We "censor" racists in the media, why should homophobes be any different? Put out a shitty, hurtful, hate-filled opinion and you should get shut down and ridiculed.
Atomic Kitten Your homophobia is showing. p.s. not giving racists/homophobes access to spreading their hateful views to thousands on your privately owned network is not the same as stopping free speech. If you srsly think someone who supports gay rights is "just as bad as a racist", ya got some issues.
Sang15Mitang ''Your homophobia is showing'' I am a bisexual and I support the LGBT community. Most of my friends are gay! you idiot! Lesbian. Gay. BISEXUAL. Transgender!!!!! No,I never said that a person that supports gay rights is as bad as a racist, I said that they both deserve and they are both protected by the constitution and both have a right to be represented, and to explain their point of view. It is unfair to only have members of theLGBT community on a show and unfair for them not to be allowed to be represented and or be allowed to explain their point of view. I personally think that they just don't understand other people. but even if they speak nonsense or hate speech, it doesn't matter, they shouldn't be censored! and even though I don't agree with them and I think they can be assholes sometimes, I will protect their right to free speech and to be represented and to give them the opportunity to explain their point of view instead of just saying something stupid like what you said! ''We "censor" racists in the media, why should homophobes be any different?'' They should be allowed to say whatever they want, without being censored even if it's bullshit. that's what free speech is about.
The first amendment right is not a right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, despite what popular opinion might tell you. The first amendment right prevents the GOVERNMENT from controlling and restricting your speech. If a new source chooses to not put hateful, harmful opinions on their program, they are not restricting anyone's freedom of speech. You cannot walk into my house uninvited and spout your nonsense and then scream about freedom of speech when I call the cops. Hateful opinions do not need equal airtime because they are not equal opinions. They are seriously damaging opinions that cause real harm to actual people, and if news sources choose not to air that kind of bigotry (as they frequently don't with extreme racism) they are not doing anything wrong or illegal. P.s. nice try playing the "but i'm a bisexual" card to another bisexual person. Your comparison was clearly either racist, homophobic, or both. And I'm tired of Americans misusing "freedom of speech" to mean "bigots can say whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want and anyone questioning it is a horrible person."
Sang15Mitang That's why the US is so messed up. because instead of actually trying to understand each other we are censoring each other. In order to solve things we must talk to the people that have a different point of view than us. if we are just going to censor them instead of trying to understand them they are just going to hate you and you are just going to hate you back. If you censor them instead of talking to them then we will never be able to understand each other. did it ever crossed your mind that maybe by talking to them instead of censoring them we can actually educate them, and agree to live in peace?.. did it ever crossed your little mind that if instead of just calling the cops, you can talk to that ''uninvited'' person to sit, have a cup of tea, and have a civilized conversation to see if you can understand each other and agree to live in peace? NO? that's why the US is so fucking messed up, because cops shoot first and ask questions later, because people like you call the cops first before trying to talk to the other person. and people like you are censoring other people instead of trying to understand their point of view. maybe if you let them talk and if they let you talk to them maybe then we can understand each other. but noooo! instead of doing that, just fuck. censorship! it's all censorship to you.
Atomic Kitten Sad to say but most of the time when the media brings on someone to talk about something, they do not challenge their views. They do not try to educate them or change their opinion. For the most part, the process goes something like this: There's a mediator. Mediator asks person A their view. Person A gives view. Mediator asks person B their view. Person B gives view. And it continues. There isn't real discussion or debate, just people putting their opinions out there. When there *is* some kind of debate, it usually ends up being both sides talking over each other so no one can hear what's being said. It is not wrong nor illegal if an organization chooses to not allow their product to be used to spread bigotry in this way. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with that. There is a time and place for discussions like that. The internet is a great place, actually. People can say whatever they want, and anyone can respond to it freely. And the hateful views aren't pushed onto thousands of viewers to possibly corrupt their minds.
Funny that Brown is against censoring, because if you have a disagreement on the comments of his facebook page he blocks your commenting without any notice.
David...you're best response was your last one at 12:24, and it really made me angry how he just refused to even address it. That was the heart of the issue and he showed his true intentions by his response. Thanks for bringing him to that point. He made your point for you in his response.
When talking about civil rights, there is no legitimate reason to allow regressive bigots equal time with those who support equality. In discussion over interracial marriage, it would be unheard of for a legitimate news source to invite a KKK member to "balance" the opinion that interracial marriage is a good thing. In forty years, I have no doubt that people will think something similar about this kind of anti-gay bigotry. P.S. to Brown: The Greek, Roman, and Macedonian empires, along with the early Holy Roman Empire, all had legal marriage statutes for same sex couples that were equal to those of straight couples.
So since you have decided that these people are agressive bigots they should not have the same rights as others in our society? You should decide that these people should not have the same rights to free speech?
Talithapraiz They have every right to speak without worry about being arrested for saying bigoted or stupid things--that said, they don't have a right to be treated as though they have a point of view that is as valid as their opposition. You need to gain an understanding of the 1st Amendment, lest you continue to misapply it. The 1st Amendment only protects against government restriction of personal speech using the force of law; it does nothing to guarantee equal time or respect to speakers, and has nothing to do with the actions of private associations.
According to "the Progressive Cynic" people whom you consider to be regressive bigots do not deserve the same equal rights as others. You accuse me of not understanding or applying the law correctly, however, I know that the Supreme Court did not happen to agree with you. In the eighties they decided that the right of free speech of members of the KKK had been violated when they were curtailed from sharing their message in the public marketplace. Even though what they had to say was reprehensible. The Supreme Court's ruling was that they still had the right to say it. No one like you, should be able to silence the voice of others just because the other viewpoints don't happen to align with yours.
