All the way back in May, Brian Brown attacked pundit Dan Savage for comments he made about the Bible at a high school journalists’ conference, and challenged him to a debate. After a few weeks of back-and-forth comments and silence, both parties agreed to a dinner at Dan Savage’s home — no press, sans a NY Times reporter, Mark Oppenheimer – and then, nothing.
Well, now NOM president Brian Brown has just sent supporters a fundraising email announcing “the long-anticipated debate over marriage” happened last week. NOM even set up a nasty website touting the event, calling Savage a “bully,” and adding:
Savage has a long history of obscene anti-Christian comments, and yet he continues to be celebrated as the face of the gay marriage movement.
As The New Civil Rights Movement reported in May, Savage had said, “We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people,” and called the students who walked out “pansy-assed.” (That last part was uncalled for, but was it bullying? No.)
We’ll post the video of the debate and an alas soon as either party releases it.
Stay tuned.
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 70 comments }
Isn't it interesting how much Bryan Brown, NOM and the rest of the Religious Right bully gays, THEN they play the victim card because we won't sit down, shut up and let them bully us?
And…correct me if I'm wrong, **but wasn't it Dan Savage** who proffered the debate at his house so that Brian Brown could see that LGBT people have normal families like everyone else. However, on NOM's propaganda website, it states…
"When Brown heard about what Savage had said about Christians and the bible, and what he had said to high school students who were offended by what he did, Brown issues a challenge to Savage to have a face-to-face debate about what the bible really says about gay marriage, which Savage accepted."
So, already Brian Brown and NOM is being disingenuous.
Brown issued the original challenge.
Savage proposed the location, which brown accepted.
It is you who are being disingenuous.
Or else you are simply not in possession of the facts.
It's a mistake to accept to debate bigots for many reasons. One reason is that, as we see, the bigots use the event for fund-raising appeals. The other reason is that it is just plain stupid to debate with a bigot about your civil rights. Beyond that, getting into a debate with a Bible-thumping bigot is beyond absurd, because civil rights in civil law aren't based on the Bible any more than they are based on Moby Dick or the phone book.
Marriage arguments do not depend upon Scripture; pro-marriage arguments based on biology, history, and cultural grounds happen to be in perfect agreement with biblical teaching on the question of marriage.
Under biblical teaching a woman is to submit to her husband. Is this also based on biology, history, and culture? Or do you selectively pick from all four to justify what you want before you even started to think?
I got a great question…why is a "hate monger" like you reading and discounting the disgusting acts of NOM and Brian Brown?…GO BACK UNDER your ROCK!, it's where scum like you belongs, and not on a site that tells the bitter truth about the hate that YOU help promote! GET A LIFE!
Obviously, your pre-Christian era of history is totally bereft of information on the subject of marriage which, incidentally, existed long before the RC Catholic Church muscled it way into and ripped off the institution of civil marriage and made it unto it own, along with all the pagan rites they also stole and made their own.
Like all the debunked and defunct religions that preceded Catholicism, it offered the same-old, same-old under a new wrap.
Time to relegate this religious dinosaur to the dust-bin of history as well.
Schlukitz, your argument here suffers from the notable defect that no civilization has ever presented us with the institution of gay marriage.
It exists in no civilization, until the advent of radical homosexualist activism in the decaying West, over the last couple of decades.
In other words, Schlukitz, you have no basis in law, in history, in biology, in culture, for gay "marriage".
Gay "marriage" is a fiction concocted out of whole cloth by fanatics whose argument is not with Christianity, but with biology.
The Bible doesn't even have the age of the earth right. That is to say, Geology has proved that what the Bible says about the age of the earth is flat out wrong. Now go back to your "Magisterial Fundies" religious blog, which other readers can access by clicking on your name "bsradar" Why an asshole gay basher would come to this site to gay bash, I don't know.
I will give you a thousand dollars if you can experimentally demonstrate the age of the Earth, although such a question is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Society derives a benefit from marriage: the next generation, best nurtured by their own Mom and Dad.
