A Queer Thing: He Hangs Up on David
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- -Classic Interview: Dr. Michael Brown, author of A Queer Thing Happened to America, and host of The Line of Fire joins us with his take on why President Obama announcing his support of gay marriage is a bad thing, and ends up hanging up on David
--On the Bonus Show: An electronic "brain-training" device, a Canadian anti-vaxxer changes her mind, a pastor marries a teenager with his wife's permission, more...
Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
Website: www.davidpakma...
Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
Be our Patron on Patreon: / davidpakman
Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
TDPS Twitter: / davidpakmanshow
David's Twitter: / dpakman
TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on December 4, 2015 David's Instagram: / david.pakman --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
Asking for marriage documents from 10 years ago will only tell you marriage qualifications of 10 years ago. What he's saying is that in America it's always been a certain way and that shouldn't change.
David this is what happens when you ask real questions and you should know better than to ask those questions he can't answer
You needed to tell him that biblical marriage is polygamy and that marriage in general is thousands of years older than his religion.
😂😂😂 mental gymnastics for days and this "Doctor" doesn't really seem to have the intelligence to be able to get a PhD
Never trust anyone who sports a mustache like that.
+I support the gay agenda 95% of men with mustache but no beard are gay. So the odds are he isn't straight.
+tommynutts8 Theywere just quoting the original poster, whose name is "I support the gay agenda."
I agree 1000%, never trust someone with a mustache like that.
Pakman sent the bigot packing! That was entertaining.
Jack Palkovic You just keep tuning-in. Okay, Jack?
Jack Palkovic Is English your first language, Jack? Have you been reading, writing and speaking in English, your whole life -- or for a number of years?
Yes Jack, really. Is English your native-tongue? Your arguments? You have put forth no argument, let alone "arguments," Jack. I need not substantiate the claim of Dr. Brown being a bigot. He does that quite plainly himself. You did listen to the clip, Jack? And dear boy, my first reply to you was not a question. It was a "declarative statement." I know you're but only an undergraduate student, Jack, but dear boy, you should know a declarative statement, when reading one. Keep hitting the books, Jack. Hopefully you'll progress.
Jack Palkovic But Jack! Are you a part of the new "Silent Majority" that Reagan exclaimed in his day, as his support. Are you the new, Silent Majority?
Jack Palkovic You're rambling, Jack. Practice short and concise sentences. Control your emotions, Jack. Read over your emotional-rant. Do you see how it lacks direction, Jack? Are you okay? Does gay-culture bother you? If so, Berkeley must be a challenging existence for you to experience daily, eh?
Just don't ask questions. What the hell were you thinking? Didn't you know this was suppose to be a one sided interview?
By the way, you haven't even read my book.
You couldn't pay me enough to read his book.
Historically speaking, this guy's definition of marriage is recent western invention. Hell, the church didn't even think it was important enough to call a sacrament until 1200 YEARS after christ died. He's also confusing definition with description. Just because legal documents throughout the country's history have *described* a marriage as between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with the how we (as a country) choose to *define* marriage.
The argument that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, even from a religious standpoint, is fallacious.
You can argue it's from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, but there are plenty of religions throughout history that were perfectly fine with same-sex marriages.
As for a legal definition, laws can change and new laws can be made. That's the whole reason we have a Congress. If laws could not change, we could still own slaves to this day, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and a free black man would only be worth 3/5 of a white man, so obviously laws can change.
He never would have been able to answer that question because there was no official legal definition of marriage as specifically between a man and woman. Gay marriage was never explicitly illegal, that's why Prop 8 was all about MAKING it illegal, and I wish Dems or at least someone had done a better job pushing back on the rhetoric that referred to it as "legalizing" gay marriage. Some law that said same sex couples couldn't marry never could have stood because there's no way in hell it's constitutional to deprive a specific group of otherwise law-abiding people the right to get married. Marriage is a contract that can be entered by two consenting adults, so if they're over 18, are consenting, and each individual would legally have the right to marry the opposite sex freely, there's just no way a law could have held up that keeps them from marrying each other, because it then takes away each person's civil right to marry. It's just as bad as trying to have a law that bans Black or other ethnicities from marrying.
