automatic rights and responsibilities of marriage would likely have to be rewritten or removed to accommodate polygamy. But constitutional law doesn't factor into it.
Meanwhile, accommodating same-sex marriage requires very little revision to existing law.
34
Argument against poly marriage - the study that showed nuclear families (two parents) were the best for raising children.
37
@17: Oh, still up with your concern troll shtick? Well, good for you. I guess enough schmucks fall for it to keep giving you jollies.
38
I love how BB keeps invoking reason, when his views are not reasonable. And he must have missed this one from Church Sign Epic Fails: "Reason is the Greatest Enemy that Faith Has".
Oh, and #34 FTW.
Oh, and #34 FTW.
39
I still don't see whats wrong with polygamy if its between consenting adults. But D is smart for not going down that road. Keep it tighty.
40
@34: In order for that argument to hold, the study would have had to examine family structures that contained more than two parents for most/all of the child's life. Did it?
41
Seems to me, the more adults pitching in to look after children, the more beneficial. People used to live with their extended families, which served this very purpose (among others) - there was always someone available to watch the baby. There are arguments against legalizing polygamy (most of which revolve around how convoluted the laws involved would have to be), but "it'd be bad for the children" seems like it'd be a non-starter.
42
@40 I don't really recall. It was the one the Christian right tried to use against gay marriage but Al Franken kind of showed that it was talking about a 2 parent household that could include one or two genders. That being said, I only bring it up as a way to shut up Christians about comparing gay marriage to poly marriage like in this situation.
43
@25 "Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus raised HIMSELF from the dead.
Jesus performed a number of MIRACLES."
Yep, but by the time Paul of Tarsus and Co. got around to founding the Christian religion Magic Sky Friend Jesus wasn't around to protect the faithful w/ his voodoo powers.
@39 I'm not sure how I feel about polygamy. Some would argue that polygamy will inevitably lead to large numbers of straight guys who never get laid, because the more rich and/or attractive guys will hog all the pussy. That will happen anyway, but allowing polygamy might make the disparity a bit more extreme.
Jesus raised HIMSELF from the dead.
Jesus performed a number of MIRACLES."
Yep, but by the time Paul of Tarsus and Co. got around to founding the Christian religion Magic Sky Friend Jesus wasn't around to protect the faithful w/ his voodoo powers.
@39 I'm not sure how I feel about polygamy. Some would argue that polygamy will inevitably lead to large numbers of straight guys who never get laid, because the more rich and/or attractive guys will hog all the pussy. That will happen anyway, but allowing polygamy might make the disparity a bit more extreme.
44
Kudos to Dan for being willing to bother. I know that someone who has made it to adulthood believing dumb shit like he does is a lost cause so I stick with mockery. But I admire Dans willingness to waste his time like this.
46
I watched the whole thing as objectively as possible, but in the end believe Mr. Brown was served for dinner by Mr. Savage. While the exchange got a little heated a couple of times, Brown's inability to effectively distinguish between slavery and marriage doomed his argument to platitudes we've all heard.
I should also point out this conversation was taped the day of the shooting at the National Family Organization, for whom Brown tried to apply victim tagging and Savage would have none of it. Brown just looked foolish in his inability to defend it. Savage also claimed the primary study conducted by NOM had been funded by them and had not been effectively conducted as scientifically valid, Brown merely contended Savage was whining because the results weren't the results he wanted.
I am very partisan in this debate, so my opinion might be affected; much like the national election it's not for the decided to really measure efficacy; it, it's for the undecided.
(Where Savage completely lost this gay man is in his choice of art. Far too ironic to live with those unrealistic portraits with the buffalo head made me wonder how Dan became such a musical queen without having a more profound sense of design.)
I should also point out this conversation was taped the day of the shooting at the National Family Organization, for whom Brown tried to apply victim tagging and Savage would have none of it. Brown just looked foolish in his inability to defend it. Savage also claimed the primary study conducted by NOM had been funded by them and had not been effectively conducted as scientifically valid, Brown merely contended Savage was whining because the results weren't the results he wanted.
I am very partisan in this debate, so my opinion might be affected; much like the national election it's not for the decided to really measure efficacy; it, it's for the undecided.
(Where Savage completely lost this gay man is in his choice of art. Far too ironic to live with those unrealistic portraits with the buffalo head made me wonder how Dan became such a musical queen without having a more profound sense of design.)
47
I watched the whole thing as objectively as possible, but in the end believe Mr. Brown was served for dinner by Mr. Savage. While the exchange got a little heated a couple of times, Brown's inability to effectively distinguish between slavery and marriage doomed his argument to platitudes we've all heard.
I should also point out this conversation was taped the day of the shooting at the National Family Council, for whom Brown tried to apply victim tagging and Savage would have none of it, citing their literature as warranting their classification as a hate organization. Brown just looked foolish in his inability to defend it -- at one point dry mouth made him look as if he was literally frothing. Savage also claimed the primary study conducted by NOM had been funded by them and had not been effectively conducted as scientifically valid, Brown merely contended Savage was whining because the results weren't the results he wanted.
I am very partisan in this debate, so my opinion might be affected; much like the national election it's not for the decided to really measure efficacy; it, it's for the undecided.
(Where Savage completely lost this gay man is in his choice of art. Far too ironic to live with; those unrealistic portraits with the buffalo head made me wonder how Dan became such a musical queen without having a more profound sense of design.)
I should also point out this conversation was taped the day of the shooting at the National Family Council, for whom Brown tried to apply victim tagging and Savage would have none of it, citing their literature as warranting their classification as a hate organization. Brown just looked foolish in his inability to defend it -- at one point dry mouth made him look as if he was literally frothing. Savage also claimed the primary study conducted by NOM had been funded by them and had not been effectively conducted as scientifically valid, Brown merely contended Savage was whining because the results weren't the results he wanted.
I am very partisan in this debate, so my opinion might be affected; much like the national election it's not for the decided to really measure efficacy; it, it's for the undecided.
(Where Savage completely lost this gay man is in his choice of art. Far too ironic to live with; those unrealistic portraits with the buffalo head made me wonder how Dan became such a musical queen without having a more profound sense of design.)
48
"because you believe that something is wrong, doesn't mean you make it illegal."
The ignorant ass couldn't have said it better.
The ignorant ass couldn't have said it better.
49
@43
"Yep, but by the time Paul of Tarsus and Co. got around to founding the Christian religion Magic Sky Friend Jesus wasn't around to protect the faithful w/ his voodoo powers."
I guess I do have to explain this GOD concept to you after all.
God is all powerful. Omnipotent. God can do anything.
Jesus is God's son. Jesus can perform miracles.
Jesus did perform miracles.
Even raising the dead.
But Jesus did NOT speak against slavery.
Nor did Jesus perform any miracles to end slavery.
Nor did Jesus give any advice that would have removed the economic incentive for slavery.
You are confusing Paul with Jesus.
They are not the same.
"Yep, but by the time Paul of Tarsus and Co. got around to founding the Christian religion Magic Sky Friend Jesus wasn't around to protect the faithful w/ his voodoo powers."
I guess I do have to explain this GOD concept to you after all.
God is all powerful. Omnipotent. God can do anything.
Jesus is God's son. Jesus can perform miracles.
Jesus did perform miracles.
Even raising the dead.
But Jesus did NOT speak against slavery.
Nor did Jesus perform any miracles to end slavery.
Nor did Jesus give any advice that would have removed the economic incentive for slavery.
You are confusing Paul with Jesus.
They are not the same.
50
I did my best to watch this as objectively as possible. I found myself really frustrated by Mr. Brown for a few reasons.
1) Constant emphasis on his, and those who share his opinion, being victims.
2) His claiming that he had the truth and not offering up empherical evidence to support his opinion as being truth.
3) He claimed superiority in understanding of the Bible, but defended it with his personal opinion. Which came down to his theological interpretation of the Bible is correct, because he said so.
4) He rightly, in my opinion, acknowledges Christian abolitionists (my family were both Christians and housed run away slaves as part of the underground railroad), but he ignores the Christians who used their theological interpretation of the Bible to argue in favor, defend, and justify purchase of slaves.
5) He must have forgotten that Herod the Great had polygynous marriage. So much for polygyny only happening in the OT.
6) Most importantly he went on too much about human dignity and yet remained blind, at least it appeared, to his insulting of Dan's family while sitting at Dan's table. And, to the humanity of every child he rather have grow up without a family, rather than find homes with same sex couples. Humanity should be extended to those who share his opinion only.
Mr. Brown, in my opinion, does not know truth. Despite his claims. His argument relied to heavily on his emotions and to little on the intellect he claimed for himself. He failed to address too many points. Thus he seems emotionally wedded to his argument, which he repeatedly failed to defend and fell back on victim hood. His mind does not contemplate that he either could be wrong or learn something new.
Anyway, thanks for posting it. And, kudos to the moderator, the Savage/Miller family, film crew for a job well done. Thank you to Mr. Brown for sharing his opinions.
More...
1) Constant emphasis on his, and those who share his opinion, being victims.
2) His claiming that he had the truth and not offering up empherical evidence to support his opinion as being truth.
3) He claimed superiority in understanding of the Bible, but defended it with his personal opinion. Which came down to his theological interpretation of the Bible is correct, because he said so.
4) He rightly, in my opinion, acknowledges Christian abolitionists (my family were both Christians and housed run away slaves as part of the underground railroad), but he ignores the Christians who used their theological interpretation of the Bible to argue in favor, defend, and justify purchase of slaves.
5) He must have forgotten that Herod the Great had polygynous marriage. So much for polygyny only happening in the OT.
6) Most importantly he went on too much about human dignity and yet remained blind, at least it appeared, to his insulting of Dan's family while sitting at Dan's table. And, to the humanity of every child he rather have grow up without a family, rather than find homes with same sex couples. Humanity should be extended to those who share his opinion only.
Mr. Brown, in my opinion, does not know truth. Despite his claims. His argument relied to heavily on his emotions and to little on the intellect he claimed for himself. He failed to address too many points. Thus he seems emotionally wedded to his argument, which he repeatedly failed to defend and fell back on victim hood. His mind does not contemplate that he either could be wrong or learn something new.
Anyway, thanks for posting it. And, kudos to the moderator, the Savage/Miller family, film crew for a job well done. Thank you to Mr. Brown for sharing his opinions.
51
@43 the marriage debate is odd for me because i want nothing to do with it but think of course anybody should be able to. if a few guys had these harems of women, the husbands wouldn't be able to satisfy them all. and i would get all kinds of short term, nsa sex, possibly with the alpha guy bringing up my progeny- until they start beheading adulterers again- but i am looking forward, not backwards.