Talithapraiz You fail to understand the issues involved. I don't support banning bigots from speaking in public via the law (that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment), but I am very supportive of socially ostracizing and deriding such bigots. Additionally, there is no reason why these people should be given equal respect with those who actually speak facts, during media programs ostensibly aimed at spreading facts. The media isn't constrained by the 1st Amendment and it isn't oppressive for them to call out those who hold immoral, bigoted, or false views. In other terms, I can find an imbecile who thinks that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that he should be given time on CNN to spread his false information. If you want to align yourself with the KKK and other bigots, I won't push for your arrest or legal persecution, but I will give you no further thought or argument, as you are demonstrably wrong--at best, you will one day realize that you are wrong and will change, while, at worst, you will gradually travel farther out of the overton window and into the dustbin of history.
I can sum up his argument like this, "we can't have marriage equality because it goes against MY particular religion that everyone should be forced to conform to."
Dr Brown always mentions the fact that when he met his wife, the last thing on his mind was a the legal or financial side of it. The same goes for gay people. However, I am sure if he died, the legal issues would affect his loved ones enormously. It would affect the future of his organisation's ministry, his wife's future well-being, and even the well-being of his children. Not buying it, Michael. Sorry.
I am very happy that David and Michael are tolerant people -- respecting each other enough to have a good two-way discussion about their differences, trying to sway/influence each other. Tolerance entails differences; usually we all hear that word used to say "no discussion--conform!" The best thing is to promote Understanding between people--through real, serious, charitable conversations--regarding any tough issue. I think another person for David to speak with on this topic would be Greg Koukl of STR -- I would be interested in that discussion.
While I have nothing but contempt for people who opposite gay marriage and wish to halt legislature and such that helps push gay rights forward, I'm not a fan of unfair censorship, either. It's important, also, that one be critical of both sides of an issue in order to keep yourself fair and reasonable, even if the group you normally support does not follow suit. Censoring those who disagree with you is (at least those who are willing to be civil) does not usually reflect very well on those who censor them. Not that I'm disagreeing with David, I'm just speaking in general terms.
Refusing to host bigots on your show is not censorship. Private organizations are well within the law to reject hosting people they don't want to host on their programs. They are no more beholden to provide a platform for anti-gay religious nutters than they are neo-nazis.
wresler103 ''Refusing to host bigots on your show is not censorship'' This double standard shit is really unfair. if a private organization refuses to host a ''bigot'' then people like you think is not censorship, and that they have a right to do so. but if a private organization refuses to host a homosexual then they are bigots and criticized and suddenly we have the fucking LGBT community doing a million people march and shit. Don't get me wrong I am all for equality, but hypocrites like you makes us look bad. these organizations should host both groups to allow them to explain their point of view.
I don't know that I disagree with marriage equality but I do think that no matter what any person believes, they should have the right to free speech and no group should be able to censor others because they disagree with their beliefs. We don't censor the KKK or other hate groups like those when they speak publicly. So why demonize and censor people who don't support gay marriage or other LBTQ issues.
I'm not really sure what his issue is. Everything they want to say has been said many, many times. Everyone paying even marginal attention to the issue knows what the right thinks of homosexuality. As long as any changes in law aren't making him and people like him engage in the gay "lifestyle" like he wants people to engage in his religious lifestyle, he has nothing to complain about.
Time for the logical fallacy reducto ad absurdum. So should we allow neo Nazi on a panel when talking about issues with Israel? should we stop censoring the KKK?
It's wonderful to watch an interview on such a divisive subject being conducted respectfully and without the shouting or hysteria found on cable news. If people like Brown and Fischer can be invited more often to these sorts of interviews where their opinions can be calmly and carefully scrutinized, the whole insanely divided country could get somewhere closer to being a community of adults.
Wow, don't watch Pakman too often, but he pretty much owned that guy. Then again, if you have a logical mind, anybody can own a person arguing from a religious moral perspective.
As usual, Brown was on his best behavior. He and those like him always present themselves to be so kind, thoughtful and understanding when they're not being interviewed by conservatives. We get it Mikey, censoring is only for Talibangelists. You can silence those who oppose you until the cows come home, but if we try to silence hate-mongers like Tony Perkins...WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!
Very solid interview by both parties. Many complements to Dr. Brown. Although I personally disagree with his stance, That was the first time I have heard a "right" be able to debate this topic versus attack and just defend nonsensically. David, the next time you have him on, and you SHOULD! Or anyone on this topic for you to simply ask, in a country where all men are created equal, why are you allowed to dedicate yourself "for better or worse" to someone you love but would deny someone else that ability based on a belief they don't share with you? In other words, how ridiculous would it sound if I started a campaign against wall to wall carpet and believe it should be illegal based on my personal beliefs. keeping in my this holiest of holy activity ends in divorce 50% of the time.
Good point. I also disagree with Dr. Brown in this, but I like the way he explains his arguments and how calm he is, david seems to dislike him though, always refering to him in pejorative terms in his catchy titles.
I would love censoring of anti gay people but that doesn't make it right. But just because a religion is a majority doesn't give them the right to treat people like me as though they are less than human either. We need freedom for ALL to live as EQUAL human beings, not picking and choosing who is deemed worthy of humanity.
His deflection at the end is ridiculous. Rather than address the very real legal, financial (and social) inequality inherent in denying same-sex marriage rights he dodges the issue by talking about his personal motivations for getting married. Not good enough Dr Brown.
