Pundit and LGBT activist Dan Savage accepted National Organization For Marriage‘s Brian Brown‘s challenge to debate him, and on August 15, the two met over dinner in Savage’s home at his dinner table.
What you see below is the full and unedited debate, moderated by New York Times’ Matt Oppenheimer, who writes the “Beliefs” column. Oppenheimer has written recently on the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha, the ex-gay movement, and wrote a controversial profile on Savage last year.
NOM has already created a fundraising and email harvesting website from the dinner debate, labeling Savage as a “bully,” which means Brian Brown learned not one damn thing, and walked into Dan Savages home with an agenda of hate — and marketing.
Here’s the video. Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
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!
{ 3 comments }
Dan Savage did not push back hard enough against NOM's Brian Brown on the Regnerus study. He did not specify adequately what it is that makes the "study" scientifically invalid. (A cherry picked control group compared to a test group loaded up with variables, just for starters). Then, the suspicion is that Witherspoon, NOM and Regnerus are in collusion on the study and its promotions in anti-gay-rights contexts. Brown says it does not matter that Witherspoon officials who got the study funded also are NOM officials. If it "doesn't matter," then why do these parties refuse to comply with document requests? Witherspoon, NOM and Regnerus right now today could comply with document requests related to the Regnerus study that have been made by multiple journalists, including The American Independent. Brian Brown only makes himself, Regnerus, NOM and Witherspoon look more suspicious, by refusing to comply with the document requests. After all, if the documentation exonerated these parties, wouldn't that work in these parties' favor? They are hiding the evidence, because the evidence contains things they want to remain hidden.
Tying together the beginning and the end, I wonder how Brown would explain that, while the NT is limiting on slavery (to be interpreted as a temporary ownership such as indentured servitude), his position on *civil* marriage is that it should never be allowed to end short of the death of one of the spouses.
Savage was great! He had facts to back all that he said. Brown didn't listen or answer anything he was asked. He talked around and around subjects but never clearly or factually answered anything. He was all arrogance and accusing the whole time. Nothing that Brown said supported his beliefs.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }