A Retrospective on the Same Sex Marriage Debate

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. The following is a prerecorded program. Today we go back to 2011 when I debated a college professor on campus.

On the question of same-sex marriage should be legal stage for the line of fire with your host activist. All international speaker and theologian Dr. Michael Brown your voice of moral cultural and spiritual revolution Michael Brown was the director of the coalition of conscience and president of fire school of ministry get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH your Jim is Dr. Michael Brown thanks for joining us friends on the special debate week did this, what a couple months back and people really respond, it will seem to really enjoy these shows were doing was going back to a classic debate from the past and were taking substantial parts of the debate is much as we have time for on radio and playing them without commentary for you to take in. You can watch the full debate by going to Esther to Brown.org and looking in today's description for the show you'll see a link there or if you watch on YouTube.

Ask a DR Brown just look for today's episode.

You'll see this debate linked in the description serve you and listening now missing a podcast. Of course of my radio that's retaken and so this was 2011 my book a queer thing happen to America come out. I asked to do debates on campuses across America. No note that even Christian groups were in touch with. Finally, some folks were able to set this up.

University of Central Florida and the professor came and said all debate and I want to debate the subject, same-sex court marriage should be legal back in 2011. Now my opening comments.

If we think for a moment of 31 states have passed laws upholding historic marriage for states have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage. California is presently deeply divided over the issue our president to said he won't defend Delma anymore. Defense of marriage act of recent polls indicate that opinion towards same-sex marriage is more favorable than it's ever been before, so this is a debate that we need to have my hope is that Dr. small and I can present things tonight in such a way so as to provide a model for how we can have civil and respectful dialogue in the midst of a volatile issue.

I want to say with this debate is not about it's not about what the Bible says about homosexual practice is not about the separation of church and state is not about whether gays and lesbians can be good citizens with a can of loving relationships whether they can be dedicated parents. It's not about what to more adults do in the privacy of the home or who they choose to live their lives with.

It's not even about gay civil rights, and certainly not about which speaker can push the most emotionally charged buttons or as a sharper dresser. I think I lost that one tonight.

The debate is not about whether I were proponents of historic marriage care about gays and lesbians. Medicare wouldn't be here. I would take every opportunity I can't interact with the LGBT community so they can share their heart and their perspective with North this debate about whether heterosexuals have done a terrible job in recent years with marriage with rampant no-fault divorce and promiscuity, pornography and other problems.

There's no debate about that.

We gonna mess we done many things into a mess, no question about tonight's debate is about the meaning of marriage. Since marriage throughout human history has not been the committee union of two or more people, but rather the committee union of a man and woman for reasons I'm about to explain same-sex marriage should not be legal simply because it is not marriage and there's no compelling reason for the state to change the meaning of the most fundamental of all social institutions not only so, but if if we redefined marriage to be the union of any two people will have no defense against other radical redefinition of marriage in fact such radical redefinition of marriage before four in the courts today in America and abroad. So, to be totally plain.

Of course I understand how volatile this issue is if you're gay or lesbian or gay, lesbian ally for you.

This is the ultimate slap in the face. You can't marry the person you love. This is the ultimate discrimination making into a second-class citizen. This is the ultimate attack on your personhood something the sentiments of the support. I understand for those who are proponents of historic marriage. This is wrestling and messing with the foundations.

This is tampering with the very meaning of family. This is separating the child from either mother or father five. These are highly charged issues again. That's what we need to have this debate in today's society, there are plenty religious institutions that are more than happy to perform same-sex commitments arm and there plenty of gay and lesbian couples who live together for decades all around America. No one here is arguing with that issue tonight. The question is why should the government change the definition of marriage, and that leads to another question. Why should the government even care about marriage. When the world this is a loving romantic relationship have to do with the statement. We understand that that we understand what same-sex marriage is not marriage. The reason the state conveys benefits on marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on the state author Frank Turek asked this for what secular purpose does government recognized traditional marriage traditional marriage promotes public goods that domesticate semantic protects women.

