Today, nationally-syndicated progressive radio host David Pakman interviewed Michael Brown, a self-proclaimed “expert” on the issue of marriage and why loving same-sex couples should be excluded from it. For those of you not familiar with Michael Brown (we’ve covered him before), he’s one of the most vile homophobes in America. He spreads his toxic bigotry on his daily radio show, “Line of Fire,” and through his catalog of more than twenty books, including his latest, A Queer Thing Happened to America, which Brown self-published in 2011 because no publishing house thought it was fit to print. Perhaps most insidiously, Brown also likes to invade LGBT Pride festivals with gangs of fundamentalist Christian theocrats who wear anti-gay T-shirts and hand out homophobic religious tracts, attempting to shame LGBT people on what is supposed to be a day of affirmation and celebration.
As usual, David’s done his homework, calmly citing, among other things, the oeuvre of prominent Yale historian John Boswell, who wrote prolifically about the intersection of LGBT issues and religion. Brown’s only response is to dismiss Boswell completely, because after all (as Brown says), he “practically died of AIDS.”
And it only goes downhill from there. When Pakman challenges Brown’s tired (and totally discredited) talking point about the immutability of the historical definition of marriage, Brown resorts to condescension. Check out the video below — he tries to lecture Pakman on how to prepare for an interview, seizing the opportunity to hawk his self-published book (which, apparently, must be a respectable source, despite the fact that no publishing house — reputable or otherwise — would print it, because it includes “1500+ endnotes and massive research.” (Hmmmm, overcompensating much?) When Pakman presses Brown further to cite the specific sources he drew upon to formulate his exclusionary “historical definition of marriage,” he suddenly chickens out remembers that he has something else to do, saying that he didn’t realize this wasn’t a “serious interview” and mischaracterizing Pakman as a ‘gotcha’ journalist out to “[set] people up for quotes.” Then, after essentially telling Pakman again to read his book before he conducts any further interviews with him, Brown hangs up.
I’ve long been appalled by Michael Brown’s putrid bigotry, but after watching his disgustingly smarmy performance on today’s episode of the David Pakman Show, I’m also aghast at such a blatant, cowardly display of ageism. I highly doubt Brown would have behaved nearly as dismissively to a journalist closer to his own age, but apparently, when it’s a young person handing his you-know-what to him, Michael Brown has no problem resorting to ageist, ad hominem attacks.
Kudos to David Pakman for keeping his cool, sticking to his guns, and being persistent in his attempt to hold Michael Brown accountable for his distortions of the truth. Watch the video below — you won’t believe it.
It’s a good bet Brown will ‘runtelldat’ on Pakman and boast either how tough he was on Pakman’s bullying questions or how Pakman is anti Christian for asking them.
Either way, Brown, just like the other Quixotics of his ilk, like to think they are such stalwarts against the invading militant homosexuals.
In truth, he’s a pussy.
I love David Pakman but I could only get through half the video because listening to Micheal Brown causes my IQ to drop a little.
10 bucks says Brown is a closet case.
There’s nothing wrong, per se, with “1500+ end notes and massive research” for a serious book on this topic. However, one needs to check the quality of his citations and “research.” If its a gigantic echo chamber of discredited sources and self-referential hogwash (which I suspect it is), then that IS a problem. Well, that and the fact that he’s a coward who folds in the face of critical challenge.
Wow, what a patronizing douchebag.
Michael, my point was that the mere fact of having “1500+ end notes” does not an authoritative or even credible work make. I’m sensing that we agree :-)
I will be going to Pride Charlotte once again this year (ticket and hotel booked) with a group organized to stand both in love and against the street preachers and God Has A Better Way folks. Having reviewed his A Queer Thing book THROROUGHLY, http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/a-queer-thing-happened-to-america-by-dr-michael-brown-review/, I know this man’s stance IS anti gay and NOT loving as he perceives. If you think he anti gay stance is horrifying, listen to his utterly dismissiveness towards the trans community! Good for David Pakman–I had seriously considered sitting with Brown this year to talk, but will not be investing my valuable time that can be used to repair the damage on deaf people like BRown.
