For example, even when I heard him the first time, I understood what Dr. Brown was talking about. The definition of marriage prior to our current time has always been defined between one male and one female. Not until recently (last 10 years) has it been REDEFINED. This includes the court systems too.
Marriage has changed through history. Nothing to do originally with love or affection...but was simply treating women as property and all about women bearing sons so men could pass on property and wealth!
Just one question, where did you get that Philosophy from? You can go back in your mind thousands of years and tell us what marriage was really about. Just because there are some cultures that treat women like property and use them for their own pleasure and for offspring does not mean that was the only original intention of marriage from the beginning, the only place to find the beginning is in the beginning of the Bible you discount that and then everyone is just guessing and making up stuff.
I love when David gets these guys in a corner and they always end up saying "I guess I didn't realize what show I was coming on." meaning they would only want to come on any show where they can freely spew their discrimination without being held accountable for it.
"the host was trying to get a "legal" definition of the word marriage yet was unwilling to acknowledge every "legal" document in the history of this country (like a marriage license)." ~ Bill Maddox
Dr. Brown did an amazing job and spoke the TRUTH. What an amazing ability to lay out the simple truth that has been set as a foundational principle in our nation for so many years. To try and remove such a massive & foundational part of how we have honored marriage for years in America is absurd.
David is rude cutting off his guest while still talking because he doesn't want to hear the truth. Marriage should be for male and female only. Civil union for others.
Dina Gaspar however there isnt anything "civil" about violating and abusing what comes natural even in nature! A penis is for a vagina and a butthole is for poop! those are the natural uses for these God given parts. And what women do to other women?? well lets just say they have to use a fake replica of a God made penis. ..
David has said before that if so called "civil unions" gave gays the same legal and financial rights as marriage gives straight people, then he would be fine with it. But the fact is that "civil unions" aren't equal in any way to marriage.
"It's always been that way" is not a valid reason for banning same-sex marriage. It was also "always that way" that interracial marriage was banned in many states until 1967. And it was "always that way" that the Mormon Church practiced polygamy until 1890, and Mormon fundamentalists continue to be in favor of polygamy even today. Social tradition by itself does not provide a legal ground to stand on, or else there would be no reason for states to ban same-sex marriage if it was already illegal.
I normally don't like it when hosts interrupt their guests, but in this instance it was very much warranted. As David pointed out, the talking points that this person laid out had so many areas within that one statement that it would be virtually impossible to address all issues within said statement without breaking it apart. This is precisely why people with these talking points are so rarely questioned on them, 'cause where would one start...? Good job on this David.
It's better to cut it short when the host is showing clear signs of bias motivated questions to be cheeky. It's the high road instead of humoring him by trying to answer those kinds of question when he clearly doesn't want to have a professional interview. How could an American citizen not know that the government defined it that way. Our country was formed on Biblical principles, whether it be on paper or not. How do you expect him to know where government documents are kept? He doesn't work for the government. And when he said he would give him info, says he doesn't want to trust it before he even reads it?? Why does he ask? kind of unprofessional....
Who cares how it was founded? It was founded with women having almost no rights. It was founded with slavery being the norm. Many of the so called founding fathers owned slaves, and slavery is permissible by god according to the bible. So should we still have slavery today?
tomatodamashi the institution of slavery in the Bible is nothing at all like the slavery we know of from American history. its was mostly people paying debt, or for protection, or a lack of a place of your own and ability to get ahead yourself, and other reasons of the sort. and slaves were able to go free in a certain amount of years, but if you loved your master, your could chose to be with him forever when your years of service are up. and it had nothing to do with kidnapping and selling people. and the Bible commands masters to love and respect their slaves. so that was just people taking advantage of what the Bible allows (in ancient cultures), and willingly disregarding commands in regards to slavery that they didn't like. which is not how God's Word is to be handled. and if they didn't repent of those ways of treating people, then they too will be judged.
Adam Kakos You could still beat them as long as they don't die within three days, you could trick them into being yours forever by providing them with a wife and Jesus says slaves obey your masters including the cruel ones (1 Peter 2:18, but also Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5). Furthermore, the 6 years was for HEBREW slaves, not for gentile ones. Slavery is slavery, they were your property. These passages were used to justify American slavery. If God was moral then OWNING people would be stated plainly to be wrong. Perhaps one of the commandments should be THOU SHALT NOT OWN ANOTHER PERSON PERIOD. I don't care how kind these slave owners were, owning people is ALWAYS wrong. Either god doesn't care, which makes him less moral than us. Or he tacitly supports it, which makes him horrendous.