It isn't just about the term marriage to these people. Many states have laws where they said no marriage between two gay people so ok they try to get a civil union or domestic partner registry and the same groups threw a fit and said, no, that's still too much like marriage. Ok, so fine, you can't even compromise, so gay people will fight you till the end to get what they want because they are fully vested in the issue whereas the anti-gay crowd have nothing vested and will lose interest.
Why are they so obsessed with another person's sexual orientation? It DEFINES this man's life, Someone else's private sexual preferences DEFINE this man's life, there's something massively strange about that.
4:26 "I'm simply reaching out to you where you are, David." Sounds like this to me: "I'm simply condescending to your inferior level so that you the light like I do."
David: you missed Dr Brown's contraction. He stated that it would be unconstitutional to force his religious beliefs on other people, but then went on to support his argument with his religious beliefs!
David: You missed Dr. Brown's contradiction. He stated that his religious beliefs should not dictate others' behavior under The Constitution, but then used his religion for the basis of the remainder of his argument!
These government benefits, wills, hospital visitation rights, things of that nature can be taken care of through a legal contract without removing the gender requirement from the legal definition of marriage.
Brown insists outfits like the FRC don't have operations aimed at shutting out from media voices with which they disagree. In reality, the American Religious Right[tm] maintains an entire megamillion-dollar-a-year industry devoted to doing exactly that. GLAAD, the source of Brown's complaints, represents a tiny minority, and has a total annual budget of $5.8 million. The American Family Association alone has an annual budget of $20 million, and that's only one of the seeming infinity of right-wing orgs devoted to blackballing from media voices like those of GLAAD.
He's confusing censorship with criticism. This man still has a radio show. The govt. hasn't silenced him. These people want SPECIAL rights. They want to be able to say bigoted things without repercussions. They want to be able to say hateful things with no response.
Brown once call his wife a “ Devout atheist”. Such ignorance is proof he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about at times. When I tried to question him about this he blocked me on twitter. A form of censorship. #Ironic
He certainly did "wrap his appearance on your show up" when he came to understand that you were not going to allow any more of his nonsense. As always David, thank you f
I disagree with the point about GLAAD and other organizations like FRC discouraging dissent. I think even the people who don't have a point should have a point to pretend they do. That's why I watch this program.
The way to legalize immorality, is to change the definition of what's always been immoral - to moral, by the crocodile tears of the immoral. The objective? ... gain enough sympathy and play victim with unrelenting appeal, and you can get anything you want from those lacking in principles.
As I watched this conversation I can't help but just laugh! I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown is laughing right after the interview..can't imagine that intelligent people have a narrow understanding when it comes to Biblical principles inline with social morality... SMILE ;)
When anti-gay religious type quote that line from leviticus, they fail imediatly in my eyes because at no other time do they even bother to read that part of the bible. They usually skip leviticus as a whole. If they took time to read it, they would see how they themselves have become an abominations in the eyes of their own god. Theres is so much bad shit in that section...
Thanks DOC BROWN, the reason the messages below are so hateful is because they know your points are valid. And while it is fun to chuckle at them, it is disturbing to see so many people embrace censorship and the silencing others they disagree with.
He was completely incapable of answering Pakman's point that the Bible is inconsistent on the nature of marriage, which is fundamental to his argument.
trenton9 What he was forced to do was employ a great degree of inference and interpretation to a text he at the same time argues is meant absolutely literally. Polygamous marriage was the norm in the OT, for the great and powerful. No amount of squirming by the "literalist" makes a difference to that, or the fact that women were treated as commodities to be traded and subjected to Mosaic laws that today would be considered torture and slavery, in the name of marriage.
& i wonder why he spends so much time daydreaming about gay men & women having sex, being married, etc. ..& he has the right to choose whether or not he wants to be with a man but he needs to deny others the same? it's astounding that he wants the freedoms to do what he wants, to live as he does but wants to legislate that other adults cannot have the same choices. reminds me of how awful slavery is & how the civil rights movement in the USA is not over at all...wow..& just smh.
You don't get to simply "disagree" with being LGBT. You either are or your not LGBT. You're either for or against what I call myo-fascism (myopic fascism, where you are staunchly against anything that isn't YOU, common in middle aged white Christian conservative men) If you rally against gay rights, black rights, women rights, trans rights...you aren't "disagreeing" about what the tax rights should be, you're a myo-fascist, a bigot. Quit legitimizing myo-fascism by letting them get away with "what? Why does it make anyone mad? Why's anyone taking it personally? It's just political, it's just simply a disagreement..." (Literal quote from my homophobic "father" I stopped talking to for unrelated reasons)
So God the father was okay with polygamy, but God the son was not. I thought God doesn't change? hmmmmmm It's funny that he stfu pretty quickly when you started talking about legal benefits, and just scoffed at the notion that they matter.
I support the gay agenda Then he would argue that they are the same so God "The Son" who is still just "God" simply changed his mind or established new rules.
It was nice of him to take off his tin hat before the interview. GLADD doesn't encourage CNN to not have certain guests just like the NRA doesn't encourage FOX to not book gun control advocates. What they do is supply THEIR talking points. And any source of commentary to the media, if they know their shit, is going to ask who else is on a show. And if it's someone they don't want to appear with they won't. But outside of that organizations or individuals have no role in determining what a producer runs with. This segment wasn't worthy of the show. Kid stuff.
The Native Americans (well, some tribes) had marriages between two men, and other societies have in the past as well. That's just a historical fact. (Admittedly, marriages between two women are much more difficult to find though)
is that guy actually a doctor of something else than "scripture"? the balls those people have, it baffles me again and again Jim Jefferies Fully Functional on gay marriage 00:30 says it all
David, you have such a talent for dredging up the scum of society, as he has spent his life studying the bible, he is incapable of separating his church biased opinion and trying to impose those beliefs on the whole of America, a nation built around the practice of separation form church.
