Support NeoGAF

[narcosis219]

Too bad they couldn't have agreed to an extension of time for supplementary debate. One hour isn't enough, really. Would it have really been that difficult to do?

Too bad more of our opinion TV shows aren't like this. The 5-10 minute segments of cable news opinion debates are so short that nothing is really accomplished and it ends up being the talking points/soundbites debate.

Good debate all around, I was impressed at the civility and moderation. I dunno who edited the video shots together, but one thing that bothered me was putting Brown's face in close-up when he had some mouth foam building up. You want to be as courteous to each participant as much as possible, and using that close up shot when a wide shot was available too seems like a subtle diss. You want to distance yourself from claims of bias as much as possible because they distract from the main point.

Speaking of relevancy, f I was a legislative politician and Brown was making these points to me, I would have to question him as to why the religion-based debate points are even relevant to matters of public policy legislation.

Nation under god, blah blah

 

[Brian Griffin]

I find one of Brown's arguments very interesting, which is that marriage is what it is just like a square is a square and a circle is a circle. If this is the true core of his belief against SSM then he actually doesn't have anything against gay people and isn't a bigot.

He is just arguing that we should not legally be able to call a circle a square. He is having the same reaction that everyone had when that one politician wanted to legally redefine Pi as exactly 3.0 instead of 3.14..... It's just something you can't do.

Where his argument falls apart is where that definition exists. Squares are defined by the laws of mathematics regarding angles and lengths of sides so there is a very compelling reason to not define them as circles, which have their own clear definition in math.

The definition of marriage as he sees it comes from the bible and other religious text which has no links to any well defined system of laws like mathematics. Thus, his source for that definition is "some guy said it in a book I read" which is an incredibly, fucktardedly stupid and weak source.

 

[Count Dookkake]

But since squares and circles have mathematical definition, they would "exist" without humans.

The same is not true of marriage.


Next!

 

[Brian Griffin]

But since squares and circles have mathematical definition, they would "exist" without humans.

The same is not true of marriage.


Next!

Also true. Marriage in it's entirety is the result of humans. Not one single part of the idea is natural in the world. One could say that males and females can reproduce so them joining is natural but that only covers fucking, not being tied to each other legally.

So because it is entirely defined by humans there is no valid argument for not changing the definition simply for the sake of the definition. So really, the only valid arguments against SSM from a logical standpoint are bigoted ones lol.

 

[kame-sennin]

I agree with those who've said there's nothing to debate. Homophobia has no rational basis, so there's nothing to deconstruct. It's simply hatred fueled by mythology.

I really love the Savage Love podcast, so I'm obviously biased, and while I think Dan Savage has definitely made a lot of stupid remarks in the past, I don't think he's racist. I certainly think he should watch what he says, as he makes a lot of statements that are intended to get a rise out of people and are really easy to misconstrue, and he should probably be more sensitive, but the evidence that the two sites you linked to are using to portray him as racially insensitive honestly seem like nitpicks. Savage's quote that both sites criticize was later redacted by the first blogger's own admission, and considering he's since changed his viewpoints, I'm not sure what else the writers of those articles are asking for.

It doesn't matter whether Savage is racist. What matters is that he is using racially coded language and raising white fears about black citizenship. Whenever a minority group gets the right to vote, there is always a reactionary element that argues that this newly enfranchised group will use their rights to vote the "wrong way". Savage is tapping into this history of bigotry, consciously or unconsciously.

And his comment supporting the Iraq war was just as heinous. He flat out justifies the deaths of thousands of people - including children - because it will challenge homophobia and send a message to Saudi Arabia. While homophobia is worth combatting, the way that Savage phrases his argument seems to suggest that the lives of arab people lack value.

And quotes like "What Dan really wants is equality and we uppity Negroes ruined it for him. He is well aware that homophobia is what is stopping him from taking full advantage of his White male privilege." make it really difficult for me to listen to what the second blogger is saying at all.

