A Truly Lopsided Debate

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to a special Monday edition of the Dividing Line.

People on the channel are asking why, but we do not have to divulge that information. That's what's nice about live webcasting.

You do live webcasting when you do live webcasting and you don't have to worry about anything else. Obviously, I'm doing something tomorrow and I need to make some moving of things around and that's how it works.

We live in a information age. I just, right before we went on air, most of you know

I'm a cyclist and it was sad to see that there has been a fatality in the Giro d 'Italia, one of the major tours.

Someone crashed on one of the descents and did not survive the crash and that's a shame.

Those guys push it and they push it very, very hard. That's a hard thing to work through for everybody else in that race.

But that's not our subject today in any way, shape, or form. I was looking at an article this morning by Dr.

Keith Abloh, who you may have seen on Fox News. The title is,

Cameron Diaz is right for reasons why marriage is a dying institution.

I had seen the statement from Cameron Diaz saying marriage is a dying institution.

Ms. Diaz added, I don't think we should live our lives and relationships based off old traditions that don't suit our world any longer.

Well, I've often wondered why we worry about what actors and actresses and sports stars say about society.

I've never understood that. Especially actors and actresses, don't they spend their lives pretending to be someone they're not?

I'm not sure why. And you look at Hollywood, is that really what we want society to look like and to function like?

All the marriages and divorces and illegitimate children and the mess of lives that is found there,

I'm not really sure. But anyways, Dr. Keith Abloh, who, by the way, is co -author of a book with the big guy,

Glenn Beck, yes, agrees with Cameron Diaz and says, well,

I'm not certain marriage ever did suit most people who tried it. From what I hear in my psychiatry office and from what

I hear from other psychiatrists and psychologists and from what my friends and relatives tell me and show me through their behavior and from the fact that most marriages end either in divorce or acrimony, marriage is, as it has been for decades now, a source of real suffering for the vast majority of married people.

So there you go. In Europe, in Scandinavian countries, marriage is becoming extremely rare.

In fact, you're looked down upon if you're married. You are looked as if you are one of those people sort of giving in to old traditions rather than being forward -looking and so on and so forth.

There are couples who marry secretly because they, for some reason, want that commitment.

But you know, the society says it's a bad thing. And right after that,

I saw a link, Navy authorizes chaplains to perform same -sex marriages in naval chapels.

There you go. Things are happening so quickly.

I mean, I need to—I have started a bookmark folder called Cultural Decay, and it's filling rapidly.

It's filling rapidly because every day we are hit with this.

I preached last evening at Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church. It wasn't scheduled to, but for the first time since I became an elder there,

I needed to have that sermon ready to go when my fellow elder took ill during the day and really wasn't feeling well in the morning either, for that matter.

And I preached through Genesis 19. I'm actually going to blog it off of Sermon Audio on Sodom and Gomorrah and responding to a lot of the assertions made by homosexual advocates that Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality, which is rather interesting.

But anyways, one of the things I mentioned was that—one of the things that struck me is in Sunday school yesterday morning,

I also addressed the issue of homosexuality. I broke the group up into three groups.

I had one group address it from the Old Testament, one group from the New Testament, one group from our Confession of Faith, and then I played the devil's advocate and I just shot down everything they said.

And I immediately could tell from some of the comments, this was something that a lot of people were very interested in because they're—not only do we have people involved in the educational system in our church, but what they were saying was a lot of their young people are facing this at younger and younger ages, including one woman who said that at her daughter's junior high school, there is a homosexual couple amongst the students.

Not amongst the leaders, amongst the students at a junior high school. And so that's why

I went with it Sunday evening, and that young lady even said to me, thank you very much for this because that's what

I'm dealing with in school. And certainly makes me ponder an entire series on all of the relevant texts in the

Bible on the subject. It's been years since I addressed it. I have addressed it in the past, but it was a decade ago. I started thinking about it, and this young lady would have been about four at that time and wouldn't have been there anyways.

So, this is all around us, folks. We can't avoid it. It's not enjoyable to think about, but because we don't think about it, we are rarely practiced in giving a meaningful response.

I mean, it wasn't difficult for me to sidetrack almost all the people who spoke for their various groups, simply because I asked the entire group if anyone had heard the statements of Steve Simon, the

Minnesota representative, about how many gay people does God have to make before we get the idea that God wants gay people around.

Nobody, nobody in my church had heard that. No one, zero. We don't focus upon that stuff.

We don't really think about that stuff very much. And that's why we experience these things.

And so, as I mentioned on the last program, I wish to listen to some more of the debate that took place between Michael Brown and Dr.

Smaugh. We're finally going to hear Dr. Smaugh here in a moment, because on Thursday of this week, on the 12th of May, I will be joined by Michael Brown, and we'll be talking about his new book,

A Queer Thing Happened to America. And I really hope you'll be listening in as we discuss that particular issue.

But I wanted to pick up where we left off in Michael Brown's rebuttal comments, and then listen to the cross -examination, and then we'll get to your calls a little bit later in the program.

We will be codified by... Well, it would help, once again, if we actually plugged it in.

Here we go. ...law as bigots. And already in school systems in America, there are parents who said, like in Massachusetts, when these things are taught in school, homosexuality, these other things taught in school, we want to pull our first grader out, our kindergartner out.

The school said, no, because it's legal in our state. And the Court of Appeals held it up and said it is more important in the schools to teach, quote, diversity than to honor the requests of the children.

You know, there are major corporations that give megabucks, massive amounts of money, half a million dollars at a shot to gay rights organizations, and they have every right to do that.

What they do with their money, who they support, that's their prerogative. You have Chick -fil -A gives a small donation to one organization that stands against same -sex marriage.

There are campuses in America now trying to get them banned. Incredible intolerance.

And this is while most of America, in terms of states that have voted, are still saying, we uphold historic marriage.

So I still await from my esteemed colleague some answer as to what the meaning of marriage is and why it should be redefined, why the government has any interest in sanctions.

Now, notice, Michael well knows the importance of this. He has put the responsibility where it needs to be.

That is, why should marriage be redefined? Because they won't do that. They want to say this is a gay marriage ban, as if gay marriage is the default, and you're trying to take away someone's rights rather than the reality to anyone has any historical sense whatsoever, any logical sense whatsoever.

This is a massive redefinition of what marriage is. Notice, Michael's a good debater, as we all saw when he and I debated on the program here.

And that's the exact approach that needs to be taken. The romantic and sexual relations that its private citizens have, unless it is marriage,

I'd love to hear, is there a difference between male and female or the genders just blurred? Do they matter?

I would love to hear if you can hold to marriage as a union of a man and woman without being branded an intolerant bigot.

I'm quite sure my esteemed colleague would never say those words of me or others in this position, but I would love to hear that publicly renounced because it makes dialogue all but impossible.

With that, I await with interest Dr. Small's comments. Thank you very much,

Dr. Brown. And reintroducing Dr. Eric Small for a response. It's getting quite hot in here.

Dr. Brown is letting out a lot of hot air. So I will respond to some of the things that he said in his preliminary remarks about me.

He said, first, he said. Now, let me just remind you of something. Dr. Small is a professor of law, but I want you to listen.

If you listened, and I know we started in the middle of things, but if you listened last time, you heard what Michael was saying.

His arguments were very clear, very understandable. But the number of non sequiturs, illogical conclusions, just just shallow thinking that will flow from Dr.

Small's mouth are absolutely amazing to me. It is amazing to me that this man is teaching in light of his performance in this situation.

It was unbelievable. But this is what the world finds to be. Well, anyway,

I gave him a rebuttal and then he said I didn't rebut him at the end of his speech. Dr.

Brown, I will point that out to you as a contradiction. There's a little logic for you. And that's a little arrogant statement and a completely errant one.

What Michael had said was that Dr. Small's opening statement was not a positive statement.

It was a rebuttal of Michael's opening statement. And that was the form that it took.

He was trying to argue, but then he later said he did not actually engage his argument. So anyone thinking clearly who can understand categories and classifications, things like that knows exactly what

Michael was saying. Dr. Small does not understand what Michael was saying, but because he's not listening very well, then rather arrogantly says, here's the logic for you.

When in point of fact, it's Dr. Small has completely missed what Michael was saying.

He was complaining that he had not given an opening statement. He had gone straight to the rebuttals, but that he had actually, in fact, had failed to provide a meaningful rebuttal to the position that Michael had laid out in his opening statement.

And I'll continue since I'm in my rebuttal stage, showing you the logical flaws in his arguments. I'll answer some of the questions that he asked.

He wanted to know whether or not gender matters. I'll talk about whether or not gender matters.

He said that I didn't really respond to his history lesson. This wasn't about history. He didn't really give a history lesson.

Okay, so I'll respond to your history lesson, even if you don't want to acknowledge it as a history lesson. And then he said people called him names in the past.

Dr. Brown, you will note that none of the times that we interacted have I ever called your name.

So I don't pretend to speak for those people who called him names. And, of course, that wasn't

Michael's point. He wasn't saying you've called me names. He was saying that those on the other side are seeking to limit dialogue, to limit conversation.

That was his point right toward the end. And that was, look, these individuals want to take away my freedom of speech.

They want to use terms like bigotry and things like that. That's just all there is to it. So, again, he is completely,

I don't know if he just wasn't bothering to listen, has a trouble understanding the arguments being presented.

I don't know. But that was one of the reasons why this was one of the most lopsided debates ever heard. Dr. Brown did an excellent job in his presentation.

And his opponent just simply, like Peter Stravinskis, did not seem capable of formulating meaningful responses to the position of the person he was actually debating.

Of course, people would have called him names. People have called me names. In fact, I published in the

Orlando Sentinel on this very issue. I got a flood of emails from people on the opposite side of this issue, many of whom called me names.

In fact, one person said, and why we have academic protections or academic free speech and tenure in colleges, because one person said,

Dr. Small doesn't even deserve to be a college professor simply because of a position that I hold.

Now, Dr. Brown told you he was married. So I'll tell you that I'm not married. Dr. Brown told you he was straight,

I believe. So I'll tell you that I'm straight. But I'll tell you why I'm doing this and why I talk about this. But I'll do those things later.

I just wanted to mention that Dr. Brown and I are both, I think, and the only reason why

I say I think is because Dr. Brown and I were in the restroom. And he said, oh, Dr. Small, you're dressed so nicely.

And I said, Dr. Brown, this is not the place for a come on. And then he mentioned again how nicely dressed

I am. So Dr. Brown, that's. Now, remember, this is in a university setting.

His students are sitting in front of him. As I recall, he wasn't even wearing a jacket. I think he's wearing braces, suspenders over here in the

United States, braces for our European and English listeners. And it's high, as I recall.

And I really, really felt that Small's behavior in this entire debate was just absolutely childish, just so far below any type of professional standard of behavior that it was amazing.

And I wonder how much of the fact that he was on home turf with his own students in front of him who you could tell from some of the things

Michael will say were actually participating. Some of the things you're going to hear are very sad, especially when

Michael addresses the roles of men and women. This next generation, folks, they will be in charge in a matter of years.

And the battle has been lost right there. Unless God brings a third great awakening type change to this nation, our values are gone, are gone.

They're just gone. Well, we'll hear a little joke. Calm down.

Calm down. Calm down, Dr. Brown. Yes, I'll marry you. I'll marry you.

OK, all right. So that's a joke. And the only reason why I can joke like this is because I'm comfortable with my sexuality.

I'm straight. And I think Dr. Brown is straight. And I believe that he's comfortable with his sexuality, even if he is red right now.

So let's talk about some things here. In response to what

Dr. Brown said, this history lesson, marriage has been the same way throughout history. So what is the justification for change in marriage?

And what I'll say to Dr. Brown is this. If all you have is history as your justification for not changing an institution, then you don't have very much.

And the reason why I point that out is because we had many institutions in this country and in others for long periods of time.

And there was a point at which we came in our society that we decided that those institutions, although they were around for a long time, needed to be changed.

And of course, slavery is an example of that. Slavery was around before America was even around.

No. And we decided at some point that history in and of itself, it's not a justification for keeping the institution the way that it is.

And so, Dr. Brown, I will say to you, all you've done is given us a history lesson, but you haven't given us a justification for keeping the institution the way that it is.

Actually, he had. He had very clearly in his opening statement. Dr. Small's opening statement was much shorter.

And basically, his whole position was, well, since everyone's citizens, the same thing, they need to have the same rights because they have the same burdens.

And therefore, they have the right to all these things. And he just completely ignored the entire justification of what the relevance of marriage to a society is and the fact that society receives a benefit from marriage.

And that is new citizens, responsible procreation. The creation of the family unit and the raising of children.

And obviously, if you adopt a perspective on society where children now belong to the society and the society can do with them as they wish, and that is what people are now thinking.

You know, it takes a village to raise a child. No, it takes a family to raise a child. And once you adopt that change, then then all bets are off.

And it becomes really a frightening thing to consider where society is going as it goes down this path.

And I gave you a justification for changing the institution. In fact, you agreed with it. You said, sure, same sex couples or gay people participate in society, but we are not treating them unequally when we don't let them participate in the benefits of societies.

Dr. Brown, I'll point out to you, that's the very definition of treating people unequally because African -Americans participated in society and we didn't let them enjoy the benefits equally.

So does sexuality matter? Does gender matter? The answer to that is this.

Look, Dr. Brown and talking to you about gender gave you a lot of statistics and he gave you a lot of facts about what people have said.

Now, listen, this is what you're about to hear is one of the classic examples, in my experience, of utter failure as a scholar in a debate when the other guy has all the facts, he's done all the research and you've done nothing.

And I've been in this I've been in this boat where I had researched everything the other guy said.

I had all of his quotes. He hadn't even looked me up on the Internet or anything else, hadn't read anything

I had said, but they still, for some reason, decide to debate.

Amazing thing. Here's a perfect example of a complete scholarly debate faceplant is what you're going to listen to here.

Here's how you explain away the fact that you you will not even deign to cite sources in support of your position against the other guy because it just would confuse things, which is a nice way of saying

I can't compete with that, but I'm not even going to try. He said that these things are the facts is the way he put it.

There's a problem here, Dr. Brown. It seems to me that either you are dishonest or your research is not astute.

First, I don't think that you're dishonest because I talk to you and you strike me as a very honest person.

Also, don't think that you're uncaring because I've talked to you and you strike me as a very caring person.

I do have to question your research, though, because five minutes on the Internet will reveal to any of us that there is research on Dr.

Brown's side that says the things that he wants that research to say. And five more minutes on the

Internet will reveal to you that there is research on the side that I am articulating.

And, you know, I just could not help. I've listened to this twice. I listened to it again on a quick ride this morning just to refresh my mind on it.

And I just could not help but think of my daughter's college professor as she was a freshman when she challenged him.

And his only response was, well, look it up on Google. I mean, that's that's the kind of scholarship the left has these days.

Look it up on Google. Spend five minutes on the Internet. There you go. That's all you need. Indeed, I did this for the purposes of determining if I could find contradictory or very complex research.

And I did. And I did. And so what I'll do instead of telling you the research shows that as Dr.

Brown did show, the research shows that these are the facts. I'll offer you an explanation of the complexities of the research.