slavery is a result of a fallen world, and God gave us regulations to work within a system. slaves were property, but its not the same institution as we know of, but i'm not sure what what this has to do with my first comment. and of course slaves are to respect their masters (even the bad ones) just like i have to respect my boss who I don't have a lot of fun with. because we all have a master in heaven who shows no partiality and there is nothing wrong with those passages, but the people who used them were not consistent in obeying the Bible by equally loving and respecting their slaves. anyone can pervert the scriptures to say what ever they want it to say, if you do not know how to properly interpret the text, or if you are truly not in Christ at all, and just wish to use religion to get your way (as many have done, and still do today). we ALL are slaves. the question is who is your master? is it God? or your sin? and unless you have kept the law perfectly, none of us are in the position to add or remove from commands let alone to say God is immoral (it's more of a lack of understanding of him). and those commands we have violated will condemn us unless we have a savior. who is Christ. i have be bought with a price, sin is no longer my master, but Christ, because of his sacrifice for my wicked sins :/ so you otta join! life is short. bond, or free, we all have a date with eternity all the same. what difference would it make if we were all slaves or kings? after this short life, you wont even have a shirt on your back to take with you, even if you were the most free person out there, and really were not. there will be a lot of slaves who had less than nothing in this life who will gain more than anyone can imagine by making Christ their Lord and Savior. so unless you have a more reasonable questions, i wont have a reply, God bless
Adam Kakos God cannot be a moral being by your own admission. Owning a person is NEVER moral, allowing others (or creating a system where it could be perpetuated) to continue to have slavery is immoral. If god were a moral creature, he would make a commandment saying we should not own people. Apparently that was not as important as making idols. God cannot be all good and allow evil to exist. But in actuality god created evil. Before the universe existed god could have decided to make any kind of universe. He DECIDED to create the one where humans would fall and that Satan would be created. God is the father of evil, as he is the creator of Satan. It is such a paradox to say the author of evil is all good. It doesn't make any sense. If you use the bible as your morality, you would be according to our society's standards, immoral. You would support tribalism, you would be xenophobic, homophobic, sexist and find no problems with slavery. Also, if you heard a voice in your head that you believe is god, you would think it is okay to kill your child. You are also pro-genocide as long as you think god commands it. Furthermore, Jesus was not moral. Eternal punishment for people based on their beliefs is not moral. The fact that if Hitler repents, he can make it into Heaven, but a non-believer who spends her life helping others in poor countries, would be punished FOREVER for it - this is not a moral system. The blame lays on the being that created it, God. I'm curious, do you believe Genesis is literally true? Because if you do, then you have to shut out all of the evidence saying this is nonsense. If you don't, then you have to believe that the sins of our parents are transferred to us (immoral), that Adam and Eve who had no knowledge of good and evil (and were created by God knowing what they would do) can be blamed for doing something that they didn't know was wrong. That sin carried forward with their incestuous children until god came down in human form and sacrificed himself to himself to close a loophole that god created. If we are on a fallen world, that is by god's design. Time is irrelevant for god so god knew everything that would happen before this universe began. He created a universe where I would grow up without the need to believe in any religious system and then blame me for my decision not to believe things for no reason. Hell is immoral. If your children don't love you and worship you, do you have the right to torture them in your basement for eternity? If you think that is wrong, then you believe god is immoral.
I've had a few discussions with Michael Brown, so I know that he hates when people ask questions. He would much rather we listen quietly to his rantings and nod in agreement. Gotta go now Michael, blessings.
Dr Brown's video is solely the result of his camera and internet connection alone. It has nothing to do with anything on the david pakman show end of the line.
The host had an agenda, the questions were laced with intolerance. Dr. Brown did the correct thing. One must not fight un honorable battles. The host was way out of his league and completely unprepared. I cringe when Dr. Brown has to refer to his credentials but I find it a necessity in most of his interviews when dealing with pseudo intelligent googlers like this host.
Haha. Interviewer was way out of his league with Brown. He could barely put two truly logical thoughts together. Obviously got stuck on one dumb question and Brown saw right through it and rightly moved on. Good for him.
Dr. brown won't answer David's direct question of where was the man/women definltion of marriage came from from what document? Brown refused to answer Dave's question.
This interviewer is clearly a young punk kid with access to a microphone and a camera...Michael Brown...You did the right thing.....You would be wasting your time and energy with with this piece of work.....
You did very great job, Dr. Brown. You handle this young lad very well. May the God bless you and all your works. Btw, just wanted to share my post on Facebook today. I love and respect and honor my wife, my son, and most of all God. God has blessed our marriage and family. Marriage is a holy covenant between a man and woman before God. John 2:2
Abortion is murdering another innocent human being. The government has the good sense to treat murder as a crime, they just redefine what a human is or what murder is to suit their needs. I am against that for sure.
Right winger complaints are so ridiculous. "Our tax dollars" include gay people's tax dollars. And "legalizing same sex marriages" is only a "problem " because people like them made gay unions illegal in the first place. As D. Pakman shows, every argument for hetero-only marriage falls flat! Marriage is a legal contract where 2 non-next-of-kin can form a new family unit for the purpose of sharing financial and personal decisions & obligations so courts have less involvement. No more, no less.
Since when was the subjugation of a people considered "right"? My have Christians fallen away from the humanistic teachings of Christ. It saddens the heart that such a beautiful message has been lost to so many.
CHRISTIANS have BIBLICAL TRUTH, common sense, AND MORALITY on their side: and we'll JUST SEE which one is honored at the End of the Day: homosexual pagans and God-rejecting "gays", ... or Christians. I'm very happy with that arrangement. ... Dr.Brown is right, ... and THOROUGHLY biblical in his stance.
cont... But me having no kids has absolutely nothing to do with my being gay. In fact, I have actively fought not to reproduce. I was asked by an ex-girlfriend from high school to father her children because she & her husband were having difficulty conceiving. I declined. They went to fertility treatment instead & were blessed with triplets. My ex-boyfriend wanted kids. I didn't. So we aren't together anymore. He soon found another guy who already had a kid. Another happy ending. So... cont
Not true. I don't have the right to marry someone who is already married, or a child who is under age irregardless if I love them or not. LGBT have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS as I do. We are all allowed to marry an eligible consenting adult of the opposite sex. That's not a shameful argument... its plain and simple truth.
I find it amazing that this guy couldn't answer a very simple question, walked off the set to save himself from embarrassment, and you still think he's smart.
Gay does NOT mean infertile. Two dedicated people can raise children together whether they are a straight, gay, or lesbian couple. Just because the biological mother or father may not be a part of the couple raising the child does not mean that that particular family structure is any less legitimate than a 'traditional' family. Interesting fact: apparently, it's thought that a significant percentage of fathers are actually (unknowingly) raising children that are not biologically theirs.
A gay person and a heterosexual person have the SAME rights. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so does a gay person. I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, and neither does a gay person. Marriage is something specific. There are no human rights violations here!
My comment about inciting violence was a juxtaposition of me saying homosexuality is wrong and saying that I and all that hold that position are wrong. Saying someone is wrong is not hate speech and I am trying to get you to see the hypocrisy in saying, people that say homosexuality is wrong are wrong.
Doctor Brown is correct that the host is not being a serious interviewer. He is attempting to debate Dr Brown, and that is not a means of meaningfully interviewing a man.
