Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 4, 2012
Sports / Religion NOM's Brian Brown Challenges Dan Savage to a Bible Debate!
Posted by David Schmader on Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM
From Brown's post on the National Organization for Marriage website:
Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I'm here, you name the time and the place and let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It's easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let's pick on someone our own size!
Confidential to Dan: I know you're, like, six busy people locked in perpetual battle with each other, but please make this happen.
Thank you, Towleroad.
UPDATE!: "I'm traveling today and offline," says Savage. "But as soon as I get to Seattle....I'll have an answer for Brian." Stay tuned!
3
If Brian Brown thinks high school girls are such pushovers, he should debate Jessica Ahlquist.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/rho…)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/rho…)
6
I would go anywhere, pay any price, to benefit any cause, for a chance to be there in person to see such a thing. I know I haven't always been the loyalest flying monkey in your tribe, but please, hook me up.
P.S. David: "I know you're, like, six busy people locked in perpetual battle with each other" SQUEEEEEE!
P.S. David: "I know you're, like, six busy people locked in perpetual battle with each other" SQUEEEEEE!
7
What would be the point?
A gay, sex advice columnist and an homophobe "debating" the bible? What for?
I guess it would be entertaining. It's not likely to change anyone's mind though, or give anyone any new perspective. I think Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in their discussions with various theologians have pretty much covered this topic extensively.
A gay, sex advice columnist and an homophobe "debating" the bible? What for?
I guess it would be entertaining. It's not likely to change anyone's mind though, or give anyone any new perspective. I think Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in their discussions with various theologians have pretty much covered this topic extensively.
9
Holy shit. For the love of all that is good, make this happen.
If it's televised, however, I doubt this NOM guy will show.
If it's televised, however, I doubt this NOM guy will show.
12
The bible is a document calling for the death of people in many different contexts and for many different reasons. The references within are clear and unmistakable; I don't see how difficult it would be to argue that the bible is an evil and perverted text with which it has few peers. I'm trying my ass off right now, and I can't think of anything which is clearly as evil. Even Mein Kampf comes across as just a lot of emasculated bitching, and the SCUM manifesto was written by a psychopath.
13
Here's how it will go:
Dan Savage makes a reasonable critique.
Brian Brown will say Dan is just interpreting things wrong.
Dan will say something funny and reasonable.
Brian will say Dan is being mean and also that since he disagrees with Brian, he must be wrong.
People who agree with Dan will think Dan embarrassed Brian who was ignorant and bigoted. People who agree with Brian will think Dan was mean and embarrassed himself by not agreeing with them and being gay.
Dan will be right, but that simply doesn't matter.
Dan Savage makes a reasonable critique.
Brian Brown will say Dan is just interpreting things wrong.
Dan will say something funny and reasonable.
Brian will say Dan is being mean and also that since he disagrees with Brian, he must be wrong.
People who agree with Dan will think Dan embarrassed Brian who was ignorant and bigoted. People who agree with Brian will think Dan was mean and embarrassed himself by not agreeing with them and being gay.
Dan will be right, but that simply doesn't matter.
14
@7 Everything Dan and other gay activists can do to discredit NOM establishes their irrelevancy in the public eye. It's not some tired Dawkins vs. theologian debate. Dan isn't asking people to stop believing, just embrace civil rights and marriage equality regardless of their own personal beliefs. Our side wins all rational arguments on the topic so getting the debate out there is key.
15
Do it, Dan! If it's local, you can be sure you'll have plenty of flying monkeys in the audience there to hoot in support.
And let's see if Brian Brown has bigger stones than Hutcherson did.
And let's see if Brian Brown has bigger stones than Hutcherson did.
16
@10 Maybe but Brown isn't the cowardly Ken Hutcherson that can slink back to his church without anyone noticing. Brown is the leader of the most important anti-marriage equality political organization in the country. If he retreated, people would notice and NOM's credibility would take a hit.
17
Time for Dano to dig out a copy of Prof. Ehrman's brilliant Misquoting Jesus, a most readable scholarly reference:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Misq…
http://books.google.com/books/about/Misq…
22
He, uh, he does know that Dan was raised Catholic and is constantly quoting the bible and understands it really well, right?