Your difficulty with Scripture is directly related, by the way, to your difficulty with basic biology.
Reality serenely goes on about is business, whether or not a law might be passed which insists that ducks are Shetland ponies, or fathers are female.
Really, why does a deranged, gay-bashing troll come to a gay-interest news site to gay-bash? Would a white supremacist start yelling on a bus in Harlem that all blacks had to move to the back? I have a novel suggestion for you? Why don't you go fuck yourself, before I tell the editor to ban your ass from gay bashing in these comments?
Scott, you can tell the editor anything you like.
I have not posted in violation of the guidelines, so maybe you better tell the editor to change them to make it against policy to say anything Scott Rose doesn't like.
Grow up.
Sheesh.
I have a better offer, I'll quit calling you a hack and a misinformed liar and a HIGHLY disturbed person if you quit leaving unintelligent rhetoric and insensitive BS on this site! Science = Reality = FACT…Marriage was once defined as multiple partners (FACT)..some of which you are wed to and some that were there just for sex…i.e. concubines….Society DOES NOT always derive a benefit from marriage and YOU are the excuse that I will use….Marriage between two people who love each other has been bastardized, if we look at the straight world….52% divorce rate is not something to be cherished and should not be accepted…Might I suggest that you FIX that problem before you antagonize anyone else on this site or you speak negatively about our relationships!
It is a matter of perfect indifference to me what you call me.
"Science = Reality = FACT"
>>Are there any other fairy tales you have clung to since exiting adolescence (assuming you have)?
"Marriage was once defined as multiple partners (FACT)"
>>False. Polygamy- that is, the existence of several concurrent marriages in one household- is still allowed in many areas of the world.
But it is not "one" polygamous marriage.
Each polygamous marriage joins- now wait for it- exactly *one man* and exactly *one woman*.
I still want to know, why would a stupid asshole troll come to a human rights site and gay bash? What is your problem? Are you homo-hot-and-bothered?
Since modern science and culture are in direct contradiction to the Bible, you are not allowed to invoke it while feigning any level of credibility. Sorry. The earth is millions of years old — not 4,000. We are the direct result of ongoing evolution — not the whimsy of an invisible entity. Women in the West are free to live the lives they choose without fear of getting stoned to death — not the cramped, disenfranchised lives of Old Testament chattel. In short, there is no correlation between the Bible and modern biology and culture. Zero. Zip. Nada.
But, perhaps, there's the modicum of historical relevance. Perhaps, some guy named Paul really did walk into some wild Pagan orgy at a Roman temple and wrote 1 Corinthians and Romans, but that's pretty much it. There was no Adam and Eve, no incestuous mating with their own sons, and no magical boat that spared a sampling of every species on the earth. That's not science. That's mythology. Until you learn the distinction, you really have no moral high ground on which to base your assertion that you're some great expert of "basic biology."
Actually, modern science and culture are the direct result of the Bible; that is, the civilization you inhabit is the direct result of the triumph of Chrstian civilization in the first place.
As is the scientific method itself.
I will give you a thousand dollars if you can experimentally demonstrate the age of the earth.
As to whether Scripture is inspired or not, well.
That is a matter upon which each individual conscience is required to stake a very great deal indeed.
Christian culture gave rise to many things — generally wars. But, I wasn't referring to Christian culture. I was referring specifically to the Bible (and only the Bible) and its relation to modern science and culture. Since no modern scientist worth their salt would endorse the creationist perspective of biology, I have correctly stated that the Bible has zero correlation with modern science. Since it's no longer legal to stone brides for not being virgins, the Bible is no longer relevant to modern culture, either.
Before you take credit for the scientific method, too, let me remind you that the empiricism of Aristotle — a non-Christian — is generally considered the origin of the scientific method. Not Christianity. If you recall the Church's reaction to the Copernican and Galilean models of heliocentricity, you'll realize that Christianity has historically exhibited hostility to empirical science in contradiction to the Bible. Not endorsement or support.