Read all my posts, I never once justified not redefining marriage via the Bible. In fact I believe firmly that legal same-sex unions should have equal rights and protections as traditional marriage. I believe in gay rights, I just don't believe in redefining a union which has always been between a man and a woman. I'm all about separation of church and state, and personally I believe in the government staying out of our business.
So if they decide to legalize child pornography would you fight for it if something were morally wrong? If something is morally wrong, wouldn't you stand up for it? Now, I am not talking about just gay marriage here, I am talking about any other morally wrong.
Here are some rebuttals to reasons against gay marriage. 1. Sanctity of marriage: It's funny how some of the prominent politicians against gay marriage have been divorced/re-married/cheated on their spouse which goes against the "sanctity of marriage". 2. Definition of marriage: "Marriage is between one man and one woman." And 200 years ago interracial marriage was illegal. The definition of marriage has changed over time.
I love the way Brown trys to lay the blame on the interviewer - who is doing an excellent job of trying to break down exactly Brown is saying - rather than answer the questions.
In the history of mankind there are no examples of ex-black people but there are many ex-homosexuals. This is not about civil right it is about legal protection of select deviant behaviors.
My right to marry whomever I love is restricted to something very specific. My point is that neither of us have the right to marry WHOMEVER we love unless if falls within the definition of what marriage is. A civil union can be a different matter, but marriage is marriage.
I'm a US citizen and have no need or desire to read a bible. Thank God I don't have too. There is no rational or moral reason not to allow same sex marriage. We the people make the law here and we the people are moving forward not backwards. You are free to worship as you see fit but not free to force me to accept a bible as anything more than another book.. Thanks.
Did I mention animals? Did I mention children? Does asking melodramatic questions somehow strengthen my arguement? "Sexually deviant" -i guess you get to define what IS sexually deviant do you? Way too subjective here. What people do in their own homes is none of your business. All unsafe sex has the potential to spread diseases. Yes homoesexual intercourse has greater risks, but so does drinking alcohol, smoking, unprotected sex with strangers. The Individual has a right to take these risks.
President Obama has taken a position in favor of gay marriage, and Governor Romney has taken a position in favor of civil unions, but neither candidate has actually done anything in furtherance of their positions. Some times I feel like the public is just being manipulated with wedge issues, that neither side really wants to resolve. Personally I favor Mitt's approach as it can be done piecemeal, but I don't want him for President.
Numerous nations define marriage as including gay couples, a fact you neglect. More so every year. How quickly we forget our allies around the world as our country swirls down the toilet bowl of injustice & dwindling freedoms.
Interesting. I didn't mention homosexuality. I brought up stealing and lying. Moral behavior has nothing to do with evolution. It came through His design. Please don't seer your conscience regarding the small things. It's the gift that G-d gave us so that we'd recognize our need to be clean before our Creator.
The difference is, atm, they're super rich at the expense of everyone else. It'd be fine for them to be super rich as long as everyone else is prospering as well but they're making bank off of everyone else's decline... that is what is unacceptable.
What a ridiculous interview. An obviously uniformed host asking trivial questions to a Biblical scholar, in order to justify the position that he himself holds. That's unethical and unprofessional. There's no person that is more deaf than he who does not want to hear. David Pakman looked like a capricious little boy fighting with his dad about why it's not ok to eat candy after you brush your teeth. Common sense!!
I'm not saying we should allow same-sex marriage, marriage is union defined by one man and one woman, I'm saying why can't a legal homosexual union have equal protection and rights as a traditional marriage? It is quite obvious that the unions are essentially different in nature so they can not be considered one and the same.
"you can also reject the sexual desire for someone of your same sex." Evidence? And I'm not gay; the point of my question was that usually people who express the feelings you are currently about homosexuality actually struggle with homosexual tendencies themselves. If you are experiencing such struggles, you shouldn't be ashamed to tell somebody you trust about it. No one is going to hate you for it. Oh, except for maybe yourself.
You haven't read these comments if you think his supposed "scholarship" is unchallenged. I challenge it. Brown said that Bowell's research about gay marriages existing throughout pre-modern European churches had been refuted by biblical historians, ignoring that REAL historians have not refuted it.
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
You might argue that its because they're vulnerable and delicate and helpless. There are millions of adults all over the world who are all of those things and yet we treat them like total shit. Our disfigured, disabled, damaged, and worst of all, our elderly who go through horrific conditions just because want to conveniently forget they exist.
How do you argue against biology? A non-reproduction heterosexual union is still the same essential makeup as a reproductive heterosexual union. Homosexual not the same.
You're right that more people are accepting same sex marriage, and sodomy laws have been overturned. That implies that in past times, same sex marriage wasn't accepted, and sodomy laws punished homosexuals. That's exactly the point DR MB was making when he referred to "changing the definition of marriage." When pressed on this issue, he referred to the things we're discussing: the US historical definition of marriage. the interviewer was childish to harp on this, and it wasn't educational.
How stupid a question the Host asks, has he never seen a marriage certificate where there is a specific place for the man to sign and another spacific place where only the women can sign? I was hoping for serious questions and answers.
Let me be perfectly clear on this, there is no right to preach hate speech. The only case you have against gay marriage is when completely distinguishing anti-gay from anti-gay-marriage. Discrimination is not legal against different races, as it is illegal against different sexualities. Besides being anti-gay as a church in america is not even affected by this law, of course in canada, where everyone has human rights, preaching hate is illegal. +no equal marriage act was used to put him in jail.
Asking guests questions? The nerve of that host! Fact is, David remained calm, cool, and collected despite the guest's bullying tactics. Well done, David. The guest was an ass.
Except you can't change your sexuality. Heck, late last year the "ex-gay" CEO of Exodus International, THE ministry that purports to fix homosexuality, resigned and stated in his resignation speech that he was still gay, never hadn't been, and had never known anyone whose sexuality had actually been changed. In the words of Mary Griffith, whose son was gay and killed himself after years of struggling with his sexuality, "I know why God didn't cure him. It's because nothing was wrong with him."