People are so strange when they talk about living by nature. He does not live naturally, and I am willing to bet that he does not care about "unnatural" when it comes to condoms, medical technology, law, and so on. If a person complains about others being unnatural, they had better be living the way nature intended first.
Let's redefine the law as they always do. This system of things is flawed and people put their faith on laws and science because they live in fare. To Christ be the glory and all I have for gay friends is a Hurricane of hope that they repent like the rest of us before Christ because everything else is meaningless if that's modern day goals is to redefine lifestyles.
David Pakman Show Because you presented a MUCH better argument, and that's going to get some people upset. Stand your ground. You are in the right. I especially liked your wording in your argument at the end of the interview.
Same-sex marriage existed and was accepted in North America for thousands of years. It only ended when Europeans arrived and decimated the native cultures. So in this case, it was the arrival of Christians that destroyed the civilizations. The Roman Empire didn't fall into serious decline until after they had accepted Christianity. So I don't think homosexuality was at fault there. It was ignorance. (I'm not equating Christianity with ignorance, but back then, as today, too many Christians prefer ignorance over truth.)
if he'd rather not be censored, stop saying stupid bigoted hateful shit. Cuts both ways. He can say it, but is not magically free from society using it's rights to condemn it
What did he say that was so bigoted? I'm sure you can't give me anything without either taking him out of context or grossly misinterpreting what he says.
Tim Fiore he doesn't recognize the scientific concept of sexual orientation, created his FIRE ministry to "“raise up a holy army of uncompromising spirit-filled radicals who will shake an entire generation with the gospel of Jesus by life or death”, claimed equal protection under law is “tampering with the foundations of human society", & he Lou Engle(linked to the “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda) are best friends. Not that facts, reality, or his hateful views matter, he is simply demanding all of society shut up letting him & others spew hateful intolerant BS
Bolgernow You haven't described anything bigoted from Dr. Brown. You only pointed out things which you disagree with. Disagreement with the gay lifestyle is not bigotry in itself.
Tim Fiore ignore gravity, it makes you look insane. Tell everyone enjoying gravity they're going to hell, evil, & will be destroyed, you're intolerant of reality
zed1207 Show me evidence that homosexuality existed in humans before it was condemned. Just because it is observed in other species, does not mean that it is okay in humans. Homosexuality in animals is poorly understood and should not be used as an excuse to justify that sort of behavior in humans. Some animals exhibit behaviors that include eating their own young, abandoning their young, infanticide, cannibalism, and the list goes on. Of course you wound't suggest these sorts of behaviors would be okay for humans too.
yootoob1958 Pakman always compares gay marriage to oppression of Black people, so let's break it down. Can gay people vote? Yes. Can gay people attend school with straight people? Yes. Can gay people own land? Yes. Are gay people being systematically targeted for murder? No. Why then does Pakman constantly compare gay marriage to the struggle of Black people?
slimjim77M Voting, going to school, owning land have nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation. Some gay people have been targeted and murdered. Matthew Sheppard and Harvey Milk come to mind. David Pakman's comparison of gay people to black people is probably because of the baseless discrimination, prejudice and bigotry that is endured by both---because they're not both white & straight at the same time. Also, interracial marriage was banned until 1967. The last 2 states in the union were South Carolina in 1998 and Alabama in 2000. Any citizen that does not have all the same rights as the next is truly not equal or free.
I hope that David is prepared for “marriage” being applied to close relatives (for the benefits, of course), multiple consenting partners, and any other combination imaginable, as long as “love” is invoked. But maybe he’s all for these.
We "censor" racists in the media, why should homophobes be any different? Put out a shitty, hurtful, hate-filled opinion and you should get shut down and ridiculed.
Atomic Kitten Your homophobia is showing. p.s. not giving racists/homophobes access to spreading their hateful views to thousands on your privately owned network is not the same as stopping free speech.
If you srsly think someone who supports gay rights is "just as bad as a racist", ya got some issues.
Sang15Mitang ''Your homophobia is showing''
I am a bisexual and I support the LGBT community. Most of my friends are gay! you idiot!
Lesbian. Gay. BISEXUAL. Transgender!!!!!
No,I never said that a person that supports gay rights is as bad as a racist, I said that they both deserve and they are both protected by the constitution and both have a right to be represented, and to explain their point of view. It is unfair to only have members of theLGBT community on a show and unfair for them not to be allowed to be represented and or be allowed to explain their point of view.
I personally think that they just don't understand other people. but even if they speak nonsense or hate speech, it doesn't matter, they shouldn't be censored! and even though I don't agree with them and I think they can be assholes sometimes, I will protect their right to free speech and to be represented and to give them the opportunity to explain their point of view instead of just saying something stupid like what you said!
''We "censor" racists in the media, why should homophobes be any different?''
They should be allowed to say whatever they want, without being censored even if it's bullshit. that's what free speech is about.
The first amendment right is not a right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, despite what popular opinion might tell you. The first amendment right prevents the GOVERNMENT from controlling and restricting your speech. If a new source chooses to not put hateful, harmful opinions on their program, they are not restricting anyone's freedom of speech. You cannot walk into my house uninvited and spout your nonsense and then scream about freedom of speech when I call the cops. Hateful opinions do not need equal airtime because they are not equal opinions. They are seriously damaging opinions that cause real harm to actual people, and if news sources choose not to air that kind of bigotry (as they frequently don't with extreme racism) they are not doing anything wrong or illegal. P.s. nice try playing the "but i'm a bisexual" card to another bisexual person. Your comparison was clearly either racist, homophobic, or both. And I'm tired of Americans misusing "freedom of speech" to mean "bigots can say whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want and anyone questioning it is a horrible person."
