I'm joined today by doctor Michael Brown he has been a guest on the show before
his website is
ask a doctor brown dot oregon he's the host of the nationally syndicated daily
talk program
the line a fire also author I love
a queer thing happened to America and 20 other
books a doctor brown great to have you back on you
put out this opinion piece time to stand up to the gate
sensors let me just give you you know just a moment here to kinda paraphrase
who the gay sensors are and what they are trying to censor I guess
sure what you're doing the exact opposite love that by having me on
talk about it my issue is with those who are trying to you
stop the media from talking with folks who
oppose same-sex marriage who oppose
normalizing homosexuality you have biblical moral convictions that differ
so
principal on the list will be glad which initially was known as the Gay Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation they've recently just
come with the acronym should be just flat but for example couple years ago
they went to CNN and said do not have
any conservatives on for example if you talking about
revoking don't ask don't tell if your home and other issues don't have these
conservatives on Tuesday
don't pollute the minds as the people what they're saying is dangerous
and then I discovered %uh last year so that I was put on a list a little over
that
by glad it was the commentator accountability project which they still
have go where they warn
secular media to stay away from people like us and what brought this up
was class reaction just for Robert sitting duck dynasty and all that
and let the networks do with it you know that people make decisions that people
say a certain thing it's unpopular hey
whatever decisions you made as an issue but it's the century im
a free speech the century the exchange of ideas that I object to
and and that's wrong encouraging folks stand-up
to those that are trying to censor us and then I can give numerous examples
in recent years we people just voicing your opinion on Facebook
read a newspaper have been fired from jobs or
or censored because at that simply for different with the goals
homosexual activist okay well I think with the Facebook and and the job thing
we those seem to be kind of one-on-one cases where we have to look at what what
are the terms of the employment are they allowed to have opinions but let's focus
on the glad in CNN thing
don't all groups %uh all sides
lobby media outlets and elected officials to either talk about or not
talk about certain issues
to include or not include certain points to
you when they discuss issues it doesn't seem to be
a big deal to me that glad doesn't want CNN to have people like tony Perkins on
and then group like tony Perkins group want them to have tony Perkins I
it seems this happens daily in politics and media
yeah I I think your analogy though
misses the point tony Perkins in at 4 °c
I'm not campaigning to say Human Rights Campaign cannot come on the air on Fox
opposite us or don't have glad come on upset us
let's actually stop right there tony Perkins is assistant
personally told me that he would not appear on my program
if there was another guest with an opposing view so the fact that you don't
know for sure
that tony Perkins and FRC did that to CNN
doesn't mean that they don't do it they did it to me
I'm not accusing them of trying to censor they just don't want that you
represent that it's not
a huge deal imaginable I wrote a piece saying tony Perkins is trying to censor
he just doesn't want to deal with that point here
it let's do this we're both inquiring people we wanna
look into things injected out let's see does FRC
have the equivalent other commentator accountability project where they
reach out to media and then petition people online
let us know if you see these people appearing send the word out
I'm open networks that you do not want them off but jacqueline brown
got around in fairness doctor brown you've now reduced your argument from
one saying one side does it and the other side doesn't
to one where you want to analyze it in shades of gray jus 1
graduate on time show you your argument has already changed drastically in the
last for many but not all
I'm certainly reaching out to you where you are David that saw
with the nothing has changed glad is a sensor
glad stands for the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against disagreement
they have a history of it they have a history trying to shut down
opposing views I think though that we're just going to disagree that Gladys
censoring anything they're lobbying CNN the way anybody would lobby media or or
members of congress
we're just disagreeing about the term but doctor brown I
here yet who else is lot let's just go to that
who else is actually lobbying
the same way that glad is a major organization on the other side saying do
not allow these people
on here i've seen individual campaign
yeah about certain person from certain group in on all sides but to say that a
major organization
will not have this doesn't tony Perkins come on offices other people
all the time I don't monitor ones do but you know I don't either he just
sometimes certainly we could come up with examples but I think the term
sensor is just not accurate but doctor run I do want to get something else
which is we have a few minutes left and i want to get your thoughts on this
we've seen the continuing momentum
above love marriage equality across the country we now have
39 percent of Americans living in states with full marriage equality
49 percent of Americans in states with full or partial
work we've got Oklahoma now which is soon possibly coming over to our side
et cetera your opposition I know is steadfast
to gay marriage can you sum up whether it is primarily based
in religion in your personal convictions
not connected to religion or wit where is your opposition primarily based
my views primarily your bases in individual
yeah with my right to vote in SPIE based on my convictions
before gone there was my my life a faith
is not separated from my life morality no I do not believe
that's righti for any religious group
to impose their religious views on the nation that would be
against the Constitution know we have result is really a
we both agree on that but because you said it is because they view as a man of
God
and this is an honest question the Tigers foremost is this and I want to
focus on that i won Arizona
I just close it is first and foremost my views are formed by