It provides a nurturing environment for children of last week there was testimony before the House of Representatives regarding Defense of marriage act and an expert witness stated this and I quote marriage is the union of husband and wife for reason. These are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father.

This is not necessarily the reason why an individual person marries individual matter.

Individuals marry for 100 private and personal reasons for good reasons and less good reasons the public purpose of marriage is the reason why society creates laws around marriage.

Here the great public purpose of marriage has always been responsible procreation rooted in the need to protect children uniting them with the man and woman who made them. Let's face it, a government license for romantic unions is a strange idea. Adults intimate relationships in our legal tradition are typically nobody else's business.

The more intimate and personal out relationship is the less likely to want to be involved why that is the government involved in marriage. The answer in our society and virtually every known human society is that the society recognizes there is an urgent need to bring together men and women to make and raise the next generation together. Marriage is a private desire that serves an urgent public good marriages are virtually universal human institution.

Every human society has to grapple with three persistent facts about human beings everywhere. Sex makes babies societies need babies. Navies deserve a father as well is among" so can I speak plainly not as a professor electrifies between everything about marriage says male and female, how much we try to get used to it.

There's still something wrong. So something doesn't fit when you talk about her wife or his husband or our marital sermon we say I now pronounce you husband and husband or wife. It was spouse and spouse that I was not impressed at all. In a recent lesbian ceremony where it was bride and groom will be in the new word to substitute for bride and groom together so male plus male female first female can never equal male plus female and to this day. Despite all of our scientific advances in fertility every human being is the product of a male and female, and there is no other way than a lot of press this point. Again were talking about the government redefining the very nature of marriage. And since the government has neither the obligation or the interest to sanction or give special status to every romantic or sexual relationship. What is the compelling reason for the government to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is not to say that it's a matter of equality presupposes that same-sex couples are exactly the same as heterosexual couples, which is clearly not the case. Let's focus now again on the question of the components of marriage.

If marriage is simply the union of two people rather than the union of a man and a woman.

Why should we limit it to just to say with that sticky because some people feel homosexual relationships are icky to do better than just saying it sticky. Please tell me what marriage should be the union of just two people was so magical about the number two if it's not the union of male and female, tell me if you agree with the statement despite an advocate with the Canadian civil liberties Association quote for agree with this consenting adults have the right, the charter protected right to form the families they want to form through that statement while she was arguing for polygamy. Are you willing to fight for marriage equality for polygamists late last year. Columbia University press professor David Epstein was charged with carrying on a three year consensual affair with his adult daughter is attorney Matthew Guzzo commented it's okay for homosexuals to do whatever they want their own home. How is this so different. We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not. Students who were commenting on club University student newspaper websites of this. Why is consensual incest crime.

It might not be appealing to everyone, but if there adults and they can send who cares what they do an interview with the Huffington Post was also question whether quote prosecuting incest was intellectually consistent with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence B. Texas in 2003, and he asserted that what goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated because the bedroom is not the proper domain of the law degree with their allowing scientists to identify what they call GSA genetic sexual attraction where people who are connected by blood that was close relatives may be attracted to each other. Should they have the right to their sexual orientation, incest is a liquid. Polygamy is abusive to women.

Incest can produce handicapped children, but that still doesn't answer why marriage should include such possibilities delete Newsweek said polyamory is the new sexual revolution traditionalist better get used to it you got at least half million families like this in America.

We now introduce that in the schools marriage equality. Gotta be consistent temper the foundations of human society. With the definition of marriage and everything else will be affected now. I'm not sure if Dr. small, argue that Gaia's new black that sexual orientation is a consent of the cancer, skin color, innate and immutable. The justice it was bigoted and wrong to have laws against interracial marriage is bigoted wrong to have laws against same-sex marriage with this argument is emotionally compelling as it may seem to be is hopelessly flawed as Dennis Prager observed there were enormous differences between men and women but there are no fundamental differences between people of different races, men and women are inherently different. The Blacks and whites and yellows and browns are inherently the same.

