Some time ago, Dan Savage told a student journalism convention that there is bullshit in the Bible, after which a group of students walked out and got name-called by Savage (which he soon apologized for). Afterwards, National Organization for Marriage (the people behind California’s Proposition 8, among others) president Brian Brown, challenged Savage to a debate, any time, anyplace. Dan suggested a civil matter without any live audience to applaud or boo — his house, after a nice dinner. Read a more thorough account from Mark Oppenheimer, who moderated the debate.
Well, set aside an hour and grab some popcorn: the video of that debate is up.
While more substantive than most debates out there, I still want more. I wish certain questions could have been asked, like “What is the value of marriage?” or “what place do Biblical interpretations have in a nation where we have freedom of belief?” As has become de rigueur these days, the two were talking past one-another a great deal of the time and disagreeing on facts.
Not surprisingly, I found Savage’s points tended to be evidenced-based, while Brown’s arguments to be abstract and vague. I call the debate a decisive win for Savage. But then, we think the same way.
I saw this a few days ago and my brief summary was that Brian was mistaken on his Biblical facts - the one that stands out for me is when he mentioned the “Counsel of Jerusalem” (I’m unaware of what he means here - when Paul met Peter?) in 50 AD. During that bit I remember him mentioning that Marcion argued his point - or something like that.
Which truly would have been a miracle since Marcion was born around 84 AD.
Also, Brian was, IMO, all over the place. His overall position didn’t make a lot of sense.
All of that said, the moderation was not fair in the sense that while I thought the moderator had good questions, he seemed to really press on Brian while leaving Dan alone.
I think Dan came out miles ahead not only because I agree with him.
It was like watching a text book example of how meaningful debate prep is. Dan started with his argument, spelled out clearly and including a counter for each point Brian is known to bring up. Brian didn’t seem to have anything prepared he was kinda rambling while trying to remember everything Dan had just said so he try to counter it.
Nothing Dan Savage said was beyond the scope of his normal speeches. If Brian Brown had done his homework he could have had a prepared argument just like Dan had. He would have come off as much more intelligent and more credible.
The moderator was clearly biased, I think part of what set him off was Brown completely disregarded Savage’s concept that religious people can and do have a wide range of beliefs. Some of which don’t take issue with SSM. I thought the way he did so was dismissive and insulting to other peoples faiths. Brown didn’t seem open to the idea that Oppenheimer could be both religious and for SSM.
I personally liked that Savage chose one of the lesser examples of why FRC has it’s hate group status. Then when Brown took the bait, Savage pointed out a much more solid reason for the status.
Brown seemed more intersted in pointing out how hateful Christians are treated because of their opposition and debating biblical points that weren’t even relelvent. Like that crap about slavery, what the hell was that supposed to mean concerning SSM?
Then he asserted with no evidence whatsoever that he was just sure that somehow SSM would be harmful to society. Yeah, we know Brian. The problem is your baseless assertion just doesn’t cut it. What else ya got?
Evidently nothing.
However, I’ll also criticize Dan Savage for what I think is a dead end argument. I completely agree with him that the Bible is full of nonsense, but that has nothing to do with obtaining equal rights under the law. He made this point during the debate - that we don’t legislate according to religious beliefs. Period the end, as Dan likes to say. Let religious people debate the merits or failings of the Bible. If they try to use biblical arguments against SSM, tell 'em to go pound sand because it has nothing to do with the law. If Savage is interested in being the next Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher then he should talk about religion and the harm it does. But if he wants to focus on SSM, I think that only muddies the issue.
Also, Brown was utterly unconvincing to me about the hate group thing. Sorry buddy - your group wants to deprive people of a basic right. That’s bigotry no matter how much you want to dance around it, and bigotry makes you a hater. And an asshole.
I thought it was funny how Brown kept asking Savage to justify opposition to polygamous marriage, right after Savage had given several good reasons to do exactly that. Brown showed no ability to adapt his robotic talking-point script.
Well, that was the premise of the debate. They were there because of Dan’s speech in April and the outrage a wilfull misunderstanding of his words caused. The issue was much more focussed than just pro- vs. anti-gay-marriage.
The linked NYT article mentioned they “ate Northwest sockeye salmon with Washington sweet corn, heirloom tomatoes and new-potato gnocchi; dessert was roasted peaches with an oat-and-almond crumble.”
He didn’t give good reasons, IMO. He gave reasons. And also basically said it wasn’t any of his business (essentially : if polyamorous people want to fight this fight that’s their problem, no gays’ problem). Arguing that there won’t be enough women left as he did isn’t in any way a good argument. I don’t think the lifedream of a majority of women is to be part of some billionaire’s harem, as he hinted.
Obviously it is in the best interest of homosexuals to avoid the issue, but I think their opponent have a point when they say : if we change the one man+one woman concept, why is one man+one man OK but not one man+ two women? Especially since polygamy is and has always been a very common system.
I already said that IMO, ideally, the government should withdraw completely from this more and more complicated marriage business that doesn’t serve anymore any clear public interest and should limit itself to paternity/maternity issues which are already complex enough. If someone wants to marry his horse, as in the example given during the debate, it will be his problem, his church problem, maybe PETA’s problem, but not ours.
I keep seeing this slippery slope argument brought forth and I am baffled why people think it has any merit. Evaluating the benefits or harm of any proposed change to the marriage law needs to examine the unique merits and detriments of the kind of union in question. The only thing same-sex marriage has in common with polygamy is that they’re different than what is widely permitted. For instance, one of those situations is inherently unable to produce offspring without outside assistance. The other has been linked to the subjugation of women. Are these things true? If true do they matter? We need to evaluate each issue on. It’s. Own. Merits.
It is no more a homosexual’s responsibility to advocate or condemn polygamy than it is a marijuana smoker’s responsibility to advocate or condemn the use of crack cocaine.
Just like it was in the best interests of interracial couples to avoid the issue of comparisons to bestiality. Because it’s a crap distraction argument that has nothing to do with the rights the couples in question are seeking.
Ask the polygamists. Supporters of gay marriage want gay marriage rights. Supporters of polygamy might have some good arguments for polygamy, but most of us have no interest in legalizing polygamy. We want gay marriage to be legal- polygamy is just a distraction.
I think this is a better way to phrase (what I’m assuming) B. Serum meant:
It is no more a *gay marriage supporter’s *responsibility to advocate or condemn polygamy than it is a marijuana-legalization-supporter’s responsibility to advocate or condemn the use of crack cocaine.
I would argue that, where polygamy would be a lifestyle “choice”, there is ongoing debate about homosexuality being a “choice” at all. In my experience with gay family and friends, I would argue there was no active choice on their part to be homosexual. I don’t recall ever looking at a person and thinking, “You know, it’s a shame it’s illegal, because Jim just seems biologically-inclined toward having a truckload of wives.”