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 it be legal? It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is 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. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us, friends, on this special debate week. We did this, what, a couple months back, and people really responded, well, seemed to really enjoy these shows. So what we're doing is going back to a classic debate from the past, and we're taking substantial parts of the debate, as 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 AskDrBrown.org and looking in today's description for the show. You'll see a link there. Or if you watch on YouTube, AskDrBrown, just look for today's episode, you'll see this debate linked in the description.

So everyone listening now, listening on podcast, and of course on live radio, that's where you take it in. So this was 2011, my book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, had come out. I asked to do debates on campuses across America. No, no, no, even Christian groups wouldn't touch it. And finally, some folks were able to set this up, the University of Central Florida, and a professor came and said, I'll debate, and I want to debate this subject, same sex, quote, marriage. Should it be legal? Back in 2011.

Now my opening comments. If we think for a moment, 31 states have passed laws upholding historic marriage. Four states have passed laws in favor of same sex marriage. California is presently deeply divided over the issue. Our president has said he won't defend DOMA anymore, the Defense of Marriage Act. 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 what this debate is not about. It's not about what the Bible says about homosexual practice. It's not about the separation of church and state. It's not about whether gays and lesbians can be good citizens, whether they can have loving relationships, whether they can be dedicated parents. It's not about what two or more adults do in the privacy of their home or who they choose to live their lives with. It's not even about gay civil rights. And it's certainly not about which speaker can push the most emotionally charged buttons or is a sharper dresser.

I think I lost that one tonight. The debate is not about whether I or proponents of historic marriage care about gays and lesbians. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't take every opportunity I can to interact with the LGBT community so they can share their heart and their perspective with them. Nor is this debate about whether heterosexuals have done a terrible job in recent years with marriage, with rampant no-fault divorce and promiscuity and pornography and other problems. There's no debate about that. We've done a mess. We've made things into a mess.

No question about it. Tonight's debate is about the meaning of marriage. And since marriage throughout human history has not been the committed union of two or more people, but rather the committed 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 we redefine marriage to be the union of any two people, we'll have no defense against other radical redefinitions of marriage. In fact, such radical redefinitions of marriage are being fought for 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 a gay or lesbian or a gay lesbian ally, for you, this is the ultimate slap in the face that you can't marry the person you love. This is the ultimate discrimination making you into a second class citizen. This is the ultimate attack on your personhood, something this intimate, something this important.

I understand that. And 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 a child from either a mother or father for life. These are highly charged issues. Again, that's why we need to have this debate. In today's society, there are plenty of religious institutions that are more than happy to perform same sex commitment ceremonies. And there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who've lived 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? What in the world does a loving romantic relationship have to do with the state? When we understand that, then we understand why 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 recognize traditional marriage? Traditional marriage promotes public goods. It domesticates men. It protects women.

It provides a nurturing environment for children. Last week, there was testimony before the House of Representatives regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, and an expert witness stated this, and I quote, Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a 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. Individuals marry for a hundred 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 by 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 adult relationship is the less likely the law to be involved. Why, then, is the government involved in marriage? The answer in our society, and in 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. Marriage is a virtually universal human institution. Every human society has to grapple with three persistent facts about human beings everywhere. Sex makes babies, societies need babies, babies deserve a father as well as a mother.

So can I speak plainly, not as a professor or lecturer, can I speak plainly? Everything about marriage, says male and female, and no matter how much we try to get used to it, there's still something wrong, there's still something that doesn't fit when you talk about her wife or his husband. Or a marital ceremony where you say, I now pronounce you husband and husband, or wife or spouse and spouse. I was not impressed at all in a recent lesbian ceremony where it was bride and broom, broom being the new word to substitute for bride and groom together. So male plus male, female plus 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 a female, and there is no other way.

And I want to press this point again. We're 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?

There's none. And 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 two? Don't say, well that's icky, because some people feel homosexual relationships are icky.