Marian Therese Horvat, who holds a doctorate in medieval history, wrote a scathing review of Dr. Boswell's book dealing with the subjects Mr. Pakman referenced, and showed that the somewhat ambiguous ceremonies Boswell calls "same-sex marriages", are in no way explicit , are more easily and accurately understood in a context in accord with what we already know was the Church's historical teaching on homosexuality, and Boswell added and removed words from some of his proof-texts at his leisure.
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." - From the website of Cornell University Law School
if you want true historical context about marriage, be sure to remember that the US used to ban sodomy, and in some states it was punishable by death. laws against sodomy were upheld in the US by the Supreme Court up until 1986. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in VA that made castration the punishment. I'm NOT saying that these are good laws. My point is how absurd it is to fantasize that marriage could have ever meant anything but a union between a man and a woman. nothing else was even considered
Thumbs up to Dr. Brown, who IS a Bible scholar, and for keeping his Christian beliefs, and for not being rude to this David, who clearly does an interview without doing his research. As most Christians know, the devil will try hard to convince people that their sins are not wrong, and being gay is a sin. Yes, we all sin everyday...but habitual sinning is not acceptable to God.
re: "The fact is a heterosexual is the only union which can procreate" So? I thought we cleared up that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage. Are you keeping the elderly from marrying? Are you dissolving the marriages of people with no kids? Why are you holding gays to a standard heterosexuals don't have? Your "essential differences" are only a construct in your own head.
again, gays can procreate but by a third party, whereas, all things considered, heterosexual unions are different in that they do not need a third party and it legally binds the two biological parents. While gay unions by default separate the biological parents. My point is the unions are essentially different therefore they are not the same. And no one is attacking anyone. I agree that legal same-sex unions should have equal protection and rights as traditional marriage
Here is the most recent one, H.R.3396 -- Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR) Google it and you will find the details
A male and female are essentially different, that's why we make a distinction between the two. In fact where ever there are essentially different things they have different names and categories in recognition of their differences, the same goes for heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. That's all, scientifically verifiable in fact.
I'm calling it a night peoples, it was fun debating with you all. I'm sure you will continue digging at me, I appreciate your passion. Keep up the fight. God bless.
What David Pakman fails to acknowledge is that what Dr. Brown was saying is true. No one should dispute the fact that up until the last couple years, no one ever questioned that marriage was between a man and a woman. It was assumed. If I told people that I intended to marry a baby, no one would take me seriously. They'd say that I can love a baby but I can't marry a baby. So why the debate on same-sex "marriage?" It's not marriage. Never has been. Never will be. Poor interview.
When MB gets a bad review, he calls it a "false review"; when he gets tough questions, he calls if a "mockery interview". And then he sets his followers to correct the offense with a post calling for them to comment on posts that he does not like or now, this videos which is not flattering. He asked his people to go on the attack/defense. Check out my video review of his book, which of course is a "false review" even tho I read it ALL and checked every footnote.
What is your moral authority for declaring something wrong or hate speech? Is polygamy wrong? Is it lawful to say it's wrong? Does hate speech change depending on who is in power? These laws are a travesty of justice and freedoms. Homosexual marriage made a civil right "By Law" will punish churches/religious people by removing the 1st Amendment. Without the 1st Amendment in time the govt' will change someday & remove your right to say or do something you believe.
Dave is not conducting a serious interview. It is a mockery. Why is he asking Brown to conduct an on air google search? Dave is asking Dr. Brown do to his pre-interview research for him in the midst of the interview. If marriage as it is not is not man and woman what is the purpose for creating same sex marriage? Has Dave considered developing some level of historical literacy before interviewing scholars? All Dave had was the citation of a discredited professor.
While I agree, LGBT rights are only one fraction of the change they keep from happening that could better this country, and the world. Legalize Gay marriage, Legalize non synthetic drugs (pot)(Which will lower the incarceration rate exponentially), give true Universal Health Care to all US citizens, and it goes on and on....
You're missing my point, I'm saying that a gay family by it's very nature is different than a heterosexual family, therefore they are identified as being different. Just as a man is obviously different than a woman. No one is arguing about which one is better or not, but to deny the simple fact of their biological differences is mind numbing.
I don't blame Dr. Brown since this interviewer was not serious or simply asking questions but had an agenda to ridicule Dr. Brown. The Do clearly was pointing this interviewer in the direction to be able to ascertain the historic usage of the word marriage.
Thank you Dr Brown for your willingness to stand for what's right.
For example, even when I heard him the first time, I understood what Dr. Brown was talking about. The definition of marriage prior to our current time has always been defined between one male and one female. Not until recently (last 10 years) has it been REDEFINED. This includes the court systems too.
Marriage has changed through history. Nothing to do originally with love or affection...but was simply treating women as property and all about women bearing sons so men could pass on property and wealth!
Just one question, where did you get that Philosophy from? You can go back in your mind thousands of years and tell us what marriage was really about. Just because there are some cultures that treat women like property and use them for their own pleasure and for offspring does not mean that was the only original intention of marriage from the beginning, the only place to find the beginning is in the beginning of the Bible you discount that and then everyone is just guessing and making up stuff.
@@donsimonds5186 lol. You really are just making stuff up huh?
Brown answered the question, the host just didn't like the answer.
I love when David gets these guys in a corner and they always end up saying "I guess I didn't realize what show I was coming on." meaning they would only want to come on any show where they can freely spew their discrimination without being held accountable for it.
Capgungoesbang True that!
You must made up a fake quote
"the host was trying to get a "legal" definition of the word marriage yet was unwilling to acknowledge every "legal" document in the history of this country (like a marriage license)." ~ Bill Maddox
I don't know why I hadn't seen this before but man was that funny.
David's slow burn at being lectured to about required reading was hilarious.
Dr. Brown did an amazing job and spoke the TRUTH. What an amazing ability to lay out the simple truth that has been set as a foundational principle in our nation for so many years. To try and remove such a massive & foundational part of how we have honored marriage for years in America is absurd.
David is rude cutting off his guest while still talking because he doesn't want to hear the truth. Marriage should be for male and female only. Civil union for others.