52
It's unrealistic to think that there would have been any 'light bulb' or 'good point there' moments. It's very worth watching and it goes by fairly quickly. The volley back and forth was dignified (a touch spicy) and fascinating on several levels.
53
I think Mr. Brown was better as the rogue makeup artist in F/X. I always laugh when he evades the cops by throwing the Jesus effigy out the back of his customized makeup mobile.
56
I still don't see whats wrong with homosexual marriage if its between consenting adults. But Romney is smart for not going down that road. Keep it tighty.
57
34
40
42
ALL of the two parent families in that study were heterosexual.
If it argues against polygamy it argues 10X harder against homosexual "marriage".
40
42
ALL of the two parent families in that study were heterosexual.
If it argues against polygamy it argues 10X harder against homosexual "marriage".
62
Danny,
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
63
What I learned from this exchange (I watched it all): When interacting with someone who is basing their values on their interpretation of the Bible and/or doesn't have facts on their side, only bring up one clear, simple thing at a time, and avoid any subjects with any degree of subjectivity.
The more things you say at once, or the more examples you give, the more options the person has to cherry-pick the least rock-solid item you've said, enact a half-assed criticism of it, then pivot into a talking point, ignoring everything else you've said. If you just ask a simple-enough question, you'll probably be able to get away with interrupting (because it will be WAY more obvious) when they try not to answer it.
The more things you say at once, or the more examples you give, the more options the person has to cherry-pick the least rock-solid item you've said, enact a half-assed criticism of it, then pivot into a talking point, ignoring everything else you've said. If you just ask a simple-enough question, you'll probably be able to get away with interrupting (because it will be WAY more obvious) when they try not to answer it.
66
Oh, Anon Troll... You didn't need to take eight posts. We knew you were an idiot with the first one.
69
People...let's focus on what's really important here. Dan was looking HOT in the video! Anyway, I'm actually shocked the head of nom not only agreed to an honest debate but actually went into a homo's lair! And chickpeas...YUM!
The more you drag these people out into the light the better we all are for it. The arguments can't survive in the light....though I would have liked Dan to have called out nom on the tactics they utilize to spread their message...and if Brown feels that is or isn't contradictory to what the bible states. Of course Dan has to play it like he's sweet as pie cause he'll be demonized if not.
The more you drag these people out into the light the better we all are for it. The arguments can't survive in the light....though I would have liked Dan to have called out nom on the tactics they utilize to spread their message...and if Brown feels that is or isn't contradictory to what the bible states. Of course Dan has to play it like he's sweet as pie cause he'll be demonized if not.
70
Anyone else on twitter seeing the epic frothing, crazy being posted by @demandequality about this event/Dan? Apparently Dan has blood on his hands (?) for doing this...
73
Danny,
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
74
Implicit in Dan's equal protection argument is the notion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The science, so far, points in that direction but hasn't confirmed it (which is likely why Dan didn't explicitly make that argument).
If homosexuality is an immutable characteristic then the polygamy attack crumbles--why allow same sex marriage but not polygamous marriage? Because like race, sexual orientation is immutable, whereas no one is born a polygamist.
Of course without proof of immutability the whole rights argument, particularly with respect to any reference to the 14th amendment, is much, much weaker.
If homosexuality is an immutable characteristic then the polygamy attack crumbles--why allow same sex marriage but not polygamous marriage? Because like race, sexual orientation is immutable, whereas no one is born a polygamist.
Of course without proof of immutability the whole rights argument, particularly with respect to any reference to the 14th amendment, is much, much weaker.
75
If homosexuality is an immutable characteristic it is also a (severe) genetic defect.
Our species reproduces heterosexually.
The ability to reproduce is the essential trait of living organisms.
Members of the species lacking that ability are fatally compromised.
If everyone in the species were so flawed the species would die out. Quickly.
No.
Homosexuality is not is an immutable characteristic.
Homosexuals are not genetically damaged goods.
Sexual behavior is a choice.
Sexual preferences are learned and fluid.
Our species reproduces heterosexually.
The ability to reproduce is the essential trait of living organisms.
Members of the species lacking that ability are fatally compromised.
If everyone in the species were so flawed the species would die out. Quickly.
No.
Homosexuality is not is an immutable characteristic.
Homosexuals are not genetically damaged goods.
Sexual behavior is a choice.
Sexual preferences are learned and fluid.
78
More interesting than the exchanges themselves was the dynamic. Brian Brown dutifully said what he came to say, but he looked unhappy about being there from start to finish, because Savage's choice of venue did its job. He had just had dinner with an adorable, well-adjusted family, which he then had to turn around and argue shouldn't exist for an hour.
He got through the debate -- lousy format, by the way; it should have been much more conversational, but the moderator only knew how to pretend everybody was in high school -- but that meal will eat away at his conscience. I don't know if he'll come around to backing marriage equality, but don't be surprised if he decides he doesn't have the stomach for NOM and its tactics and steps down soon.
He got through the debate -- lousy format, by the way; it should have been much more conversational, but the moderator only knew how to pretend everybody was in high school -- but that meal will eat away at his conscience. I don't know if he'll come around to backing marriage equality, but don't be surprised if he decides he doesn't have the stomach for NOM and its tactics and steps down soon.
79
And even if homosexuality is an immutable characteristic
it does not follow that society is bound to recognize homosexual "marriage".
We do not allow pedophiles to marry children, after all.
And even if 'poly' is not immutable, that is not an argument against legalizing polygamy.
The reason we allow heteros to marry is not because they are immutably hetero.
If two open proud homos of opposite gender wanted to marry each other
society would have no problem with it.
Just ask Danny....
it does not follow that society is bound to recognize homosexual "marriage".
We do not allow pedophiles to marry children, after all.
And even if 'poly' is not immutable, that is not an argument against legalizing polygamy.
The reason we allow heteros to marry is not because they are immutably hetero.
If two open proud homos of opposite gender wanted to marry each other
society would have no problem with it.
Just ask Danny....
80
This is very frustrating to watch because the participants are arguing about completely different things. Dan is arguing about the law, Brian is arguing about religion. The question that needs to be answered by Brian is "Why should your religious beliefs be codified into the legal definition of marriage." Dan asks it, and Brian ignores it. Or, rather, he provides a non sequitur response along the lines of "it can't be legal because it doesn't exist." Marriage is a legal institution. Therefore, whether or not it exists is entirely a question of what the law defines. Religious institutions don't have to recognize same-sex marriage in their religion, but they can't claim that the legal question is answered by their personal religious belief.
The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Hindu marriage as a valid Catholic union, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church gets to say that Hindus aren't married.
The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Hindu marriage as a valid Catholic union, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church gets to say that Hindus aren't married.
82
This is very frustrating to watch because the participants are arguing about completely different things. Dan is arguing about the law, Brian is arguing about religion. The question that needs to be answered by Brian is "Why should your religious beliefs be codified into the legal definition of marriage." Dan asks it, and Brian ignores it. Or, rather, he provides a non sequitur response along the lines of "it can't be legal because it doesn't exist."
Marriage is a legal institution. Therefore, whether or not it exists is entirely a question of what the law defines. Religious institutions don't have to recognize same-sex marriage in their religion, but they can't claim that the legal question is answered by their personal religious belief.
The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Hindu marriage as a valid Catholic union, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church gets to say that Hindus aren't legally married.
Marriage is a legal institution. Therefore, whether or not it exists is entirely a question of what the law defines. Religious institutions don't have to recognize same-sex marriage in their religion, but they can't claim that the legal question is answered by their personal religious belief.
The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Hindu marriage as a valid Catholic union, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church gets to say that Hindus aren't legally married.
84
@80 I think it is incorrect to see marriage simply as a legal institution. People have been getting married for a lot longer than they have been making laws. Modern legal institutions like a corporation or even the notion of land ownership are incomprehensible to tribes of hunter-gathers. Not so with marriage. Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher argue that marriage is a universal human institution that transcends any single faith or culture.
85
@79, Please read the 14th amendment and pay special attention to the equal protection clause. The question of immutability may have important bearing on whether the Supreme Court considers sexual orientation to be a suspect class vis-á-vis the 14th amendment. If so, then the denial of marriage eligibility to homosexual couples is unconstitutional and neither the states nor the federal government can prohibit it.
As it stands, the Court does not consider sexual orientation a suspect class and thus the current state of things. I get that you are unequivocally opposed to gay marriage but please don't confuse "state" and "society." Your society can continue to refuse to recognize homosexual marriage. The state (i.e., state and federal governments), however, may or may not be able to depending on, inter alia, whether and how the question of immutability resolves the question of suspect class eligibility for sexual orientation.
As it stands, the Court does not consider sexual orientation a suspect class and thus the current state of things. I get that you are unequivocally opposed to gay marriage but please don't confuse "state" and "society." Your society can continue to refuse to recognize homosexual marriage. The state (i.e., state and federal governments), however, may or may not be able to depending on, inter alia, whether and how the question of immutability resolves the question of suspect class eligibility for sexual orientation.
86
85
Current law is applied equally.
Homosexuals have the same rights and protections as everyone else.
If pedophilia is immutable must the state sanction it?
ps. you are full of shit.
Current law is applied equally.
Homosexuals have the same rights and protections as everyone else.
If pedophilia is immutable must the state sanction it?
ps. you are full of shit.
87
Is it ethical to have a moderator that have similar values as one party? If I were a pro-NOM guy, I'd hold this against this event.
I liked the two questions Mark posed the debators and Dan's responses were solid.
But I feel the same as @17. BB doesn't sparkle with intelligence and clearly doesn't have logic for his position, still he managed to open up a few lines of thought that have bugged me for a while.
I do agree that same-sex marriage debate changes the existing notion of marriage fundamentally. As BB pointed out rather ineptly, it does so by challenging the existing view of normality. Once I questioned my ideas about sexuality, it allowed a lot of other questions and I had to re-examine a lot of my views. Over the time, I personally came to view poligamy - something I found repusive - in a different light. I became tolerent of bisexuality. Incest I think is harmful for a society, but I wouldn't be able to tell such a couple that they are wrong to love each other if that's what it is.
In that way, it does erode the traditional concept of marriage, which is not necessarily harmful, but it can be unsettling for the unprepared. This is why people give money to NOM and holds on to religion like straw in a flood.
As @74 says, people are born gay, but they're not born polygamists etc and unlike born pedophiles/zoophiles, they are not harming anyone. But nowadays we do embrace the fluidity of sexuality. I understand people being L, G, B and T, and I'd vote for equality if I had a vote in USA, but I do fluster with my views when people defend 'experiemting in college.' I agree with Dan that marriage equality in fact brings the gay people into the traditional fold. But this whole debate really is a slippery slope and it does lead to uncharted territory.
More...