Therefore any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational. On the other hand, separation bisects can be morally desirable and rational separate bathrooms for men and women as moral and rational separate bathrooms for Blacks and whites is not a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man in Asian and Hispanic men. The same is not true. Sex differences, males and females are inherently different from one another, so should the race analogy be used by my esteemed colleague. I'll address it in much more detail during my rebuttal, so the closed let's let's remember that despite the presence of same-sex attractions at most cultures are many cultures throughout history, and despite the fact that some of these relationships were open and celebrated. No one thought about redefining the nature of marriage because marriage is about bringing two people together. A man and woman for responsible procreation. That is why society and government cares about it and something that is a guaranteed exception to that rule. There is no reason to give it governmental status, recognition, mess with the foundations to tamper with these things to change the meaning of marriage.

So this is not bigotry. This is not hatred.

This is not homophobia is not intolerance. This is about the meaning of marriage. I for one, thank God, institution of marriage. Do not seek fame. Good of our society think I got a jump in interrupt myself. That's a good segment of my opening comments. We come back and turn it over to Prof. Eric small who took the other decision we will file the line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown get into the reminder flyer now by calling 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown superiority to the live audience. 2011 University of Central Florida Pharisee Rufus Eric small's going to argue as to why you believe same-sex marriage should be legal. Remember, this is some years before the Supreme Court sought to redefine marriage with their own decision now.

Prof. small like to thank Dr. Brown for his passionate defense of traditional marriage and introduce Dr. Eric small for his opening statement so that my microphone. Thank you, thank you for that introduction. I sent my things when I first came in that I usually don't put on my glasses.

It seems to me that this is a serious event and I don't want to look like a youth compared to my more seasoned counterparts, so I should put on my glasses.

I want to thank you CF for putting on this event.

Also want to thank all of you for coming out to this event. I want to thank Dr. Michael Brown for his passionate defense of traditional marriage and the reason why I'm thinking all of you this because this is probably one of the most important issues that our country has faced in recent years, and much of Dr. Brown's conversation with a history lesson so I'll put this also in the context of history. Many of the things that Dr. Brown told you, I agree with except that claim that he made about this is not about civil rights will give courses about civil rights because if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then they'll end up with certain rights. So yes, of course, is about civil rights claims that he made about this is not about religion or it's not about morality.

It's not about what he thinks of how he feels are what I think, in particular how I feel.

I agree with all those claims, so I won't have to go through those claims he did make a claim at the end though I thought was a strange claim about homosexuality and a comparison between black people. I'll leave that I'll leave that alone because I want to get into what I'm going to say about what Dr. Brown did say when he got into a conversation about polygamy and the sadness that I guess necrophilia imbues reality and we can throw them all in. I'm not can talk about these things, primarily because I told the organizers of this event that I wouldn't get into those conversations and I want to stick to that. But I will say this, imagine that I am watching TV. Let's say it's 11 o'clock at night and I find that Pres. Barack Obama just signed same-sex marriage into law, and I respond yes now I can marry my sister see you can see there is something wrong with that conclusion.

The reason why it's there something wrong with that conclusion is because it's out of place. That is a conversation about same-sex marriage or conversation about marriage polity should be about same-sex marriage. Marriage equality conversations about polygamy. Obese reality of incest so those things those of other conversations that we might or might not need to have so I'll stick to what the conversation is supposed to be about and that is same-sex marriage. The other thing that Dr. Brown omitted to tell you is that this ought to be a legal conversation. It ought to be a legal conversation. He talked about defining the Institute redefining the institution of marriage we didn't tell you anything about law, so let me tell you some things about law at the beginning of the country. The founding of the country. One of the things are probably what was the most contentious issue was that of slavery. No, I won't go into the analogy that he talked about but I will tell you this is a way of continuing that conversation with the founders did Bates took what we established as the U.S. Constitution and put provisions for slavery and it in fact I was just talking to the debate team last night and I show them places in the U.S. Constitution where there are provisions for slavery and I won't go through those now because I'm sure you all know this, but what they also did and this was the genius of America. What they also did is infused into the American creed principles. Enlightenment principles of justice.