Because both of us can present research for our sides. When it comes to gender, when it comes to raising children, when it comes to being born gay and innate ideas and all of those things that Dr.

Brown talked about, put them in the research category. And what we find is that there is research on both sides.

And the reason why is because the conditions for raising a child properly are multivariate and they're multifaceted.

And the people who are being raised themselves are multivariate. That is, there's no blueprint for raising a child.

Certainly, the people who have children know this. Of course, there's no blueprint for having a successful marriage.

Those of you who are married also know this. So what we need instead of presenting the information as if there are only facts on one side and not facts on the other, or as if the research is all pro

Dr. Brown and anti -Dr. Small, because we could get into a pro, nay, back and forth.

He'd say yes. I'd say no. He'd say yes. I'd say no. At this point, you know, an example would help.

I mean, how much time has now been spent in just making an excuse here and throwing this out and not even beginning to address anything that Michael Brown has said?

That's why I said this was massively lopsided. And then he might say my research is flawed and I'll say that his research is flawed.

And we do that for the next 30 minutes. And you leave here thinking that conversation went nowhere.

So instead of doing that to you, what I'll do is point out that because raising children, having a successful marriage and all of those things are very complex and idiosyncratic to the people who are being raised or the people who are in the marriage.

What we need when we're talking about doing this properly is to provide children and those people with the necessities of life, education, a safe, loving home environment, and so on etc.

And in addition to that, who gets to define what a safe, loving home environment is? What is a loving home environment?

What is that? Is that two men? Is that three men? Two women?

Three women? Four women? Is it two men with six women? What is it? And how do you determine it?

And there would be people who would argue for all of those. So how do you determine that?

That's a question that I don't think Dr. Small is really going to be answering. What we need are parents who are responsive to the needs of their particular children.

Same -sex couples and opposite -sex couples can do both of those things. So same -sex couples and opposite -sex couples can do those things.

They can respond to the needs of their children. So you can purposefully, purposefully, with malice aforethought, make sure that a child never has a father figure or a mother figure.

And yet that's perfectly fair. That's just fine.

That's not unnatural. That's something that's okay. And yet they can still meet the needs.

See, there's a vast difference between purposefully making sure someone will never have one of those two, either a father or a mother.

Or, and I'm sorry, the situation where tragedy takes away one of those.

And anyone who has lost a parent as a young person knows the impact that has upon them.

And we don't consider that to be a good thing, but we don't do it purposefully. And yet that's exactly what, quote -unquote, gay marriage, which is a profanation of actual marriage, actually does.

He talked a lot about procreation. I know a lot of gay people with children, so they obviously can procreate.

And certainly... Did you catch that? Did you catch that? This is one of the most amazing things. This man could actually stand in front of an audience and tell them that gay couples can procreate.

And Michael just kept hammering away, just, um, no, they can't. It takes a third.

There has to be a third one out there. If it's two guys, they need the egg. And if it's two gals, they need the spray.

You can't, it doesn't work that way. You have to have expensive situations to even use in vitro fertilization.

And it still takes the stuff of somebody else. And even if that changed, it wouldn't change the fact that they cannot procreate.

I mean, it's so obvious. And yet this guy is going to go through this entire debate. Well, of course I can. Well, of course

I can. And you're just left going, do you drive a car? I mean, it just leaves you utterly dumbfounded at the ivory tower disconnection from simple common sense and morality that is bred by the academy.

And here you've got an awesome example of it. They can procreate through the alternative means of procreation, like in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood.

So if all your claim, Dr. Brown, for the grounds of being married is simply procreation, gay people are already doing it because I know many with kids.

And certainly there are alternative methods to reach those ends. Thank you. All right.

And thank you, Dr. Small, for your responses. At this point, we're going to shift gears a little bit and move into a question and answer period.

And the way this is going to work is for first, Dr. Brown will have the opportunity to ask Dr. Small questions for six minutes.

Then we'll switch and Dr. Small will be able to ask Dr. Brown questions. While this process is going on, we want you to formulate questions for both of the speakers.

If you have a question, please raise your hand. An attendant will bring you a note card and a writing utensil.

Write down your question directed at one, not both, but one of the speakers. Those questions will be brought to me.

And then after this question period, I will field those questions or direct them towards the speakers.

With that, I'd like to turn the floor over to Dr. Brown once more to ask questions of Dr.

Brown. All right. Thank you, sir. Just for the record, I forgive you for the hot air comment.

All right. What is the importance of the number two when it comes to marriage?

Why two if marriage is not the union of a man and a woman? Now, that is an excellent question.

Why two? What what is the what is the if it if it isn't reflective of male and female, then what why why two?

Now, for some reason, Sma had said in his opening that he is not going to talk about polygamy.

He's not going to talk about incest. He's not going to talk about pederasty. He's not going to talk about any of these things.

And Dr. Brown keeps saying, well, why not? The the proponents of these positions are using the exact same argumentation that homosexual proponents are using for theirs.

So you can't just simply dodge these things. But he claims that he told the organizers he would not talk about such things.

And so he did the right thing by not doing so. I don't think this man is capable of providing a meaningful response to those issues.