I liked the two questions Mark posed the debators and Dan's responses were solid.
But I feel the same as @17. BB doesn't sparkle with intelligence and clearly doesn't have logic for his position, still he managed to open up a few lines of thought that have bugged me for a while.
I do agree that same-sex marriage debate changes the existing notion of marriage fundamentally. As BB pointed out rather ineptly, it does so by challenging the existing view of normality. Once I questioned my ideas about sexuality, it allowed a lot of other questions and I had to re-examine a lot of my views. Over the time, I personally came to view poligamy - something I found repusive - in a different light. I became tolerent of bisexuality. Incest I think is harmful for a society, but I wouldn't be able to tell such a couple that they are wrong to love each other if that's what it is.
In that way, it does erode the traditional concept of marriage, which is not necessarily harmful, but it can be unsettling for the unprepared. This is why people give money to NOM and holds on to religion like straw in a flood.
As @74 says, people are born gay, but they're not born polygamists etc and unlike born pedophiles/zoophiles, they are not harming anyone. But nowadays we do embrace the fluidity of sexuality. I understand people being L, G, B and T, and I'd vote for equality if I had a vote in USA, but I do fluster with my views when people defend 'experiemting in college.' I agree with Dan that marriage equality in fact brings the gay people into the traditional fold. But this whole debate really is a slippery slope and it does lead to uncharted territory.
88
@ 86, pedophilia might in fact be immutable. And this is why the state should re-examine the laws. That doesn't mean allowing sex with pre-pubescents, but helping pedophiles to never act upon their inclination. This argument doesn't hold for homosexuals, because state shouldn't have anything to do with sex between consenting adults.
90
Immutability is not the be-all and end-all of Constitutional protection. If you look at Olson and Boise's successful argument in the prop 8 trial, it relied on several necessary components:
1. Marriage is a vitally important good.
2. Excluding same-sex couple from marriage excludes them from that good, and in fact does them harm.
3. Proposition 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.
Immutability is (or may be, at least) necessary to establish point 2, but immutability is not the entire arguments. Point 3 is crucial as well. This gives us a reason to ban adult-child marriages: to avoid children from being exploited.
Another example: Some violent schizophrenic do not respond to treatment, and thus their condition may be considered immutable. However, Constitutional principles allow us to restrict their freedom in order to avoid a clearly-defined harm, as long as the restrictions is effective and does a good job of targeting the problem without unnecessary burden (i.e., if someone simply wanted to kill all the mentally ill, you could rebut that by pointing out that are less egregious measures that are still effective -- among other reasons, of course).
Immutability is important, but it's not sufficient for Constitutional protection.
1. Marriage is a vitally important good.
2. Excluding same-sex couple from marriage excludes them from that good, and in fact does them harm.
3. Proposition 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.
Immutability is (or may be, at least) necessary to establish point 2, but immutability is not the entire arguments. Point 3 is crucial as well. This gives us a reason to ban adult-child marriages: to avoid children from being exploited.
Another example: Some violent schizophrenic do not respond to treatment, and thus their condition may be considered immutable. However, Constitutional principles allow us to restrict their freedom in order to avoid a clearly-defined harm, as long as the restrictions is effective and does a good job of targeting the problem without unnecessary burden (i.e., if someone simply wanted to kill all the mentally ill, you could rebut that by pointing out that are less egregious measures that are still effective -- among other reasons, of course).
Immutability is important, but it's not sufficient for Constitutional protection.
92
did anyone understand his answer to why allowing gay marriage would fundamentally harm all marriages, or was it really just circular reasoning?
93
Dan - said it before and I will say it again - gay rights are the civil rights issue of our time. And you, sir, are the civil rights leader. Well done and (ahem) god speed.
94
@92 The argument is that marriage equality will make marriage more about the emotional gratification of the adults involved in the relationship and less about the responsibility parents have to bring up their children.
95
Dan, you ran circles around him, logically AND ethically. His only three points were:
1) "Marriage" is this special thing (no logical arguments about it). Just, by definition.
2) I am not a bigot. How dare you, sir!
3) We (we dumb, selfish bigots) are being picked on for having unpopular ideas. Whahhhh!
BB just sounds stupid. I expected something more subtle that we could sink our teeth into, debate-wise. And all we get is this shit: marriage is this special thing based (but not dependent) on a special thing (making babies) and is a special way to bring together "the two sides of humanity,"* because... because... I (and others) say so. That's not an argument, BB; That's a feeling.
*even with no marriage at all, I'm sure the two sides of humanity could "get together" just fine.
1) "Marriage" is this special thing (no logical arguments about it). Just, by definition.
2) I am not a bigot. How dare you, sir!
3) We (we dumb, selfish bigots) are being picked on for having unpopular ideas. Whahhhh!
BB just sounds stupid. I expected something more subtle that we could sink our teeth into, debate-wise. And all we get is this shit: marriage is this special thing based (but not dependent) on a special thing (making babies) and is a special way to bring together "the two sides of humanity,"* because... because... I (and others) say so. That's not an argument, BB; That's a feeling.
*even with no marriage at all, I'm sure the two sides of humanity could "get together" just fine.
96
@95 "even with no marriage at all, I'm sure the two sides of humanity could "get together" just fine"
I'm sure they would, but the children they would produce would be less likely to grow up in an optimal living situation.
I'm sure they would, but the children they would produce would be less likely to grow up in an optimal living situation.
97
@84: Marriage has always been about merging assets, its relationship with whatever religion is prominent at the time is mostly for convenience. Also, the argument that marriage as we know it transcends all boundaries of culture and religion is just stupid. It's only been "as we know it" for less than 150 years.
98
@94 - thanks for trying to clarify ---- so my "emotional gratification" for being married is lessened so gay people can't marry? Only wait, my emotional gratification isn't lessened - not a bit, I mean, my marriage is sacred, unique, and the best decision I ever made in my life, and that didn't change when my gay friends in San Francisco got (briefly) married a few years back. Actually, I felt better about my marriage now that I think about it....
99
@97 I think the only thing marriage has always been about is a man and a women getting together to make babies and to raise them. In some societies marriages are essentially business agreements in others love and romance play more of a role. The one constant is that marriage always involves one man, one or more women, and babies.
@98 The conservative argument is that you and your gay friend both ought to forgo a certain amount of emotional gratification for the good of the children.
@98 The conservative argument is that you and your gay friend both ought to forgo a certain amount of emotional gratification for the good of the children.
100
@84: "People have been getting married for a lot longer than they have been making laws."
Really? How could you possibly know this? The earliest extant texts we have on the topic are legal texts.
Really? How could you possibly know this? The earliest extant texts we have on the topic are legal texts.
101
@99 "a man and a women getting together to make babies"
Actually adoption has gone together with marriage since forever. So if it's about children, it's not just about the potential biological children of the parents; it's about any kind of children, all children, and there's no reason their parents can't be gay.
No, the reason to be against gay marriage is if you believe that men and women are fundamentally different (BB called them 'complementary') and you see that gay marriage breaks down the traditional gender roles. It does. Dan didn't discuss that, because he's trying to seem conservative. But in my view gay marriage does bring radical change to our views of the different roles assigned to the different genders.
Actually adoption has gone together with marriage since forever. So if it's about children, it's not just about the potential biological children of the parents; it's about any kind of children, all children, and there's no reason their parents can't be gay.
No, the reason to be against gay marriage is if you believe that men and women are fundamentally different (BB called them 'complementary') and you see that gay marriage breaks down the traditional gender roles. It does. Dan didn't discuss that, because he's trying to seem conservative. But in my view gay marriage does bring radical change to our views of the different roles assigned to the different genders.
102
@100 Anthropologists have studied tribes of hunter-gathers living in remote regions of the Amazon rainforest and the island of Borneo. Is it really so far fetched to assume that, in the distant past, people who survived using similar tools formed similar societies?
@101 I think Dan's argument is that tolerating non-gender confirming individuals won't change the fact that most people prefer traditional gender roles.
@101 I think Dan's argument is that tolerating non-gender confirming individuals won't change the fact that most people prefer traditional gender roles.
103
Check this out. NOM ripped and reposted the debate video to redirect their loyal readership from the mostly pro-equality debate going on in the youtube page
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/201…
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/201…
104
@101
Re: complementary halves of humanity and breaking down gender roles.
Well, here's a guy arguing against same-sex marriage because men and women are so, so different. See, society needs to show male-female unions favoritism, since those unions are harder. It's any argument in a storm. Sort of like how, as Dan and others have noted, in the past people used to run down gays for being childless, promiscuous hedonists, and now that many gay people are pressing harder for marriage to have equality in partnership and parenting responsibilities, new "reasons" are invented why gays are "doin' it wrong."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KBxTORVa…
Re: complementary halves of humanity and breaking down gender roles.
Well, here's a guy arguing against same-sex marriage because men and women are so, so different. See, society needs to show male-female unions favoritism, since those unions are harder. It's any argument in a storm. Sort of like how, as Dan and others have noted, in the past people used to run down gays for being childless, promiscuous hedonists, and now that many gay people are pressing harder for marriage to have equality in partnership and parenting responsibilities, new "reasons" are invented why gays are "doin' it wrong."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KBxTORVa…
Medical science tells us, male and female brains are different. They work differently. Evolutionary biology tells us the male and female reproductive strategies are very different and conflicting. Sociology and psychology tell us that there are deep behavioral differences between men and women, whether those are social constructs or genetics, the fact is they're real. Do you not feel that it's appropriate for society to have a special, and I'll just use the word, favoritism, for heterosexual relations because heterosexual pair bonds need to overcome that gap, and because they're useful for reproductive purposes to perpetuate the society. A struggle which does not, by definition, exist in a same-sex relationship because people in same-sex relationships have opted out of the struggle.
105
Danny,
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
do you teach your son that Polygamists deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love?
Or do you teach him that they do not deserve that human right.
106
Brian's insistence on how marriage has always been about a man and a woman belies the fact that once upon a time women were things...as Dan pointed out, a contract / transferring of ownership of things including marriage of one man's daughter(s) to another man. Marriage between one man and one thing is not the same thing as two consenting opposite sex persons.
I think the conversation was interesting even if everyone thinks it was a wash for the very reason that we're all still talking about it.
I think the conversation was interesting even if everyone thinks it was a wash for the very reason that we're all still talking about it.
107
The idiot @105, if you listened to his podcasts, you'd know how Dan feels about poly amori, namely, he doesn't tell people who to love/live with. He does so believe in their equal right. As for marriage rights, he CLEARLY states his opinion on the matter in this very video. Wash out your ear and go rewatch it where he explains why he thinks marriage should be limited between two people. I expect he's doing a fine job with his son so that DJ would be able to use his own conscience to make up his own mind on the issue. He did it for me via podcasts.