by faith as I look at things on a social level
also I do not believe that redefining marriage in the best interests of
society
for many reasons but to be totally candid with you can I separate my social
moral
sinking for my life is no I don't see too but I'll let you know that he's in
with it on either left let's explore both briefly okay sure
when it comes to the God side a and I asked this as a non religious person and
it's not it's an honest question
sure if your basis for being against two men getting married for example
is based in your following up the Bible polygamy was in the Bible
Abraham Jacob David had multiple wives Solomon had wives and concubines
why don't you support those things are you not arbitrarily cherry-picking
one element one-liner two lines from the Bible
and ignoring that biblical marriage has meant
any number of different things most of which as you said you oppose polygamy
you don't favor the a great question of course and that's what I've devoted
decades of my life to biblical study yes does he look at the larger picture so
everyone we see the ideal
when God created and with the take it literally as I do take his med
the message is the same he created Adam and then even the idea was the two
becoming one he didn't create an with several
wives almost every example of polygamy in the Old Testament is fraught with
problems
issues difficulties we get to the New Testament Jesus reinforces the ideal
one man one woman to get a life and Paul establishes for leadership in the church
that a man can only have one wife and the you're supposed to emulate the
leaders
so polygamy just like divorce was something that was
legislate in biblical times are given but was never the ideal
and the examples in Scripture are constantly negative
example so when we look at the scripture holistically rather than cherry-picking
we see the gaza feel just like the test that presents
Jesus and the church is a model up the groom and the bride
a again it's a one-on-one Union and that's that's the whole beauty
and concept if it would say this I am more opposed to redefining marriage to
make it two men or two women
that I am opposed to playing opposed to both but I see redefining marriage to
two men and two women
to be a for their departure from the ideal the Norman to further deteriorate
media marriage he had this term redefining I have kind of an issue with
with the anti Equality Movement because as soon as you said that you can't
really separate
the biblical reasons for your opposition and your personal social reasons let's
kind of go back to that
redefinition term that you used your we hear so often
as as a reason to oppose marriage equality
that we can't redefine something called marriage and that seems so juvenile to
me
we initially defined it very you know hominins have been on this planet six or
seven million years
we've had so called definitions of marriage in modern United States
it's only been a country that surround a couple of hundred years
and we've redefined many of things remember doctor brown black people used
to be defined
as three-fifths of a person we redefine that it's not a big deal why is the
redefinition of things such a problem for the right
it's not a problem for the right it's a problem for the the human race you're
talking about in the history
the human race that marriage has not been the Union have
two men order to women for many many reasons by the way I'm perfectly happy
to discuss things on a purely social
level or just a biological level in terms of what was intended by natural
law meant to be with the woman
the hold on a second Bahamas yeah but let's not kick around I can't allow that
to just let by
homosexuality has existed inhuman
and other species far longer than the human construction we call marriage had
again we have harmony in average on the national level until after the sexual
revolution of the sixties as the union
%uh any two people it was always a man and a woman arm and multiple women
or perhaps other arrangements like that but that is exactly I think that that's
exactly my question people have been coming together in unions
a male and a female your things that organization that has ever
ever recorded history define marriage as the union
any two people you but not theirs rounded up there around what you're
hearing re-air
know but what I think you're ignoring the key thing that
nations you said the in the history of nations nations themselves have only
existed
for a fraction of human history that's what and that's really the point I'm
trying to get
this entire construction have marriage is not something that is the default
and has existed for all of human history six or seven million years
if you believe science hominin you have been any examples of homosexual
marriages seven million years ago and if you get a point to animal species come
on some animals
eat their young me you say throw the history the human species you never had
multiple groups of people getting together
you have but I think that that weakens the argument
that redefining things is dangerous which is that
the further back we look the more relationships have buried and it really
shows that
the entire concept of marriage is not even something that we can be sure
is permanent there's a party so you shouldn't worry about that let us to
let us who cherish marriage and we believe God instituted a certain way
as a manual together in the beginning as the description presentable that's the
way it is that where the different you can just say hey
any relationship just I'll call it marriage does the term usually
matter to you it matters to me if it didn't make a difference legally for how
people are able to live their lives
I might agree with you but the thing is that it does and and this
kinda balls needed to keep a man and woman is the only relationship that can
reap certain benefits from the government
and from legal legal a entanglements that's where you start hurting people I
would agree with you doctor brown
if marriages serve no purpose legal and financial
who cares what it is but people's relationships are being hurt
because they are not able to have that legal and financial framework
you look when I married Nancy in 1976 the last thing on our minds as any legal
or financial benefit the whole I
trace they really didn't matter we have you ever since
anyway it's always a pleasure talking to you doctor brown deciding to wrap the
interview up we've been speaking with doctor Michael Brown
asked doctor brown dot already is the website thanks for being on