Dina Gaspar however there isnt anything "civil" about violating and abusing what comes natural even in nature! A penis is for a vagina and a butthole is for poop! those are the natural uses for these God given parts. And what women do to other women?? well lets just say they have to use a fake replica of a God made penis. ..
What an idiot. Who do you think you are to decide what is natural for another person or where somebody else should put their penis?
David has said before that if so called "civil unions" gave gays the same legal and financial rights as marriage gives straight people, then he would be fine with it. But the fact is that "civil unions" aren't equal in any way to marriage.
It was a hit piece. The interviewer didn't even read his book that addressed the subject. He wasn't looking for truth, just a sound-bite.
Mr. Pakman, I appreciate you putting Dr. Brown on your program, but you bit off more than you can chew this time.
"It's always been that way" is not a valid reason for banning same-sex marriage. It was also "always that way" that interracial marriage was banned in many states until 1967. And it was "always that way" that the Mormon Church practiced polygamy until 1890, and Mormon fundamentalists continue to be in favor of polygamy even today. Social tradition by itself does not provide a legal ground to stand on, or else there would be no reason for states to ban same-sex marriage if it was already illegal.
David, you clearly are not the same type of caliber as dr. brown.
I normally don't like it when hosts interrupt their guests, but in this instance it was very much warranted. As David pointed out, the talking points that this person laid out had so many areas within that one statement that it would be virtually impossible to address all issues within said statement without breaking it apart. This is precisely why people with these talking points are so rarely questioned on them, 'cause where would one start...?
Good job on this David.
looks like David had the page of talking points
It's better to cut it short when the host is showing clear signs of bias motivated questions to be cheeky. It's the high road instead of humoring him by trying to answer those kinds of question when he clearly doesn't want to have a professional interview. How could an American citizen not know that the government defined it that way. Our country was formed on Biblical principles, whether it be on paper or not. How do you expect him to know where government documents are kept? He doesn't work for the government. And when he said he would give him info, says he doesn't want to trust it before he even reads it?? Why does he ask? kind of unprofessional....
Who cares how it was founded? It was founded with women having almost no rights. It was founded with slavery being the norm. Many of the so called founding fathers owned slaves, and slavery is permissible by god according to the bible. So should we still have slavery today?
tomatodamashi the institution of slavery in the Bible is nothing at all like the slavery we know of from American history. its was mostly people paying debt, or for protection, or a lack of a place of your own and ability to get ahead yourself, and other reasons of the sort. and slaves were able to go free in a certain amount of years, but if you loved your master, your could chose to be with him forever when your years of service are up. and it had nothing to do with kidnapping and selling people. and the Bible commands masters to love and respect their slaves.
so that was just people taking advantage of what the Bible allows (in ancient cultures), and willingly disregarding commands in regards to slavery that they didn't like. which is not how God's Word is to be handled. and if they didn't repent of those ways of treating people, then they too will be judged.
Adam Kakos
You could still beat them as long as they don't die within three days, you could trick them into being yours forever by providing them with a wife and Jesus says slaves obey your masters including the cruel ones (1 Peter 2:18, but also Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5). Furthermore, the 6 years was for HEBREW slaves, not for gentile ones. Slavery is slavery, they were your property. These passages were used to justify American slavery.
If God was moral then OWNING people would be stated plainly to be wrong. Perhaps one of the commandments should be THOU SHALT NOT OWN ANOTHER PERSON PERIOD. I don't care how kind these slave owners were, owning people is ALWAYS wrong. Either god doesn't care, which makes him less moral than us. Or he tacitly supports it, which makes him horrendous.
slavery is a result of a fallen world, and God gave us regulations to work within a system. slaves were property, but its not the same institution as we know of, but i'm not sure what what this has to do with my first comment. and of course slaves are to respect their masters (even the bad ones) just like i have to respect my boss who I don't have a lot of fun with. because we all have a master in heaven who shows no partiality and there is nothing wrong with those passages, but the people who used them were not consistent in obeying the Bible by equally loving and respecting their slaves. anyone can pervert the scriptures to say what ever they want it to say, if you do not know how to properly interpret the text, or if you are truly not in Christ at all, and just wish to use religion to get your way (as many have done, and still do today).
we ALL are slaves. the question is who is your master? is it God? or your sin? and unless you have kept the law perfectly, none of us are in the position to add or remove from commands let alone to say God is immoral (it's more of a lack of understanding of him). and those commands we have violated will condemn us unless we have a savior. who is Christ. i have be bought with a price, sin is no longer my master, but Christ, because of his sacrifice for my wicked sins :/ so you otta join!
life is short. bond, or free, we all have a date with eternity all the same. what difference would it make if we were all slaves or kings? after this short life, you wont even have a shirt on your back to take with you, even if you were the most free person out there, and really were not. there will be a lot of slaves who had less than nothing in this life who will gain more than anyone can imagine by making Christ their Lord and Savior.
so unless you have a more reasonable questions, i wont have a reply, God bless
Adam Kakos
God cannot be a moral being by your own admission. Owning a person is NEVER moral, allowing others (or creating a system where it could be perpetuated) to continue to have slavery is immoral. If god were a moral creature, he would make a commandment saying we should not own people. Apparently that was not as important as making idols.
God cannot be all good and allow evil to exist. But in actuality god created evil. Before the universe existed god could have decided to make any kind of universe. He DECIDED to create the one where humans would fall and that Satan would be created. God is the father of evil, as he is the creator of Satan. It is such a paradox to say the author of evil is all good. It doesn't make any sense.
If you use the bible as your morality, you would be according to our society's standards, immoral. You would support tribalism, you would be xenophobic, homophobic, sexist and find no problems with slavery. Also, if you heard a voice in your head that you believe is god, you would think it is okay to kill your child. You are also pro-genocide as long as you think god commands it. Furthermore, Jesus was not moral. Eternal punishment for people based on their beliefs is not moral. The fact that if Hitler repents, he can make it into Heaven, but a non-believer who spends her life helping others in poor countries, would be punished FOREVER for it - this is not a moral system. The blame lays on the being that created it, God.