Also, could someone tell me which article on polygamy he keeps referring to? Is it Jonathon ross? Can't find it by googling.
Also, could someone tell me which article on polygamy he keeps referring to? Is it Jonathon ross? Can't find it by googling.
108
107.
oh.
So Danny teaches his son that Polygamists do not deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love.
Funny.
We bet Brian Brown teaches his kid the same thing about homosexual 'marriage'.....
Bigotry comes in different flavors but when you strip the labels off the underlying ignorance and hate are always the same.
oh.
So Danny teaches his son that Polygamists do not deserve basic human rights,
like being able to marry those they love.
Funny.
We bet Brian Brown teaches his kid the same thing about homosexual 'marriage'.....
Bigotry comes in different flavors but when you strip the labels off the underlying ignorance and hate are always the same.
109
107
Danny doesn't tell people who to love/live with.
Very noble.
But he DOES tell people who they can marry.
Lucky for them Danny knows what is best for them....
Danny doesn't tell people who to love/live with.
Very noble.
But he DOES tell people who they can marry.
Lucky for them Danny knows what is best for them....
110
He said (I paraphrase) if the polygamists want marriage equality, they should advocate their cause. And he said he believes poligamy to be harmful for the larger society for some specific reasons. Maybe in the future some polygamy activist would be able to change his views. He doesn't appear to be an unreasonable person with immutable stances. He also said if same-sex marriages prove to be harmful, he'd have to reconsider his opinion. I'm citing examples from this very video. You should re-watch.
We don't know what he's teaching his son. I expect he's teaching him to form his own opinion, because he did the same for me. My position on polygamy is very different from his, although he taught me a lot about human sexuality. Is Brian Brown teaching his children to form an opinion based on information and rationality? I hope so! But in this video, BB says he won't reconsider his views even if ss marriage proves to be beneficial. So...unlikely. Rewatch, man.
We don't know what he's teaching his son. I expect he's teaching him to form his own opinion, because he did the same for me. My position on polygamy is very different from his, although he taught me a lot about human sexuality. Is Brian Brown teaching his children to form an opinion based on information and rationality? I hope so! But in this video, BB says he won't reconsider his views even if ss marriage proves to be beneficial. So...unlikely. Rewatch, man.
111
I think it is incorrect to see marriage simply as a legal institution.Yes and no. Much about my wife's and my marriage has nothing to do with the law. But so far as my marriage is legally recognized, it is a legal institution. And while the extra-legal aspects of my marriage couldn't be more different from, say, the long-absent Seattleblues's matrimonial sham, the attendant legal benefits and recognitions are essentially identical.
The aspects of marriage that are strictly legal sit at the heart of the current marriage dispute. Couples or groups who fall outside current legal definitions can arguably already enter into social or spiritual matrimony, provided that they can find communities willing to bless such unions.
People have been getting married for a lot longer than they have been making laws.And not always, we might note, according to strict one man/one woman definitions.
Modern legal institutions like a corporation or even the notion of land ownership are incomprehensible to tribes of hunter-gathers. Not so with marriage.Obfuscating, though I think not deliberately. Once you have a tribe, you have a de facto government. At the very least, reference to tribes amounts to a concession that it is a social construct.
Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher argue that marriage is a universal human institution that transcends any single faith or culture.Perhaps. But the cultural institution of law, particularly in a society that claims to honor free exercise of religion (and therefore irreligion) oughtn't to turn the blunt instrument of the state to the niceties of transcendence. If the state is to recognize marriage at all, it should limit itself to its material implications. I know of no one qualified to act, alone or through government, as my moral or metaphysical arbiter . . . or as yours.
112
The argument is that marriage equality will make marriage more about the emotional gratification of the adults involved in the relationship and less about the responsibility parents have to bring up their children.Doesn't allowing the elderly, medically infertile, or voluntarily childless to marry already do that? It seems to me that such allowances display a recognition that the other social benefits provided by married households (they tend to commit fewer crimes, rely less on social services, raise property values, etc.) are worth preserving even in the absence of progeny.
I'm not even sure why making more organisms constitutes a socially desirable condition. I can make a better argument than most for the foundational value of protecting life once it already exists, but it seems like the making of more is value neutral on any but the most subjective bases. Offering some incentive to raise children, once born, in "stable," multi-parent households seems like a net positive--if people are gonna eek out womb-rats, best to make sure someone's raising 'em--but this is accomplished by allowing gay couples who adopt, or who have a child by one partner or the other's prior heterosexual unions, the benefits of marriage . . . and is pointedly NOT accomplished by the current allowance of marital rights and benefits to childless unions.
113
@111 "the cultural institution of law, particularly in a society that claims to honor free exercise of religion (and therefore irreligion) oughtn't to turn the blunt instrument of the state to the niceties of transcendence. If the state is to recognize marriage at all, it should limit itself to its material implications. I know of no one qualified to act, alone or through government, as my moral or metaphysical arbiter . . . or as yours."
Brian Brown would probably cite that as the reason he doesn't want to ban inter-faith marriages or stop the old and the infertile from marrying. The rules would simply be to complicated and require excessive government intrusion into people's personal lives. On the other hand, in his view, homosexuals are a group of people who do not and can not advance the interests of society by forming proper families. Hence, we use the blunt instrument of the state to sanction them by withholding legal recognition of their relationships, or at least refusing to designate their relationships as marriages.
Brian Brown would probably cite that as the reason he doesn't want to ban inter-faith marriages or stop the old and the infertile from marrying. The rules would simply be to complicated and require excessive government intrusion into people's personal lives. On the other hand, in his view, homosexuals are a group of people who do not and can not advance the interests of society by forming proper families. Hence, we use the blunt instrument of the state to sanction them by withholding legal recognition of their relationships, or at least refusing to designate their relationships as marriages.
114
The one constant is that marriage always involves one man, one or more women, and babies.Except that babies are not a constant; nor can we say in good faith that babies have ever been a constant. At any given time, less than half of all marriages have progeny. Now we might account for new marriages where children simply haven't been born yet, or marriages in which children had been planned for but haven't arrived for medical reasons, but the fact remains that, statistically, most marriages at any given time are childless, and some percentage of those childless marriages were almost certainly intended as such.
It's worth mentioning, also, that various matrifocal societies practice polyandry (in which case there is one woman and one or more man). This undermines your argument less, but it does hint at a broader spectrum of marital arrangements than your bourgeois (no judgment there; we are ALL bourgeois, n'est-ce pas?) lens registers.
If those who oppose same-sex marriage wish to argue either that the state should only recognize marriage in cases where there are progeny (or should make all marital benefits contingent on a child being either born to the married parties or adopted), or that the state oughtn't to be recognizing marriage at all, that's one thing. The current argument has no leg to stand on but fluid, subjective ideologies which true "free exercise" would not allow to be codified.
And for the record--not because anyone has asked, but because I'd rather circumvent anyone putting it to me later as if there's anything I haven't already considered--I absolutely support the legal recognition of polygamous (including both polygynous and polyandrous marriage, or any other configuration to which all parties consent) marriage; indeed, despite my moral and visceral revulsion at incest, I'm not even convinced that the state has a compelling interest in outlawing consanguineous marriage.
115
@113 - I arguably already accounted for that in #112 (where I outline the empirically demonstrable social benefits of childless marriage) and #114 (where I point out that the majority of marriages at any given time are, in fact, childless). To whatever degree that doesn't cover the matter, I'd go on to say that a state that recognizes that it cannot reasonably keep a man and woman from marrying (or staying married) for love, financial security, what-have-you is already parsing moral boundaries suggesting that configurations involving members of the same sex or more than two partners cannot "marry" on the same basis.
116
@112 Social conservatives would argue that traditional sexual morality did a better job of providing children with stable two-parent families. Remember, the gay marriage debate isn't just about gay marriage. Almost everyone who opposes marriage equality also wants to make abortion illegal and restrict access to divorce and contraception.
117
One more point on @113, Ken:
On the other hand, in his view, homosexuals are a group of people who do not and can not advance the interests of society by forming proper families.Again, I have to ask--what is a proper family? What is the empirically demonstrable benefit to society of making progeny; what foundational value--that is, what "objective" value (no such thing, really, since all value is assigned, but for our purposes, "objective" can refer to that which satisfies the broadest possible array of subjective values), without which society cannot cohere, does making more organisms serve? Conversely, could we not say that any two or more people who forgo the benefits of single lifestyle in the interest of forming stable households, consolidating resources, and offering civilization all of the benefits I cite in #112 constitutes a "proper family," so far as we're suggesting that proper families constitute a social good?
118
@116 - And that's a perfectly fine argument to make to your family, in the pulpit, through your art and/or writing and/or public service, what-have-you. The benefits of traditional sexual morality are fine fodder for moral discussions--discussions at which matters of governance have no seat. Law maintains a condition of civic balance--a utilitarian condition that makes morality possible by protecting the right of the individual to pursue his or her own moral vision, to align himself with groups and viewpoints that support that vision, but do not codify any portion of that vision into law except insofar as it protects the moral sovereignty of the citizen. Legal marriage simply represents an acknowledgment of the material realities and socialized benefits of the formation of stable households--with or without children--and thus provides a format into which children may be born or adopted and raised under what appear to be closer to optimum circumstances.
119
@112, 113
Why should everything be juged by the amount of 'social good' it provides? Everyone should butt out as long as it's not hurting anybody (e.g. pedophilia) or 'taking anything away from the others' (e.g. incest. Normalization would have an effect on the relationships in other families. It's not a 'natural' boundary after all, rather societal and learnt).
And just for the sake of honest argument, I get what BB is trying to say about childless marriages. They don't erode the man-woman notion of marriage, that 'unique' and 'beautiful thing' he frothes over. They fit his comfort zone regarding gender roles. He fails to see that same-sex couples do too complement each other; there's harmony... call it a compatibility of personality type, an optimal combination of masculine and feminine energy (no man/woman is a 100% male/female), or pure desire to share and witness. It's a beautiful thing too. If you can't see it BB, that's your problem.
Why should everything be juged by the amount of 'social good' it provides? Everyone should butt out as long as it's not hurting anybody (e.g. pedophilia) or 'taking anything away from the others' (e.g. incest. Normalization would have an effect on the relationships in other families. It's not a 'natural' boundary after all, rather societal and learnt).
And just for the sake of honest argument, I get what BB is trying to say about childless marriages. They don't erode the man-woman notion of marriage, that 'unique' and 'beautiful thing' he frothes over. They fit his comfort zone regarding gender roles. He fails to see that same-sex couples do too complement each other; there's harmony... call it a compatibility of personality type, an optimal combination of masculine and feminine energy (no man/woman is a 100% male/female), or pure desire to share and witness. It's a beautiful thing too. If you can't see it BB, that's your problem.