Why?

 

[lunch]

I should first admit that I neither follow Dan Savage outside of his podcast nor the sorts of websites that eznom linked, so outside of my original post, the amount of discussion I can do over this topic is fairly limited.

It doesn't matter whether Savage is racist. What matters is that he is using racially coded language and raising white fears about black citizenship. Whenever a minority group gets the right to vote, there is always a reactionary element that argues that this newly enfranchised group will use their rights to vote the "wrong way". Savage is tapping into this history of bigotry, consciously or unconsciously.

It mattered that he's not a racist in the context of the original post. I agree that he's tapping into prejudices (although I think he's doing so unconsciously), but while Savage being a racist would constitute enzom claiming that he's an asshole, I don't think the fact that Savage is ignorant on certain issues and runs his mouth off when he shouldn't warrants the name-calling.

And his comment supporting the Iraq war was just as heinous. He flat out justifies the deaths of thousands of people - including children - because it will challenge homophobia and send a message to Saudi Arabia. While homophobia is worth combatting, the way that Savage phrases his argument seems to suggest that the lives of arab people lack value.

I don't disagree at all there.

Why?

The blogger sounds too hysterical for me to give their argument the weight it might deserve. Claiming that Dan Savage is trying to take "full advantage of his White male privilege" is inferring way too much from his original comments, and I don't think it's entirely fair to criticize Savage for making comments rooted in prejudice only to then use similarly weighted language.

 

[Deified Data]

I'm sick of people acting as though every side of every argument is legitimate and must be approached on equal footing. There is no "debate" here - just one side clinging to pointless tradition because they're mentally and philosophically unable to cope with the present day. Worldviews that cannot cope will die out over time. The sooner, the better.

Dialogue should be avoided at all costs. Treat the imbeciles as the self-styled pariahs they are and ignore them completely.

 

[Enzom21]

It mattered that he's not a racist in the context of the original post. I agree that he's tapping into prejudices (although I think he's doing so unconsciously), but while Savage being a racist would constitute enzom claiming that he's an asshole, I don't think the fact that Savage is ignorant on certain issues and runs his mouth off when he shouldn't warrants the name-calling.

I think he is doing it more than just unconsciously. If he truly felt that what he said was in error he would have posted a retraction instead of pretending he never posted it.

As far as the name calling goes, I think it fits:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1487886

"I'm going to turn over a new leaf, TROS, and make a conscious, conscientious effort to break myself of the bad habit of using the word "retard." But I don't think the "retard jar" is for me. Instead, I'm going to use a substitution for the word. From now on, instead of saying "retard" or "that's so retarded," I'm going to say "leotard" and "that's so leotarded." I won't be mocking the mentally challenged, just the physically gifted. I will pick on the strong—and the limber—and not the weak."

That's something an asshole would say. Do you not agree?

The blogger sounds too hysterical for me to give their argument the weight it might deserve. Claiming that Dan Savage is trying to take "full advantage of his White male privilege" is inferring way too much from his original comments, and I don't think it's entirely fair to criticize Savage for making comments rooted in prejudice only to then use similarly weighted language.

But white privilege is a very real thing... so it's not an entirely inaccurate statement.

 

[Father_Brain]

Not terribly surprising, but it doesn't seem like either participant was thrilled with how things turned out:

Several days later, I asked Mr. Savage, Mr. Miller and Mr. Brown how they thought the debate had gone. (DJ, Mr. Savage and Mr. Miller’s 14-year-old son, ate with us but left before the debate, so I didn’t bother him with questions.)

Mr. Miller pronounced the entire night a waste of time. “Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty,” Mr. Miller wrote in an e-mail. “In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.”

I spoke with Mr. Brown by phone, and he seemed to agree that the setting had made little difference. “There’s this myth that folks like me, we don’t know any gay people, and if we just met them, we would change our views,” he said. “But the notion that if you have us into your house, that all that faith and reason that we have on our side, we will chuck it out and change our views — that’s not the real world.”