Sang15Mitang
That's why the US is so messed up. because instead of actually trying to understand each other we are censoring each other.
In order to solve things we must talk to the people that have a different point of view than us. if we are just going to censor them instead of trying to understand them they are just going to hate you and you are just going to hate you back.
If you censor them instead of talking to them then we will never be able to understand each other. did it ever crossed your mind that maybe by talking to them instead of censoring them we can actually educate them, and agree to live in peace?.. did it ever crossed your little mind that if instead of just calling the cops, you can talk to that ''uninvited'' person to sit, have a cup of tea, and have a civilized conversation to see if you can understand each other and agree to live in peace? NO? that's why the US is so fucking messed up, because cops shoot first and ask questions later, because people like you call the cops first before trying to talk to the other person. and people like you are censoring other people instead of trying to understand their point of view. maybe if you let them talk and if they let you talk to them maybe then we can understand each other. but noooo! instead of doing that, just fuck. censorship! it's all censorship to you.
Atomic Kitten Sad to say but most of the time when the media brings on someone to talk about something, they do not challenge their views. They do not try to educate them or change their opinion. For the most part, the process goes something like this: There's a mediator. Mediator asks person A their view. Person A gives view. Mediator asks person B their view. Person B gives view. And it continues. There isn't real discussion or debate, just people putting their opinions out there. When there *is* some kind of debate, it usually ends up being both sides talking over each other so no one can hear what's being said. It is not wrong nor illegal if an organization chooses to not allow their product to be used to spread bigotry in this way. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with that. There is a time and place for discussions like that. The internet is a great place, actually. People can say whatever they want, and anyone can respond to it freely. And the hateful views aren't pushed onto thousands of viewers to possibly corrupt their minds.
Funny that Brown is against censoring, because if you have a disagreement on the comments of his facebook page he blocks your commenting without any notice.
And the comment section of his videos are disabled.
It's like smacking your face on a grey haired brick wall.
David...you're best response was your last one at 12:24, and it really made me angry how he just refused to even address it. That was the heart of the issue and he showed his true intentions by his response. Thanks for bringing him to that point. He made your point for you in his response.
When talking about civil rights, there is no legitimate reason to allow regressive bigots equal time with those who support equality.
In discussion over interracial marriage, it would be unheard of for a legitimate news source to invite a KKK member to "balance" the opinion that interracial marriage is a good thing. In forty years, I have no doubt that people will think something similar about this kind of anti-gay bigotry.
P.S. to Brown: The Greek, Roman, and Macedonian empires, along with the early Holy Roman Empire, all had legal marriage statutes for same sex couples that were equal to those of straight couples.
So since you have decided that these people are agressive bigots they should not have the same rights as others in our society? You should decide that these people should not have the same rights to free speech?
Talithapraiz They have every right to speak without worry about being arrested for saying bigoted or stupid things--that said, they don't have a right to be treated as though they have a point of view that is as valid as their opposition.
You need to gain an understanding of the 1st Amendment, lest you continue to misapply it. The 1st Amendment only protects against government restriction of personal speech using the force of law; it does nothing to guarantee equal time or respect to speakers, and has nothing to do with the actions of private associations.
According to "the Progressive Cynic" people whom you consider to be regressive bigots do not deserve the same equal rights as others. You accuse me of not understanding or applying the law correctly, however, I know that the Supreme Court did not happen to agree with you. In the eighties they decided that the right of free speech of members of the KKK had been violated when they were curtailed from sharing their message in the public marketplace. Even though what they had to say was reprehensible. The Supreme Court's ruling was that they still had the right to say it. No one like you, should be able to silence the voice of others just because the other viewpoints don't happen to align with yours.
Talithapraiz You fail to understand the issues involved. I don't support banning bigots from speaking in public via the law (that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment), but I am very supportive of socially ostracizing and deriding such bigots. Additionally, there is no reason why these people should be given equal respect with those who actually speak facts, during media programs ostensibly aimed at spreading facts.
The media isn't constrained by the 1st Amendment and it isn't oppressive for them to call out those who hold immoral, bigoted, or false views. In other terms, I can find an imbecile who thinks that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that he should be given time on CNN to spread his false information.
If you want to align yourself with the KKK and other bigots, I won't push for your arrest or legal persecution, but I will give you no further thought or argument, as you are demonstrably wrong--at best, you will one day realize that you are wrong and will change, while, at worst, you will gradually travel farther out of the overton window and into the dustbin of history.
Directly quoting = censorship.
Who knew?
I can sum up his argument like this, "we can't have marriage equality because it goes against MY particular religion that everyone should be forced to conform to."
Wow....just wow....I can't believe the guy ended the interview like that.
Dr Brown always mentions the fact that when he met his wife, the last thing on his mind was a the legal or financial side of it. The same goes for gay people. However, I am sure if he died, the legal issues would affect his loved ones enormously. It would affect the future of his organisation's ministry, his wife's future well-being, and even the well-being of his children. Not buying it, Michael. Sorry.
Pakman's last point is his most powerful one, and it's the main reason that I can't side with Dr. Brown on this "definition of marriage" fight.
I am very happy that David and Michael are tolerant people -- respecting each other enough to have a good two-way discussion about their differences, trying to sway/influence each other. Tolerance entails differences; usually we all hear that word used to say "no discussion--conform!" The best thing is to promote Understanding between people--through real, serious, charitable conversations--regarding any tough issue.
I think another person for David to speak with on this topic would be Greg Koukl of STR -- I would be interested in that discussion.