23
Unlike a political debate where candidates debate their merits on economics and other issues that are conducive to the forming opinions -- a debate about marriage, the bible, sexual orientation provides neither side with persuasive arguments that would change the minds of their adversaries. Don't do it Dan. You're above that.
24
I totally get the pleas on both sides here. There isn't much (if anything) to be gained...but for entertainment's sake, I hope Dan does it (preferably at a super gay venue like, say, Starbucks). I've got some Alaska Air miles tucked away for just such an occasion.
25
@ 23, no one EVER leaves a debate persuaded that the other person was right. And as far as this issue goes, if you think there aren't people out there to be swayed, you're not in touch.
27
Ya, I don't know... But it is rather hilarious that the challenge was issued at all. Or do I mean sad? I can't tell...
29
@20 - I like it, but how about something more up Brian's alley, like a Catholic church. Say, one of the ones on the Hill that refused to pass around petitions.
31
We need to have Don King doing the promotion. I'm assuming it was just hyperbole, but the whole Dan making girls cry thing... Is there any specific incident he was referring to or was it just rhetoric to illustrate his point?
32
I agree that NOM will never show... didn't they try this once before only to have everyone on the bible thumping side back out?
Still.... Nothing would be actually decided or established, but it would so much fun to watch.
Still.... Nothing would be actually decided or established, but it would so much fun to watch.
34
Yes, pay-per-view! Now, who do I know who has cable?
But only if you have a contract that both sides have to put $100,000 in escrow, to be paid to the other if they back out or fail to show up and perform adequately. Or as much cash as you and Tim Keck can front. I'm pretty sure you'll double your money.
But only if you have a contract that both sides have to put $100,000 in escrow, to be paid to the other if they back out or fail to show up and perform adequately. Or as much cash as you and Tim Keck can front. I'm pretty sure you'll double your money.
35
Dano, dood, ask this guy to accompany you to the debate (just for backup):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guar…
(And this is for Mudede -- the one on the left:)
http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/406…
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guar…
(And this is for Mudede -- the one on the left:)
http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/406…
38
What could you possibly gain by debating on his terms? Just by agreeing to do it, you're conceding the most important point: That debating the contents of the Bible actually means something. Any debate where he gets to quote scripture at you is a huge win for his side.
39
Please please please please pleaaaaaaseeeeeee
Also, this reminds me of fun anecdote I first read of in A History of Jewish Costume by Alfred Rubens--some hundreds of years ago in Europe, the priests decided that the best way to convert the Jews would be to hold public debates with Rabbis on the Bible. The priests thought that it was a certainty that they would be able to defeat the Rabbis in debate, prove the superiority of Christianity, and gain the Jewish spectators as converts.
The problem was that most of the priests were barely literate (if that) and didn't really understand their holy book beyond regurgitated talking points. The Rabbis were all literate and well-read at that, even when it came to Christian texts, and ran circles around the priests at the debates, which became so embarrassing the higher-ups in the church had to step in and put a stop to them to save face.
I guess what I'm saying is that things haven't really changed!
Also, this reminds me of fun anecdote I first read of in A History of Jewish Costume by Alfred Rubens--some hundreds of years ago in Europe, the priests decided that the best way to convert the Jews would be to hold public debates with Rabbis on the Bible. The priests thought that it was a certainty that they would be able to defeat the Rabbis in debate, prove the superiority of Christianity, and gain the Jewish spectators as converts.
The problem was that most of the priests were barely literate (if that) and didn't really understand their holy book beyond regurgitated talking points. The Rabbis were all literate and well-read at that, even when it came to Christian texts, and ran circles around the priests at the debates, which became so embarrassing the higher-ups in the church had to step in and put a stop to them to save face.
I guess what I'm saying is that things haven't really changed!
40
Since it wouldn't change anyone's mind, it seems like it would just be a good marketing tool for NOM.
42
The debate topic needs to be nailed down before Dan agrees to anything, something like "the bible has all sorts of scientifically inaccurate and morally abhorrent parts (a.k.a. bullshit) that modern 'Christians' ignore."
Just "the bible" is not a debate topic.
Just "the bible" is not a debate topic.