120
@118 I don't think anybody except, perhaps, a Ron Paul-libertarian would argue that facilitating the formation of stable two-parent families is not a legitimate public policy goal.
121
Why should everything be judged by the amount of 'social good' it provides?Not everything should. But in the case of the legal marriage contract, special rights are bestowed. If government is going to give something--through subsidy, special rights, whatever--it seems like it should have to pass some sort of test. And better "social good" than "moral good," right?
Everyone should butt out as long as it's not hurting anybody (e.g. pedophilia) or 'taking anything away from the others' . . .I absolutely agree, so long as we're talking about what should be allowed. But so far as marriage is something we allow, gays are "allowed" to be married--they can hold a ceremony, open a joint account, move into a house together, and so on. Once we get into the web of legal rights that accompany this contract, we're talking about something else--a bestowal, if you will. Now, I happen to think that same-sex couples should receive this, and I think my arguments as to why are pretty clear.
122
I don't think anybody except, perhaps, a Ron Paul-libertarian would argue that facilitating the formation of stable two-parent families is not a legitimate public policy goal.I don't know about that. I'm a mass-transit hungry, universal healthcare supporting, same-sex-marriage advocating sort, and I'm not particularly convinced that stable two-parent families represent a public policy interest. But I believe that it CAN be a legitimate public policy interest, depending entirely on what we're comparing it to. What I'm saying is that it stable two-parent families cannot be demonstrated to be preferable, in any way that legitimately falls under the heading of civic law, to childlessness. It is preferable (probably) to procreating willy-nilly without regard to commitment or the creation of stable households, but that interest is no less served if same-sex couples are granted the same recognitions as the childless heterosexual couples, from which they are functionally indistinguishable, currently receive.
123
@121 I agree. I think that in the 21st century committed gay relationships play a role in society that is sufficiently similar to heterosexual marriages as to merit the same legal status and recognition. Gay relationships can't do everything that hetero-marriage can, but they come pretty damn close.
124
@123 - Then Jesus-Monkey-Fucking-Christ, Ken, what are we even arguing about? :)
No, I get it. You're trying to show me/us that social conservatives make these arguments from reasonable premises and good faith. For the record, I've always been pretty well aware of that. But reasonable premises and good faith do not make an argument fundamentally sound, irrefutable, or legally binding. At some point, you need to be able to figure out how everyone (or as close to everyone as possible) can function according to their own reasonable premises and good faith, or the reasonable premises and good faith of the groups with whom they voluntarily associate.
No, I get it. You're trying to show me/us that social conservatives make these arguments from reasonable premises and good faith. For the record, I've always been pretty well aware of that. But reasonable premises and good faith do not make an argument fundamentally sound, irrefutable, or legally binding. At some point, you need to be able to figure out how everyone (or as close to everyone as possible) can function according to their own reasonable premises and good faith, or the reasonable premises and good faith of the groups with whom they voluntarily associate.
125
@122 "What I'm saying is that it stable two-parent families cannot be demonstrated to be preferable . . . to childlessness."
I think that people who take responsibility for raising a child deserve special tax breaks and stuff because taking care of a kid is hard work and somebody has to do it so that when you and I are old geezers lying in a nursing home there will be younger folks around to change our bed pans.
I think that people who take responsibility for raising a child deserve special tax breaks and stuff because taking care of a kid is hard work and somebody has to do it so that when you and I are old geezers lying in a nursing home there will be younger folks around to change our bed pans.
126
@125 - Yeah, but every time you assert that, you essentially dodge the issue that MOST marriages at any given time are childless; this couldn't possibly be true if some significant portion of them weren't permanently so. Indeed, given how steeply marriage rates have declined (or so I seem to recall reading somewhere), the fact that childless marriage are increasing means that we can no longer assume that statistical anomaly is the result of new marriages that just don't involve children "yet."
That is to say, the issue of child-rearing and the issue of marriage are connected, but they really aren't the same issue.
I think that those who raise children responsibly, so that those children are, in turn, of some use to society when they get older, are engaged in a noble endeavor. Objectively, a human life is no more valuable or exalted than the life of a virus; subjectively, I like a good many people considerably more than many of the viruses I've fought off, and the pleasures of art, religion, and sex play in my life could hardly be possible if I did not belong to so . . . innovative a species. So by all means, reward people for making the choice to raise children responsibly. But to reward them for consolidating their resources and committing, in one degree or another, to the abstraction of an intimate relationship while disingenuously tying that reward to some nebulous (if persistent) principle that doing so will one day lead to more organisms--thus excluding certain groups who seek to so commit for precisely the same reasons--strikes me as both bad policy and profoundly mushy philosophy.
That is to say, the issue of child-rearing and the issue of marriage are connected, but they really aren't the same issue.
I think that those who raise children responsibly, so that those children are, in turn, of some use to society when they get older, are engaged in a noble endeavor. Objectively, a human life is no more valuable or exalted than the life of a virus; subjectively, I like a good many people considerably more than many of the viruses I've fought off, and the pleasures of art, religion, and sex play in my life could hardly be possible if I did not belong to so . . . innovative a species. So by all means, reward people for making the choice to raise children responsibly. But to reward them for consolidating their resources and committing, in one degree or another, to the abstraction of an intimate relationship while disingenuously tying that reward to some nebulous (if persistent) principle that doing so will one day lead to more organisms--thus excluding certain groups who seek to so commit for precisely the same reasons--strikes me as both bad policy and profoundly mushy philosophy.
127
@124 I think that the kind of 'Father Knows Best' family values that people like Brian Brown want to bring back were extremely cruel to gay people, battered women, and those temperamentally unsuited to monogamy. I also think that social acceptance of a wider variety of sexual practices and life-styles is in-part responsible for for the large number of children being raised by single parents. I don't think liberals should delude themselves into believing that we don't pay a price for the greater freedom we now enjoy.
128
@127 - Life is all about cost, Ken. When I say I'm an ontological nihilist, I'm pointing out that the only premises that survive scrutiny are those that posit that suffering, destruction, and chaos are necessarily intertwined with joy, generation, and order. There is no benefit that does not bring harm in its wake.
What I think we have to ask socially and morally (not necessarily politically; I think it's quite necessary to keep those spheres separate) is which of the two conditions you describe can be remedied as a society matures. I can imagine social mechanisms that can make the life of a child of a single parent better. I can imagine no recourse for the oppressed homosexual, the battered woman, or the ostracized polyamorous. What ills do you accept? The ones that can be most effectively mitigated.
That said, I think that we can have greater freedom and still suggest that those freedoms be enjoyed responsibly. It seems to me that same-sex marriage and polygamy are actually steps towards that, in that it rewards constraining the erotic within the boundaries of stable households.
What I think we have to ask socially and morally (not necessarily politically; I think it's quite necessary to keep those spheres separate) is which of the two conditions you describe can be remedied as a society matures. I can imagine social mechanisms that can make the life of a child of a single parent better. I can imagine no recourse for the oppressed homosexual, the battered woman, or the ostracized polyamorous. What ills do you accept? The ones that can be most effectively mitigated.
That said, I think that we can have greater freedom and still suggest that those freedoms be enjoyed responsibly. It seems to me that same-sex marriage and polygamy are actually steps towards that, in that it rewards constraining the erotic within the boundaries of stable households.
129
Some of the people from here should go to the NOM youtube video of this debate and talk to the people there.
130
@99: Glad to know my heterosexual marriage isn't a real marriage because it's not about babies, and never will be. Does this mean I can get an annulment if I change my mind in 40 years?
131
@130 - I think Ken's getting at that having been part & parcel of the historical definition of marriage. He's still factually incorrect, I think (though the exceptions are few), but I don't think there was any malice with regards to your marriage, or even any deterministic sense of what marriage "should" be. That is, I think he's articulating the basis of our opponents' argument. I've seen him say several times that he's (more or less) for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Correct me if I've misrepresented your position, Ken.
Correct me if I've misrepresented your position, Ken.
133
This reminds me of the time I was asked if I had a family, and I said yes, and then they asked how old they were, and I got all confused and said, "oh, you mean do I have children?!"
What is a family, indeed!
What is a family, indeed!
134
@102 Re: "Anthropologists have studied tribes of hunter-gathers living in remote regions of the Amazon rainforest and the island of Borneo. Is it really so far fetched to assume that, in the distant past, people who survived using similar tools formed similar societies?"
Your assertion was that people had been getting married longer than they had been making laws, which is a) not a testable hypothesis, and b) doesn't sound like a reasoned assumption at all. If other [nonliterate or preliterate] societies included similar institutions, then they would also probably include traditions resembling law, much like other nonliterate societies from more recent history have demonstrated. It is more reasonable to assume that marriage, in its various forms, has always been a civil institution, as it has been in our own Western traditions.
That is, earliest extant texts on marriage as a civil institution::ancient nonliterate marriage-like traditions as earliest extant legal texts on other topics::ancient nonliterate law-like traditions on other topics.
It may well be the case that marriage, like law, is a "universal human institution," as you put it. It does not follow that that universal human institution everywhere and always excludes same-gendered pair bonds, because that is demonstrably untrue. It has always been a constant that it involves one man, one or more women, and babies, but only if you disregard all the times that it involves some other configuration that doesn't conform to that constant.
Brian and Maggie have faith in one definition of marriage, and that definition has not been a constant across time and culture, as they like to believe and restate ad nauseum. John Corvino addresses this adequately in the book he co-wrote with Gallagher.
More...
Your assertion was that people had been getting married longer than they had been making laws, which is a) not a testable hypothesis, and b) doesn't sound like a reasoned assumption at all. If other [nonliterate or preliterate] societies included similar institutions, then they would also probably include traditions resembling law, much like other nonliterate societies from more recent history have demonstrated. It is more reasonable to assume that marriage, in its various forms, has always been a civil institution, as it has been in our own Western traditions.
That is, earliest extant texts on marriage as a civil institution::ancient nonliterate marriage-like traditions as earliest extant legal texts on other topics::ancient nonliterate law-like traditions on other topics.
It may well be the case that marriage, like law, is a "universal human institution," as you put it. It does not follow that that universal human institution everywhere and always excludes same-gendered pair bonds, because that is demonstrably untrue. It has always been a constant that it involves one man, one or more women, and babies, but only if you disregard all the times that it involves some other configuration that doesn't conform to that constant.
Brian and Maggie have faith in one definition of marriage, and that definition has not been a constant across time and culture, as they like to believe and restate ad nauseum. John Corvino addresses this adequately in the book he co-wrote with Gallagher.