Besides I hate how these bible-thumpers try to act like marriage is some sanctified ultra pure thing that only true lovers do. Marriage started out as the act of selling a woman for land and/or livestock, often against her will to a man she had no love for, AND he could marry as many women as he could "afford". So full of blatant hypocrisy and ignorance.
I always find it interesting when people that hold such a hard stance on something like gay marriage, and would consider themselves an experts on the subject, cannot answer such a simple question as, “Where can I find the documentation on marriage only being between a man and a woman?” You know why? Because there was no such documentation. There was no laws about it. It was an unwritten rule. That’s it. Simple as that. That’s why the religious right tried to pass the bill on marriage being only being between one man and one woman not vey long ago. They realized the fallacy of it being a law and wanted to correct it. I love that David asked that question and the guest could not nor would not answer the question. I really think that he didn’t get it. Just because it was a common practice doesn’t mean it was the law. I really wish the guest would have gotten past that portion and answered truthfully because I would have loved to hear what other question David had for him. Great stuff David. Cheers!
So definitions can't be changed to reflect a progressive society?
Not for conservatives.
Any time someone uses the phrase "just study it out", they should be immediately dismissed and perpetually ignored.
Where was David being disrespectful or mocking this guest? The guy couldn't support his position and it was evident that his only argument against same-sex marriage was religious bigotry. That's pretty sad.
Someday soon these interviews will be used as some sort of historical document of what bigotry and religious intolerance looked like as the rest of the modern world moved on. YUCK!
All his books in the background look very carefully placed for this video lmao.
Looking at him crumble was delightful. See kids: don’t fight ignorance with neither force nor emotions, do it with facts & research. Stupidity dissolves in self contradiction like the wicked witch of the east in water
“I give hundreds of interviews”...in my dreams but never in real life!
Had the urge to play Super Mario after watching this clip.
I can't believe this was 6 years ago, as I'd literally never heard of this guy until now. Now I know why.
Look it up in the dictionary! what conservatives say when they know they're losing the debate.
Marriage is a "Union". "Between a man and a women" is implied by the religious.
Well played David!
It's time to tell these people that their religious lifestyle choices simply do not matter.
I don't agree with Michael Brown's view but it did seem like David was trying to spark a debate instead of interviewing him...
A Christian backs out because he actually doesn't have a foundation for his argument.......what a surprise!
He argues like a typical christian, cowardly runs away from questions that feel threatening to his little sensitive ideology, tries to feign some high ground as if it's all below him to have to answer and then bails out to escape his weak belief system being questioned anymore. Pathetic.
Its a shame that broke down, you were not too far away from continuing a meaningful dialogue. I wonder how that interview would progress today 6 years on.
Marriage is defined as a union two people.
defining something does not give make it 100% fact. Historical, black individuals were defined by law as 3/5s of a person. Now take every statement that was said by the guest and apply it to that. "If you look at all historical court documents...they were only 3/5s of a person. That is why they should remain 3/5s of a person".... That is what he sounds like.
perfect example of intellectual checkmate. I must give credit to dr brown for being able to give the impression that his time was being wasted. It was the only recourse. He got out before being checkmated.
Yo David you should interview Austin Petersen.
The picture on the video made it look like you interviewed Geraldo Rivera.
I do not agree with Dr. Brown on this, definetly not, but the way david conducted the interview misguided the points that Dr. Brown tried to make (again, do not agree with his argument, but david did not allow him to express his opinion clearly)
Michael Brown- psshhhh DOCTOR MY BALL SACK!!!
He said god bless you.... so your all good!!
How hard would it have been for this guy to just admit that there is no “legal” definition of marriage specifying a man and a woman? He’s a professional bible lover why not just admit the falsehood and move onto some Jesus mumbo jumbo
I could totally answer your questions, I just won't
Dr Michael Brown is so concerned about aids, he should submit himself to tests to see if he developed STDs from Kim Davis.
This guy's pretty bizarre, Gus.
David, its better you not fuel these people's fire.. bad media is better than no media. So don't give these people attention.
How dare you ask questions ...
Like his mustache, this clown belongs in the 1860s.