As for your charming attempt to disprove geologists' estimates of the earth's age, sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. I'd be very interested, however, in you substantiating your claim — complete with empirical evidence — that the world is only 4,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by an invisible entity in 7 days. I'd love to see you "experimentally demonstrate" that.
Another pice of blinding, stupid BS that you pulled out of your ass without a shred of empirical evidence to prove your wild, simplistic postulations.
People like you think that if you keep repeating the same lies, over and over, that the pubic will believe it. That might work for mindless, bible-reading robotrons like you, but those of us who use reason and logic to arrive sane, sensible conclusions do not buy into your madness.
Folks like you really need to get over your childish belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of doG and that everyone, including the non-believers live by it at risk of their mortal soul and the relinquishment of eternal life.
And you dare to reference the word reality in your mad rants?
How interesting that a believer in imaginary sky-daddies, angels, demons, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy should suggest a reality check for others.
In your fantasy-based world of make-believe, women have children without the aid of physical intercourse and dead men rise from the graves and ascend to heaven.
Serene reality at it's finest going on about it's business.
When Christ said NOT to lie , 'religious' anti-gays proclaim that they are of 'christians' faith following biblical scripture.
When Christ said NOT to judge, anti-gay 'christians' argue back it's 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion'.
When Christ did NOT condemn homosexuality at all, anti-gay 'christians' protest that homosexuality is an 'abomination' to their 'god' and condemn it as 'sin'.
When Christ gave the commandments to love God AND love thy neighbor as thyself as the GREATEST commandments of all biblical laws, 'christians' strike back to voice their 'belief' in some other lower biblical 'laws' to justify their hateful vote and support for laws like Amendment1, Prop8 and DOMA to discriminate others at the greatest federal and state levels.
When REAL Christians and gays speak up against the antigay 'christians' , the latter call it 'bully' among other hateful words and lies.
————————————————-
Some 'religious' people may say that Jesus mentioned that marriage is between 'a man and a woman', but in the bible, Jesus mentioned many other things like 'go and raise the dead'! (Matt 10:8).
The point is Christ has said many things, but the most important thing He said is the Great Commandment of Love which Christians as his followers MUST follow in order to obtain eternal life and that's the only condition for that from the parable of the good samaritan.
Religious anti-gay are anti-Christ.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that a reasoned decision in favor of man-woman marriage involves "anti" anything but biological disorientation.
Is anyone here arguing against man-woman marriage? I don't s see any. In my experience, those who do, argue against marriage for anyone. I'm all for letting men marry women and vice versa. Why not? It doesn't affect my man-man marriage, after all.
Ditto!
Alas, the redefinition of marriage along the lines you propose requires, as a logical consequence, that children be indoctrinated- via compulsory education- in the lie that not all Mothers are female, not all Dads are male.
This would of course be a form of institutionalized child abuse, and we cannot permit it.
There is no possibility of compromise on this question- we already offered civil unions and you decided to go for the Big Enchilada.
You will wish you had thought it through more completely.
Please cite proof (you know, empirical evidence), that telling kids about the existence of gay families is somehow grounds for child abuse. Otherwise, "bsrader," I'll have to call you out on your own bs. Furthermore, civil unions are not (and have never been) offered nationwide for gay couples. Even the quickest google search would've demonstrated that. But, no, lies, manipulation, and unfounded fearmongering are much more effective methods of getting your way. Isn't that right?
Sir, your superielious, condescending, I-am-better-than-you-gays attitude is as irritating and disgusting as that of the white supremacists who believe themselves to be superior to members of the black race.
"Alas, the redefinition of marriage along the lines you propose requires, as a logical consequence, that children be indoctrinated- via compulsory education- in the lie that not all Mothers are female, not all Dads are male. "
Yes. In the very same manner that Christian children ARE indoctrinated – via compulsory religious education to believe in non-existent sky-daddies, angeles and demons and the lie that homosexuals are inferior heterosexuals…which is a blatant violation of the "Immortal Declaration" that all men are created equal as started in our Constitution. By your stance, clearly, you do not support that "Immortal Declaration" by Mr. Jefferson and the other founding fathers of our Democratic Republic. Das vas a big mischstke, Ja?