Thanks for posting about my interview with the Doctor
Goodness gracious, could you be any more bitter? Seriously, you can feel the hate radiating off of the words written in this post.
For what it’s worth, here’s a tip: if someone is truly a “vile homophobe” who spreads “toxic bigotry”, you don’t actually have to go on and on and on about it, because their words will speak for themselves. That you have to paint this elaborate and unbecoming picture of Dr. Brown and then put his video clip at the end, makes it seem like you are trying to bias your readers against him before they even encounter his words themselves.
On a side note: evangelizing at a gay pride event is not an “invasion”, nor is it “insidious”, especially if your view of homosexual behavior is wrong and Dr. Brown’s view is right. The article you linked seems just as pejorative and hateful as this one, I might add, which is unfortunate, but not surprising given how the core of your character shines forth in this article.
As to John Boswell, the author of this article lies when he says that “Brown’s only response is to dismiss Boswell completely, because after all (as Brown says), he “practically died of AIDS.” Dr. Brown noted that he was a gay activist who nearly dies of AIDS to underscore that he was hardly a representative of objective mainstream scholarship on this issue (not that Boswell was wrong in his research for this reason, as that would be ad hominem), saying further that Bosewll came to his conclusions because he misread the text, which of course is the case.
Marian Therese Horvat, who holds a doctorate in medieval history, wrote a scathing review of Dr. Boswell’s book dealing with the subjects that Mr. Pakman referenced, and showed that the somewhat ambiguous ceremonies that Boswell calls “same-sex marriages”, are in no way explicitly , are more easily and accurately understood in a context that is in accord with what we already know was the Church’s historical teaching on homosexuality, and that Boswell added and removed words from some of his proof-texts at his leisure. She then goes on to quote many well-known and well respected Christian leaders that were then alive in medieval Europe to make further clear that Boswell’s thesis of the Church blessing same-sex unions is more nonsensical. http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm
In addition, finding a revisionist scholar who supports a position that is at odds with the large body of research done in a certain area, and name-dropping that he served at Yale is not “homework”, it’s prooftexting.
Not to mention, using terms like “prominent” and saying that Boswell wrote “prolifically” is a little dry coming from someone who is not trained academically to critically assess Boswell’s work which deals extensively with medieval Church history and the the Bible. Which is why I quoted a scholarly expert in this area who takes a more consensus view.
As to your third to last paragraph, anyone not drinking the kool-aid can see that not only are you clearly biased, personally, against Dr. Brown, but you are unable to separate your personal feelings from your work and therefore are simply unable to critically examine his words with any degree of accuracy or care.
Oh, and nice touch by simply tacking on an ageism charge for good measure. Are you kidding me?
Finally, this is what sin does to a person, it rends the heart so that it is so black, and ugly that is no longer recognizable. This is not an attack on you, but a description of the affects that sinfulness has clearly had on your soul, based on this article you’ve written. I heard a wise pastor once say that “hate is drinking poison and expecting someone else to die”. Remember that reflect on it, repent of your sins, come to Jesus,
Sincerely Eric.
The only hatred here is yours Eric. Brown’s words do speak for themselves. That’s why they’re being reported. That you need to try to paint his words as anything other than the hateful diatribe they are makes it seem like you are trying to bias people against critically examining his words to see them for what they are.
Gay pride parades are days and places where we shouldn’t have to worry about bigots like Brown. So yes it is an invasion to show up and start harrasing people. Especially since his view of homosexuality is objectively wrong.
Brown used Boswell’s AIDS diagnoses to discredit him. Nothing more. He did that because he knows that he can’t argue Boswell’s claims on their merits.
You have no proof that Boswell lied. That is just more ad hominem attacks like Brown was making.
You are in no position to talk about “revisionist scholars” given the sheer number your side employs, including Brown.
You have no idea what Mr. Becker;s credentials are for analyzing acedemic works. That is just another of yours and Brown’s ad hominem attacks.
Anyone not drinking the kool-aid can clearly see that your are biased against gay people and are unable to seperate your hatred from your work an are therefor unable to critically examine Brown’s words with any degree of accuracy or care, instead jumping to defend anyone who attacks gay people regardless of what lies they use to do so.
