Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage is mad at Dan Savage for calling the Bible’s statements about homosexuality “bullshit.” Really mad. Incensed. Beside himself. So much so that he’s turning it into the bigot’s equivalent of a hip hop battle, challenging Savage to a duel of argument at 20 paces:
As a father of seven, watching it makes my blood boil.
Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I’m here, you name the time and the place and let’s see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It’s easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let’s pick on someone our own size!
I’m here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage. You will find out out how venal and ridiculous your views of these things are if you dare to accept a challenge.
36 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Brett McCoy
May 9, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s ON!
Gregory in Seattle
May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As the bigots always do, they will back out at the last minute with some bogus excuse, and then never seem to have the time to reschedule.
Randomfactor
May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, right. Like there’s anything Savage can do to a guy whose last name is “Brown.”
anandine
May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, god, I hope they live-stream it.
Randomfactor
May 9, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for the Choicer Challenge.
Brownian
May 9, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As an inhabitant of a planet with limited carrying capacity, fuck you, you rutting goat.
cjtotalbro
May 9, 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why do conservatives think that the number of kids they have counts as some form of credential?
Chiroptera
May 9, 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You want to savage the Bible?
Well, that is his name.
What? Somebody was going to say it!
had3
May 9, 2012 at 11:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a uterus, not a clown car!
Mr Ed
May 9, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict?
As the owner of a golden retriever I would like to remind you to pick your battles.
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 11:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even more fun would be a duel between Dan Savage and Michael Savage (they aren’t related, Michael’s real name is Weiner).
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform
May 9, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Brownian: Nothing wrong with rutting. The problem is that Brown and his wife insist on conceiving all the children they think gaaawwwwrrrrd gives them…. and they think it privileges them somehow morally. (See also: “As a mother….” in debates where motherhood gives one no moral, intellectual, or even experiential advantage whatsoever. Which is certainly not limited to conservatives.)
Had3:
How about some equal condemnation for impregnator? Women don’t “get ourselves pregnant.”
Jasper T
May 9, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pope Benedict?
Woah woah woah – is he defending the pope? Is this a poe?
Marcus Ranum
May 9, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ooooh, what a chest-thumping display of primate rage blog-posting.
Michael Heath
May 9, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
We need a word or phrase for this Bill Dembski-analogous cowardice displayed by those who won’t debate. Though not perfectly analogous, Dembski was far more cowardly than what we observe here.
Brownian
May 9, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s what I was doing. But yes, there’s nothing wrong with the rutting. It’s failing to geld oneself first that’s the problem with these assholes.
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform
May 9, 2012 at 11:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m all for Brown et al. making themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.
AJ Milne
May 9, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
+1.
Oh, and I’m sure it’s been said, but speaking as someone who is, in fact, married, I would like to state very clearly that the ‘National Organization for Marriage’ has some fucking nerve appropriating the word ‘Marriage’ in their name, thus associating me in any way whatsoever with their idiocy.
Let’s call ‘em what they are: ‘The Sleazy Religious Zealots for Legislating Homophobia Lobby’. Thanks kindly.
Brownian
May 9, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If only more Christians had the commitment of the Shakers.
Modusoperandi
May 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1 “Even more fun would be a duel between Dan Savage and Michael Savage (they aren’t related, Michael’s real name is Weiner).”
Weiner Savage?
John Hinkle
May 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Savage referred to Brown as “NOMnuts.” Love it! This whole challenge/challenge accepted thing made my day.
cptdoom
May 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just want to point out that Savage is a former Catholic seminarian (insert bad gay joke here). I have a feeling he can mop the floor with Brown, given his knowledge of the Bible.
christophburschka
May 9, 2012 at 12:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t read that acronym without thinking “NOM NOM NOM”. Which is coincidentally the sound Dan Savage will make as he eats this bigot and his talking points for breakfast.
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Modusoperandi @ #20
Michael Weiner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage
MarkNS
May 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No way Brown is going to go through with a debate. He knows that reason is not on his side.
michaelmcfann
May 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I had it in my power,
I see your challenge and raise you one Dillahunty!
‘NUFF SAID!
teawithbertrand
May 9, 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I really hope this debate happens. The one redeeming quality of assholes like Brian Brown is that it’s fun to watch them defend the indefensible.
anandine
May 9, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1 said Weiner Savage?
Savage Wiener (sic)
fifthdentist
May 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Twenty paces? What, he thinks teh ghey cooties can only jump 19 paces?
leni
May 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ cjtotalbro:
Because that’s what determines their status as True Christians.
DaveL
May 9, 2012 at 1:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe that would go something like:
Dan Savage was once a Catholic seminarian…
(Pause)
No, that means he was studying to be a priest.
Kevin
May 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It doesn’t take any more than a rudimentary knowledge of the bible to know that we don’t follow the “unchanging” moral code of the bible.
Heck, the NT overturned all of the dietary restrictions of the OT (Mark 7:18-19), and the need to circumcise males to enter into the religion (1 Corinthians 7:17-20 and many others).
Jesus also prohibited divorce, overturning what the OT said about it (Mark 10:1-10). So, not only do you have a direct command from Jesus (aka, GOD himself) that contradicts earlier “unchanging” morality, you also have the overt violation of that command by Christians in every state in the union and everywhere else where divorce is allowed.
Right there, that’s evidence that the morality of the bible is NOT unchanging. It changed right in plain sight. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
It only took me 10 minutes to look up the pertinent bible verses (I knew they existed, just not where).
I think it’s not going to be a fair fight. Not even close.
kagekiri
May 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, Christians in that case fall back on “Well, Jesus said he gave us divorce back in the Old Testament because we were weak!”
Which still begs how “God is unchanging” in any way (he changes his mind a lot in the Bible, and changing standards of salvation is a big one), or how his “goodness is unchanging” (as you mention, the rules change drastically, from massive incest being the go-to relationship status in the Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark stories, to being disallowed in the Israelite law, from polygamy to monogamy without divorce, and so on).
It also makes you wonder how killing off thousands of Israelites every time a few of them pissed him off was “God going easy on them”. I guess it’s not as horrible as Jesus’ thought-crime rules…but it’s not much better at all.
eric
May 9, 2012 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even more fun might be watching courts cite that video as exactly what they mean when they say “no credible arguments against.”
I honestly didn’t think any group could hold a candle to creationists when it came to being their own worst (legal) enemy. But the anti-gay-marriage guys give creationists a run for their money.
WMDKitty
May 9, 2012 at 7:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So… popcorn, anyone?
llewelly
May 9, 2012 at 9:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Uh, the tears of the high-school girls will be tears of laughter. And they’ll be laughing at you, Mr. Brown.