I'm curious, do you believe Genesis is literally true? Because if you do, then you have to shut out all of the evidence saying this is nonsense. If you don't, then you have to believe that the sins of our parents are transferred to us (immoral), that Adam and Eve who had no knowledge of good and evil (and were created by God knowing what they would do) can be blamed for doing something that they didn't know was wrong. That sin carried forward with their incestuous children until god came down in human form and sacrificed himself to himself to close a loophole that god created.
If we are on a fallen world, that is by god's design. Time is irrelevant for god so god knew everything that would happen before this universe began. He created a universe where I would grow up without the need to believe in any religious system and then blame me for my decision not to believe things for no reason. Hell is immoral. If your children don't love you and worship you, do you have the right to torture them in your basement for eternity? If you think that is wrong, then you believe god is immoral.
I've had a few discussions with Michael Brown, so I know that he hates when people ask questions. He would much rather we listen quietly to his rantings and nod in agreement. Gotta go now Michael, blessings.
Wow, ANYONE can have a talk show these days! David's behavior is bizarre.
Dr Brown's video is solely the result of his camera and internet connection alone. It has nothing to do with anything on the david pakman show end of the line.
The host had an agenda, the questions were laced with intolerance. Dr. Brown did the correct thing. One must not fight un honorable battles. The host was way out of his league and completely unprepared. I cringe when Dr. Brown has to refer to his credentials but I find it a necessity in most of his interviews when dealing with pseudo intelligent googlers like this host.
Haha. Interviewer was way out of his league with Brown. He could barely put two truly logical thoughts together. Obviously got stuck on one dumb question and Brown saw right through it and rightly moved on. Good for him.
wow, Pakman was owned here....
Dr. brown won't answer David's direct question of where was the man/women definltion of marriage came from from what document? Brown refused to answer Dave's question.
This interviewer is clearly a young punk kid with access to a microphone and a camera...Michael Brown...You did the right thing.....You would be wasting your time and energy with with this piece of work.....
You realize he went back on the show and apologized for his actions here...
and that has what to do with my comment?
He apologised. He was clearly in the wrong - as are you.
Another punk kid with access to the internet..LOL
I have no idea why "my" comments bother you...
"Anti-Gay Dr. Michael Brown Cuts Interview After Avoiding Question"
or...
"Sophomoric Paxman-Wannabe With Home-made Studio Exhausts Patience Of Saint"
You did very great job, Dr. Brown. You handle this young lad very well. May the God bless you and all your works. Btw, just wanted to share my post on Facebook today. I love and respect and honor my wife, my son, and most of all God. God has blessed our marriage and family. Marriage is a holy covenant between a man and woman before God. John 2:2
What question did Dr Brown avoid?All i see is David Parkman try to make him look bad
Michael Brown's argument basically breaks down to "I'm against allowing gay marriage because it's currently not allowed." Brilliant!
Dude literally said, "There's plenty of examples of gay marriage in the Bible." LOL
Actually, if you looked back at the founding of America, black folk were not slaves. They were business men, lawyers, held public office.
Abortion is murdering another innocent human being. The government has the good sense to treat murder as a crime, they just redefine what a human is or what murder is to suit their needs. I am against that for sure.
I completely agree that gay unions should have equal protection and rights as marriages. Right on!!!
Right winger complaints are so ridiculous. "Our tax dollars" include gay people's tax dollars. And "legalizing same sex marriages" is only a "problem " because people like them made gay unions illegal in the first place. As D. Pakman shows, every argument for hetero-only marriage falls flat! Marriage is a legal contract where 2 non-next-of-kin can form a new family unit for the purpose of sharing financial and personal decisions & obligations so courts have less involvement. No more, no less.
Since when was the subjugation of a people considered "right"? My have Christians fallen away from the humanistic teachings of Christ. It saddens the heart that such a beautiful message has been lost to so many.
CHRISTIANS have BIBLICAL TRUTH, common sense, AND MORALITY on their side: and we'll JUST SEE which one is honored at the End of the Day: homosexual pagans and God-rejecting "gays", ... or Christians. I'm very happy with that arrangement. ... Dr.Brown is right, ... and THOROUGHLY biblical in his stance.
cont... But me having no kids has absolutely nothing to do with my being gay. In fact, I have actively fought not to reproduce. I was asked by an ex-girlfriend from high school to father her children because she & her husband were having difficulty conceiving. I declined. They went to fertility treatment instead & were blessed with triplets. My ex-boyfriend wanted kids. I didn't. So we aren't together anymore. He soon found another guy who already had a kid. Another happy ending. So... cont
Not true. I don't have the right to marry someone who is already married, or a child who is under age irregardless if I love them or not. LGBT have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS as I do. We are all allowed to marry an eligible consenting adult of the opposite sex. That's not a shameful argument... its plain and simple truth.
I agree that legal homosexual unions should have equal protections and rights as traditional marriage. Right on!
And you do not have to restrict the civil rights of your fellow man. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay.
I find it amazing that this guy couldn't answer a very simple question, walked off the set to save himself from embarrassment, and you still think he's smart.
Gay does NOT mean infertile. Two dedicated people can raise children together whether they are a straight, gay, or lesbian couple. Just because the biological mother or father may not be a part of the couple raising the child does not mean that that particular family structure is any less legitimate than a 'traditional' family. Interesting fact: apparently, it's thought that a significant percentage of fathers are actually (unknowingly) raising children that are not biologically theirs.
A gay person and a heterosexual person have the SAME rights. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so does a gay person. I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, and neither does a gay person. Marriage is something specific. There are no human rights violations here!
Every single man has the right to marry any single woman they want and visa versa. That is the EXACT same right any other American has.
My comment about inciting violence was a juxtaposition of me saying homosexuality is wrong and saying that I and all that hold that position are wrong. Saying someone is wrong is not hate speech and I am trying to get you to see the hypocrisy in saying, people that say homosexuality is wrong are wrong.