The ageism charge was not tacked on in any way. You would know that if you actually paid attention to what Brown was saying instead of jumping to defend him for no other reason than that he hates the same people you do.
This is what hate does to a person. It rends the heart so black, and ugly that it is no longer recognizable. This is why you are making personal attacks on Mr. Becker. It is the effect your hatred has clearly had on your soul, based on your defense of a lying bigot like Brown. You are drinking poison and expecting someone else to die. Reflect on your hatred, open your heart, and come to Jesus.
Looks like militant anti-gay activist Brown has a guilty conscience. Othwerwise, he would not have run away like a scared puddy tat!
I think what Brown really could’ve done better with, or the idea he was looking for was that of having a precedent, like in case law. Even though marriage isn’t legally defined on like a stone tablet somewhere, it is defined through precedent. i.e., everyone should already know what a marriage constitutes.
Precedents can be overturned Wing-Nut. Or maybe you think gay people should still be thrown in prison just for being gay.
Typical. Any time they’re called upon to provide actual facts instead of preach or spew BS they either cut and run or start whining about how they’re being silenced/persecuted.
RainbowPhoenix,
I understand the idea of precedents; but one the main issues in a any court system is whether or not they can be overturned, and under what circumstances.
And don’t talk prison, because we all know what happens there…
Yes we will talk prison Wing-nut, since that’s what your comment about precedents implies. And blaming the prison-rape epidemic on gay people, some of the most frequent victims, is just another example of why you’re a bigot.
prison rape jokes = blaming prison rape on gay people????
Please, tell me how this works…?
“We know what happens there…” is an allusion to male-on-male which people like you classify as “gay” regardless of the orientations of the people involved. Bringing that up when we say anything about prison is an attempt to lay the blame at our feet even though we are the most frequent targets.
Rape is not something to joke about in any case.
Wow, RainbowPhoenix, I guess I should say thank you since imitation is a form of flattery. Right?
You say that Dr. Brown’s view of homosexual behavior is “objectively wrong”. On what basis? What is your objective ground for right and wrong?
Also, the proof that Boswell misrepresented facts is given in the article I linked.
In addition, I looked up John Beckers bio and I saw nothing that suggested he was qualified to speak to on issues of Church history, medieval history, or Bible doctrine. http://www.bilerico.com/contributors/john_m_becker/ Am I wrong in saying this?
If so, how and where?
Furthermore, what is “my side” and how am I “employing” people like Dr. Brown. Also, how do you know I “hate” homosexuals, am “biased against gay people”, [jump] to defend anyone who attacks gay people”.
Let me give you a tip: the reason I can use the words I do is because I do so in love and truth. Based on the numerous random attacks you made on me, you obviously don’t have ,love and based on the broad generalizations and complete lack of proofs and examples in your diatribe, I’ll venture to guess you don’t have truth either.
There is not need for knee-jerk reactions, typified in a response that uses 1st grade tactics of repeating something someone has said to you. Whether you believe it or not, I love you with the love of Christ, and I care about your eternal destiny. I’d take a look at John 3:16 and Acts 2:38, if I were you.
Eric
You’re a typical bigoted bully Eric. You can’t stand getting back what you give.
It’s simple. Being gay does not hurt anyone, so it can not be immoral from an objective standpoint.
You did not give any proof. You gave the usual cherry picking historical revisionism.
You did not say anything about Mr. Becker’s credentials for arguing church history. You said he was not qualified to analyze acedemic works in general. Changing the argument after the fact when someone catches you in a lie is typical of people like you.
Your side is the side that exists only to hurt people who are different from you. There is no lie you won’t tell and you trot out “experts” like Brown who lie about their credentials and their evidence in order to justify yourselves.
Let me give you a tip. You say the things you do because of your entitlement complex and your hatred of anyone who dares to say they should have the same advantages you do. There is nothing loving or truthful about anything you’ve said. Based on the numerous falsehoods, broad generalizations, and complete lack of proofs and examples in your diatribe, you have no idea what truth or love are.