We're going to have to do better than just saying it's icky. Please tell me why marriage should be the union of just two people. What's so magical about the number two if it's not the union of male and female? Tell me if you agree with this statement. This is by an advocate with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, quote, do you agree with this? Consenting adults have the right, the charter protected right to form the families they want to form. Do you agree with that statement? Well, she was arguing for polygamy.

Are you willing to fight for marriage equality for polygamous? Late last year, Columbia University professor David Epstein was charged with carrying on a three year consensual affair with his adult daughter. His attorney, Matthew Galuzzo, commented, it's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.

And students who were commenting on Columbia University student newspaper website said this. Why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do? In an interview with The Huffington Post, Galuzzo also questioned whether, quote, prosecuting incest was intellectually consistent with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. 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.

Do you agree with that? There are now even scientists who have identified what they call GSA, genetic sexual attraction, where people who are connected by blood, in other words, close relatives, may be attracted to each other. Should they have the right to their sexual orientation of incest? You say, look, look, polygamy is abusive to women. Incest can produce handicapped children. But that still is an answer why marriage shouldn't include such possibilities. At least Newsweek said polyamory is the new sexual revolution. Traditionalists better get used to it.

You've got at least half million families like this in America. Do we now introduce that in the schools? Marriage equality.

We've got to be consistent. Tamper with the foundations of human society with the definition of marriage and everything else will be affected. Now, I'm not sure if Dr. Small will argue that gay is the new black, that sexual orientation is akin to skin color, innate and immutable, that just as it was bigoted and wrong to have laws against interracial marriage, it is bigoted and wrong to have laws against same sex marriage.

But this argument, as emotionally compelling as it may seem to be, is hopelessly flawed. As Dennis Prager observed, there are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no fundamental differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but 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 by sex can be morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is 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, an Asian man, a Hispanic man. The same is not true of 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 to close, let's remember that despite the presence of same sex attractions in most cultures or 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, to 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. This is not intolerance. This is about the meaning of marriage. And I, for one, thank God for the institution of marriage.

I do not want to see a change for the good of our society. Thank you. All right. Got to jump in, interrupt myself. That's a good segment of my opening comments. We come back and turn it over to Professor Eric Smaugh, who took the other position. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. So here we are with a live audience. 2011 University of Central Florida and Professor Eric Smaugh is 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, Professor Smaugh. I'd like to thank Dr. Brown for his passionate defense of traditional marriage and introduce Dr. Eric Smaugh for his opening statements.

OK, I want to make sure that my microphone is on. Thank you. Thank you for that introduction. I said to my students when I first came in that I usually don't put on my glasses, but it seems to me that this is a serious event and I don't want to look like a youth compared to my most seasoned counterparts.

So I should put on my glasses. I want to thank the UCF for putting on this event. I 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 thanking all of you is 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 was 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. Well, yeah, of course, it's about civil rights, because if same sex couples are allowed to marry, then they'll end up with certain rights.

So, yes, of course, it's about civil rights. But the claims that he made about this is not about religion or it's not about morality, it's not about what he thinks or how he feels or what I think in particular or 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 incest and I guess necrophilia and bestiality and we can throw them all in.

I'm not going to 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 in the middle of the night.

Let's say it's 11 o'clock at night. And I find that President Barack Obama just signed same sex marriage into law. And I respond, yes, now I can marry my sister. So you can see there's something wrong with that conclusion. And the reason why it says something wrong with that conclusion is because it's out of place. That is, a conversation about same sex marriage or a conversation about marriage equality should be about same sex marriage or marriage equality. Conversations about polygamy, or bestiality or incest or those things, those are 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 redefining the institution of marriage, but he didn't tell you anything about law.

So let me tell you some things about law. At the beginning of the country, or the founding of the country, one of the things, or probably what was the most contentious issue, was that of slavery. Now I won't go into the analogy that he talked about, but I will tell you this. As a way of continuing that conversation, what the founders did was they took what we established as the U.S. Constitution and put provisions for slavery in it. In fact, I was just talking to the debate team last night and I showed them the 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 talking 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, equality, choice, privacy, and so on. And that forced the conversation about slavery to continuously come up. Eventually, you know the story, so I don't have 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.

You've seen this conversation come up 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 its principles. And with civil rights, America was stuck in the same struggle between its practices and its principles. And of course, here, we're again in the same struggle.

So, the question of what have you been watching over the last 30 years is simply that struggle. We're 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, well, yeah, that's a secondary issue. More importantly and foundationally, it's about what kind of democracy we'll 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, or that's the question that you've been seeing unfold. And that's the question that Dr. Brown and I will be debating today. I also noticed that he mentioned Launch v. Texas. Launch v. Texas is particularly important here because in Launch v. Texas, Sandra Day O'Connor tells us that Bowers v. Hardwick, which was the rule, the prohibition against same-sex engagements, or the prohibition against homosexuality, generally speaking, is undermined by the principle 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 engaging in homosexual relationships was straightforwardly outlawed. And the Supreme Court decided this question for us, legally speaking. And they answered in terms of our principles, namely, in this particular case, the principle of privacy.

And I want to point out something else to you, with respect to redefinitions. Think about what happened with Roe v. Wade. We had two principles in conflict with one another. One, life, the second one, choice.

We ultimately decided that question in favor of one principle, namely, choice. And the reason why I'm pointing this out again is because I'm highlighting what this struggle is really about in America. 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. I want to point out to you, though, that Dr. Brown simply gave you a history lesson. He didn't tell you specifically about why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

He gave you a history lesson, and I'll talk about that history lesson in my response. But before then, I want to tell you why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and this won't take that long. One thing that institutions do, political institutions or legal institutions or 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, the burdens of society in the same way that straight people carry the burdens of society.

So let me give you an example of some of the burdens of society. They participate in the military. They pay their taxes. They are members of public service institutions. So, for example, they might be in healthcare. They might be in education.

They might be in transportation or sanitation. And, of course, they give to charity. So in these regards, they carry the benefits of society just like the rest of us carry the benefits of society. If you're wondering why, then they should be able to participate in the institutions of society that give benefits.

The answer to that is because they carry the burdens like the rest of us. So they should be able to participate in those institutions that bestow benefits on us just like the rest of us. And marriage, of course, is a benefit in American society. There are other benefits in American society and, of course, you know these so I need not tell you about them.

Certainly those of you who are married know, many of them, that once you become married, then you enjoy the benefits of being married. Some of those benefits are tax breaks and those sorts of things. And the answer to his question then is because they carry an equal measure of the burdens, then they should participate in an equal measure of the benefits. And, of course, here I mean equal regarding their numbers to straight people. So that's my answer to your question, Dr. Brown, at least straightforwardly. In order to answer this question, I need not get into a conversation about homosexuality as the new black or any of that sort of stuff. I need not talk about religion. That's simply one answer to the question.

There are many ways to answer the question. I've just given you a benefits burden analysis. And, of course, people who've been in law school, you've heard that story before about benefits and burdens and distributing the benefits of burdens.

Sometimes we call them the bundle of rights in society. And I notice the lawyer here, John Stenberger, is here. You can say hi to him now. But that's why, or that's my answer to why, and it's at least one answer to why. So I'll stop here and let the conversation between myself and Dr. Brown move on. Thank you. I'd like to thank Dr. Small for his opening remarks and now reintroduce Mr. Brown for his response. OK, I do very much appreciate the demeanor and spirit of Dr. Small and what he brings in terms of logic and philosophy and law. I was a bit surprised that the opening comments became somewhat of a rebuttal. I thought that's totally contrary to debating procedure. But in any event, what it meant was that we never really got to hear why same sex marriage should be legal, because I didn't give a history lesson. I talked about what marriage is.

I didn't go through. If I gave a history lesson, I'd still be giving it for about another thousand years, because this is the only history I've ever had, is that marriage is the union of a man and the woman together for the purpose of responsible procreation. So check this out. ABC is not math. Two plus two is not spelling. Male plus male, female plus female is not marriage. So we haven't had that addressed at all. So everything that I said about that remains 100 percent intact, untouched.