"This would of course be a form of institutionalized child abuse, and we cannot permit it. "
But you can (and do) permit the institutionalized child abuse that folks of your ilk practice daily in their churches, schools and various other religions institutions and organizations throughout the US of A. And in addition to that mental child abuse, let us not forget the physical child abuse the Church has practiced for the past two-thousand years and continues to condone and protect under it's petticoats.
"There is no possibility of compromise on this question.
Thus spake Zarathustra. The law has been laid down by YOU…and it must be obeyed. it must be great fun playing doG!, Nich wahr, Herr Hitler?
"we already offered civil unions and you decided to go for the Big Enchilada."
How ballsy and unappreciative of the LGBT community to have rejected your magnanimous "offer"… in the same that is was ballsy and unappreciative of the black community to accept your equally magnanimous "offer" of separate but equal.
Interesting how this sort of condescending and hateful dialogue never changes. Only the names and the places are changed to attack the innocent with impunity.
"You will wish you had thought it through more completely."
Yes. In the very same way in which the black community rues it decision not to have thought it through more completely.
And if one reads your final comment through carefully, one can detect a hint of a veiled threat. But then, I must be imagining things. Real Christians never, ever, threaten anyone, do they?
Horrible people like you are a drying breed. Even though I am not a believer, I cannot think of a more appropriate comment to that but, "Thank the Lord".
Unless you make sense, with actual truth….you are a liar
No more ridiculous than suggesting that marriage equality will cause the demise of the nuclear family and the fall of civilization that the crazies in your camp like Pat Robertson, et al, regularly pull out of their Derrieres.
Did you seek permission from the holy See to lift that term "disorientation" from his speech?
I suspect that disingenuous folks like you also have no problem with "lifting" and using copyrighted material to support your equally disingenuous postulations.
if Maggie can do get away with it, why not you?
I require no permission, Schlukitz, since ideas are not the subject of copyright laws.
If you did not know this, then "you're welcome".
If you did, you're busted
Dinner with Dan Savage? I appreciate the debate but hope that Brian took his own crockery and cutlery with him. And also that he avoided touching any door knobs that Dan may have licked.
Sharing your kinky, repressed sexual fantasies with us, are you, Lain? ;P
Nope, just telling it like it is. When Dan Savage is not licking crockery and door knobs to try and infect a political candidate and his team with flu ,he is inventing a particularly disgusting meaning for the name of another Republican candidate. And to top it all the anti-bullying crusader shows himself to be a bully of high school kids. Oh yes ,it gets better!
The debate was very interesting and from Savage's point of view at least made him look like a reasonable person. Good PR for a total jerk who sees nothing wrong in attempting to cause actual bodily harm through infecting cutlery ,crockery and pens with flu , and who spearheads an anti bullying campaign yet bullies Christian high schoolers.
" Good PR for a total jerk who sees nothing wrong in attempting to cause actual bodily harm through infecting cutlery ,crockery and pens with flu"
My what an active little imagination you have there. I must have missed the announcement about Brian having caught the flu bug as a result of having accepted the dinner invitation at Dan Savage's home. So much news to keep up with. So little time.
Tell me, how many hours a day do they allow you roam unsupervised through the walls of the Better Mental Health Institution you're at and isn't that the nurse I hear calling you to come take your meds?
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30…
Funny, I was just wondering what came of this the other day. Thanks for the update. I look forward to hearing more about the debate.
1. Aristotle's approach was philosophical/metaphysical. His system required, for example, the heavenly bodies to move in perfect circles since it was his metaphysical view that regular motion was the highest degree of perfection.
2. Science is not a matter of consensus- in fact every scientific advance in history has consisted in the experimental demonstration by one mind, of something all other minds were in consensus *against*.
3. Neither Copernicus, nor Galileo, ever provided any empirical demonstration of their heliocentric systems. It is a matter of historical fact that each and all of Galileo's "proofs" have since been falsified *scientifically*.