43
@38
"Any debate where he gets to quote scripture at you is a huge win for his side."
Not necessarily.
Have you ever watched "Thank You For Smoking"?
If not, do so this weekend. It is a great movie.
"Winning" a debate is not so much about showing that your opponent is wrong.
It is more about showing that you are right.
Dan can "win" this easily by doing what he did before. By pointing out that there are passages in the Bible (such as slavery) that we ignore because they conflict with our modern morality.
So Dan's opponent either has to come out in favor of slavery OR go off on a different tangent.
Either way, Dan wins.
"Any debate where he gets to quote scripture at you is a huge win for his side."
Not necessarily.
Have you ever watched "Thank You For Smoking"?
If not, do so this weekend. It is a great movie.
"Winning" a debate is not so much about showing that your opponent is wrong.
It is more about showing that you are right.
Dan can "win" this easily by doing what he did before. By pointing out that there are passages in the Bible (such as slavery) that we ignore because they conflict with our modern morality.
So Dan's opponent either has to come out in favor of slavery OR go off on a different tangent.
Either way, Dan wins.
45
Prediction:
Savage responds saying "sure, but not on just any terms, here are some minimum rules for the debate." Brown comes back with "You are a coward and I will only meet you on the open field of battle, barefisted, with none of your little rules." Nothing happens, both sides declare victory, sneering at the other side's notion of a "fair fight".
It's not like we haven't seen this sort of crap before.
Savage responds saying "sure, but not on just any terms, here are some minimum rules for the debate." Brown comes back with "You are a coward and I will only meet you on the open field of battle, barefisted, with none of your little rules." Nothing happens, both sides declare victory, sneering at the other side's notion of a "fair fight".
It's not like we haven't seen this sort of crap before.
47
He said to name the time and the place. Pick a venue and sell tickets to make it a fundraiser for marriage equality. Add insult to injury.
48
@47 or when you purchase your tickets you could choose one of two organizations to which you wish to donate - sort of a pick-your-side option. That would be a fun ticker to watch.
49
@43: I've seen that movie and enjoyed it. But the point I remember was that the Aaron Eckhart character demonstrates how using emotional appeals and obfuscating tactics allows his weak arguments to win more audience sympathy than his opponent's much stronger arguments.
I maintain that agreeing to debate Biblical morality sets the frame in such a way that there is no way to win. A knowledgeable preacher can equivocate all day and all night about what the Bible "really" says.
I maintain that agreeing to debate Biblical morality sets the frame in such a way that there is no way to win. A knowledgeable preacher can equivocate all day and all night about what the Bible "really" says.
50
Dan absofuckinglutely has to do this. If it is in the Seattle area, I will be there. If not, that is what live streaming is for.
51
@38: In this case, though, the contents of the Bible are relevant. If the issue under contention were gay marriage or gay adoption or any other issue of policy, you're absolutely right; the Bible would have no relevance. But the assertion here is that one can be a Christian without being anti-gay. The Bible is absolutely relevant to that discussion.
52
Brian Brown will make a fool of himself, and that will erode his credibiity, and that of NOM, if only just a bit.
Keep in mind this guy could not even articulate why gay marriage threatens his marriage on the John Stossel show on Fox News. He basically got laughed off the set.
But of course, those on Brown's side will take his embarrasment as "persecution," and it will "prove" to them that they must be right. Nothing get's a Christian's dick harder than feeling persecuted.
Keep in mind this guy could not even articulate why gay marriage threatens his marriage on the John Stossel show on Fox News. He basically got laughed off the set.
But of course, those on Brown's side will take his embarrasment as "persecution," and it will "prove" to them that they must be right. Nothing get's a Christian's dick harder than feeling persecuted.
53
Oh snap! I can't wait to see what Dan says.
And I dunno, I think this does stand a chance to accomplish something. Support for NOM is going to be eroded a bit at a time, and a chance to confront a bigwig in their organization- not some affiliated lawyer or some sympathetic Republican lawmaker, but an actual executive in the actual NOM- is a great opportunity to do a lot of eroding. I couldn't cite numbers or anything but I think there's still a lot of people out there who are waffling on the matter, or whose understanding of it is flimsy enough that a high-profile Discussion of it might help change their minds.