The fact that gays participate in society, of course, the fact that marriage of two men or two women is not marriage doesn't change that. OK, we're out of time once again. When we come back, we're going to go to substantial portions of our rebuttals right here on the line of fire. God of light, hear our cry, send the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Welcome, friends, to the line of fire broadcast. Michael Brown here, your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity. Friends, when my book A Queer Thing Happened to America came out, I sought to have debates on college campuses across America. And in state after state, we're told can't happen, won't happen.

Even Christian groups saying we won't touch this, even though we said we'll set an example of speaking the truth in love and help build bridges for reaching out. No, no, no. Finally, a door opened at University of Central Florida. Even that was a whole event. We had to have four police present. We were required by the university.

In any case, we go now into portions of rebuttals. First me, then Professor Eric Small on the subject of same sex marriage. Should it be legal again? This was the year two thousand eleven in Florida as a heterosexual married for thirty five years. I didn't get married for tax benefits and I could care less if I have to pay triple to be married and I could care less if I get inheritance rights.

I'm married out of 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, OK, 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, it's not 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 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 about gay being the new black, by the way, is not original with me. That was the front cover of Advocate, the most influential gay publication in America, asking that question a few years ago. It comes up constantly that this is the new civil rights issue. I like these comments from gay journalist Charles Weinkauf newsflash blacks in America didn't start out as hip hop fashion designers.

They were slaves. There's a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter or 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, after 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. You don't 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 we not have the foresight to address them in advance? If we're talking about sexual orientation in any way being compared to skin color or a civil right, then that would presuppose that sexual orientation is innate and immutable. Neither of which are true. We're talking about something without which ultimately male female unions.

None of us would be here. We're talking about guaranteeing, guaranteeing that a child will either have no mother or no father, guaranteeing that a child will be separated from father or mother for the rest of their lives. Are we thinking about the child or are we thinking about ourselves when we do that? And if marriage does not have in mind the next generation, we're missing something very profound.

Ask yourself who you're fighting for in this equation. Not only so, but when we talk about when we 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 a man's designed for a woman and a woman for a man, and I don't support same sex marriage. I have been branded Hitler as a Jew. I'm a Jewish follower of Jesus. So as a Jew, it's kind of unique to be branded Hitler. I've been called Hitler, jihadist. I can show you, you know, the online clips where people talk in detail about the physical things they want to do to hurt and attack me.

Just because I say, you know, I think it's best that we recognize gender and recognize there's a role for men, role for women. I'm not mad at these people. Those are going to be some persecution conflicts.

They're probably just thinking I'm threatening them. 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 say, well, 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. We will be codified by the 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 kindergartener 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 request of the children. You know, there are major corporations that give mega bucks, massive amounts of money, half a million dollars at a shot to 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 sanctioning the romantic and sexual relations that its private citizens 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 dialog all but impossible. With that, I await with interest Dr. Smalls comments.

It's getting quite hot in here. Dr. Brown is letting 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 his speech. Dr. Brown, I will point that out to you as a contradiction.

There's a little logic for you. 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 ever called you a name. So I don't pretend to speak for those people who called him names. 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 this is why we have academic protections or academic free speech in 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 dress 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 a little joke. Calm down. Calm down.

Calm down, Dr. Brown. Yes, it's a joke. 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. 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. 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, the research shows that these are the facts. I'll offer you an explanation of the complexities of the research because both of us present research for our side. 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 multi-varied and they're multi-faceted. And the people who are being raised themselves are multi-varied. 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 they're 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. And then he might say my research is flawed and I'll say that his research is flawed.

And we'd do that for the next 30 minutes and you'd 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 and etc.

And in addition to that, 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. 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 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. Okay, out of time.

Again, watch the whole debate. We've linked it in our descriptions on YouTube and Ask Dr. Brown. When we come back, you get to listen to closing statements. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. So we take you to the end of the debate on same-sex quote marriage.

Should it be legal from 2011? You get to hear the bulk of the closing statements from me and then from Professor Eric Smaw. Then I'll close things out right here.