4. There exists no experimental demonstration concerning the age of the Earth. I will give you a thousand dollars if you can find one.
As above, consensus is not relevant to the question of scientific truth.
Experimental demonstration is relevant to the question of scientific truth.
"Please cite proof (you know, empirical evidence), that telling kids about the existence of gay families is somehow grounds for child abuse"
>> Please cite (you know, empirical evidence) that I have ever said that telling kids about the existence of gay families is somehow grounds for child abuse.
As for civil unions, it would have settled this entire affair.
It was the explicit, calculated intention of HRC and other gay rioghts organizations to cynically lie in order to get a civil unions bill passed, and then use it the next morning as the basis for a 14th Amendment-grounds challenge to marriage.
Very clever.
Too clever.
This clever move re-situated gay rights as same sex marriage rights.
The first you are certaibnly entitled to.
The second will be fought ceaselessly, since it is demonstrably absurd.
Scott, you are going to have to understand that your above approach has lost.
It works very well when preaching to the choir, but it loses you elections.
Just so you know.
1. Aristotle's use of inductive reasoning in certain endeavors, like his categorization of different species, is widely considered the origin of the modern scientific method. NOT his deductive suppositions about astronomy.
2. I never said that science was a matter of consensus. The Big Bang Theory (still considered a theory — not a law) has been hotly debated for decades and still has some dissenters today.
3. Copernican and Galilean models of heliocentricity relied on mathematics, and in Galileo's case, direct and regular observation of the night sky. If, by Galileo's falsified proofs, you're referring to his conception of the laws of motion, you're correct that they've been disproved. Isaac Newton was arguably the most preeminent empirical scientist of his era. But, he was not infallible, either (see Einstein's theory of general relativity). Finally, the fact that Galileo's conception of gravity and motion were incorrect does not negate the validity of heliocentricity, just as Einstein's relativity didn't topple every pre-existing law of motion postulated by Newton.
4. There exists no experimental demonstration concerning the biblical age of the earth. I will give you a thousand dollars if you can find one.
I, again, never said that consensus was relevant to scientific truth. Scientists are continuously revising their models in light of emerging evidence. I find it amusing, however, that you seem to regard "experimental demonstration" as the only qualifier of "scientific truth," when the Bible has absolutely zero of that. How charming, that a random troll on the internet thinks he can single-handedly overturn the entire field of theoretical physics for not being "scientific enough," while simultaneously touting the Bible as absolute truth. Your preacher must be proud of you.
You are the one who said that teaching kids about the existence of gay families is equivalent to child abuse. Not me. And, no, civil unions have not and would not have settled "this entire affair." They only offer a paltry few hundred legal concessions (and only at the state level), while federally-recognized marriage offers over a thousand. "Separate but equal" just doesn't fly in this country. And, since the 14th amendment guarantees legal equality to ALL Americans, your attempts to create a legal apartheid between straight and gay couples will never prevail.
Get the fuck out of here. The heterosupremacist delusion is as bad as the master race delusion. For a gay basher to come onto a LGBT-interest site and gay bash is as rude and inappropriate as it would be for an antisemite to enter a temple and start yelling that he wanted Jews to be kicked out of the country. By coincidence, at this next link is an article about how the NOMzis and Brian Brown exploit antisemitism in the population to further their malicious gay-bashing political goals: http://tinyurl.com/6r62jrn
NOM pleads guilty to 18 counts of campaign finance law violations: http://tinyurl.com/9tgtqfd
The endless anti-gay lies of the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher: http://tinyurl.com/6wnz5v7
It is sick beyond words that a group to “save” marriage would exploit racial and ethnic divisions, stir intolerance and fear, and even rip families apart by pitting children against parents. In their self-described “battle,” they come across as the biggest losers of all. http://tinyurl.com/8atobe9
Obama leads Romney overall: http://tinyurl.com/8w9qgxe
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ratified an amendment to the church’s constitution Tuesday that removes a provision flatly prohibiting the ordination of openly gay men and women in same sex relationships.