He claims that he can, but he refused to do so during the entire debate. It'll be very frustrating. And just another reason why he lost just so horrifically.

OK, maybe I should walk in, but he said, what's the question is, what's the importance of the number two?

Again, I suspect this is the polygamy claim. I'm just asking a simple question.

Why do we define marriage before we even get anywhere else? Why do we define marriage as two people, if not for the obvious, a man and woman coming together for responsible procreation?

So this, I think, is the polygamy claim. Again, I told the people who organized this that I wouldn't get.

But I'm going to tell you something about the question in a second. But I told the people who organized this that I wouldn't get off into conversations about those things.

They asked me not to. So I'm not going to. But what I will say about this polygamy claim is that it results in what's called a red herring fallacy.

Excuse me. It's not a polygamy claim. I didn't ask that question. I'm not asking a word about polygamy. I didn't say it. I'm not thinking it.

I simply asked you, why is marriage defined as two people? Because I have constantly, from beginning to end of my presentation, have given justification for marriage.

Although you say I haven't. I've given it perpetually. And everyone here can recognize that. So the question is, why do we define marriage as the union of two people, if it's not male and female?

Great. Okay. He's asking, why do we define marriage as a union of two people without any other claims behind it?

The easy answer to that is we've simply defined marriage that way. And the question about other things have not yet come up.

If it does, I'll be happy to debate you when it does come up. Oh, okay. So there's no reason why it's two. It could theoretically just as well be three or four.

Theoretically. Theoretically. Sure. Okay. There you go. There you go. Boom. No, we've just defined it as two.

Just because. Just because. There's. Yeah. Why not one? There is the essence of the mindset of the modern scholar.

Because I couldn't get away with that in first grade.

That wasn't the kind. Jimmy, why does two plus two equal four? Because I mean, come on.

And yet there are people sitting there going, oh, the wisdom. Oh, you're just left going. Wow.

Amazing. Thank you. That answers my question wonderfully. All right. As far as society is concerned, is there any difference between same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage?

Okay. I can't speak for all society because I suspect that what different people, different people in society will have different positions on this.

So you wanted to know whether or not as far as society is concerned, their differences. Well, I can't speak for all society and to the question of whether or not they'll think differently.

The answer to that is obviously yes. How do we know? Because it's reflected in what you mentioned in your information.

There are some states that allow it. There are some states that don't allow it. There are some states that are made up civil unions and so on and et cetera.

So I'm not altogether sure that there is a society position. Okay. Does same sex marriage confer the same benefits on society that heterosexual marriage does?

Sure. Now, did you catch that? Same sex marriage confers the same benefits on society that heterosexual marriage does.

So two guys who can't have kids will confer the same benefits upon society that a man and a woman does in having children, providing new citizens, providing a home.

That's what he just said. Has, did he even think about it before he said yes?

I doubt it. Can he even hear what Michael Brown is saying to him? Doesn't seem so. So the fact that the only possible way that two gay people can bring new life into the world is through expensive procedures that many can't afford, and it will never be their actual offspring.

It'll be the offspring of that person, another person. It conveys the exact same responsible procreation as something that gays and lesbians can engage in.

Okay. So let's answer your question. The question was, the question was, can same sex marriages bestow the same benefits on the world?

And what he told us was a benefit of the world is the production of children. So the answer to that is yes.

You might have a particular version or particular view of that, which is different from the other's view of it, but certainly they can produce children.

As I mentioned before, they already have, and there are multiple ways in which they can do it. And there's a benefit of the world to the world is the production of a child.

And the way that you said it is the answer to that would be yes. Right. Actually, those two people together cannot produce a child.

They need a third. So a homosexual couple cannot produce a child without a third party. Do you agree with the statement?

I mean, how, how can you, how can simple common sense be so completely jettisoned?

It takes years of training to drive simple common sense out of mind.

It really does. And I, I should have the right to marry the person

I love. Sure. Sure. Did you catch that? Would you agree with the statement?

I should have the right to marry the person that I love. And he said, sure. Okay. So do you put any boundaries on that statement?

Maybe I would. Yeah. Where are you going with this? Answer me a question. So the brother and sister in Germany that were separated from birth with incest.

This is an issue, sir. Don't listen. You made a cat set. Michael's bringing up a perfectly valid point.

And that is, look, uh, if you're saying that these citizens, these same sex citizens have the right to marry, why not a brother and a sister?

Why not a mother and, and a son? Or a mother and a daughter. I mean, all of these exist out there today.

Folks, it's disgusting as it is, they all exist. And so if they're all paying their taxes, then given his own position, what's wrong?

What's wrong? He won't even touch it. All he can do is mock it because he can't hear it.

It's just the, the, the people on that side of the aisle in that realm of the academy cannot even hear the objections, their position, their minds just, just turn off.

There's no rational thought going on here. You sexual comments already. And that's the reason I was read was

I was embarrassed that in a university debate, you were doing that. That's, that's why. Okay. Oh, come on, Dr. Brown, have a heart here.

You remember the organizers said to us that there was something, at least to me. Not to me. Okay. So these are, these are questions that, that must be addressed because they're, they're in the court, sir.