Those principles include things that you don't see in black letter law, but you often hear courts talk about like privacy or equality or freedom or liberty, or choice. So what that means is America was caught in the position of struggling between its practices of things like slavery and its Enlightenment principles of things like freedom and equality, choice, privacy, and so on. And that force the conversation about slavery to continuously, eventually you know the story thought out to go into what happened in the story, but I'll point out that this is a representation of the fact that we've been struggling over time using this conversation, many other times. So for example when it comes to the liberation of women. America was caught in the same struggle between its practices and is principles and with civil rights. America was stuck in the same struggle between its practices and is principles and of course, here we are again in the same struggle. So the question of what if you been watching over the last 30 years is simply that struggle were trying to figure out what is the proper organization of the state given the Enlightenment principles that we've accepted, and so when Dr. Brown tells you that this is a question about the redefinition of marriage. Yeah, that's a secondary issue. More importantly, in foundational, he it's about what kind of democracy will be will we continue to be a liberal representative democracy grounded on Enlightenment principles or will we be something else. So that's the question that you've been watching. That's the question that you can see and unfold the question of Dr. Brown and I will be debating today. Also notice that he mentioned laundry Texas lodgment Texas is particularly important here because a lot of the Texas Sandra Day O'Connor tells us that Bowers read Hartley which was the rule of prohibition against same-sex same-sex engagements or the prohibition against homosexuality. Generally speaking, is undermined by the principal of privacy and in doing that. She answered the question that we've been struggling with, at least with respect to homosexuality. So throughout the South and in many states in the union. Homosexuality was straightforwardly outlawed and certainly engage in homosexual relationships with straightforwardly outlawed and the Supreme Court decided this question for us. Legally speaking, and they answered in terms of our principles mainly in this particular case, the principle of prophecy and I want to point out something else to you with respect to redefinition's think about what happened with Roe V Wade had to principles in conflict with one another, one life.

The second choice we ultimately decided that question in favor one principal name choice and the reason why I'm pointing this out again is because I'm highlighting what the struggle is really about an American okay so that's what it's about.

Now the question that I am tasked with answering is why should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. That's my question to point out to you.

Though the Dr. Brown give you a history lesson tell you specifically about why same-sex couples should not be allowed to give you a history lesson. Now talk about the history lesson response before then. I want to tell you why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in this won't take that long. One thing that institutions do political solutions and legal institutions, social institutions do is distribute the benefits and burdens of society among the citizens in a society so same-sex couples. For example, carry the benefits of the burdens of society.

In the same way that straight people carry burdens of society example some of the burdens of society.

They participate in the military.

They pay their taxes. They are members of public service institution so so for example, they might be in healthcare, education and training they might transportation on sanitation and of course they give to charity. So in these regards. They carried the benefits of society just like the rest of us. If you're wondering why they should be able to participate in the institutions of society that give benefits with the answer to that is because they carried burdens like the rest of so they should be able to participate in those institutions that dispel benefits on us, just like the rest of us and marriage. Of course, is a benefiting in American society there other benefits in American society and of course you know the siding not tell you about. Certainly those of you who are married that once you become married, then you enjoy the benefits of being married. Some of those benefits of tax breaks and no soliciting and the question. The answer to his question then is because they carry a measure of the burdens finish up and anticipate an equal measure of the benefits. Of course, here, having equal regarding the number two straight so that's my answer to the question.

Dr. Brown and me straightforwardly in order to answer this question I need not get into a conversation about homosexuality is black when the events of the stuff I need not talk about religion that simply one answer to the question in many ways to answer. I'm just giving you a benefits analysis, and of course people who been in law school, you've heard that story before about benefits and burdens and distributing the benefits of her sometimes we call them the bundle of rights I noticed the lawyer here, just numbers but that's why. Or that's my answer why this lease. One answer to why so I'll stop here and let the conversation between myself and Dr. Brown movably.

Thank you all for his opening remarks and now reintroduce Mr. Brown for his response. Okay, I do very much appreciate the demeanor and spirit of Dr. small and what he brings in terms of logic and philosophy and law was a bit surprised that the opening comments became somewhat of a rebuttal both as totally contrary to debating seizure, but in any event, what it meant was that we never really got to hear why same-sex marriage should be legal because I give a history lesson. I took that with marriages.

I didn't go through. If I give a history lesson.

I'd still be giving Fred another thousand years because this is the only history of ever had is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman together for the purpose of responsible procreation, so check this out. ABC is not math 2+2 is not spelling their plus male-female placement. Female is a marriage so we haven't had that address and also everything I've said about that remains 100% contact untouched.

The fact that gays participate in society affected marriage to Manor to limit marriage cave run out of time once again we come back going to go to substantial portions of our models right here on the line of fire line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice is more cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown friends to the line of fire broadcast Michael Brown hear your voice sanity and spiritual clarity brings my book a queer thing happened to America came out I saw have debates on college campuses across America and in state after state were told can happen will happen. Even Christian groups and we won't touch this, even though we said will set an example of speaking the truth in love and help build bridges for reaching out. No, no, no, finally, a door opening the University of Central Florida even that was the whole event. We had to have four police present did that we are required by the University.

In any case we go now into portions of rebuttals. First, the then Prof. Eric small on the subject of same-sex marriage should it be legal again. This was the year 2011 in Florida as a heterosexual married for 35 years I get married for tax benefits, and I could care less if I have to pay triple to be very and I could care less if I get inheritance rights I married as a lifelong commitment to my wife and if the government recognizes that that's their benefit and if they don't that's their loss just to say that okay to say this is not about civil rights. It has nothing to do with civil rights. For example if I want to do something that only a woman can do without a civil rights issue. If I want to have a baby. Notwithstanding the so-called pregnant man nonsense, but if I want to have a baby. I can't do that because I am a male. So two men cannot marry because it's not marriage again. There is a read the gender matters. There is a difference between male and female.

The two coming together are different than two men or two women. Those are just facts and again I have to ask the question, since we've had same-sex attraction, same-sex relations throughout history. How come it didn't dawn on people to redefine marriage through those centuries.

The idea but gave me in the new black.

By the way is this not original with me.

That was the front cover of advocate, the most influential gay publication in America asking the question a few years ago comes up constantly that this is the new civil rights issue. I liked his comments from gay journalist Charles Wyckoff.

Newsflash Blacks in America didn't start out as hip-hop fashion designers.

They were slaves, is a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with a same-sex partner of your choice and not being able to drink out of a water fountain eat at a lunch counter.

Use a restroom because you don't have the right skin color. Let's take this further. Aside from the fact that we've emphasized the government has no reason and no obligation to sanction every romantic relationship to give it its blessing. The fact of the matter is you must ask about these other relationships. In point of fact are too small. There are people in Germany there are people in America that are now arguing based on same-sex marriage being legalized laws being passed. They are now shouting wonderful so I can marry my sister wonderful so I can marry my daughter. We have to add it all just open up the dam and let the flood come without asking about the consequences. We must ask these other questions. Otherwise, because these things are presently in the courts do not have the foresight to address them in advance if we are talking about sexual orientation in any way. Being conspirators skin color or a civil right then that would presuppose that sexual orientation is innate and immutable, neither of which are true. We were talking about something without which ultimately male-female unions. None of us would be here were talking about guaranteeing guaranteeing that a child will you have no mother, no father guaranteeing that a child will be separated from father or mother for the rest of their lives only thinking about the child only thinking about ourselves. We do that marriage does not have in mind the next generation were missing something very profound. Ask yourself, we are fighting for in this equation not only sellable, but when we talk about talk about freedoms, equality. I have never in my entire life run into such extraordinary intolerance, bigotry, hatred, the moment I simply say you know I believe man's desire for woman and woman for man. I don't support same-sex marriage. I have been branded Hitler as a Jew on a Jewish follower of Jesus was a Jewish, you need to be branded. Hitler, I've been called Hitler jihadist eye. I can show you, you know that the that the online clips where people talk in detail about the physical things they want to do to her and attacked me just because I so you know I think it's best we recognize gender and recognizes a role for men role for women I'm not mad at these people face of persecution complex apologist thinking on threatening them with but the hatred the intolerance that comes our way is mind-boggling and the fact that there was a bit of a furor even to discuss this on campus as if it was too volatile. What will happen. Tell me what will happen to religious rights and freedoms. What will happen if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land and people.