“Clearly what has changed is that persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination,” General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons told the Presbyterian News Service.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1dWlI)
ULC Monastery ministers facilitate gay marriages in NY http://tinyurl.com/cm5lynl
NY Lesbian and Gay Wedding Officiants for New York Gay Marriage Ceremonies http://www.engaygedweddings.com/ny/officiants-cer…
Maryland State Senator Anthony Muse, an anti-gay African-American minister, works closely with NOM, who have made robo-poll calls for him. The stated aim of the robo-polls was “to identify marriage equality opponents who they can push to support Mr. Muse in the Democratic Primary.”
Look what Muse did here. He created a campaign flyer that suggested President Obama had endorsed Muse in the 2012 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, when in fact, Obama had endorsed the incumbent Senator Ben Cardin, a Jew who has co-sponsored legislation to repeal DOMA. The Muse campaign flyer shows the “Composition of the 112th Senate,” purportedly broken down by race. There are no African-American U.S. Senators. On whom does Muse pin the blame for that? On the Jews. His racial breakdown gives “White” and “Jewish” as separate races. The Muse hate document shows that there are 84 “white” Senators, and that “whites” are 62% of the U.S. population, and it shows that there are 12 Jewish Senators, and that Jews are 1.8% of the population, while blacks are 12% of the population.
This sickening, cynical hate document has NOM’s fingerprints all over it. We know that NOM actively planned to “drive a wedge” between other minorities; we know that NOM said that “fanning hostility” between minorities is “key” to its strategy. The Muse pamphlet very conspicuously sought to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility.” Remember; NOM’s goal in the Democratic primary was “to identify marriage equality opponents who they can push to support Mr. Muse in the Democratic Primary.” Having identified Democratic marriage equality opponents — many of them African-Americans — Muse sought to stoke African-American resentment and/or hatred of Jews by separating whites from Jews as “races,” and showing that while there are fewer Jews than blacks in the population, there are 12 Jewish U.S. Senators, but no African-American ones. Of course, the Jew-clobbering strategy was dependent on Muse’s opponent, Senator Ben Cardin, being a Jewish LGBT equality supporter.
Cardin won the primary, but NOM’s involvement in the Muse campaign left the area poisoned with elevated antisemitic feeling and enhanced hatred of gays and lesbians.
Scott, you are a bit over the top in your hysteria, even for the home crowd here.
I am not suggesting anyone get kicked out of the country.
NOM is not an anti0semitic organization, neither is it an anti-gay organization.
It is a highly effective defender of marriage, whose arguments have prevailed every time they have been subjected to a free and fair examination next to those of the gay marriage movement, in a free and fair election.
Carpet-chewing rage and hate is not going to carry the day for you, Scott.
The homosexual movement made a terrible mistake in gambling everything on the prospect that America was prepared to have marriage redefined according to your side's radical ideas.
But it was your choice.
Live with it.
As to #1, I think it is a good point, and won't quibble further, other than to say that Aristotle's metaphysics pre-determined his deductive theorem-lattice.
Just like everybody else, including every scientist today.
Observations are observations.
Interpretations are metaphysics.
Always.
#2- There is no observational evidence of a heliocentric system. All observational evidence suggests the Sun is rising, moving across the sky, and setting. Galileo's arguments were based on direct observations of *moons*, from which he advanced a metaphysical assumption that the smaller body must orbit the larger.
This was, as Einstein showed, a fundamental error of assumption on Galileo's part.
There exists no scientific demonstration of heliocentricity, and if Einstein's General Relativity is correct, no such scientific demonstration is possible even in theory.
All we can say under GR is that a relative motion of Earth and Sun occurs, and the laws of physics can be *equally* derived from *either* reference frame.
It would be quite interesting if GR were to be falsified; recent cosmological observations suggest the day might not be far off.
We agree that there exists no experimental demonstration of *any* proposed age of the Earth, from wherever it might proceed.