So don't go anywhere. Here we go. I do want to commend you for not raising a single moment. The issue of hatred, bigotry, intolerance, or making that accusation.

I commend you for that and I appreciate that. What I said is gay the new black and introduce some snickers from some. You notice that has come up a whole lot, even right at the end, because it's an issue that we need to address. So let me let me in my closing comments say a few things.

First, just to set the record straight. When I was surprised that the open comments contained a rebuttal and then I also said that there was no answer to my position. I was not looking for a rebuttal. I was simply looking for an answer as to why same-sex marriage should be legal. I personally never heard that and it didn't deal with the substance of my argument. The fact that Dr. Small made an agreement with others unbeknownst to me or the other organizers that he would not bring in certain subjects is really unfortunate.

Because they must be brought up. And let's forget about Canada. Let's forget about Germany. As I recall, I quoted from Time magazine here in America, 2007 should incest be legal. As I recall, I quoted from Newsweek magazine here in 2009. What about polyamory, the next revolution, sexual revolution. Traditionalists better get used to it.

I will say it once more. You look someone else in the face that is arguing in the courts in America today for rights to incest, for rights to polygamous relations. Polyamorous arguing that children's textbooks should be teaching about multiple parents, Sally and her husband and her boyfriend, and tell them it's equality for us but not for you.

What we have to realize is that this is not just a matter of the government recognizing something. And by the way, the comments about, you know, you modify a class from one year to the next, you're going to modify marriage every year? Maybe we need 30 or 40 or 80 or 400 different types of marriage because everybody's so different. Because no two kids are the same and no two parents are the same. Is that what we want?

This completely malleable thing that can just change like clay and be shifted, moved around? You're talking about what kids will be educated by, you're talking about the examples that will be set for them, and you're talking about a society in which if you take issue with it, if same-sex marriage is totally fine, you will be considered a bigot. Gender itself becomes the enemy. Gender is, if you even heard the baby factory comment, which was very different, to my mind, very different than only a woman can have a baby, that's very different than baby factory. I didn't come in in some way that would be degrading the value of women, okay? But we are talking about gender itself being under assault.

I have books by gay activists and thinkers on blending gender and undoing gender and posters on how to multiply gender, how to eradicate gender. Because the very thing that's under attack is gender distinction. The very thing that's under attack is joining a child with a mother and father. And where's the equality? There's not a built-in equality, even in biological design, that a gay couple simply cannot procreate.

It is a very expensive procedure, it is a long-term thing, it involves an outside party, and it's often not easily done. Is that equal? No, it's not, because the things are not equal themselves. Let me say a few more things about religious freedoms. And by the way, check out the research, I'm quite sure that if we went back and forth, that the research I was citing was compelling and overwhelming, and I was quite ready to do it. Quite loaded with research and facts and information, and had many cheerful conversations with gays and lesbians, and asked them, tell me your story, I just want to sit and listen, I want to hear your story, I want to understand your struggles.

I've asked an older cousin who's now come out as a transsexual and changed his name from male to female, I just want to sit with you to tell me your story, so that you can pour your heart out to me. Listen, the fact that I say marriage is what it's always been for a reason, and it's not equated with slave, and it's not equated with bans on interracial marriage, and it's not equated with women. We're talking about a life-giving, wonderful institution, we're talking about a man and woman coming together, and the beauty of love, and producing offspring for the next generation, that's nothing to be trivialized or messed with. And in point of fact, as the Washington Post April 2009 article said, faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

And in point of fact, in Illinois, where same-sex unions, civil unions, became the law, immediately a couple went, a male couple, went to a Christian bed and breakfast, and now are protesting this man's legal rights to say, we only have married couples here, we don't recognize same-sex marriage. The attack is on. The attack is on, like it or not. Religious freedoms are under attack, freedoms of conscience are under attack, and we are being told there is no other side to the story. Do not lightly mess with the foundations of the human race.

Do not tamper with gender distinctions. Do not play games with something that has always been here for good reason. Nations right now that are experiencing lower birth rates are in danger of fading away. The lower birth rates in some European countries, Japan and other countries, right now are such that there is no care and support for the older generation. This is a crisis.