The only knee-jerk reaction is the one you made to defend a lying bigot, typified by your own ad hominem attacks and historical revisionism. You don’t know what love is. It’s not enough to say you love someone. You have to show it in your actions and your actions show nothing but hatred. Love is never a reason to hurt someone. You and your movement care only about hurting people to preserve your undeserved sense of superiority. You do not care about anyone’s “eternal destiny”, just destroying anyone who dares to challenge your entitlement complex. I suggest you look up Nietzche’s writings. You’re a walking, talking example of what he warned against.
Typical. Miller launches a pathetically weak attack against Mr. Becker and Mr. Pakman simply because he cannot present his woefully illogical case. He then directs his bile at Phoenix for calling him out for it. To actively harm someone and call it love is the behavior of a psychopath. This is why you, and Christians like you cry foul when people don’t simply submit to your whims. This is what’s wrong with you lot. It’s so obvious, and yet you in your arrogance are blind to it as well as reality, Miller.
Eric Miller:
I’m not sure who you think you are impressing, but you come across as a pompous a*s who thinks he’s much smarter than he truly is. I’ve met people like you. I’d like to buy you for what you’re worth and sell you for what you think you are worth.
Mike Brown is an extremist and a fraud who cut his teeth at the crock of s**t known as the Pensacola Outpouring. This was a contrived so-called “revival” where a few manipulative sleaze ball charlatans ripped off and conned believers.
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/pensacola.html
Is it any surprise that The Brown Clown got his start in this phony circus of frauds?
There is truly a talent in completely ignoring something someone has said, creating a straw man in its place, and then attacking said strawman as the last 3 commenters have done. I actually reacted to the words of John Becker, and David Pakman, but apparently the gesture won’t be reciprocated.
It’s easy to call something or someone names, but a lot harder to prove them wrong.
If you’re aware of that Eric, than stop creating strawmen and start focusing on arguments instead of credentials. Oh wait, you won’t, since that will interrupt your narrative and your attempts to play the victim.
Yes, Eric, I can imagine that people with talent would disturb you. Based on your arrogant Fake Chtistian homophobic rant, talent is not one of your strong suits.
Speaking of ignoring the content, it is amazing how you ignored my pointing out that the Brown Clown got his big start at the Pensacola circus. Nice try.
My initial post was an argument. You apparently liked it since you plagiarized from it :) I don’t feel like a victim, either. I love homosexuals and which is why I oppose people like John B. and David P.
“There is truly a talent in completely ignoring something someone has said, creating a straw man in its place, and then attacking said strawman…”
Yet you have no problem doing so, Miller. In every post you have made here so far. Such hypocrisy is no surprise coming from you lot.
That last was directed at RP. What is your point with the Dr.Brown Pentecostal stuff, Wayne? What am I supposed to be responding to with respect to that?
“I love homosexuals and which is why I oppose people like John B. and David P.”
What did I just say about the behavior of a psychopath?
No Eric your original post was not an argument. It was an attempt at defending a lying bigot. In addition, turning someone’s argument back at them is not plagirism. If you don’t feel like a victim, than stop whining about how we’re being mean to you be taking your opinion as something less than gospel. Lastly, you do not love gay people. If you loved us, you wouldn’t be doing everything in your power to hurt us. Only hatred produces the desire to destroy other people.
Why does Miller even bother saying he loves homosexusls? It just makes him look dishonest and insincere.
haha so I’m a psychopath now. Good to know, Aulton. To Rp
1. You beg the question when you call Dr. Brown a bigot.
2. I did not whine about you accepting my opinion.That is of no importance to me.
3. I am not doing everything in my power to hurt homosexuals, or anything in my power for that matter.
4. love tells the truth and desires the best for its recipients.
You’re the one hurting people and calling it love Eric.
1: Not it is not “begging the question”. Brown’s lies, activism, and historical revisionism speak for themselves.
2: You’ve done nothing but whine ever since you were first called out for your defense of a lying bigot.
3:You are doing nothing but trying to hurt gay people. Calling it “love” does not change that.
4:You have neither told the truth nor expressed anything but a desire to harm us.
Where have I expressed desire to harm anyone?
When you jumped to the defense of a lying bigot who’s agenda revolves entirely around hurting people. The only reason to defend someone like that is if you agree with his goals.
