Thursday, August 23, 2012

NOM's Brian Brown's tries to pass himself off as the victim of Dan Savage

I am just FLOORED by Brian Brown's comments regarding his recent debate with gay activist Dan Savage.

Brown wrote a long-winded rambling piece which did nothing to recap the debate, but rather attempted to paint himself as David after he slew Goliath. Is this callous or what:

One thing is very clear to me after the time we spent together: Dan Savage believes that gay people are "a tiny defenseless minority," as he said during the debate.

He made this claim while defending the public tongue-lashing of Christian students that brought us together. He doesn't seem to realize that his position as a 47 year old adult—one with the power of fame, celebrity and access to not only the White House, but also MTV—requires a new mentality.

With power comes responsibility, including the responsibility to show how you intend to use your newfound power.

A grown man does not accept an invitation to speak to middle- and high-school students and proceed to insult their faith, and to call them names when they show their objection in the only polite way possible, by politely leaving.

Dan has apologized for the latter, but not the former. As I told him face to face: "To have a bunch of high school students and attack their religious beliefs is not appropriate, it doesn't show respect."
He appears unable to process this point of view.

He has become a hero to a lot of gay people not only for the good he's done (like telling gay kids their lives are precious—don't commit suicide!), but in some cases because Dan Savage is willing to insult and demean those with whom he disagrees.

I don't remember Savage demeaning Brown during the debate.

Needless to say Brown goes on like this - i.e.congratulating himself  and spotlighting the very few comments declaring him as the victor.

Naturally Brown omits the simple fact that the vast majority of comments on the youtube site of the debate points out that Savage basically handed him his ass.

And of course, Brown also omits the most telling moment of the debate when he totally undermined the argument for passing laws against marriage equality. You know the statement he made:

However, try as he might to come off as a winner, I think Brown knows that he laid a giant egg in the debate. Savage came to him with facts and when hit with these facts, Brown at times retreated to the standard talking points:

"We who believe in traditional marriage will be thought of as bigots."

"There is something special and unique about marriage as the joining of the two halves of humanity."

However, check out this passage from Brown's:

Let me pose a question to the Dan Savages of the world. Once gay people were a powerless and defenseless minority. Now, you have organized, protested, and become powerful through the use of democratic freedoms and intellectual debate, a powerful cultural force in our time. What use do you intend to make of your power?

The jury is out, as they say, on just how much power we as a community actually do have. But I am rather fond of what Brown said. Try as he might to pretend that he owns the high road, Brown sounds like he can't help but to respect us.

And it's not the respect that comes from us subjugating ourselves to him or those that believe as he does.

It's respect that from us taking him and others to task for their disrespect of us and our families.

So to answer your question Brian, I think that we intend to garner more of that respect. 

Because it's not about making folks like you like us or "tolerate" us.

It's about acquiring the things that belong to us. And these are the things that every human being deserves - respect and the freedom to live our lives by our standards and not by some one else's religious beliefs or  fevered imaginations of what we do in bed.


David said...

Here's what I just posted on NOM's blog. We'll see how long it lasts there:

It simply doesn't matter what the Bible has to say about homosexuality or marriage. In our country, "civil" marriage is available to non-religious straight couples, and our laws are not based on religious doctrine. THAT is the marriage that the gay community is referring to when we speak of marriage equality. When New York made same-sex marriage legal, it did not force churches to participate in those marriages if they didn't wish to. So please stop conflating an optional religious ceremony with the legal status of civil marriage. They are not the same thing. Dan Savage pointed this out, but you failed to address this major issue.

As for the uniqueness of "joining two halves of humanity"? For starters, opposite-sex couples don't have to get married in order to "join" with each other. They don't even have to get married in order to have children. (My nephew and niece are aware of that fact.) Since 95% of the populous is straight, I'd hardly call the pairing up of men and women that unique. Especially when 50% of those "joinings" fail. Just out of curiosity, which one of Rush Limbaugh's FOUR marriages epitomized the two halves of humanity the best? Apparently, straight people like Rush have the right to define their marriages and families however they see fit, even if it goes against your personal belief system. Rush also doesn't have any children, which makes me wonder why the state has had any vested interest in ANY of his non-procreative marriages? During the debate you said that children were the only reason why the state is interested in overseeing marriages. But later you said that opposite-sex couples aren't obligated to have children. So why are you using hypothetical children as a means to exclude gay couples from civil marriage?

Gregory Peterson said...

Brian Brown: "We who believe in traditional marriage will be thought of as bigots."

“We don’t consider ourselves hate-mongers and racists and bigots.”

Robert Patterson, a founder and the Mississippi Executive Secretary of the (white) Citizens’ Councils.

From the book: The Deep South Says Never
by John Bartlow Martin. Ballantine Books, New York. 1957. page 3.