But even if it doesn't do any good, I'm still looking forward to just seeing Dan get to tear into Brown. It'll be a morale booster. I like those.
And I dunno, I think this does stand a chance to accomplish something. Support for NOM is going to be eroded a bit at a time, and a chance to confront a bigwig in their organization- not some affiliated lawyer or some sympathetic Republican lawmaker, but an actual executive in the actual NOM- is a great opportunity to do a lot of eroding. I couldn't cite numbers or anything but I think there's still a lot of people out there who are waffling on the matter, or whose understanding of it is flimsy enough that a high-profile Discussion of it might help change their minds.
But even if it doesn't do any good, I'm still looking forward to just seeing Dan get to tear into Brown. It'll be a morale booster. I like those.
55
The debate attendees should pay a ticket price, and be able to vote on who won. Ticket proceeds go to the charity of the winner's choice.
56
I agree with #7 Miss Urgutha, "What for?" i suspect if they were both nude and in a pool of lube the debate might be fun to watch and listen to, but otherwise, Oh well YES I'll go. I WILL!
58
I think that Dan should tell him that he will think about it after Brown address pastor Sean Harris and his "Biblical" views of punching 4 year olds.
Wrestling with people full of shit and covered in shit will result in you getting covered in shit. Sometimes it is better to let them reveal their true colors without you. And, these people are looking for gifts that the right can use. Ways to inject enthusiasm into their fundraising campaigns. Ways to destract people from the actions of fellow Christians like Sam Harris and from the actions of Christian legislators.
Without some kind of mutually agreed authority then this will likely result in proclamations being made about verses being taken out of context or that specific word(s) is defined incorrectly. Don't forget there are some differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bible to keep in mind. Don't forget that denominations within Christanity don't agree. Every denomination, church, or person can't have the right interpretation, right? Therefore...
Wrestling with people full of shit and covered in shit will result in you getting covered in shit. Sometimes it is better to let them reveal their true colors without you. And, these people are looking for gifts that the right can use. Ways to inject enthusiasm into their fundraising campaigns. Ways to destract people from the actions of fellow Christians like Sam Harris and from the actions of Christian legislators.
Without some kind of mutually agreed authority then this will likely result in proclamations being made about verses being taken out of context or that specific word(s) is defined incorrectly. Don't forget there are some differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bible to keep in mind. Don't forget that denominations within Christanity don't agree. Every denomination, church, or person can't have the right interpretation, right? Therefore...
59
What question would they debate? Would they debate Dan's premise, that the Bible advocates a number of things that we now regard as immoral while prohibiting a number of things that we now accept? I think Mr. Brown would have a hard time with that.
Or would they debate the question of same sex marriage which, let's face it, is a decision in the hands of civil authorities, not religious authorities. Perhaps they could debate whether civil law should be dictated by religious law or at least a moral code promoted by religion?
The challenge was kinda vague. What is the question that they will debate?
The challenge was also foolishly made by Mr. Brown. He allowed Mr. Savage to choose the time and place. What would Sun Tzu say about that?
Or would they debate the question of same sex marriage which, let's face it, is a decision in the hands of civil authorities, not religious authorities. Perhaps they could debate whether civil law should be dictated by religious law or at least a moral code promoted by religion?
The challenge was kinda vague. What is the question that they will debate?
The challenge was also foolishly made by Mr. Brown. He allowed Mr. Savage to choose the time and place. What would Sun Tzu say about that?
60
Your comment is awaiting moderation. (Do you think they'll approve my message? :)
You're so right. We need to return to biblical values. Who's with me on a campaign to legalize sex slavery?
'When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.' Exodus 21
And we must redefine marriage as one man many women. I really want to be able to marry my female slaves as well as free women.
'If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.' Exodus 21
Our soldiers need to get more biblical too. They should be permitted to rape & pillage in a biblical manner.
'So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.' Judges 21 (there are numerous additional verses).
Now I know that Peter's dream means we don't need to worry about pork or shellfish but female purity is a serious problem. I am forced to work with women during their period. We must change the law on this.
' And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.' Leviticus 15
So please, join me and every right-thinking follower of the true bible in bringing our great nation back to true biblical values.