135
@131: Yes, and I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek myself. I was trying to illustrate that the primary purpose of marriage can't simply be "babies," because not every married couple has, or wants, babies. Likewise, people have been having babies without getting married for a very long time, and one of the reasons one might not marry their babymama has to do with not wanting to owe money/property to said progeny. It also continues to be true most places in the US that unless a court decrees otherwise, the father of a child is the person married to the mother, not necessarily the person who provided the DNA. Marriage has always been about material assets, and babies are just another asset.
136
@131 I'm very much in favor of legal recognition of same sex marriages. I think that there are very few historical instances of homosexual relationships being seen as marriages. However, I also think that modern technology has created a society far different from any that came before.
137
Man. I wish you could pull Paradise Lost into this. In Milton's (and Milton and Dante created a good deal of what constitutes modern Christian mythos) creation storie, Adam is pretty pissed that God provides him a woman. Adam explicitly wanted an 'equal'; he wanted a man.
138
@63 I totally agree and felt that frustration.
I knew Brian Brown wouldn't have any road-to-Damascus conversion, but I did hope (naively, I know) that he might at least disown some of the rabid bigotry spewing from his own side of the debate. Dan confronted him with it, but because it was one of a series of things Dan said, Brown was able to sidestep it and then moan about being accused of bigotry. Anyone with a halfway decent capacity to understand English will see that Brown was disingenuous about the bigotry question, but this is what passes for honest debate nowadays.
And the conflation of the religious and civil was also frustrating. Brown's whole position on marriage was based on "marriage" as this particularly defined ideal thing - kind of a Platonic "Form" if you're into that - and so Dan's marriage can't be a real marriage because it doesn't fit the definition. Dan rightly pointed out that civil marriage allows for a much broader definition of marriage. Dan was arguing the legality, Brown was arguing the religious position, they were talking at cross purposes and neither could "win" without turning half of the debate over to the church/state division. And even then I'm not sure, because religious people tend to play down or deny any such division.
I knew Brian Brown wouldn't have any road-to-Damascus conversion, but I did hope (naively, I know) that he might at least disown some of the rabid bigotry spewing from his own side of the debate. Dan confronted him with it, but because it was one of a series of things Dan said, Brown was able to sidestep it and then moan about being accused of bigotry. Anyone with a halfway decent capacity to understand English will see that Brown was disingenuous about the bigotry question, but this is what passes for honest debate nowadays.
And the conflation of the religious and civil was also frustrating. Brown's whole position on marriage was based on "marriage" as this particularly defined ideal thing - kind of a Platonic "Form" if you're into that - and so Dan's marriage can't be a real marriage because it doesn't fit the definition. Dan rightly pointed out that civil marriage allows for a much broader definition of marriage. Dan was arguing the legality, Brown was arguing the religious position, they were talking at cross purposes and neither could "win" without turning half of the debate over to the church/state division. And even then I'm not sure, because religious people tend to play down or deny any such division.
139
I think it's cute that someone would attempt to have a rational discussion with a true believer.
141
When was the last time a christian hosted a sit down dinner/debate with a gay activist? Oh let's see... maybe never? Dan has given the reasonable people proof that while WE can invite these christianists into our homes for a civilized discussion, THEY cannot. I'm very proud to be on the side of civility and not standing with the likes of Westboro Baptist Church.
142
Okay, I’m such a dweeb and a dufus, I watched it and took notes. This to me is the modern day equivalent of Anita Bryant being invited to Harvey Milk's house for dinner ... that happening alone would have been unthinkable and historic, right? But to boot, the public is let in on it? I'm just so proud to be on the side that made this happen. Yes, it sucks that Brown was so flippant afterwards, essentially saying ‘what made those liberal wusses think I’d change my mind, anyway?’
Have to say, this one thing drives me nuts. A definite weakass moment, Dan saying right off the bat, "Was I bullying? The Economist says 'no'." And, "I don't think I was bullying."
Holy shit man, of *COURSE* YOU WEREN'T BULLYING!! Stand the fuck UP and point this out as a FACT, in strongest possible terms! You just come off weak and whiny in saying that, see, some random magazine says I wasn't bullying, so that makes it so. You sound like a lilly livered jackass. What I wish you'd said was, 'For fuck's sake, be real, Brian, We ALL know what does and does not constitute bullying, right? Thought perhaps *I* know a bit more about that than you, and by NO STRETCH OF ANY SANE PERSON, or even IDIOT's imagination could what I did be fairly described as anything close to bullying.' AND then follow up by pointing out how obvious it is that the ONLY reason this claim has been made by the other side, is to try to, of all things, discredit the great work you did with IGB, plain and simple, by spreading the lie that it's founder is himself a bully.
Dan's opening 15 min bit was great. Sloggers have heard these arguments before, but it struck me just how flat out amazing it is for the president of NOM to be sitting hearing them first hand.
Some stronger bits were the part about not bearing false witness - to say, again, to the NOM president, that his organization does not just bear false witness but does so 'routinely', and that they, or at least FRC, explicitly conflates homosexuality with pedophilia. And the shocking bit about Reverend Willie Owens saying that "Support for gay marriage is condoning child molestation." And the pointing out that the pushing of homo = child molestation being "poison" that NOM injects into the culture and that real lgbt kids suffer and die as a result, was just excellent.
Also well put was the bit about Falwell in the 70's saying homos were a threat because they didn't have kids and therefore were not invested in the next generation and only focused on the next orgasm - and that Dan's father said this to Dan when he was young! And then the tables being turned - now it's the fact that homos want to marry and have families that makes them a threat, and that you can't fucking have it both ways. Great point. So many young people today won't know what Anita and Falwell tried to claim back then, or who they even are.
Brian opens 15 minutes by trying to capitalize, immediately, which I felt was such a tacky move, on the Family Research Counsel shooting that had occurred that same day. I wish Dan had responded to this by saying, um, Brian, do you have ANY clue how much violence is and has always been used against my community? Vs yours? Ridiculously easy point that should have been hammered home.
One small unrelated observation: 21 min's in you can spot on the wall in the background behind B, the David Rakoff papercut Dan recently tweeted a link to, that David had made for D&T on their 10th anniversary. So sweet.
I think we need a non-partisan fact checker here, as well, re the take on the Regenerus study - B says even the people who criticize it say it was absolutely properly done; D says it's been criticized for in fact absolutely not being properly done.
B use of the phrase "elite culture" was such a fucking groan worthy moment. You only come off sounding like Bill O’Reilly when you say this shit. Come on, define 'elite' for us, Brian. You mean like ivy league fratboys Mitt Romney and George W Bush? Or is it just anyone who's been to college? Would that perchance include you, the guy with the master's degree from Oxford?
B: "I'm in your home. I'm stating my beliefs. I'm not trying to attack you." Once again, define your terms, Brian. If trying to deny gays their basic civil rights isn't an 'attack', then what is?
B, repeatedly: "Something unique and special about men and women coming together." The point I think B misses is that what he's talking about, aside from reproduction, is, I think, yin and yang - THAT is 'natural law', if anything is. I felt like D should have maybe pointed out what he's said before on This American Life and other places, about the dynamics re he and Terry - that D goes out and earns the money (traditional husband role), and T stayed home with DJ from day one, cooks, cleans, does the laundry (traditional wife role). Illustrating that yin and yang does not necessarily itself correspond with gender, ie that you can have both qualities of the masculine and the feminine even between and amongst people of the same gender.
At 25 min's in, B addresses D directly re the high school conference. "Come on, Dan. Saying someone's religion is BS, and my understanding is that you were not brought in to talk about the bible ... Why did you do this? It doesn't further your argument."
Have to agree with B here. Had Dan merely said there was "nonsense" in the bible, or things that weren't accurate, or used language other than "bullshit", to a room full of kids as young as 14 - of COURSE parents and adults there are going to be upset. As smart a guy as I think Dan can be, this was dead stupid - he fed it to them. Total fodder for the right - we can't expect them NOT to run with it.
Another non partisan fact checking needed here: B says a number of secular scholars and experts say the bible did not condone slavery, that at most it was indentured servitude for a set/limited number of years. B also says all of the abolitionists (Harriet Beecher Stowe, etc) pointed to the bible re Paul telling whomever to take back his slave as a brother. I’m not biblical scholar, so maybe we need a debate between biblical scholars on this point.
B references again and again, the ‘bringing together of the two halves of humanity’. This is a patently weak argument. Other than for reproductive reasons, he does a completely shit job of telling us WHY this is so terribly, terribly important and critical to the world. Or why the existence of this terribly critical thing justifies in any way, the lack of equality for lgbt folks, in marriage and otherwise.
Great comeback for D, quoting directly from FRC saying that gay rights activists goal is to abolish all age of consent laws, and that that is the reason they were labeled a hate group by SPLC, NOT because they oppose gay marriage (as does Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc, yet those groups not labeled hate groups.)
Great moment at 35 min's - D saying if Leviticus says stone the non-virgin on her wedding night, then why don't we hear about it? Why only the abomination crap? Why the cherry picking - and he then says it and even points a finger directly at B: "I don't think principled oposition to gay marriage is necessarily bigotry, but THAT (pointing to the FRC statement on the table) IS bigotry.”
Adoptions by same sex couples have tripled in the past 10 yrs, D says. That's a staggering stat - I had no idea. As was stated later in the debate, this is the way history is going – gay marriage is coming, people, no matter if the right kicks and screams.
One of the best moments: Around 37 min's, the crux of Dan's argument is perfectly crystalized by stating that the state gave he and Terry the right to adopt and made them DJ's legal parents … yet that same state will now allow them to marry, even a civil marriage. The fucking debate should have ended right here - need anything else be discussed, really?
B's arguments begins to fall especially flat: "Marriage is the institution that allows children to know both their mother and their father." Yes, duh, but in cases of adoption - those kids are awaiting parents they don't already have - or they wouldn't be up for adoption. Of course it's ideal that the kid knows both his or her parents, but you have to define 'parents'. I think generally speaking, an adopted kid usually considers his adopted parents to fucking BE his parents. Just because there isn't a blood doesn't make that not so.
At 40 min's, B makes an even poorer argument: Marriage is and can only be between male and female, and gays are saying 1) that's wrong, and 2) that makes you a bigot, so DON’T ACT SURPRISED when a Catholic Charities adoption agency is closed down because they won't allow gay adoptions. "If your new idea of marriage is encoded into the law, it will be used to oppress, marginalize and punish us.”
Oh, boo hoo, Brian. For god’s sake, on what basis do you have to be ‘surprised’ and angry and outraged that legal remedies exist to correct wrongs? Do you think the owner of Woolworth’s would have been justified had he been angry that the government, or some lawyer, was ‘forcing’ him to serve blacks? HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT??