There, there are attorneys in Germany that have used the precedent of same -sex marriage to say, why can't a brother and sister or, or Lawrence v.

Texas, the right to privacy. So should there be consensual laws against consensual adult incest?

And is that the government's business? Sure. Okay. So the question about Lawrence v. Texas, I will remind you was not about incest.

Which is irrelevant on any law. I'm not an attorney and I can tell,

I can think far more logically than this man can. Oh, that wasn't about incest. But people are using the precedent in that particular

Supreme Court case to overthrow laws against polygamy, laws against incest.

The whole point is the foundation. He can't see how things relate to one another. It's absolutely amazing.

And secondly, the claim about what's going on in Germany, I suspect there are things like this going on in Germany. I don't know.

But if these are questions that must be answered, then I think we should organize a debate around these questions.

Let's have a debate where I can do another five minutes on the internet. It's not that I'm afraid of answering any of these questions.

It's that I promised certain people that I wouldn't get into it. And so I won't. Well, that's, that's perfectly fine.

But I think, again, the non -answer is the answer. Last question then is this, is it fair to a child to guarantee that he will either never have a father or never have a mother?

Is it fair to a child? Excellent question. Already brought it up. This is what gay marriage, adoption of children by gay couples, et cetera, et cetera.

This is what it's all about. And especially in the context of what he's saying here, not just adoption of maybe a child who has no father or mother, but here, quote unquote, procreation in these unnatural ways, which isn't procreation at all.

Somebody else procreating and then you just taking the child. But is that fair?

Is the question that he has asked. Okay. Is it fair? Let me ask this back to you.

Are you asking a legal question or a moral question? Are you asking a legal question or a moral question?

Folks, when the law and morality live on two different planets, the law no longer has any meaningful force.

And no longer has any meaningful force. Moral question. Okay. Speaking, different people have different claims.

So some people will think, sure, it's fair. Other people think, no, it's not fair. That's the answer to your question on the moral claim.

Some people say yes, and some people say no. Tomato, tomato, potato, potato. Hey, you know, it just doesn't really matter.

If you were asking a legal claim, I would answer that in a different way. And in fact, I thought you were going to go with a legal claim since we both started off saying that this is a question about law.

Well, we said this is a question about government recognition of things. And morals are part of that. Okay. We turn, switch tables.

Okay. Sorry. As the speakers are switching, would the attendant bring me the questions that have been submitted so that I may review them?

If you have a question, please hold it up so we can get all the last minute ones in. And I'll allow

Dr. Small to begin questioning Dr. Brown. Okay.

Okay, Dr. Brown, I'll raise this question for you. I said before that I questioned whether or not your research was astute.

So I want to know why you did not point out in all the research that you did point out that there is research on both sides of this issue, and there's research supporting my position and research supporting yours.

The answer is simple, because the overwhelming research is supporting my position, which is why I hold that position.

Now, I didn't spend five minutes on the internet. I spent six years researching for a book with over 1 ,500 end notes and dove into it from every possible angle

I could. And I could give you scholar after scholar after scholar who are gay activists who will agree with this.

So that's why I quoted primarily gay activists and leaders in the midst of this. So the scholarship is overwhelming.

The studies are overwhelming in one direction. And that's one reason why I hold to it. If the studies were overwhelmingly in the other direction, that would challenge me to the core in terms of certain of the things

I said. But I said it what I did because it is the representative best scholarship. I told you he'd say something like that.

Dr. Brown. For good reason. Yeah, because it's the truth. Now, sir, let me introduce you to basic scholarship 101.

If you disagree, disprove it. Wow. I just didn't have words for some of this.

I could not believe the behavior of this man who is a gay.

Okay. Dr. Brown, besides the history lesson and besides the straightforward claim that marriage is something which is a part of history lesson, could you give us another justification for keeping marriage the way that it is?

Well, continuing to repeat that I gave a history lesson versus a justification is misleading.

And the good thing is everything's videotaped and audio. So folks can listen through it again. What I said is there is a reason for marriage and there is a reason that the government recognizes marriage.

And it is because it conveys benefits on the state, in particular, joining a man and woman together in that unique union.

That has the potential between the two of them of responsible procreation. And it brings the two opposites together, male, female.

It brings an environment where the woman can be protected by the man during pregnancy, where the woman can have a tempering effect on the man.

One of my colleagues pointed out that you don't have too many married men running around in gangs.

You do not have too many married men running around in gangs because there's a tempering effect of marriage, the male, female union.

So male plus female produces a beautiful thing called marriage. May I just comment on something?

One of the reasons for that is that when a man falls in love with a woman, all of a sudden he has different priorities.

All of a sudden there is someone else to take care of. There is someone else whose needs are now part of his horizon.

And as I mentioned in the sermon last night, and as was mentioned in our 2001 book, The Same -Sex

Controversy, one of the fundamental perversities of homosexuality is that it involves no longer expressing love for other.

It is only love for self. You fall in love with a mirror image. Instead of someone who is complimentary to you, different from you, but in a way that fulfills you and brings about life, you instead are so selfish, so focused upon your own desires.