More...
You're so right. We need to return to biblical values. Who's with me on a campaign to legalize sex slavery?
'When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.' Exodus 21
And we must redefine marriage as one man many women. I really want to be able to marry my female slaves as well as free women.
'If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.' Exodus 21
Our soldiers need to get more biblical too. They should be permitted to rape & pillage in a biblical manner.
'So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.' Judges 21 (there are numerous additional verses).
Now I know that Peter's dream means we don't need to worry about pork or shellfish but female purity is a serious problem. I am forced to work with women during their period. We must change the law on this.
' And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.' Leviticus 15
So please, join me and every right-thinking follower of the true bible in bringing our great nation back to true biblical values.
61
Hasn't Dan been saying for a long time that we need to stop giving these bigots public forums, just like we finally learned to do with racists? And wouldn't agreeing to this debate just give this bigot another forum in which to spew his hate speech? Even if he is defeated by Dan's brilliant reasoning.
62
Honestly that whole polygamy thing in the Bible makes me wonder why folks hold that book up as a support for one-man-one-woman marriage.
Was Abraham a horrible sinner? Was Issac? Was Jacob? What about King Solomon or King David? Didn't they have multiple wives and concubines? Does that not make them perverts?
I know that a lot of Christians say that the entire law contained in the "Old" Testament is cancelled and there is now a "New" Testament with a new set of laws, but where is there any codification of that New law? Doesn't the New law still approve of slavery? Doesn't the New law still view women as property? Doesn't the new law forbid charging interest? Doesn't the new law say that people should pray in private? Doesn't Matthew 5:17-18 say that the Old law is still in force? And if the Old law is cancelled (or fulfilled), then why do Christians continue to refer to it when it suits their purposes? Shouldn't they stop that? Does Mr. Brown ever refer to it?
Was Abraham a horrible sinner? Was Issac? Was Jacob? What about King Solomon or King David? Didn't they have multiple wives and concubines? Does that not make them perverts?
I know that a lot of Christians say that the entire law contained in the "Old" Testament is cancelled and there is now a "New" Testament with a new set of laws, but where is there any codification of that New law? Doesn't the New law still approve of slavery? Doesn't the New law still view women as property? Doesn't the new law forbid charging interest? Doesn't the new law say that people should pray in private? Doesn't Matthew 5:17-18 say that the Old law is still in force? And if the Old law is cancelled (or fulfilled), then why do Christians continue to refer to it when it suits their purposes? Shouldn't they stop that? Does Mr. Brown ever refer to it?
64
If this does happen, and I am sure it won't, we should start collecting as many different versions of the bible as possible. We could have a dozen people with hand trucks of bibles come in, and he could explain to us which version of the book is the true word of "god".
65
@60 As a feministy woman, I'd be okay with bringing one of those laws back into place. I would LOVE to get a week off every month (paid, of course, because otherwise it would be discrimination).
Sign me up!!!
Sign me up!!!
66
Dan would f-ing destroy that homophobic douche bag. I would buy tickets to see this on pay-per-view.
68
Nomblog has blocked me from commenting. Thanks to the person who posted this in the nomblog comments:
First question for the Brown/Savage debate: "Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer like Newt Gingrich have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?" Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed.
--------
Me again: there's no reason to assume that Newt is only a two-time adulterer, but yeah, this is where the traditionalists are vulnerable. If marriage is about making sure that mothers and fathers stay together to raise their children, marriages such as Newt's would be illegal, as they once were in some states.
If marriage is what the Bible says it is, and if that definition should be reflected in our laws, then marriages such as Newt's would be illegal.
First question for the Brown/Savage debate: "Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer like Newt Gingrich have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?" Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed.
--------
Me again: there's no reason to assume that Newt is only a two-time adulterer, but yeah, this is where the traditionalists are vulnerable. If marriage is about making sure that mothers and fathers stay together to raise their children, marriages such as Newt's would be illegal, as they once were in some states.
If marriage is what the Bible says it is, and if that definition should be reflected in our laws, then marriages such as Newt's would be illegal.