While I have nothing but contempt for people who opposite gay marriage and wish to halt legislature and such that helps push gay rights forward, I'm not a fan of unfair censorship, either.
It's important, also, that one be critical of both sides of an issue in order to keep yourself fair and reasonable, even if the group you normally support does not follow suit.
Censoring those who disagree with you is (at least those who are willing to be civil) does not usually reflect very well on those who censor them.
Not that I'm disagreeing with David, I'm just speaking in general terms.
Refusing to host bigots on your show is not censorship. Private organizations are well within the law to reject hosting people they don't want to host on their programs. They are no more beholden to provide a platform for anti-gay religious nutters than they are neo-nazis.
wresler103
''Refusing to host bigots on your show is not censorship''
This double standard shit is really unfair. if a private organization refuses to host a ''bigot'' then people like you think is not censorship, and that they have a right to do so. but if a private organization refuses to host a homosexual then they are bigots and criticized and suddenly we have the fucking LGBT community doing a million people march and shit. Don't get me wrong I am all for equality, but hypocrites like you makes us look bad. these organizations should host both groups to allow them to explain their point of view.
I don't know that I disagree with marriage equality but I do think that no matter what any person believes, they should have the right to free speech and no group should be able to censor others because they disagree with their beliefs. We don't censor the KKK or other hate groups like those when they speak publicly. So why demonize and censor people who don't support gay marriage or other LBTQ issues.
This allegedly not gay person is being persecuted. He's not gay. Honest!
I'm not really sure what his issue is. Everything they want to say has been said many, many times. Everyone paying even marginal attention to the issue knows what the right thinks of homosexuality. As long as any changes in law aren't making him and people like him engage in the gay "lifestyle" like he wants people to engage in his religious lifestyle, he has nothing to complain about.
He is pretending to be the victim of censoring because people don't want to his hear bigoted views.
The persecution complex is fascinating/delusional.
Time for the logical fallacy reducto ad absurdum.
So should we allow neo Nazi on a panel when talking about issues with Israel? should we stop censoring the KKK?
Adam and Eve? When Genesis had two different wives for Adam. Absolute cherry picking!
Does gay marriage do any harm to anyone? No!
It doesn't mean that things u did doesn't harm someone else you're doing the right thing already. ;)
Yes it does!
It's wonderful to watch an interview on such a divisive subject being conducted respectfully and without the shouting or hysteria found on cable news.
If people like Brown and Fischer can be invited more often to these sorts of interviews where their opinions can be calmly and carefully scrutinized, the whole insanely divided country could get somewhere closer to being a community of adults.
I just love you David. Calm, cool, collected, concise.
Wow, don't watch Pakman too often, but he pretty much owned that guy. Then again, if you have a logical mind, anybody can own a person arguing from a religious moral perspective.
As usual, Brown was on his best behavior. He and those like him always present themselves to be so kind, thoughtful and understanding when they're not being interviewed by conservatives. We get it Mikey, censoring is only for Talibangelists. You can silence those who oppose you until the cows come home, but if we try to silence hate-mongers like Tony Perkins...WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!
Michael Brown does a lot of excellent work with the poor - seriously. But the damage he does to gay kids kinda balances it out.
Very solid interview by both parties. Many complements to Dr. Brown. Although I personally disagree with his stance, That was the first time I have heard a "right" be able to debate this topic versus attack and just defend nonsensically. David, the next time you have him on, and you SHOULD! Or anyone on this topic for you to simply ask, in a country where all men are created equal, why are you allowed to dedicate yourself "for better or worse" to someone you love but would deny someone else that ability based on a belief they don't share with you? In other words, how ridiculous would it sound if I started a campaign against wall to wall carpet and believe it should be illegal based on my personal beliefs. keeping in my this holiest of holy activity ends in divorce 50% of the time.
Good point. I also disagree with Dr. Brown in this, but I like the way he explains his arguments and how calm he is, david seems to dislike him though, always refering to him in pejorative terms in his catchy titles.
I would love censoring of anti gay people but that doesn't make it right. But just because a religion is a majority doesn't give them the right to treat people like me as though they are less than human either. We need freedom for ALL to live as EQUAL human beings, not picking and choosing who is deemed worthy of humanity.
Thank you for a show that is as thought provoking as it is entertaining.
His deflection at the end is ridiculous. Rather than address the very real legal, financial (and social) inequality inherent in denying same-sex marriage rights he dodges the issue by talking about his personal motivations for getting married. Not good enough Dr Brown.
It isn't just about the term marriage to these people. Many states have laws where they said no marriage between two gay people so ok they try to get a civil union or domestic partner registry and the same groups threw a fit and said, no, that's still too much like marriage. Ok, so fine, you can't even compromise, so gay people will fight you till the end to get what they want because they are fully vested in the issue whereas the anti-gay crowd have nothing vested and will lose interest.
Being censored now means receiving criticism for saying something bigoted.
Always enjoy these debates, regardless of how intellectually deficient some of the guests may be. My only gripe is I wish they were longer.
Finally someone speaks about the mediocrity of anti-gay speeches!
Why are they so obsessed with another person's sexual orientation? It DEFINES this man's life, Someone else's private sexual preferences DEFINE this man's life, there's something massively strange about that.
Actually his comment at the end was a very good point!
4:26 "I'm simply reaching out to you where you are, David."
Sounds like this to me: "I'm simply condescending to your inferior level so that you the light like I do."
David: you missed Dr Brown's contraction. He stated that it would be unconstitutional to force his religious beliefs on other people, but then went on to support his argument with his religious beliefs!