The only reason we have adequate birth rates here in America is because of immigrants coming in. When we separate marriage from procreation, responsible procreation, male, female, gender, all this, we tamper with foundations. Don't do it, friends. There's a better way.

Thank you. Okay, so I'll sum up my position, and I'll sum it up straightforwardly. It's a legal one, and it doesn't say anything about religion, or it doesn't say anything about morality, and I'll point out to you that those things kept coming up, even though we agreed at the beginning that this debate would not be about those things, and so that's why I talked a lot about the benefits and burdens of societies, and that's also why I talked a lot about who does what and unequal distribution of weights in society.

My position was straightforward and simple. What it says is that when we have benefits and burdens in society, those benefits should be distributed equally among the citizens of society. When, and of course I'm talking about the citizens at issue here, and when those benefits and burdens are not distributed equally among the citizens of society, we end up practicing what's called inequality.

In fact, that's the very definition of inequality, and I'd add to that that the Supreme Court is saying on multiple occasions, particularly in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Now, you've heard a lot of things about what goes on in other countries and so on, but I would point out that I stuck to, I stuck to talking about what happens in America. The reason why I stuck to talking about what happens in America is because this is a question about what ought to happen in America, and the people at issue are Americans, so I didn't want to talk about Germany or any other country because those countries and people and so on aren't at issue, and you aren't, at least not in this question, and you'd also note that I stayed away from questions that I said that I would stay away from.

Dr. Brown attempted to bait me into a conversation about those questions, and he told you that those questions must be answered in the context of this question. Well, I obviously disagree because we can answer a question about same-sex marriage without answering a question about incest. Those are two different things. In fact, to put them together results in what's called a conflation fallacy. A conflation fallacy occurs when you take two things and put them together as if they're one, or it results in a category mistake, and the reason why I could point this out to you is because same-sex couples are asking for the right to marry, but they're not asking for the right to participate in incest or necrophilia or any of the other things that might come up in the context of a conversation like this, so that's why I stayed away from those things. Children, childbearing, performing roles, social roles, and those sorts of things. I said to you that both gay and straight couples can do those equally.

It seems to me that society will adjust and will do fine with same-sex marriages. Now, I want to end with a conversation about why I do this because I'm a straight male, and it seems that I don't have any obvious benefit here. I was talking to one of my friends, and he wanted to know, like, Dr. Small, why do you do this?

That is, why do you engage in debates on this particular topic if there's no obvious benefit for you? My answer to him was this. I realized that 100 or so years ago there was some white male who stood up and defended African Americans when they were too small and insular a minority to defend themselves, and I realized that there was some male who stood up and defended women when they were too small and insular a minority to defend themselves, and so here as a straight male I stand up to defend same-sex couples and gay people and so on because they're too small and insular a minority to defend themselves. So I talked to my grandfather, and I'll end with this, about this.

I called him up. He's been married 60-something years, and I said, you know, I'm going to be in this debate about same-sex marriage, and older people often have a wisdom that takes time to get used to. He said to me, son, when you've been married 60 years you realize that it's always the same-sex in marriage.

Thank you. So it's striking to listen to something which comes, what, four years before the Supreme Court outrageously overturns the meaning of marriage, redefines marriage, something that's 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. That's where things stand, and that's where we have to continue to speak the truth in love.

This was back in 2011. I appreciate Professor Eric Smaugh coming forward and saying let's do this debate. You can make your own decision in terms of where things fell, but the question was not primarily what does the Bible say about this because we're dealing with secular America or just America as a whole, and we can't presuppose that the Bible is followed or believed as much as we live by it ourselves and as much as we advocate for what we believe our biblical principles. This was simply a secular discussion.

Even there, we feel we can bring compelling arguments against redefining marriage. Here we are today. All the more we need to be grounded in the truth and speak the truth in love. And hey friends, here's the good news. Light shines in the darkness. I'm not discouraged about where things are going because Jesus remains Lord of all. Another program powered by the Truth Network.