Well I disagree on both counts, but we seem to be going in circles. I hate to end this on a low note, but I’ll be praying for you and even though I know you don’t believe me I mean that in the sincerest way possible.
Of course you disagree. You need to keep up the narrative that your attempts to destroy us are out of “love” and you’re just the innocent victim of the people you’re trying to “help”. It still doesn’t fool us and it never will. It’s fooling fewer and fewer members of the general public each day. We see your hatred for what it is and no amount of lies and twisting will ever make it something.
Right now, I’m thinking of two ways that Christians say, “Phuck You:”
1. “I love homosexuals.”
2. “I’ll be praying for you.”
Eric to anyone who’s read the ceremonies Boswell studied it is obvious and indisputable that they are marriage ceremonies and identical in all important respects to heterosexual marriage ceremonies:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
I read your link and it is an very weak attempt to claim what is obvious is not obvious, a ceremony where men pledge fidelity, to share their lives together, love each other eternally and seal it with a kiss is undeniably a marriage ceremony to any unbiased rational person.
Your link goes off on about very abstract and nebulous ideas that the author unconvincingly claims are supposed to prove what is obviously a marriage ceremony is not a marriage ceremony. Only an unabashed bigot such as yourself would buy that. And of course your “rebuttal” is pathetically weak, it couldn’t be otherwise given the obviousness of the truth.
The depth of your bias is apparent when you try to justify Browns ad hominem on Boswell by saying “Dr. Brown noted that he was a gay activist who nearly dies of AIDS to underscore that he was hardly a representative of objective mainstream scholarship on this issue.”.
Your excuse is an adhominem in itself. That Boswell had AIDs has no bearing on the truth of what he wrote or his acceptance as a scholar. Both you and Brown bring it up in a childish attempt to use an irrelevant issue to discredit him and you, Brown and Horvat have failed miserably at that.
You said “On a side note: evangelizing at a gay pride event is not an “invasion”, nor is it “insidious”, especially if your view of homosexual behavior is wrong and Dr. Brown’s view is right” which is obviously false as well. Brown knows full well he wasn’t welcome at that event and chose to invade it solely to spiritually abuse those attending.
You said to Rainbow Phoenix “You say that Dr. Brown’s view of homosexual behavior is “objectively wrong”. On what basis? What is your objective ground for right and wrong?”.
Browns attack on gayness is objectively wrong based on the fact that the essence of morality is “Do whatever you want but harm no one.”. Gayness harms no one and by definition is moral, Browns attempt to destroy loving gay relationships harms gays and his actions are by definition immoral.
Now I know religious people like you will laughably try to claim objective morality comes from your god and he determines what is right and wrong. But that is not objective, that is subjective. If if was your god that determined what was right and wrong he could tell you “Go rape an innocent baby and set it on fire and this will be a moral act.” Would you agree that your god’s say so makes that a moral act? That must be true if right and wrong is determined by your god but you will resist answering this question because you know deep down inside that that can never be a moral act regardless of what your god says. You know that you have a concept of morality that is not dependent on what your god says, it is based on harm and culpability.
No, your biblically based morality is not objective, it is subjective, based on who is doing the action, not the action itself. Proof of that is that you consider your god moral even though he impregnated a woman bethrothed to another man without her permission. Your god condemns adultery but committs adultery himself and you don’t consider his actions wrong when you’d consider that same act wrong if a human did it. Your god tortures and kills the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others and yet you consider your god moral even though if a court here tortured and killed Mother Theresa because Ted Bundy murdered people you’d be outraged at the injustice.
No, your morality is anything but objective. Objective morality is based on harm and culpability and by definition gayness is moral and Brown’s and your anti-gay actions are evil
You can absurdly claim your actions are motivated by love but that is obviously not the case. If you were motivated by love you’d leave innocent people alone to live their lives in happiness rather than projecting your black heart on them and falsely claiming “sin does to a person, it rends the heart so that it is so black, and ugly that is no longer recognizable.”. You can call gayness a sin, but it is not a wrondoing and as such what you consider sin is meaningless. You attack innocent people and when they are offended by your brutality and respond with anger rather than recognizing it is you who is at fault you once again blame the innocent and disgustingly and falsely accuse them of having the black and ugly heart that you alone possess.
