Dan Savage vs. Brian Brown: The Dinner Table Debate

Comments

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.
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.

4
Someone on Joe.My.God commented:

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Amen.
5
Is watching this going to exacerbate my anxiety?
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.
7
Can someone edit this down to the good bits?
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.
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!
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?
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.
14
HOLY CRAP when they zoom in on that guy's lips. Someone give him a mucous thinner please!!
16
That's the third lie I've caught.

Also, what does he think of hermaphrodites?
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.
18
@12

No shit, that is because marriage IS arbitrary.
19
@17 - that point is well clarified at the end, in my opinion.
20
So anyone should be able to do arbitrary things.
21
oh shit i meant @ 17 too not 12
22
@18

Good. Then I'm going to marry my vibrator. Wish us well! Trust me, it's LOVE.
23
@17,

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

31
@27: conflict of interest vs. equal standing/voice.
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
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.
35
And is there a video of the rest of their convo?
36
Bravo on all parties for doing this.

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.
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.
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.
45
Hey! Dan saves his Bon Maman jam jars to make glasses out of them, just like me!
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.)
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.)
48
"because you believe that something is wrong, doesn't mean you make it illegal."

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.
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.
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.
54
OH MY GOD THE SLOBBER
55
50
Kettle. Meet Pot.
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".
58
Dan looks old.
59
the unicorn football helmet T shirt is a nice touch.
60

butt, pale blue isn't a good colour for Danny.

it makes him look red faced and flustered.
61
at least Danny didn't share his fantasies of raping Rick Santorum.......
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.
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.
64
Maybe Savage should've taken down all those pictures of kids in his dining room...
65
I really like this debate style. It's a lot meatier without the boos and cheers of an audience.
66
Oh, Anon Troll... You didn't need to take eight posts. We knew you were an idiot with the first one.
67
major points to Dan for putting up with this cry baby wind bag for an evening.
68
@39- Keep it tighty? You mean "tidy"?
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.
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...
71
Nice job, Dan.
72
Closet case.
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.
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.
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.
76
@69, I thought Dan did that extremely effectively with the whole "Bearing False Witness" mantra.
77
He he.. the moderator's drunk!
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.
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....
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.
81
Cool argument about fairy tales, bro. Do the Brothers Grimm next.
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.
83
I think if I hear anyone ever say "That is simply not true" again, I will up and punch 'em.
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-รก-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.
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.
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.
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.
89
@68 thanks. really. i knew there was something wrong w that.
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.
91
What's the significance, Dan, of your password to your phone being 4064?
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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…
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…


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.
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.
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.
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.
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....