As for Mr. Savage, he felt that being on his home turf had actually worked against him. “Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest,” he said. “It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should’ve been. If I had it to do over again, I think I’d go with a hall.”

 

[lunch]

I think he is doing it more than just unconsciously. If he truly felt that what he said was in error he would have posted a retraction instead of pretending he never posted it.

I wish he posted a formal apology as well, but I don't know the man personally and thus can't really say much more about his intentions or beliefs. I'm definitely biased, but I respect Dan Savage, so I'm hoping that the prejudice in his comments was unconscious and that he's learned not to make similar comments in the future. If I ever have reason to believe he's racist, I'll stop listening to him.

As far as the name calling goes, I think it fits:http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1487886
That's something an asshole would say. Do you not agree?

I actually don't. Reading about the remarks Savage has made (the one about the Iraq war being the most egregious) has lowered my opinion of him, but when I heard this particular comment on his podcast, I dismissed it as being unfunny rather than offensive. Again, I think he should word his opinions more carefully, and I think he gets into a lot of trouble for not being fully aware of his audience. The Dan Savage who records Savage Love and the Dan Savage who appears on The Colbert Report are rather different people, and while he's still open and crude, there's a level of camaraderie and a crass humor that permeates throughout his column and podcast that make me take his comments less seriously than I otherwise would. The only times I've been outright annoyed with Dan Savage while listening to his podcast is when he begins to equate all religious people with bigots, despite a large number of his listeners being religious themselves.

But white privilege is a very real thing... so it's not an entirely inaccurate statement.

I don't disagree; I just think there's a way to approach an argument without immediately using buzz words, and I don't think Dan Savage's comments warranted the blogger's attack.

Not terribly surprising, but it doesn't seem like either participant was thrilled with how things turned out:

Thanks for the link.

 

[bistromathics]

is it sad that I wanted this to be passive aggressive internet twitter drama instead of an actual discussion?

edit:

Not terribly surprising, but it doesn't seem like either participant was thrilled with how things turned out:

whew, thank you

 

[GungHo]

When he says things like this:

I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president…But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

It makes it seem like he has a little racial animosity towards blacks.

You do realize that at that time that Obama didn't support gay marriage or a total repeal of DADT, right?

I'm not covering/addressing Savage's other remarks, but that specific remark was in response to that specific issue.

 

[Enzom21]

I wish he posted a formal apology as well, but I don't know the man personally and thus can't really say much more about his intentions or beliefs. I'm definitely biased, but I respect Dan Savage, so I'm hoping that the prejudice in his comments was unconscious and that he's learned not to make similar comments in the future. If I ever have reason to believe he's racist, I'll stop listening to him.

I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt like you. Why post something like that if they are not your true feelings? He never addressed it after and pretended like it was never posted. That does not strike me as a person who is sorry for what he wrote.
Instead of educating the black community about LGBT rights he posts a rant about how terrible and homophobic black people are. He didn't post the same article about Asians, Hispanics or Whites even though blacks make up the smallest minority in California.

I actually don't. Reading about the remarks Savage has made (the one about the Iraq war being the most egregious) has lowered my opinion of him, but when I heard this particular comment on his podcast, I dismissed it as being unfunny rather than offensive. Again, I think he should word his opinions more carefully, and I think he gets into a lot of trouble for not being fully aware of his audience. The Dan Savage who records Savage Love and the Dan Savage who appears on The Colbert Report are rather different people, and while he's still open and crude, there's a level of camaraderie and a crass humor that permeates throughout his column and podcast that make me take his comments less seriously than I otherwise would. The only times I've been outright annoyed with Dan Savage while listening to his podcast is when he begins to equate all religious people with bigots, despite a large number of his listeners being religious themselves.

But who are you to decide what is offensive to someone else? Do you find it offensive when people say things like "that's gay"?

I don't disagree; I just think there's a way to approach an argument without immediately using buzz words, and I don't think Dan Savage's comments warranted the blogger's attack.