Do I hate you? You’re damn right I hate you. I hate you with a passion just as I hate Ted Bundy for murdering all those innocent women. I hate all who attack innocent people and seek to tear their happiness from them and con them into living a lonely life of desperation and despair. You have no right not to be hated, you deserve to be hated and those who hate you are justified in their hate.
It is you who must repent of wrongdoings, you have behaved in an evil manner and trying to accuse innocent people of having your black heart won’t absolve you of your guilt. Its time you slapped yourself in the face repeatedly until you come to your senses. Then make amends to all the innocent gay people you’ve hurt and attempted to destroy, you’ll be nothing but a destroyer of lives until you do.
Eric said “Where have I expressed desire to harm anyone?”.
You did that repeatedly by asking people to suppress their sexuality and accept your Jesus-con.”.
You are a destructive evil person – repent.
“Where have I expressed desire to harm anyone?”
Hey, it’s all cool Eric, I mean, apparently I want to throw people in jail, I guess just because I referenced the idea of case law in an analogy. :)
You didn’t use an analogy Wing-nut. You said Brown should have used that as his excuse for his bigotry. And now you’re playing victim because you were challenged on the implication.
Richard the “Wing Nut”,
Can we have an honest conversation? What’s your goal in coming here? What are you hoping to gain? Can you honestly explain to me what your issue with homosexuality is? I won’t attack you (even though I think you’ve deserved it a couple times) because I was raised to be polite to my elders and (unless you’re a teenager), you’re older than I am. What makes you tick?
Hey Emma,
This isn’t quite the place for idle conversation, but since you asked, and you seemed to ask genuinely, I’ll jump in briefly. What makes me tick? Hehe, now you’re my kind of person, I like a question like that.
The more and more I looked at these issues (social issues in general) the more I realized that there were predominantly two sides: the ones who are headfirst, completely in favor of progressive social policies, and then people who just don’t give a rats a**. To me, there really isn’t much of a conservative movement against these issues, as strange as that sounds. Because most people who are conservative, even if they entirely disagree, just don’t feel like saying it, because again, they just don’t feel like giving a rats a**.
But either way, we all still have a legislative voice in the matter. Even though it seems petty, I’d kind of resolved to at least go out on a limb, and make my sides’ case heard, on a personal level. And not just on the internet, like a loser creep :)
The reason I browse this site a lot is because it’s succinct, updates daily, and is a pretty good survey on what the national climate is on this issue. So I guess that might as well be a glowing review to Wayne, Evan, John, Bruce and everyone else! So yeah, even if I disagree, it happens to be very much informative.
Thanks again for being polite! I think we could use more of that around here. Always feel free to NOT call me a bigot, simply because I disagree with you. And besides, I’m a lover, not a hater.
Cheers,
-wing-nut warrior
So what do you call all the insults, shaming, and misinformation Wing-nut?
It seems that the other side does, in fact, care. I suppose it could be argued in the past that they didn’t care in a sense, because they knew that almost everybody would trust their word without question. Now that questions are being asked, and there are actual faces for the subject at question, and not just fearsome figments conjured by past generations who didn’t understand it, but were taught to fear it, they’re starting to show the strain of trying to maintain the status quo. The “I don’t care about it” line coming from them seems to be a sort of coping mantra to deal with said strain. Of course, a few public examples have regardless cracked recently.
There could be some out there who genuinely don’t care. Hell, as New York has proven, there are those who have broken party line entirely and supported us (who now sadly are under attack from the rabid side of the house). However, judging by many conservative public voices, and the activity of the propaganda machine in most areas, it can be said that for a side that doesn’t care, it sure spends a lot of time and energy on the issue.
Yeah, I know what you mean Aulton. That’s why I said it might sound strange. But that effort spent is coming from the higher political and media levels. The way I see it, among just average folks, that’s where the lines are drawn; support and apathy.
You knew it would sound strange because you know it’s false Wing-nut. You need only look at the kinds of things your fellow bigots have been doing in NC.
Right, but think that’s the exception, not the rule. Overall, I don’t see things heading in that direction.
You don’t see it only because you don’t want to. That kind of thing happens every time you start one of your campaigns against us.