What is the point of reposting content that's already available?
David has done some amazing interviews but most people don't go to far back in the archives I believe and this is just one he wanted people to rewatch.
This is a great one, it just gets annoying in my subscription feed when they recycle old content like this.
+mediadrone01 I didn't know about this. It's clear that he shows them again so new people know about them.
Also, this isn't the first time I come across things I didn't know he did, so I thank him.
Mr. Pakman, the legal definitions and jurisprudence discussing marriage expressly as the union of a man and a woman are available in superabundance in both the historical record of the United States and English common law. Although it ought to be self-evident that marriage is the indissoluble lifelong union of one man and one woman, there have been many usurpers who've attempted to distort and redefine this most sanctimonious institution.
We will assume for the moment that your interrogative toward Mr. Brown asking for citations of laws affirming the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage were made of genuine ignorance. Although you argue that dictionaries are irrelevant to the standing of law, the law is practically interpreted using dictionaries such as Black's Law and Bouvier's Law every day in the highest courts of the United States. The following are some of the classical definitions of marriage that exist:
from Webster's Dictionary published in 1828
MAR;RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
and the following from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition published 1910
Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming marries, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div.
Now a few comments are in order concerning these definitions. First and foremost, marriage is expressly defined as "the legal union of a man and woman" and that this union is "for life." Furthermore, Black Law Dictionary, the legal standard for the definitions of words in the interpretation of the law, say that this association is founded on the "distinction of sex". Lastly, Webster's recognizes that the true administrator of marriage is God who did so "for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes."
From these definitions it is clear that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Moreover, this union is for life and exists as an institution of God. These facts remain, despite the chagrin of secular actors and lukewarm religious persons.
As far as case law affirming this definition of one man and one woman, much of it is inferential given that the definition was always bound in the axiom of "man and woman". However, there are plenty of states who have codified this definition in their statutes such as Pennsylvania and Maryland, e.g.:
PA Code Title 23 Chapter 11 SS 1102 Definitions "Marriage." A civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife.
Conclusion. Marriage is the indefeasible union of a man or woman before God.
Seize Today most sanctimonious institution? Lmao do you know what sanctimonious means?
The legal definition is found in the Holy Bible... it's God's law.
Didn't seem like a mocking interview to me.
something (in this case marriage) should never be kept the same for the sake of keeping things the same
someone shot the wrong michael brown
If these church people base their marriage pattern on the Bible, then it must be polygamy becouse it is the Bible pattern. One man and one woman according to the Bible is only for church elders. usual marriage pattern we read it in the Bible: king David 2. Samuel 5,13 "And David took him more concibines and wives out of Jerusalem" And for king Solomon we read in 1. kongs 11,3 "And he had 700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines"
This made my day xD
The bible is the document that defines marriage.
Jesus defined marriage
[nocomment]
+Teinwin Baldikan [noreply]
+Baron von Quiply
[noreplytothereply]
[spontaneousuncallefforyoutuberagefollowedbyevangalismandreferencestonazis]
+Baron von Quiply
[replyingtoaguyontheinternetthathadfallenintomytrolltrapthatIhavemadethiscommentfiratwithoutwatchingthewholevideobecauseitwaswaytolongandwillmakepeoplecommentbeforemeandthatmakesmeunhappyandhowdidyoudesipherthiswholetextbeforegettinganalcancerquestionmark]
[inallhonestyiwasn'tableto.iwasjustdiagnosedwithstage17buttcancerbutit'sokbecauseihaveoneoftheüber-rareBettyRubbleflintstonevitaminsandthey'rethethesecretirreptoidnaughty-suppressedcure. it'sallaconspiracy,theyhaditpulledoffthemarketclaimingthepurplebetty'swereaccidentally315%MDMA.] ☃
People on the cringe subreddit need to stop linking to David's videos. David himself is cringe.
Link to this video on Reddit? Would be interested to see
+David Pakman Show www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/3vmlf3/guest_ends_interview_early_calling_interview_a/
+David Pakman Show it was on reddit/cringe I'm not if you wanna see it but here you go anyway
www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/3vmlf3/guest_ends_interview_early_calling_interview_a/