Well you and I disagree... I have seen it countless times. When a white member of the LGBT community doesn't get their way and black person is involved or if a black person says anything homophobic, they immediately call that black person a nigger. I have seen it far too often for it to be an anomaly, and this is very much the same thing.

You do realize that at that time that Obama didn't support gay marriage or a total repeal of DADT, right?

I'm not covering/addressing Savage's other remarks, but that specific remark was in response to that specific issue.

He wasn't talking about the president, he was talking about the number of blacks who voted for Prop8.

 

[GungHo]

He wasn't talking about the president, he was talking about the number of blacks who voted for Prop8.

Ok, then my bad.

 

[Monroeski]

Well, I enjoyed that 1 hour of Mr. Brown saying "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to refute every argument.

Congrats, you win the debate!!

What you have to understand is that for a lot of people saying that two men can get married is like saying 2 + 2 = 73. It's simply not up for debate so they don't bother figuring out how to debate it. The same person could have very elaborate and well reasoned arguments on a myriad of other subjects but on this one topic it's like trying to convince them that fire isn't hot.

 

[lunch]

But who are you to decide what is offensive to someone else? Do you find it offensive when people say things like "that's gay"?

It's a good thing that I never claimed I was deciding what's offensive to somebody else, isn't it? I'm simply stating that I considered the quote unfunny rather than offensive--I'm not stating how you should take the quote, or how other people took the quote, nor am I stating that your feelings on Dan Savage are any more or less valid than mine are. And no, I don't find it offensive when people use the phrase.

Well you and I disagree... I have seen it countless times. When a white member of the LGBT community doesn't get their way and black person is involved or if a black person says anything homophobic, they immediately call that black person a nigger. I have seen it far too often for it to be an anomaly, and this is very much the same thing.

No, it isn't. If Dan Savage called somebody a nigger, I would have immediately stopped listening to him and I wouldn't be in this thread at all, because that would be clearly racist and hateful. I agree that he made tasteless comments that he should have apologized for, but there's a clear and distinct line between hate speech and ignorant remarks.

I can't rebut the other points. We're clearly coming at completely different angles on his comments, and since neither of us can speak for him, I've exhausted the extent that I can defend his comments without simply extrapolating what I'd like to believe.

 

[MisterNugNug]

What you have to understand is that for a lot of people saying that two men can get married is like saying 2 + 2 = 73. It's simply not up for debate so they don't bother figuring out how to debate it. The same person could have very elaborate and well reasoned arguments on a myriad of other subjects but on this one topic it's like trying to convince them that fire isn't hot.

It goes deeper than that. We can't even begin to debate or argue for marriage equality because those opposing it don't even recognize homosexuality as a sexual orientation. To them people are choosing to be gay/lesbian, people aren't born that way. So to them if someone chooses to touch the hot stove (e.g. no marriage equality, no recognition of hate crimes, banned from organizations (boy scouts)/institutions (church), social and cultural antagonism/bullying etc.), special accommodations shouldn't be made for those "electing" to do harm to themselves and to their loved ones, friends and community.

 

[narcosis219]

What you have to understand is that for a lot of people saying that two men can get married is like saying 2 + 2 = 73. It's simply not up for debate so they don't bother figuring out how to debate it. The same person could have very elaborate and well reasoned arguments on a myriad of other subjects but on this one topic it's like trying to convince them that fire isn't hot.

Hence why I proposed SOULBONDING. They can have their "marriage". Give us SOULBONDING with the same legal perks and we'll be done. Of course, then they'll come in and argue against SOULBONDING cause they actually hate gay people.

 

[lunch]

Hence why I proposed SOULBONDING. They can have their "marriage". Give us SOULBONDING with the same legal perks and we'll be done. Of course, then they'll come in and argue against SOULBONDING cause they actually hate gay people.

What if I argue against SOULBONDING because I don't like capital letters?