71
Dan, plan this right. He just gave you the choice of venue and time. That will be super important. It doesnt matter if the attendees change their minds. You must do this for the countless religious and non-religious kids who will youtube this in the coming months and years. Kids who need the strenght that this debate will give them to step away from adults who are purposefully misquoting the Bible. Do it for them, because kids of homophobes need to hear more rational arguments. The adults dont matter as much, their minds are made up. The teens are listening. Tell them.
72
Savage also bashes Islam! We, as Christians, will not only stand up for our own religion, but also protect all other religions. What doen't he get about the 1ST Admendment? Muslims have every right in His great country to build a mosque at any location they can afford.
We should try to get congress to investigate the Christian bashing in America, but also Islam bashing by these filthy liberals.
We should try to get congress to investigate the Christian bashing in America, but also Islam bashing by these filthy liberals.
75
He should debate him, but in the original Aramaic, so that the mistranslations are corrected.
#13 has it right. No matter what, Dan won't be able to win the "other" side over. It's like the birthers, if you asked them what would convince them Obama is legit, they'd answer "nothing"*.
Peace.
PS: *This way, the US won't have had a true black President...
#13 has it right. No matter what, Dan won't be able to win the "other" side over. It's like the birthers, if you asked them what would convince them Obama is legit, they'd answer "nothing"*.
Peace.
PS: *This way, the US won't have had a true black President...
80
@72: What *you* don't get about the first amendment is that it also allows *criticism* of religion. You can practice your religion, and I can practice mine, even if mine says everyone in yours is going to hell. Which nearly every religion does. I'm not sure how that's not criticism of religion in and of itself.
Oh yes, and I would *so* watch this. Please post it to youtube!
Oh yes, and I would *so* watch this. Please post it to youtube!
82
Please let this be a Jon Stewart-Jim Kramer style epic takedown!!! Where Brown runs around for weeks afterwards whining about how much his asshole hurts and he hasn't sat down since!
83
No, 81, I totally read you as satire. Or possibly a troll, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
85
Been absent from SLOG for a while, but it would be totally worth coming back for. Please, Dan, even us religious lefties are counting on you to wipe the floor with this doofus!
87
This is not an argument about the bible but about how people misuse the bible. This was Dan's point to start with. Brown wants to make it a biblical debate and it's not.
88
I know that Dan will absolutely trash any of NOM's feeble arguments against gay marriage. HOWEVER ... I hope that Dan will choose his words carefully. NOM and its allies have shown they have no qualms about taking bits and pieces out of context and portraying gays as a bunch of rabid, profane, religion-hating fascists while ignoring any valid point we ever have to make.
So Dan ... you can win this argument. PLEASE ... for the sake of the cause ... reign in the salty language and generic diatribes and instead rely on your eloquence and passion and TRUTH!
So Dan ... you can win this argument. PLEASE ... for the sake of the cause ... reign in the salty language and generic diatribes and instead rely on your eloquence and passion and TRUTH!
89
My request is that Dan makes it clear that many-to-most Christians, like other people these days, support same-sex marriage, support labor rights, support a woman's right to choose, and support non-white presidents.
91
The way I read this challenge, he is offering to debate on any terms, and thus offering Savage to name his terms. The time and place, at least, are explicit and within reason, this should be taken advantage of. It is tempting to suggest that the debate happen at a venue that serves alcohol, but as I might find a drunken shouting contest with this person, he would undoubtedly cry persecution.
Having the debate at a more sober location, but still on Savage's home turf, and in the evening, would still be a very serious advantage. Having the event at a Unitarian church might be good, but I think a Presbyterian church might be better for neutral ground since the national church leaders are split on gay rights issues. In my opinion a Presbyterian minister would be a good choice for moderator for similar reasons.
The topic of the debate should be restricted to the content of Savage's speech at the Journalism Convention. This seems quite fair considering this is the reason that Brown is issuing the challenge in the first place. Savage said very specific things about the Bible in that speech, and if you want to confirm that what he said is true all you really need to do is read the Bible. The alternative is to debate the morality of what the Bible says about these things.
If Savage wants to accept this challenge I think the next step is to work out the details and terms of the debate, and publicly name his terms for Brown to accept or reject. If Brown wishes to negotiate the terms of the debate, this negotiation should be very very public.