Doctor Brown is correct that the host is not being a serious interviewer. He is attempting to debate Dr Brown, and that is not a means of meaningfully interviewing a man.
Read all my posts, I never once justified not redefining marriage via the Bible. In fact I believe firmly that legal same-sex unions should have equal rights and protections as traditional marriage. I believe in gay rights, I just don't believe in redefining a union which has always been between a man and a woman. I'm all about separation of church and state, and personally I believe in the government staying out of our business.
It is remarkable that after looking at this video Dave actually decided to post it.
So if they decide to legalize child pornography would you fight for it if something were morally wrong? If something is morally wrong, wouldn't you stand up for it? Now, I am not talking about just gay marriage here, I am talking about any other morally wrong.
Here are some rebuttals to reasons against gay marriage.
1. Sanctity of marriage: It's funny how some of the prominent politicians against gay marriage have been divorced/re-married/cheated on their spouse which goes against the "sanctity of marriage".
2. Definition of marriage: "Marriage is between one man and one woman." And 200 years ago interracial marriage was illegal. The definition of marriage has changed over time.
I love the way Brown trys to lay the blame on the interviewer - who is doing an excellent job of trying to break down exactly Brown is saying - rather than answer the questions.
In the history of mankind there are no examples of ex-black people but there are many ex-homosexuals. This is not about civil right it is about legal protection of select deviant behaviors.
My right to marry whomever I love is restricted to something very specific. My point is that neither of us have the right to marry WHOMEVER we love unless if falls within the definition of what marriage is. A civil union can be a different matter, but marriage is marriage.
I'm a US citizen and have no need or desire to read a bible. Thank God I don't have too. There is no rational or moral reason not to allow same sex marriage. We the people make the law here and we the people are moving forward not backwards. You are free to worship as you see fit but not free to force me to accept a bible as anything more than another book.. Thanks.
Did I mention animals? Did I mention children? Does asking melodramatic questions somehow strengthen my arguement?
"Sexually deviant" -i guess you get to define what IS sexually deviant do you? Way too subjective here. What people do in their own homes is none of your business. All unsafe sex has the potential to spread diseases. Yes homoesexual intercourse has greater risks, but so does drinking alcohol, smoking, unprotected sex with strangers. The Individual has a right to take these risks.
President Obama has taken a position in favor of gay marriage, and Governor Romney has taken a position in favor of civil unions, but neither candidate has actually done anything in furtherance of their positions. Some times I feel like the public is just being manipulated with wedge issues, that neither side really wants to resolve. Personally I favor Mitt's approach as it can be done piecemeal, but I don't want him for President.
"The law says marriage is a man and a woman"
That's no longer the case in many states, and sooner or later gay marriage will become 100% legal.
Numerous nations define marriage as including gay couples, a fact you neglect. More so every year. How quickly we forget our allies around the world as our country swirls down the toilet bowl of injustice & dwindling freedoms.
Interesting. I didn't mention homosexuality. I brought up stealing and lying.
Moral behavior has nothing to do with evolution. It came through His design.
Please don't seer your conscience regarding the small things. It's the gift that G-d gave us so that we'd recognize our need to be clean before our Creator.
the definition of marriage between man and woman was not just something that started in America. It was the definition for all societies in the world.
The difference is, atm, they're super rich at the expense of everyone else. It'd be fine for them to be super rich as long as everyone else is prospering as well but they're making bank off of everyone else's decline... that is what is unacceptable.
What a ridiculous interview. An obviously uniformed host asking trivial questions to a Biblical scholar, in order to justify the position that he himself holds. That's unethical and unprofessional. There's no person that is more deaf than he who does not want to hear. David Pakman looked like a capricious little boy fighting with his dad about why it's not ok to eat candy after you brush your teeth. Common sense!!
Imagine watching this and thinking the guy who rage quit was in the right.
No, the legal definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This is in all cultures across time.
I'm not saying we should allow same-sex marriage, marriage is union defined by one man and one woman, I'm saying why can't a legal homosexual union have equal protection and rights as a traditional marriage? It is quite obvious that the unions are essentially different in nature so they can not be considered one and the same.
"you can also reject the sexual desire for someone of your same sex."
Evidence?
And I'm not gay; the point of my question was that usually people who express the feelings you are currently about homosexuality actually struggle with homosexual tendencies themselves. If you are experiencing such struggles, you shouldn't be ashamed to tell somebody you trust about it. No one is going to hate you for it. Oh, except for maybe yourself.
You're really putting me in my place. I can do nothing but bow to your superior intellect. Your superior reasoning has clearly won the day.
You haven't read these comments if you think his supposed "scholarship" is unchallenged. I challenge it. Brown said that Bowell's research about gay marriages existing throughout pre-modern European churches had been refuted by biblical historians, ignoring that REAL historians have not refuted it.
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
You might argue that its because they're vulnerable and delicate and helpless. There are millions of adults all over the world who are all of those things and yet we treat them like total shit. Our disfigured, disabled, damaged, and worst of all, our elderly who go through horrific conditions just because want to conveniently forget they exist.
Jesus specifically defines marriage. There is no argument there.
How do you argue against biology? A non-reproduction heterosexual union is still the same essential makeup as a reproductive heterosexual union. Homosexual not the same.
You're right that more people are accepting same sex marriage, and sodomy laws have been overturned. That implies that in past times, same sex marriage wasn't accepted, and sodomy laws punished homosexuals. That's exactly the point DR MB was making when he referred to "changing the definition of marriage." When pressed on this issue, he referred to the things we're discussing: the US historical definition of marriage. the interviewer was childish to harp on this, and it wasn't educational.
How stupid a question the Host asks, has he never seen a marriage certificate where there is a specific place for the man to sign and another spacific place where only the women can sign?
I was hoping for serious questions and answers.
But can homosexuals go to heaven or will they go to hell? If that issue were not in play, no one would care about being gay or marrying gay, NO ONE!