Civil we don't recognize that we have an issue with that they will now be looked at the exact same way. People are looked at that oppose interracial marriage in the past will be codified by the law as bigots and Meridian school systems in America. Their parents who said like in Massachusetts when these things are taught in school, homosexuals are the things taught school. We want to pull our first grader, 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 and to honor the request of you know, there are major corporations that give megabucks massive amounts of money half million dollars to the shop to two gay rights organizations, and they have every right to do that what they do with their money.

Do they support that's their prerogative.

You have Chick-fil-A gives a small donation to one organization that stands against same-sex marriage, their campuses in American I'll try to get them banned incredible intolerance and and and this is while most of America in terms of states that are voted or still saying we uphold historic marriage. So I still wait for my esteemed colleague some answer as to what the meaning of marriage is and why it should be redefine why the government has any interest in sanctioning romantic and sexual relations that is private citizen.

Citizens have unless it is marriage. I'd love to hear. Is there a difference between male and female are the genders just blurred that they met.

I would love to hear if you can hold to marriage as you have a minimum without being branded and telling. 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 doctors.

Most comments is getting quite hot in here.

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

He said, first, he said. I gave him a rebuttal and then he said I didn't rebut him at the end of the speech Dr. Brown I will point that out to you as a contradiction is a logically and I'll continue since I'm in the my rebuttal stage showing you the logical flaws in his arguments. I'll answer some of the questions that he asked wanted to know whether or not met gender matters. I'll talk about with an agenda matters.

He said that I didn't really respond to his history lesson. This wasn't about history give a history lesson. Okay, so I'll respond to your history lesson. Even if you don't want to acknowledge it is a history lesson and then he said people called him names in the past Dr. Brown. You will note that none of that none of the times that we interacted have ever called your name so I don't pretend to speak for those people who called him names. Of course, people would've called him names people 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. In fact, one person said, and this is why we have academic protections academically speech in tenure and colleges because one person said Dr. small doesn't even deserve to be a college professor simply because of the position that a whole. Now Dr. Brown told you he was married. I'll tell you that I'm not Dr. Brown told you he was straight on the lease. I'll tell you that I'm straight but I'll tell you why I'm doing this and why talk about this, but I do those things later. I just wanted to mention that Dr. Browning both. I think and the only reason why I say I think it's because Dr. Brown and I were in the restroom and he said no. Dr. small you dress the and I said Dr. Brown, this is Matt, the place for a couple and then he mentioned again how nicely dressed I so that's a little joke come down to calm down. Dr. Brown yes is where you are married.

Okay, I as a joke and the only reason why can joke like this is because I'm comfortable with my sexuality. I'm straight and I think Dr. Brown history and I believe that he's comfortable with his sexuality, even if he is rated radio and you strike me as a very honest person.

Also don't think that you're uncaring because of talk to you strike me as a very caring person. I do have to question your research because five minutes on the Internet will reveal to any of us that there is research on Dr. Brownstein that says the things that he wants that research to say in five more minutes on the Internet will reveal to you that there is research on the side that I am articulating. Indeed, I did this 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 is Dr. Brown dish of the research shows that these are the facts. I'll offer you an explanation of the complexities of the research because both of us convert present research for outside when it comes to gender when it comes to raising children when it comes to being born gay and innate ideas in all of those things that Dr. Brown talk about put them in the research category and with the and what we find is that their research and that there is research on both sides and the reason why is because the conditions for raising a child properly are multi-very and of multifaceted and the people who are being raised themselves are multi-very, that is, there is no blueprint for raising a child. Certainly the people who have children know this, of course, there's no blueprint for having us that for having a successful marriage. Those of you who are married also. So what we need instead of presenting information as if there only facts on one side and not fax on the other four or as if the research is All-Pro Dr. Brown and anti-Dr. small because we could get into a pro made back-and-forth say yes I say no say yes I say no 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 those things are very complex and idiosyncratic to the people who will be in raised or the people who are in the marriage. What we need when we're talking about doing this properly is to provide children. Those people with the necessities of life education.