The whole Counsel of Jerusalem conversation was fascinating. Christians did not need to follow all of the Jewish laws. Yet no one felt that homosexuality was acceptable, says B. At this point, around 44 min's in, the moderator then gets into the argument. While I completely agreed with his point and admired and was cheering him on when he repeatedly tried to finally NAIL Brian down re what is perhaps the main question ie tell us just exactly how gay marriage impacts or harms straight marriage? - I feel him interjecting himself into the debate, and showing which side he was on, was a mistake. This does nothing but provide fodder for B's followers to claim the whole thing was rigged and that Dan hand picked the moderator so that same would 'spin' this thing. Bad move. This is the Savage/Brown debate, not the Mark Oppenheimer one.
That being said, one of the clearest and best points is made by the the latter at 45:50 - "Other laws got kept. The rationale for which laws were kept and which ones weren't is not immediately apparent”. And the bit about NOM not trying to stop divorce as much as they're working to stop gay marriage. If there was any justice in the world, in response to this, the moment at 47:56 should haunt Brian Brown:
"Because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean you make it illegal".
This should be on bumper stickers!
Strange and so lame that the knee jerk slippery slope "well why not marry 4 people, then" argument has to be raised, and that when D calls it a slippery slope, B denies that he said it was.
At 57 min's, that the biggest harm B can come up with that gay marriage would supposedly cause to straight marriage, is that kids would be taught in school that it's the same thing for little Mary to grow up and marry a girl as to marry a boy, and if you disagree, you're called a bigot ...
Honest to god. Wow. These people really are going down.
Bringing the two halve of humanity together, comes up again, twice, in the last 5 minutes. B again, never states what the hell he means by this, and why this is so damned critical.
Overall, I wish the thing had been 2 hours. There was SO much more to be said. But I’m thrilled and we all should be proud that this occurred at all. One hopes that in seeing Dan and his family in their home and breaking bread with them, B can’t help but recognize their humanity and right to exist and be treated equally – even if he doesn’t admit it to anyone, even if it only comes out later. Perhaps the seed will have been planted right here. Like Oppenheimer said in the NYT piece, Brown’s cohort Blankenhorn changed his views on gay marriage after speaking with gay parents, so it is actually possible.
Sorry for the ridiculous length of this post. I apparently need to get out more.
More...
Have to say, this one thing drives me nuts. A definite weakass moment, Dan saying right off the bat, "Was I bullying? The Economist says 'no'." And, "I don't think I was bullying."
Holy shit man, of *COURSE* YOU WEREN'T BULLYING!! Stand the fuck UP and point this out as a FACT, in strongest possible terms! You just come off weak and whiny in saying that, see, some random magazine says I wasn't bullying, so that makes it so. You sound like a lilly livered jackass. What I wish you'd said was, 'For fuck's sake, be real, Brian, We ALL know what does and does not constitute bullying, right? Thought perhaps *I* know a bit more about that than you, and by NO STRETCH OF ANY SANE PERSON, or even IDIOT's imagination could what I did be fairly described as anything close to bullying.' AND then follow up by pointing out how obvious it is that the ONLY reason this claim has been made by the other side, is to try to, of all things, discredit the great work you did with IGB, plain and simple, by spreading the lie that it's founder is himself a bully.
Dan's opening 15 min bit was great. Sloggers have heard these arguments before, but it struck me just how flat out amazing it is for the president of NOM to be sitting hearing them first hand.
Some stronger bits were the part about not bearing false witness - to say, again, to the NOM president, that his organization does not just bear false witness but does so 'routinely', and that they, or at least FRC, explicitly conflates homosexuality with pedophilia. And the shocking bit about Reverend Willie Owens saying that "Support for gay marriage is condoning child molestation." And the pointing out that the pushing of homo = child molestation being "poison" that NOM injects into the culture and that real lgbt kids suffer and die as a result, was just excellent.
Also well put was the bit about Falwell in the 70's saying homos were a threat because they didn't have kids and therefore were not invested in the next generation and only focused on the next orgasm - and that Dan's father said this to Dan when he was young! And then the tables being turned - now it's the fact that homos want to marry and have families that makes them a threat, and that you can't fucking have it both ways. Great point. So many young people today won't know what Anita and Falwell tried to claim back then, or who they even are.
Brian opens 15 minutes by trying to capitalize, immediately, which I felt was such a tacky move, on the Family Research Counsel shooting that had occurred that same day. I wish Dan had responded to this by saying, um, Brian, do you have ANY clue how much violence is and has always been used against my community? Vs yours? Ridiculously easy point that should have been hammered home.
One small unrelated observation: 21 min's in you can spot on the wall in the background behind B, the David Rakoff papercut Dan recently tweeted a link to, that David had made for D&T on their 10th anniversary. So sweet.
I think we need a non-partisan fact checker here, as well, re the take on the Regenerus study - B says even the people who criticize it say it was absolutely properly done; D says it's been criticized for in fact absolutely not being properly done.
B use of the phrase "elite culture" was such a fucking groan worthy moment. You only come off sounding like Bill O’Reilly when you say this shit. Come on, define 'elite' for us, Brian. You mean like ivy league fratboys Mitt Romney and George W Bush? Or is it just anyone who's been to college? Would that perchance include you, the guy with the master's degree from Oxford?
B: "I'm in your home. I'm stating my beliefs. I'm not trying to attack you." Once again, define your terms, Brian. If trying to deny gays their basic civil rights isn't an 'attack', then what is?
B, repeatedly: "Something unique and special about men and women coming together." The point I think B misses is that what he's talking about, aside from reproduction, is, I think, yin and yang - THAT is 'natural law', if anything is. I felt like D should have maybe pointed out what he's said before on This American Life and other places, about the dynamics re he and Terry - that D goes out and earns the money (traditional husband role), and T stayed home with DJ from day one, cooks, cleans, does the laundry (traditional wife role). Illustrating that yin and yang does not necessarily itself correspond with gender, ie that you can have both qualities of the masculine and the feminine even between and amongst people of the same gender.
At 25 min's in, B addresses D directly re the high school conference. "Come on, Dan. Saying someone's religion is BS, and my understanding is that you were not brought in to talk about the bible ... Why did you do this? It doesn't further your argument."
Have to agree with B here. Had Dan merely said there was "nonsense" in the bible, or things that weren't accurate, or used language other than "bullshit", to a room full of kids as young as 14 - of COURSE parents and adults there are going to be upset. As smart a guy as I think Dan can be, this was dead stupid - he fed it to them. Total fodder for the right - we can't expect them NOT to run with it.
Another non partisan fact checking needed here: B says a number of secular scholars and experts say the bible did not condone slavery, that at most it was indentured servitude for a set/limited number of years. B also says all of the abolitionists (Harriet Beecher Stowe, etc) pointed to the bible re Paul telling whomever to take back his slave as a brother. I’m not biblical scholar, so maybe we need a debate between biblical scholars on this point.
B references again and again, the ‘bringing together of the two halves of humanity’. This is a patently weak argument. Other than for reproductive reasons, he does a completely shit job of telling us WHY this is so terribly, terribly important and critical to the world. Or why the existence of this terribly critical thing justifies in any way, the lack of equality for lgbt folks, in marriage and otherwise.
Great comeback for D, quoting directly from FRC saying that gay rights activists goal is to abolish all age of consent laws, and that that is the reason they were labeled a hate group by SPLC, NOT because they oppose gay marriage (as does Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc, yet those groups not labeled hate groups.)
Great moment at 35 min's - D saying if Leviticus says stone the non-virgin on her wedding night, then why don't we hear about it? Why only the abomination crap? Why the cherry picking - and he then says it and even points a finger directly at B: "I don't think principled oposition to gay marriage is necessarily bigotry, but THAT (pointing to the FRC statement on the table) IS bigotry.”
Adoptions by same sex couples have tripled in the past 10 yrs, D says. That's a staggering stat - I had no idea. As was stated later in the debate, this is the way history is going – gay marriage is coming, people, no matter if the right kicks and screams.
One of the best moments: Around 37 min's, the crux of Dan's argument is perfectly crystalized by stating that the state gave he and Terry the right to adopt and made them DJ's legal parents … yet that same state will now allow them to marry, even a civil marriage. The fucking debate should have ended right here - need anything else be discussed, really?
B's arguments begins to fall especially flat: "Marriage is the institution that allows children to know both their mother and their father." Yes, duh, but in cases of adoption - those kids are awaiting parents they don't already have - or they wouldn't be up for adoption. Of course it's ideal that the kid knows both his or her parents, but you have to define 'parents'. I think generally speaking, an adopted kid usually considers his adopted parents to fucking BE his parents. Just because there isn't a blood doesn't make that not so.
At 40 min's, B makes an even poorer argument: Marriage is and can only be between male and female, and gays are saying 1) that's wrong, and 2) that makes you a bigot, so DON’T ACT SURPRISED when a Catholic Charities adoption agency is closed down because they won't allow gay adoptions. "If your new idea of marriage is encoded into the law, it will be used to oppress, marginalize and punish us.”
Oh, boo hoo, Brian. For god’s sake, on what basis do you have to be ‘surprised’ and angry and outraged that legal remedies exist to correct wrongs? Do you think the owner of Woolworth’s would have been justified had he been angry that the government, or some lawyer, was ‘forcing’ him to serve blacks? HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT??
The whole Counsel of Jerusalem conversation was fascinating. Christians did not need to follow all of the Jewish laws. Yet no one felt that homosexuality was acceptable, says B. At this point, around 44 min's in, the moderator then gets into the argument. While I completely agreed with his point and admired and was cheering him on when he repeatedly tried to finally NAIL Brian down re what is perhaps the main question ie tell us just exactly how gay marriage impacts or harms straight marriage? - I feel him interjecting himself into the debate, and showing which side he was on, was a mistake. This does nothing but provide fodder for B's followers to claim the whole thing was rigged and that Dan hand picked the moderator so that same would 'spin' this thing. Bad move. This is the Savage/Brown debate, not the Mark Oppenheimer one.
That being said, one of the clearest and best points is made by the the latter at 45:50 - "Other laws got kept. The rationale for which laws were kept and which ones weren't is not immediately apparent”. And the bit about NOM not trying to stop divorce as much as they're working to stop gay marriage. If there was any justice in the world, in response to this, the moment at 47:56 should haunt Brian Brown:
"Because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean you make it illegal".
This should be on bumper stickers!
Strange and so lame that the knee jerk slippery slope "well why not marry 4 people, then" argument has to be raised, and that when D calls it a slippery slope, B denies that he said it was.