See, there are people who experience same -sex desires just as there are people who experience, have a propensity toward overeating, or toward anger, or toward arrogance, or toward adultery, or towards all sorts of things.

But you see, what an adult does is you control your desires. That's what adulthood is about.

That's what growing up is about, is learning through discipline to control your desires.

Homosexuality is an abject giving into pure selfishness, so that you end up loving a mirror image, not a complimentary image, but a mirror image of yourself.

Instead of the change that would be required, the maturity that would be required for you to love the other, the complimentary other, you insist on the right to love the mirror image.

It is abject selfishness, and that's why it results in abject child abuse when you bring children into that situation.

How long will we be able to even say this? I do not know, because the forces are very strong to identify even the expression of this logical, biblical, meaningful opinion as hate speech.

If you said it on the streets of London around certain police officers, you'd find yourself in jail.

They may dismiss the charges, but you'd find yourself in jail. We've already seen that happen. If you're an academic, you express this even outside the realm of your academic work, and you will be fired at the large majority of American universities.

It's a fact, and we'll talk about that with Dr. Brown on Thursday. You can then produce offspring and the next generation, male plus male, female plus female.

Can't, that's not a history lesson, that's justification based on reality. Okay, and does your reality include science?

And I suggest that you mean I am tempered. No, if you were tempered, you wouldn't have made that comment.

So no, I would be more tempered, meaning that I am tempered, and I'll be more. Okay, to be exactly precise, this is the first point you scored on.

Exactly right. You would be more tempered. I was not precise in that language. Okay, okay, Dr. Brown, great.

Just being fair, man. Okay, all right. And since we're secure in our heterosexuality. Now, at this point, this is where I would say to Michael, look, he has proven himself to be not mature enough to handle any kind of jab, any kind of humor, any kind of reaching across the aisle to try to do.

And I would have said to Michael, this guy has proven himself unreliable and untrustworthy.

Don't go here. But Michael's nicer than I am.

And so, well, here's what happens. You get a hug on the way out, all right? Okay, you get a hug on the way out.

Okay, he's just trying to be, you know, listen to what Sma does with this. I told you he was attracted to me, didn't

I? Don't be trying to fill me up, Dr. Brown. Rubbing all on me during a hugging session.

Okay, so if you raise this question, like what would happen? You just, you just, you got to understand where these people are coming from.

And that was the only thing where I would have said, Michael, don't go there, don't, don't, don't be, oh, too late.

And you had a lot of questions like what would happen if, what would happen if, what would happen if. I'd like you for you to answer that question.

What would happen if we allowed marriage equality? If you call it marriage equality, then it has to be across the board.

So the polyamorous would have to have special recognition. The polygamous would have to have special recognition.

The incestuous relationships would have to. And again, this is being reported, mainstream media talking about it.

It's, you even watch the TV shows that are putting this forward. It's like the next wave of what's to come. It would also mean that you have a lot more kids growing up with, with gender identity confusion.

That you have a lot more kids who don't really understand the role of a man, the role of a woman, how a mother and father relate and interact.

So the best studies, and this is widely known in the gay community, the best studies of kids raised in same -sex households, those that have been statistically accurate, that have, that have been rigorous enough.

Those studies have said many of these kids are, they're, they're well adjusted. They do well in school. They do fine in other areas of society.

But they have a much higher percentage of gender confusion. They have a much higher percentage of pushing sexual bounds.

And they have a much higher percentage themselves of say, say a boy being raised by two mothers being feminized, a girl being raised by two mothers being masculinized.

This is in studies. The reason it wasn't pointed out was gay activists said, we thought this was a plus, not a minus. So you have a lot of societal changes and the restriction of religious freedoms and rights would come on the heels of it without question.

Okay. Could you tell me what the role of the man and woman is? Now, listen to this folks, folks of, of this, you know, the debater in me was sitting here, just amazed at this, at Sma's behavior.

Okay. But here you hear Michael clearly reflecting, and this is actually a video

I downloaded. The reason there has been these pauses because these are like 10 parts video.

And I used this one program. I have this great program called Wondershare video converter. You just throw them, you download them from, from YouTube.

You throw them all in to Wondershare, say, make one, one MP3 out of it and boom. But there were, there were, you know, obviously some pauses between the things.

So I didn't watch the video. I listened, I've listened to it twice. And you can just tell that Michael is interacting with the students that are right there.

Cause this has been a lecture room. So they're very, they're close enough. What I'm hearing him saying about the reaction of Sma's students primarily, just honestly, if, if, if, if I didn't trust in the grace of God and I didn't believe in the sovereignty of God to change hearts and minds,

I would have no hope for this country at all in light of these young people.

And I've none. It's that bad. Listen, listen to this. He's asking about the role of men and women.

Cause I seen, yeah. So tell us about the role. Yeah. The thing that's unfortunate is that that draws applause as, as if the kids that are here could say, there's no difference between my mom and my dad, that they're exactly the same.

And that one is dispensable. Listen to that. Listen to that. There's no difference between my mom and my dad.

One of the others, indispensable, inhuman. Inhuman.

These poor people have had their humanity absolutely torn out of them by a godless educational system.

What else can you call it? What else can you call that? I, I, I.