But as I said before, it sounds like Brown is offering to debate Savage on Savage's terms.
(And I would drive up to Seattle to see this so I hope it happens, but I expect Brown to reject Savage's terms and then ironically call Savage a coward.)
More...
Having the debate at a more sober location, but still on Savage's home turf, and in the evening, would still be a very serious advantage. Having the event at a Unitarian church might be good, but I think a Presbyterian church might be better for neutral ground since the national church leaders are split on gay rights issues. In my opinion a Presbyterian minister would be a good choice for moderator for similar reasons.
The topic of the debate should be restricted to the content of Savage's speech at the Journalism Convention. This seems quite fair considering this is the reason that Brown is issuing the challenge in the first place. Savage said very specific things about the Bible in that speech, and if you want to confirm that what he said is true all you really need to do is read the Bible. The alternative is to debate the morality of what the Bible says about these things.
If Savage wants to accept this challenge I think the next step is to work out the details and terms of the debate, and publicly name his terms for Brown to accept or reject. If Brown wishes to negotiate the terms of the debate, this negotiation should be very very public.
But as I said before, it sounds like Brown is offering to debate Savage on Savage's terms.
(And I would drive up to Seattle to see this so I hope it happens, but I expect Brown to reject Savage's terms and then ironically call Savage a coward.)
92
Brian Brownshirt has a masters degree from Oxford. Dan has a B.A. theater degree from chicago...pray for Dan.
93
What's the over/under on Mr. Brown getting busted with meth and a hustler in the mens room stall before the debate?
94
Brian Brown conveniently ignores Jesus's words regard oppressed and/or disadvantaged, etc people, "As you do onto the least of my children, so you do onto me."
95
Brian Brown, I am a Christian who supports same-sex marriage, labor rights, a woman's right to choose especially when the pregnancy is a threat to her health and well-being, and non-white presidents of either gender. Sorry if that does not fit into your warped idea of a just and good America.
96
Dan,
Have a debate with oppressor Brian Brown minus the profanity so as to open people's minds to the damage he is doing to our country and our people's right to equality. A top-notch debater may perhaps verbally reduce an opponent to jelly by both razor-sharp logic and by keeping cool and calm + avoiding profanity. Profanity in front of Brown may just make Brown focus more on your profanity and less on debating the merit of your arguments.
Have a debate with oppressor Brian Brown minus the profanity so as to open people's minds to the damage he is doing to our country and our people's right to equality. A top-notch debater may perhaps verbally reduce an opponent to jelly by both razor-sharp logic and by keeping cool and calm + avoiding profanity. Profanity in front of Brown may just make Brown focus more on your profanity and less on debating the merit of your arguments.
97
I saw the video all the wingers are up in arms about. Most of those kids were smiling and laughing as they were walking out. My feeling was that it wasn't sponaneous; it was staged. I wonder if there was some homophobic (adult?) member of the Christian Reich coordinating this little demonstration and making sure it got to Faux News.
98
All I can think of is Princess Bride....
"To the death!"
"No, to the pain...I will leave you wallowing in freakish misery forever."
This so needs to happen - go get him Dan!
"To the death!"
"No, to the pain...I will leave you wallowing in freakish misery forever."
This so needs to happen - go get him Dan!
99
@97: It is pretty clearly staged. You may notice that the one girl walks out the second Dan mentions the bible. He did not even make any criticisms yet.
You can tell she was pretty eager and jumped the gun...she took her cue too early. The other kids are waving to their friends and laughing. They obviously are not offended, and were likely only there to walk out.
I just wonder if they were being used by an adult, or came up with it themselves.
You can tell she was pretty eager and jumped the gun...she took her cue too early. The other kids are waving to their friends and laughing. They obviously are not offended, and were likely only there to walk out.
I just wonder if they were being used by an adult, or came up with it themselves.
100
I happen to have met Brian Brown years ago through a childhood friend of his. He was a d-bag in his early 20s and remains one today. He also knocked up his girlfriend (now wife) after only dating for a short time. So I think that makes him a sinner in his own book too.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
So I've Got This Baby Bird... by Brendan Kiley
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (100) RSS