A safe, loving home environment and so on, and etc. in addition to that what we need our parents who are responsive to the needs of their particular children same-sex couples and opposite sex couples can do both of them stay. He talked a lot about procreation. I know a lot of gay people with children so they obviously can procreate and certainly 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 the America simply procreation gave people already done it because I am certain there are okay time again watch the whole debate linked in their descriptions on YouTube and start Brown become back to listen to closing statements for the Expo line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice is more cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown simply take you to the end of the debate on same-sex marriage should be legal from 2011. You get to hear the bulk of the closing statements to me and then from Prof. Eric small than a close things out right here so don't go anywhere.

Here you go raising a single moment.

Tolerance said is knows that has come a whole lot right yeah is needed to address. So my closing comments say a few things.

First, just to say what is human, also said there is no answer position. I was on all the answers. Why is legal person, or heard a substance of our the fact that the agreement is to be not as you as I recall from Time magazine here.

There is usually magazine here in 2009. I have read the next revolution was better use wholesale store also face is Horace Dameron today. Rice incest leaders polyamorous, arguing that children status post teaching about parents Sally and her husband and her boyfriend and tell them equality for us not for you to realize is that this is the government writing is way multi-modified class maybe 30 or 40 or 80 or four houses. Marriage is so different is is is malleable and change the playing around here talking okay is the examples that said, you're talking about a society we take issue with is so you will jam herself. Gender is the baby factory comment is very my very dear friend and only a woman can have a baby factory. I so degrading the value of women okay so Saul I is landing on posters on multiply, multiply, gender KJ is the very same sense as is and where is quality quality.

Even as they simply cannot procreate is very expensive procedure is a long-term thing involves an outside party is is is is just readers and by the way, check out research quite sure when back-and-forth recent sightings will quite ready loaded with research and vast information, and any shareholder conversation is tell your story. I just want to sit and listen to hear your story and understand your struggles has an older cousins transsexual and change his name for mail as soon as you tell your story for your list that I saved.

Marriage is always reason is not his son is not my voice and producing next-generation mass and is Washington Post, April 2009 article said organizations and individuals as a growing number of legal battles is our cost is back same-sex unions became the law of counsel male couple went to a Christian rapist and our protest is to say we only have married couples is is not. Legislators are under attack as our and we are being told there is no do not lightly mass nations you do not hamper gender stations do not play games or something is always here.

Reason nations find out sooner slower birthrates are in danger of failing way, the Lord is, there is no care and support generation.

This is is there is something when Lisa marriage and procreation as this, we tamper with visions don't position as game science a lot about what is is what is when we have heard is when I we call mission that is what I stopped to talk reason is about an issue. Are there countries and is also that I stay away from questions that they and those questions must question?

Is the result is one or no reason why is there to that, as soon as last children child-rearing is both equally. It seems to me this is just as about why he's so is this is too small. There was here to say because they're too small to talk to my grandfather this is a is he said when you very 60 years always the same sex. So it is striking to listen to something which comes with four years before the Supreme Court outrageously overturns the meaning of marriage redefines merits of that is absolutely not the purview of the court to do a very wrong decision no matter how you feel about gay couples.

A very wrong legal decision is where things stand. That's what we have to continue to speak the truth in love. This was back in 2011 appreciate Prof. Eric small coming forward and saying let's do this debate. Make your own decision in terms of where things fell, but the question was not primarily what is the Bible say about this is were dealing with secular America. Just America's whole. We can't presuppose that the Bible is followed or believe this much is we live by ourselves. Inasmuch as we advocate for what we believe are biblical principles.

This was simply a secular discussion even there. We feel we can bring compelling arguments against finding marriage here we are today. All the more to be grounded in the truth and speak the truth in love and hate friends. Here's the good news light shines in darkness, not discouraged about where things are going.

This remains another program powered by the Truth Network