David: You missed Dr. Brown's contradiction. He stated that his religious beliefs should not dictate others' behavior under The Constitution, but then used his religion for the basis of the remainder of his argument!
These government benefits, wills, hospital visitation rights, things of that nature can be taken care of through a legal contract without removing the gender requirement from the legal definition of marriage.
Brown insists outfits like the FRC don't have operations aimed at shutting out from media voices with which they disagree. In reality, the American Religious Right[tm] maintains an entire megamillion-dollar-a-year industry devoted to doing exactly that. GLAAD, the source of Brown's complaints, represents a tiny minority, and has a total annual budget of $5.8 million. The American Family Association alone has an annual budget of $20 million, and that's only one of the seeming infinity of right-wing orgs devoted to blackballing from media voices like those of GLAAD.
He's confusing censorship with criticism. This man still has a radio show. The govt. hasn't silenced him. These people want SPECIAL rights. They want to be able to say bigoted things without repercussions. They want to be able to say hateful things with no response.
When talking about redefining marriage, remember that there was a point in history when black and white people couldn't marry each other.
Beginning of the interview: "The media is censoring my voice!' End of interview: "So anyway I'm gonna end this interview early..."
Brown once call his wife a “ Devout atheist”. Such ignorance is proof he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about at times. When I tried to question him about this he blocked me on twitter. A form of censorship. #Ironic
He certainly did "wrap his appearance on your show up" when he came to understand that you were not going to allow any more of his nonsense. As always David, thank you f
I disagree with the point about GLAAD and other organizations like FRC discouraging dissent. I think even the people who don't have a point should have a point to pretend they do. That's why I watch this program.
XD Leaves the debate because he realized he was losing. That's classic.
* Finally someone speaks out about the mediocrity of censoring anti-gay speeches.
The way to legalize immorality, is to change the definition of what's always been immoral - to moral, by the crocodile tears of the immoral. The objective? ... gain enough sympathy and play victim with unrelenting appeal, and you can get anything you want from those lacking in principles.
Oddly, the Apostle Paul left his wife and urged believers to remain unwed, as was the example of the Good Lord.
As I watched this conversation I can't help but just laugh! I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown is laughing right after the interview..can't imagine that intelligent people have a narrow understanding when it comes to Biblical principles inline with social morality... SMILE ;)
You're free to say what you want, the consequences of what you have said on the other hand, is a whole other issue..
12:56 "I have not been denied rights therefore I can deny the rights of others"
When anti-gay religious type quote that line from leviticus, they fail imediatly in my eyes because at no other time do they even bother to read that part of the bible. They usually skip leviticus as a whole. If they took time to read it, they would see how they themselves have become an abominations in the eyes of their own god. Theres is so much bad shit in that section...
Thanks DOC BROWN, the reason the messages below are so hateful is because they know your points are valid. And while it is fun to chuckle at them, it is disturbing to see so many people embrace censorship and the silencing others they disagree with.
He was completely incapable of answering Pakman's point that the Bible is inconsistent on the nature of marriage, which is fundamental to his argument.
zed1207
Not true. He actually answered it directly and excellently. If you need a recap of his answer, I'll provide one.
Perhaps it would be more helpful if someone would highlight the gay couples in the bible?
BellicoseNation cite historical fact in the bible. You know, where Eden existed, & burning bushes that talked, & people made from ribs. Oh, & fuck you
trenton9 What he was forced to do was employ a great degree of inference and interpretation to a text he at the same time argues is meant absolutely literally.
Polygamous marriage was the norm in the OT, for the great and powerful. No amount of squirming by the "literalist" makes a difference to that, or the fact that women were treated as commodities to be traded and subjected to Mosaic laws that today would be considered torture and slavery, in the name of marriage.
& i wonder why he spends so much time daydreaming about gay men & women having sex, being married, etc. ..& he has the right to choose whether or not he wants to be with a man but he needs to deny others the same? it's astounding that he wants the freedoms to do what he wants, to live as he does but wants to legislate that other adults cannot have the same choices. reminds me of how awful slavery is & how the civil rights movement in the USA is not over at all...wow..& just smh.
You don't get to simply "disagree" with being LGBT. You either are or your not LGBT. You're either for or against what I call myo-fascism (myopic fascism, where you are staunchly against anything that isn't YOU, common in middle aged white Christian conservative men)
If you rally against gay rights, black rights, women rights, trans rights...you aren't "disagreeing" about what the tax rights should be, you're a myo-fascist, a bigot.
Quit legitimizing myo-fascism by letting them get away with "what? Why does it make anyone mad? Why's anyone taking it personally? It's just political, it's just simply a disagreement..."
(Literal quote from my homophobic "father" I stopped talking to for unrelated reasons)
So God the father was okay with polygamy, but God the son was not. I thought God doesn't change? hmmmmmm
It's funny that he stfu pretty quickly when you started talking about legal benefits, and just scoffed at the notion that they matter.
I support the gay agenda Then he would argue that they are the same so God "The Son" who is still just "God" simply changed his mind or established new rules.
I support the gay agenda Hot pfp
I don't see it as redefining, I see it only as inclusion..
This guy is rocking that mustache and wants to convince me he's anti gay?
People that oppose same-sex marriage and are anti-gay, always say that same stupid religiously fuel statement to back up their argument.
It was nice of him to take off his tin hat before the interview.
GLADD doesn't encourage CNN to not have certain guests just like the NRA doesn't encourage FOX to not book gun control advocates. What they do is supply THEIR talking points. And any source of commentary to the media, if they know their shit, is going to ask who else is on a show. And if it's someone they don't want to appear with they won't. But outside of that organizations or individuals have no role in determining what a producer runs with.