Can I point out a confusion? You said that there is no difference between men and women, but I didn't ask you if there was a difference.

I asked about the role. I understand that. And by role, we're talking about differences. And what was unfortunate was the, was the applause to that as if there are no different roles.

Of course we understand. Same word, different roles here, the same concept. So there are roles that are only a woman can get pregnant.

There, there is a, is that laughable? That only a woman can get pregnant? Is that a laughable comment?

No, what's laughable is that you called it a role. See, what's the role of the woman? How about having babies?

That's a role. Being able to produce it. That is a role. I mean, the thing that's unfortunate is that we even have to have this discussion.

This is where it goes. This is the answer to your last question. It breaks down gender roles. The second.

Gender distinctions. There is, there is a role that, that a man has in a marriage that is a protection that there are a lot of predatory other men that woman that has,

I was looking forward to a serious, I was, I was honestly looking forward to a serious academic debate, not, not to hot air comments and laughing at serious statements.

I think honestly, no insult intended. It degrades your position when you do that.

It may score a few points with a few folks, but to others, it degrades the seriousness of your position. If I can be utterly candid.

Okay, go ahead and finish Dr. Brown, please. So clearly small was, was just grandstanding by this point, which that's all

I had left. I mean, you, you couldn't have been more humiliated on a scholarly or academic level than this.

So I guess it's all he had left. And, you know, I've been in this position. I've been in, in Michael's shoes at this point.

And it's just an amazing thing to observe the, the behavior of others. Yeah. So, so the, the role of the role of a man is, is ultimately, especially during times of pregnancy and childbirth and caring for babies that only a mother can do of protection of, of, of providing that the role of a woman is going to be to, to have a tempering effect and domesticating effect on the husband.

This is very common in relationships. By the way, a handshake will be fine.

All right. As you can see, debates can become contentious.

We will try our best to keep the peace and heighten the intellectual involvement of today's activities as we move into the next realm, which is probably the most important that is fielding your questions.

So I'll start with a question for Dr. Brown. The questioner writes, since you believe the sole purpose of marriage is for procreation, should the government ban heterosexual couples from marriage if they do not wish to bear children?

No, because you're not changing the fundamental institution and they are not obligated to.

The fact is homosexual couples cannot possibly reproduce. So the only reason the government gets involved with this as a whole is because of the general rule.

For example, you may be able to drive a hundred miles an hour, but you have speed limits so that everyone has to drive in a responsible way.

So the same way, couples that get married also don't know what's going to happen. It could be years and years and they change their views.

So only heterosexuals have the possibility of responsible procreation and can confer certain benefits on society, which is the only reason the government has any involvement.

The government has no obligation to confer marriage rights and benefits on every two people that want to have a romantic sexual relationship.

That's their own business. Thank you for your response. The next question goes to Dr. Small.

The questioner writes, how do you equate the private act of sodomy with the public act of a marriage when the state has compelling interest in defining marriage, but hardly any interest in private sexual relationships?

Okay. My claim was not an equation of the private act that same sex couples might engage in because I'd point out to you that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who also engage in sodomy.

So that was not an equation. My point was that what we find in America is this question about how do we balance our practices with our principles?

And that question was decided historically in the case of Lawrence v. Texas in favor of our principles.

So that's what my point was about. And the principle in that case was privacy. You need to understand in his opening statement, he made it very clear.

This is one of those folks that original intent is irrelevant to him as far as constitutional law is concerned.

There are enlightenment principles that override the meaning of words.

Original intent doesn't mean anything. You just heard that reflected in what he was saying. Just another minute or so here, and we're going to be out of time.

Thank you. Dr. Brown, the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child.

And in today's society, with divorce rates as high as they are, most children have more than two parents.

How can you condemn the justification of polyamory as a defense against gay marriage when children are being torn apart by divorce?

So what we have is a sickness, and now we're adding to it. And somehow that makes it better. If we agree that it's wrong for kids to be torn away from their parents, if we agree it is wrong to separate a kid from mother and father, and the ideal situation is for that kid to be attached to mother and father, why in the world, if we all agree that's wrong, the rampant divorce, we all agree it's wrong, why in the world would we create an institution that guarantees every child it brings into the world will always be separated from either mother or father?

God forbid we take a bad situation and make it even worse. Very simple answer. Excellent way to end, especially in light of the fact that on Thursday afternoon at our regular time here on The Dividing Line, that gentleman right there,

Dr. Michael Brown, will be my guest on The Dividing Line. We'll be discussing his book, which came out in February, called

A Queer Thing Happened to America. I think it's around 700 pages in length, and it did not take five minutes on the internet for him to write that or to research it.

So he'll be joining me on Thursday. I hope you'll be with us. Important information, important discussions.

Difficult, I recognize. Not the favorite subject to talk about, but important nonetheless, because this is impacting every single one of us.

None of us lives on island. This is all around us. Lord, have mercy on Western society.

Bring revival, we pray. We'll see you on Thursday. God bless. I'm your whisperer.

I'm your whisperer. I stand up for the truth.

Won't you live for the Lord? Because we're pounding on, pounding on.

I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer.

I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer.

I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer.

I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer. I'm your whisperer.