The Bible ism not a scientific text; however, its assertions, since they proceed from God, cannot contradict scientific truth; that is, experimentally demonstrated fact.
"You are the one who said that teaching kids about the existence of gay families is equivalent to child abuse"
>>This is false.
"And, no, civil unions have not and would not have settled "this entire affair."
>>Clearly, in retrospect, you are right. My point was, that had civil rights been the real issue, they *would have*.
Civil rights are not the real issue in same sex marriage cases.
Enforced special rights for homosexuals is the issue.
These special rights require a redefinition of marriage, which the American people have overwhelmingly rejected, thirty two straight elections and counting.
The Supreme Court has already held, and Federal Courts have acknowledged as binding precedent, that there exists no 14th Amendment issue with respect to same sex "marriage"- all are equally free to marry, provided they can find an eligible spouse who will have them.
No constitutional right to same sex marriage exists.
Not only do a majority of Americans now support LGBT equality, a majority also are appalled by the Republican Party's willingness to right off a woman's right t choice. The Republican Party platform for 2012 incorporates a prohibition against emergency contraception and/or abortion for raped women. That runs counter to public opinion by a huge measure. The Rethugliturd War on Women is not winning the party majority support. You are delusional.
"Live with it"
You act as if the loss of the culture war by the LGBT community is a foregone conclusion.
It's not.
You live with it.
"Not only do a majority of Americans now support LGBT equality"
>> They do *not*, however, support same sex marriage, having voted it down thirty three straight times, including this spring in North Carolina- home of the Democratic Convention- by a huge margin.
The polls are wrong.
You will see it confirmed again this November.
The very large majority of American voters *do not* want same sex marriage.
"a majority also are appalled by the Republican Party's willingness to right off a woman's right t choice"
>> The *real* civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement.
Abortion is the modern slavery, except it makes slavery look like pretty small potatoes, next to the institutionalized, industrial-scale slaughter of hundreds of millions.
Why, next to abortion, Hitler and Stalin and Mao combined were junior leaguers in the mass murder department.
You need to drink a long, tall steaming glass of STFU.
Hey, Scott, did you see the Brian Brown/ Michael Savage debate yet?
Why yes, we did.
Pity that Brian began foaming the mouth like a tired out nag ready for the glue factory.
And anyone who did watch that video will have to admit, candidly, that Savage savaged him.
Hurts being made to look like a talking points asshole who just kept repeating his tired old mantra of "Traditional Marriage" and the "marriage is between one man and one woman" meme, doesn't it?
Yawn.
You win, Scott…hands down. ;P Thanks for bringing out the big cannons.
It will take bullshit radar a month of Sundays to dig himself out from under that deluge of facts, if ever. LOL
Savage was defeated, as he always would be in any debate where bullying teenagers was not the order of the day.
Thirty two straight, Schluk.
It will be thirty six straight November 7.
I can live with it
Schluk:
While the choir is doubtless applauding, the rational notice you have not refuted a syllable of what I posted.
In other words, Schlutz, you have lost 32 straight elections, and insist that you need not change.
I am very happy to see it
Now this is, at least, a logical argument.
You wish Western civilization to deny its foundation in Christianity, and I wish to defeat you.
That is a fair, honest, and truthful report of our relative political intentions.
May the best man win.
"My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary."
>> Bravo, iain.
The truth is such a simple and irrefutable thing……
Dan Savage doesn't do so well when deprived of a captive audience of teenagers who have no opportunity to defend themselves against his bluster, does he, Schlukitz?
Rave on, idiot. An asshole like would declare the last horse to cross the finish line, the winner.
How are things in la-la-land?
Admittedly it is difficult to refute someones lies that are repeated over and over like a speeding carousel.
Logical debate is obviously not one of your strong points since you feel the need to continually put people down, just for the sake of putting them down.
That's how AFR and people like you win their official hate designation from SPLC.
Wear it with pride.
I note with amusement that the proponents of General Relativity are now to join FRC on the SPLC "hate groups" list, if Schlukitz here has anything to say about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.