This segment wasn't worthy of the show. Kid stuff.
Dr Brown has authored five scholarly books on Jewish Objections to Jesus. For David and Louis, try something different in your reading patterns.
Genesis 3:11 And the Lord said 'Trust no man with the facial hair of a sex criminal, for it is unholy and does not glorify Me'.
Pakman got owned in the end!
wrong!
The Native Americans (well, some tribes) had marriages between two men, and other societies have in the past as well. That's just a historical fact. (Admittedly, marriages between two women are much more difficult to find though)
Going to have to visit his website and send him a respectful comment. Chemtrails. Lebron Paul 2016!
is that guy actually a doctor of something else than "scripture"?
the balls those people have, it baffles me again and again
Jim Jefferies Fully Functional on gay marriage
00:30 says it all
David, you have such a talent for dredging up the scum of society, as he has spent his life studying the bible, he is incapable of separating his church biased opinion and trying to impose those beliefs on the whole of America, a nation built around the practice of separation form church.
Other people's equal rights are not subject to debate. There is therefore no reason why homophobes should be given a big microphone.
Rolls eyes.
People are so strange when they talk about living by nature. He does not live naturally, and I am willing to bet that he does not care about "unnatural" when it comes to condoms, medical technology, law, and so on.
If a person complains about others being unnatural, they had better be living the way nature intended first.
Gay Voices have been shut out for far too long. The tables have been turned. Now Anti-Gay Voices are being shut out. So what?
Let's redefine the law as they always do. This system of things is flawed and people put their faith on laws and science because they live in fare. To Christ be the glory and all I have for gay friends is a Hurricane of hope that they repent like the rest of us before Christ because everything else is meaningless if that's modern day goals is to redefine lifestyles.
As if Christain networks don't censor?!?!
youtube has terms of service - you must abide by them. dont like them - leave youtube. pretty simple.
Dr. Brown sure uses a lot of words to say nothing of substance
Thank you GLAAD for your COMMENTATOR ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT....see the full list at ..... www.glaad.org/cap?page=9
goddamn religion.
Can gays change?
Nice dodge at the end.. :/
David, expect some massive slandering
why's that?
David Pakman Show
Because you presented a MUCH better argument, and that's going to get some people upset. Stand your ground. You are in the right. I especially liked your wording in your argument at the end of the interview.
Same-sex marriage existed and was accepted in North America for thousands of years. It only ended when Europeans arrived and decimated the native cultures. So in this case, it was the arrival of Christians that destroyed the civilizations. The Roman Empire didn't fall into serious decline until after they had accepted Christianity. So I don't think homosexuality was at fault there. It was ignorance. (I'm not equating Christianity with ignorance, but back then, as today, too many Christians prefer ignorance over truth.)
Please help me in my quest to overcome being gay and offer me your prayers so that I may receive what and who I need to do so. God bless.
This is horsesit David. It's just not challenging to debate with religious people.
if he'd rather not be censored, stop saying stupid bigoted hateful shit. Cuts both ways. He can say it, but is not magically free from society using it's rights to condemn it
What did he say that was so bigoted? I'm sure you can't give me anything without either taking him out of context or grossly misinterpreting what he says.
Tim Fiore he doesn't recognize the scientific concept of sexual orientation, created his FIRE ministry to "“raise up a holy army of uncompromising spirit-filled radicals who will shake an entire generation with the gospel of Jesus by life or death”, claimed equal protection under law is “tampering with the foundations of human society", & he Lou Engle(linked to the “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda) are best friends. Not that facts, reality, or his hateful views matter, he is simply demanding all of society shut up letting him & others spew hateful intolerant BS
Bolgernow
You haven't described anything bigoted from Dr. Brown. You only pointed out things which you disagree with. Disagreement with the gay lifestyle is not bigotry in itself.
Tim Fiore ignore gravity, it makes you look insane. Tell everyone enjoying gravity they're going to hell, evil, & will be destroyed, you're intolerant of reality
zed1207 Show me evidence that homosexuality existed in humans before it was condemned. Just because it is observed in other species, does not mean that it is okay in humans. Homosexuality in animals is poorly understood and should not be used as an excuse to justify that sort of behavior in humans. Some animals exhibit behaviors that include eating their own young, abandoning their young, infanticide, cannibalism, and the list goes on. Of course you wound't suggest these sorts of behaviors would be okay for humans too.
Is Pakman gay?
No. He simply supports equality for all.
yootoob1958 Actually he supports preferential treatment for some.
slimjim77M
Which people would those be?
yootoob1958 Pakman always compares gay marriage to oppression of Black people, so let's break it down. Can gay people vote? Yes. Can gay people attend school with straight people? Yes. Can gay people own land? Yes. Are gay people being systematically targeted for murder? No. Why then does Pakman constantly compare gay marriage to the struggle of Black people?
slimjim77M
Voting, going to school, owning land have nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation. Some gay people have been targeted and murdered. Matthew Sheppard and Harvey Milk come to mind. David Pakman's comparison of gay people to black people is probably because of the baseless discrimination, prejudice and bigotry that is endured by both---because they're not both white & straight at the same time. Also, interracial marriage was banned until 1967. The last 2 states in the union were South Carolina in 1998 and Alabama in 2000. Any citizen that does not have all the same rights as the next is truly not equal or free.
LOL Dr Brown be whoopin that ass
I hope that David is prepared for “marriage” being applied to close relatives (for the benefits, of course), multiple consenting partners, and any other combination imaginable, as long as “love” is invoked. But maybe he’s all for these.
david are you really this unintelligent?all he ever does is argue in his "interviews." And I thought Piers Morgan was awful