Let me be perfectly clear on this, there is no right to preach hate speech. The only case you have against gay marriage is when completely distinguishing anti-gay from anti-gay-marriage. Discrimination is not legal against different races, as it is illegal against different sexualities. Besides being anti-gay as a church in america is not even affected by this law, of course in canada, where everyone has human rights, preaching hate is illegal. +no equal marriage act was used to put him in jail.
Asking guests questions? The nerve of that host!
Fact is, David remained calm, cool, and collected despite the guest's bullying tactics. Well done, David. The guest was an ass.
There is no rational reason not to allow same sex marriage.
Except you can't change your sexuality. Heck, late last year the "ex-gay" CEO of Exodus International, THE ministry that purports to fix homosexuality, resigned and stated in his resignation speech that he was still gay, never hadn't been, and had never known anyone whose sexuality had actually been changed.
In the words of Mary Griffith, whose son was gay and killed himself after years of struggling with his sexuality,
"I know why God didn't cure him. It's because nothing was wrong with him."
Marian Therese Horvat, who holds a doctorate in medieval history, wrote a scathing review of Dr. Boswell's book dealing with the subjects Mr. Pakman referenced, and showed that the somewhat ambiguous ceremonies Boswell calls "same-sex marriages", are in no way explicit , are more easily and accurately understood in a context in accord with what we already know was the Church's historical teaching on homosexuality, and Boswell added and removed words from some of his proof-texts at his leisure.
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
- From the website of Cornell University Law School
This reminds me of the Andy Griffith Show segment in which Barney is "reciting" the preamble to the Constitution. David Pakman is Barney.
if you want true historical context about marriage, be sure to remember that the US used to ban sodomy, and in some states it was punishable by death. laws against sodomy were upheld in the US by the Supreme Court up until 1986. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in VA that made castration the punishment. I'm NOT saying that these are good laws. My point is how absurd it is to fantasize that marriage could have ever meant anything but a union between a man and a woman. nothing else was even considered
Could you summarize his argument? If 500 characters will allow it, that is.
Well that really tore apart any argument I made. Good to see good old honest reasoning is alive and well
The predominant form of marriage in the Bible is polygamy.
Thumbs up to Dr. Brown, who IS a Bible scholar, and for keeping his Christian beliefs, and for not being rude to this David, who clearly does an interview without doing his research. As most Christians know, the devil will try hard to convince people that their sins are not wrong, and being gay is a sin. Yes, we all sin everyday...but habitual sinning is not acceptable to God.
I'm sorry but I totally missed it.....Where was he a bully? So a bully is someone who has a belief and stands by his convictions. Great!
No, David was being polite. The guest was being extremely rude. Borderline hostile in fact. David's behaviour was exemplary.
re: "The fact is a heterosexual is the only union which can procreate" So? I thought we cleared up that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage. Are you keeping the elderly from marrying? Are you dissolving the marriages of people with no kids? Why are you holding gays to a standard heterosexuals don't have? Your "essential differences" are only a construct in your own head.
again, gays can procreate but by a third party, whereas, all things considered, heterosexual unions are different in that they do not need a third party and it legally binds the two biological parents. While gay unions by default separate the biological parents. My point is the unions are essentially different therefore they are not the same. And no one is attacking anyone. I agree that legal same-sex unions should have equal protection and rights as traditional marriage
Here is the most recent one, H.R.3396 -- Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR) Google it and you will find the details
A male and female are essentially different, that's why we make a distinction between the two. In fact where ever there are essentially different things they have different names and categories in recognition of their differences, the same goes for heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. That's all, scientifically verifiable in fact.
I'm calling it a night peoples, it was fun debating with you all. I'm sure you will continue digging at me, I appreciate your passion. Keep up the fight. God bless.
why can't legal homosexual unions have equal protections and rights as traditional marriage?
I'm all for legal same-sex unions to have equal protection and rights as traditional marriage
What David Pakman fails to acknowledge is that what Dr. Brown was saying is true. No one should dispute the fact that up until the last couple years, no one ever questioned that marriage was between a man and a woman. It was assumed. If I told people that I intended to marry a baby, no one would take me seriously. They'd say that I can love a baby but I can't marry a baby. So why the debate on same-sex "marriage?" It's not marriage. Never has been. Never will be. Poor interview.
When MB gets a bad review, he calls it a "false review"; when he gets tough questions, he calls if a "mockery interview". And then he sets his followers to correct the offense with a post calling for them to comment on posts that he does not like or now, this videos which is not flattering. He asked his people to go on the attack/defense. Check out my video review of his book, which of course is a "false review" even tho I read it ALL and checked every footnote.
What is your moral authority for declaring something wrong or hate speech? Is polygamy wrong? Is it lawful to say it's wrong? Does hate speech change depending on who is in power? These laws are a travesty of justice and freedoms. Homosexual marriage made a civil right "By Law" will punish churches/religious people by removing the 1st Amendment. Without the 1st Amendment in time the govt' will change someday & remove your right to say or do something you believe.
Dave is not conducting a serious interview. It is a mockery. Why is he asking Brown to conduct an on air google search? Dave is asking Dr. Brown do to his pre-interview research for him in the midst of the interview. If marriage as it is not is not man and woman what is the purpose for creating same sex marriage? Has Dave considered developing some level of historical literacy before interviewing scholars? All Dave had was the citation of a discredited professor.
While I agree, LGBT rights are only one fraction of the change they keep from happening that could better this country, and the world. Legalize Gay marriage, Legalize non synthetic drugs (pot)(Which will lower the incarceration rate exponentially), give true Universal Health Care to all US citizens, and it goes on and on....
You're missing my point, I'm saying that a gay family by it's very nature is different than a heterosexual family, therefore they are identified as being different. Just as a man is obviously different than a woman. No one is arguing about which one is better or not, but to deny the simple fact of their biological differences is mind numbing.
I don't blame Dr. Brown since this interviewer was not serious or simply asking questions but had an agenda to ridicule Dr. Brown. The Do clearly was pointing this interviewer in the direction to be able to ascertain the historic usage of the word marriage.