Remember back in May, when NOM’s Brian Brown challenged Dan Savage to a verbal duel after Dan made accurate comments about the Bible that Brown didn’t like?
Well, that debate finally happened. Zack Ford at ThinkProgress reports:
Savage and his family hosted Brown for dinner in their home, and afterward, Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times hosted a dinner-table debate over the issue of same-sex marriage. Savage offered an articulate explanation of the many conflicts presented in the Bible, pointing out how it fails to align with the 21st Century Zeitgeist of morality and so serves no authority on the question of same-sex marriage. Brown, immediately citing the shooting at the Family Research Council (which happened the same day the debate was recorded), focused entirely on assuming the status of victim, claiming that the primary consequence of marriage equality is that individuals like him will be labeled as “bigots.”
Watch the full, hour-long debate below. I was so eager to share this video with all of you that I posted it before viewing it myself, so we’ll all be watching it together. (Who’s bringing the popcorn?)
Ford also notes:
For Brown’s point to be valid, there would have to be an actual campaign against the rights of Christians, which of course there isn’t, though there is very much a fight against the rights of gays and lesbians. What is most compelling about the debate is that Brown never mentions the existence of same-sex couples or their children, despite having just dined with such a family and continuing to sit in their household. Instead, he resorts to self-victimization and blatant refutations without any supporting evidence, simply saying “Dan, You’re wrong” time and time again. The few examples Brown cited to defend his arguments, such as the flawed Mark Regnerus study or the Ocean Grove Pavilion in New Jersey, were skillfully debunked by Savage.
Other than provide another platform for the pro- and anti-freedom-to-marry sides to air their respective views, it doesn’t appear as though this debate accomplished much. Dan’s husband Terry apparently felt similarly, telling Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times:
Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty. In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.”
The Savage vs. Brown debate does seem to have accomplished at least one thing, though: getting the pro-equality Oppenheimer drunk. He writes, “Every time they disagreed, I drank some more.”
Okay, I’m going to watch the debate now. Maybe instead of making popcorn, I should pour myself a cocktail…
Thanks John. I will watch this later today. I think I’ll join you in a cocktail. I might need something stronger than popcorn to deal with what I anticipate being said by “the bigot”.
BB complained bitterly that Dan was wrong, that he was plain wrong about the Bible supporting slavery. He cited several Biblical scholars who may or may not be credible, that in fact, the slavery mentioned was not literally slavery in the way that a west African kidnap victim might understand it, but was a form of indentured servant.
i.e. stating in clear terms in a clear example, that particular Biblical references require particular interpretation with knowledge of the historical context. This is EXACTLY what is needed when it comes to Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
Brian can’t have both ways. If the Bible cannot be read as a literal text, whose meaning is more or less obvious to a reasonable person, then other meanings, subtexts, implied meanings and various abstractions are not ‘truth’ but just one person’s fallible interpretation with no more wider acceptance and resonance than any other.
The other day on the Episcopal Cafe, I found out something that I had not known and which all LGBT activists should know. In some of the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospel, in the part where Jesus heals the ‘servant’ of the Roman centurion, it actually refers to him as ‘his boyfriend’ or whatever the ancient Greek equivalent of that was. When it was being translated into other languages (like Latin), that was considered too shocking, so they changed it to ‘servant’. The boyfriend probably was his servant as well, but they were also gay lovers! Christ obviously had no problem with it (not surprisingly).
It is a very depressing world when those trying to make a point against marriage equality for the LGBT community end up making a better case for marriage equality for all without meaning to, than the LGBT community does. Meanwhile, a well known figure such as Dan Savage in the LGBT community is as ignorant of the realities of polyamorous relationships (and by extension, what kind of polygamy would actually happen among entirely consenting individuals in modern times, vs. the kind of polygamy that happens in societies where there is already a social hierarchy), as the anti-LGBT-equality side is on LGBT relationships.
I think both sides have found a convenient battleground: “Marriage.”
That’s exactly the point, isn’t it, Melinda?
This is no more about marriage than sodomy laws were about morality, biblical or otherwise, DADT was about military preparedness, anti-adoption laws were about what’s best for the children, anti-discrimination laws were about traditional family values, and on and on and on.
The marriage battle, like every other battle, is about the place of gay people in our society. But thre real battle is about how much the very existence of gay people bothers, offends, attracts, entices, fascinates, frightens, and otherwise obsesses some striaght people, and a whole lot of people who, I am absolutely certain, wanna be straight but ain’t.
You got that right Ben. ; )
Gary, I knew about that, and I think the original word refers to a male concubine.. Not exactly equivalent to today’s largely egalitarian same sex romantic relationships. And unfortunately the same argument can always be trotted out- “Jesus said to the prostitute, ‘go and sin NO MORE.’ not ‘go celebrate your sim at a Pride fest.’”