At 57 min's, that the biggest harm B can come up with that gay marriage would supposedly cause to straight marriage, is that kids would be taught in school that it's the same thing for little Mary to grow up and marry a girl as to marry a boy, and if you disagree, you're called a bigot ...
Honest to god. Wow. These people really are going down.
Bringing the two halve of humanity together, comes up again, twice, in the last 5 minutes. B again, never states what the hell he means by this, and why this is so damned critical.
Overall, I wish the thing had been 2 hours. There was SO much more to be said. But I’m thrilled and we all should be proud that this occurred at all. One hopes that in seeing Dan and his family in their home and breaking bread with them, B can’t help but recognize their humanity and right to exist and be treated equally – even if he doesn’t admit it to anyone, even if it only comes out later. Perhaps the seed will have been planted right here. Like Oppenheimer said in the NYT piece, Brown’s cohort Blankenhorn changed his views on gay marriage after speaking with gay parents, so it is actually possible.
Sorry for the ridiculous length of this post. I apparently need to get out more.
143
@17 No way was Dan's anti-polygamy explanation similar to Brian Brown's anti-same-sex marriage. Brown was unable to come up with any empirical reasons, just personal sacred-to-him shit. Dan came up with a non-personal, logical, empirical reason against polygamy: destabilization of social relations due to larger numbers of unattached single males. Look it up, that happens in some middle eastern societies especially where they can't have sex if they can't marry, quite a problem.
I personally don't agree with Dan -- but Dan made his point well. My view: in a modern society with equal gender roles and no restrictions on premarital sex, you'll find as much polyandry as polygyny and it won't be destabilizing. Adults are adults why not let polyamorous folks enjoy the same privileges and responsibilities in terms of property, inheritance, immigration, etc.
Dan says he goes to lots of poly weddings but not to many anniversaries -- maybe because there's no poly marriage.
Anyway, excellent video and excellent interview, really illustrates how the leader of the NOM has nothing other than his own personal interpretation of scripture. Dan was measured although the clip they showed on the NYT makes it look like Dan kept interrupting and was rude, when you see the whole video he was just fine. Great job!
I think I would have punched Brown with his smug sanctimony. Hello, freedom of religion = freedom from religion.
I personally don't agree with Dan -- but Dan made his point well. My view: in a modern society with equal gender roles and no restrictions on premarital sex, you'll find as much polyandry as polygyny and it won't be destabilizing. Adults are adults why not let polyamorous folks enjoy the same privileges and responsibilities in terms of property, inheritance, immigration, etc.
Dan says he goes to lots of poly weddings but not to many anniversaries -- maybe because there's no poly marriage.
Anyway, excellent video and excellent interview, really illustrates how the leader of the NOM has nothing other than his own personal interpretation of scripture. Dan was measured although the clip they showed on the NYT makes it look like Dan kept interrupting and was rude, when you see the whole video he was just fine. Great job!
I think I would have punched Brown with his smug sanctimony. Hello, freedom of religion = freedom from religion.
144
143
You buy Danny's bullshit excuse because you are a credulous fanboy.
Danny's bigotry against poly is EXACTLY the same as Brown's opposition to homosexual 'marriage'.
Danny thinks marriage 'equality' only means letting himself and people like him marry, poly can fuck off. Very enlightened. Very open-minded. Very moral high ground.....
Since when does anyone have to get Savage's seal of approval on the longevity of their relationship before it can be considered valid?
BULLSHIT
You buy Danny's bullshit excuse because you are a credulous fanboy.
Danny's bigotry against poly is EXACTLY the same as Brown's opposition to homosexual 'marriage'.
Danny thinks marriage 'equality' only means letting himself and people like him marry, poly can fuck off. Very enlightened. Very open-minded. Very moral high ground.....
Since when does anyone have to get Savage's seal of approval on the longevity of their relationship before it can be considered valid?
BULLSHIT
145
142.
It isn't the harm that recognizing homosexual pairings as 'marriage' does to strait marriage,
it is the harm that it does to society.
Recognizing homosexual 'marriage' sends the message that homosexuality and homosexual pairings are "Just As Good™" as heterosexuality and Marriage. (Which is really what Danny et al are really after, validation...)_
But, sadly, it is not true.
And teaching kids that lie corrupts and weakens society is very damaging ways.
In fact, in the entire history of mankind, no society has ever done it and lived to tell the tale.....
How can you tell that the homo is not "Just As Good™"?
Easy.
Let's play a little game, called "What If Everyone In The World Did What I Do?"
If What If Everyone In The World got a heterosexual marriage how would that be?
OK.
No real problems.
But, What If Everyone In The World got a homosexual 'marriage', how would that work?
Why, it wouldn't, Thank You.
Mankind would cease to exist in a few decades.
Scary.
So please don't lie top the kids, or yourselves, and pretend that the homo is "Just As Good™"
It is not.
It is a deviant aberration that society can tolerate only as long as the number of afflicted remains small.
It isn't the harm that recognizing homosexual pairings as 'marriage' does to strait marriage,
it is the harm that it does to society.
Recognizing homosexual 'marriage' sends the message that homosexuality and homosexual pairings are "Just As Good™" as heterosexuality and Marriage. (Which is really what Danny et al are really after, validation...)_
But, sadly, it is not true.
And teaching kids that lie corrupts and weakens society is very damaging ways.
In fact, in the entire history of mankind, no society has ever done it and lived to tell the tale.....
How can you tell that the homo is not "Just As Good™"?
Easy.
Let's play a little game, called "What If Everyone In The World Did What I Do?"
If What If Everyone In The World got a heterosexual marriage how would that be?
OK.
No real problems.
But, What If Everyone In The World got a homosexual 'marriage', how would that work?
Why, it wouldn't, Thank You.
Mankind would cease to exist in a few decades.
Scary.
So please don't lie top the kids, or yourselves, and pretend that the homo is "Just As Good™"
It is not.
It is a deviant aberration that society can tolerate only as long as the number of afflicted remains small.
146
@145 - If everyone quit their day jobs to write novels or make films or sculpt or dance, no one would grow/raise our food, or defend our borders, or research to cure diseases. Indeed, if everyone did any one of those things, some aspect of what makes society function would go away. That doesn't suggest that any one of these things is not of value, either to any given individual or to the whole body politic.
Married individuals, with or without kids (who are of no more objective value than any other organism), commit fewer crimes, rely on fewer social services, tend to do a better job of maintaining properties (even if they're renting!), and so on. Add in the statistics illustrating that homosexuality occurs at nearly identical rates from culture to culture (meaning acceptance or proscription does little-to-nothing to encourage/discourage the anomaly--there are as many gays per capita in Iran as in the Netherlands), and it seems to me that same-sex marriage offers the broader social good of encouraging those who would likely be just as gay if there were penalties simply for engaging in homosexual activity to participate above board in the socially stabilizing act of household building, commitment, and the consolidation of resources.
Married individuals, with or without kids (who are of no more objective value than any other organism), commit fewer crimes, rely on fewer social services, tend to do a better job of maintaining properties (even if they're renting!), and so on. Add in the statistics illustrating that homosexuality occurs at nearly identical rates from culture to culture (meaning acceptance or proscription does little-to-nothing to encourage/discourage the anomaly--there are as many gays per capita in Iran as in the Netherlands), and it seems to me that same-sex marriage offers the broader social good of encouraging those who would likely be just as gay if there were penalties simply for engaging in homosexual activity to participate above board in the socially stabilizing act of household building, commitment, and the consolidation of resources.
147
146
we see your point. (how could we not, perched on top of your pinhead and all....)
it's like,
not everyone can be a mass murderer or drive DUI but there will be a few in every society.....
and we see that you agree that society can only tolerate a few folks engaged in homosexuality.
we see your point. (how could we not, perched on top of your pinhead and all....)
it's like,
not everyone can be a mass murderer or drive DUI but there will be a few in every society.....
and we see that you agree that society can only tolerate a few folks engaged in homosexuality.
148
@147 - It's odd how you seem to think you're responding to my post when you don't actually address any of its content.
Of course, everything I have to say on the matter is a matter of record, since I actually registered and have left my activity public (heck, if you read back far enough, you can probably even find my real name [which is, in fact, buried in my moniker]). I'm happy to be accountable for all I've said, but I'm not interested in repeating arguments you and your ilk haven't bothered to address in the first place. I can't enlighten every ill-educated reprobate who believes he's even nominally qualified to act as moral arbiter (or, doG forbid, intellectual paragon) for the rest of us.
Of course, everything I have to say on the matter is a matter of record, since I actually registered and have left my activity public (heck, if you read back far enough, you can probably even find my real name [which is, in fact, buried in my moniker]). I'm happy to be accountable for all I've said, but I'm not interested in repeating arguments you and your ilk haven't bothered to address in the first place. I can't enlighten every ill-educated reprobate who believes he's even nominally qualified to act as moral arbiter (or, doG forbid, intellectual paragon) for the rest of us.
149
It seems to me that Mr. Brown's argument comes down to this: If gay people get their way, something bad will happen to people like me, specifically, we will be called bigots.
So, if the argument is basically that one has an important right (nay, a responsibility) to fight anyone who, in ones opinion, is going to make something bad happen to one, then gay people have an important right (nay, a responsibility) to oppose organizations such as NOM and FRC, which have as their goals, doing something bad to gay people, i.e. depriving them of civil rights.
I also notice that Mr. Brown didn't find himself called upon to actually answer that last, and very difficult question. He just flat disregarded it, and used the time given him to answer it to trot out the same old talking points. He even doubled down on a discredited study -- in the face of a clear explanation of why it was discredited.
He also completely failed to address Dan's point about the statements his organization has made conflating homosexuality and paedophilia. Of course he didn't: they are indefensible and he must know it.
Altogether, he made a poor showing.
So, if the argument is basically that one has an important right (nay, a responsibility) to fight anyone who, in ones opinion, is going to make something bad happen to one, then gay people have an important right (nay, a responsibility) to oppose organizations such as NOM and FRC, which have as their goals, doing something bad to gay people, i.e. depriving them of civil rights.
I also notice that Mr. Brown didn't find himself called upon to actually answer that last, and very difficult question. He just flat disregarded it, and used the time given him to answer it to trot out the same old talking points. He even doubled down on a discredited study -- in the face of a clear explanation of why it was discredited.
He also completely failed to address Dan's point about the statements his organization has made conflating homosexuality and paedophilia. Of course he didn't: they are indefensible and he must know it.
Altogether, he made a poor showing.
151
After the doorknob incident with Gary Bauer back in 2000, if I were Brian Brown I'd have been concerned if Danny boy had been alone at anytime with my eating utensils.
Hey Dan, what did you offer Brian for dessert, a threesome with Terry?
Hey Dan, what did you offer Brian for dessert, a threesome with Terry?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (152) RSS