Complete Video of Brown/Smaw Debate on Same-Sex Marriage at UCF

Filed under Law & Politics, News on May 4th, 2011 by M. French

Debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Eric Smaw on Same-Sex Marriage at the University of Central Florida:

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

[Link to Video]

Spread the Word:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

Possibly Related Posts:

Leave a comment »

  1. I find it hard to believe that Dr. Smaw is a PHD. I find it hard to believe that he is an adult. This video scares me in more ways then one. The clueless professor that only knows how to joke around and can’t address an issue intellectually. The students that think there is no difference between the genders and don’t recognize the different roles a father and mother have in a child’s life. It is as if they pride themselves on their herd mentality and have no capability for critical thinking or the truth. I pray my children find their way to the light in this fallen world.

  2. What, in particular, shocked you Aaron concerning Dr. Smaw?

  3. Gracious, this moderator did an outstanding job. I watch/listen to a lot of debates and he did a fine job, much better than many or even most.

  4. [...] The complete debeat on video. [...]

  5. I just finished watching the debate. i know this will get a knee-jerk, but it is clear that Brown is bigoted against gay people and the liberal “agenda” in general.

    He tells of a pre-school that doesn’t use gender terms. And makes it sound like “Aren’t you outraged by this?!”

    No! I’m not! Those parents have a right to raise their kids as they wish and it is an effort to make peopel feel good about their identiy outside of their gender.

    Then Brown does something horrible. He says “they are attaking gender”!

    No, that is his interpretation and a horrible mischaracterization. People realize that there are genders – who doesn’t!?!? But they also realize that traditional roles for those genders are restrictive. Women can run a country or a household – and without the liberal movement fighting against these same types of people, women would still be concubines.

    Brown represents what is wrong with the world. Every conclusion he comes to to support his position is based on pure evil. The world has suffered under people like him long enough.

    100 years ago, this debate wouldn’t have been allowed because Smaw is black – luckily, we won that debate too.

    Brown’s whole position is a protectionist, white, Christain, conservative position – and it is wrong and has no place in this country or world.

  6. Logical problems with that comment:

    1. Contradiction (bigotry against protectionist, white, Christian, conservatives while simultaneously denouncing bigotry against gays and liberals… mind you, I am simply pointing out fallacy in your reasoning; I am not saying you or Dr. Brown are bigots);

    2. Ad hominem argumentation (“Brown represents what is wrong with the world”… attack his arguments and research, not his character and beliefs);

    3. Straw-man argumentation (“Those parents have a right to raise their kids as they wish and it is an effort to make peopel feel good about their identiy outside of their gender”… the issue here is usurping parental authority and replacing it with a contrary post-modernist ideology… the institution [or "state"] is making the choices, not the parents; and the attempt to displace gender by unrelated categories is not motivated by “making them feel good”, but by removing naturally identifiable characteristics through deprogramming techniques for the sake of blurring gender roles/traits under the guise of “equality”).

    We are equally valuable, but not the same. We should celebrate true diversity and promote intrinsic human equality, but not at the expense of redefinition. Now (thanks to relativism) those who are “discriminating” (meaning to discern and identify) are “prejudice” and those who “tolerate” (disagree with or regrettably allow) a certain viewpoint, type of behavior, etc. are “intolerant” because they don’t rejoice and celebrate that which they disagree with.

  7. [...] The rest of the segments are here. [...]

  8. Luther Conigliarro Okay.. I watched the debate all the way through including the QnA. 1st. I have never seen a debate to where one of the debaters involved made so many prior commentments to other people that were not involved in the discussion,to where at least 70% of the arguments about the topic at hand was not addressed.

    Imagine a boxer that showed up to fight. He gets in the ring and before he touches gloves for round one he says to the other fighter…”If you aim for my head, I’m not going to trade punches with you or even really respond, because I made a deal with other people before the fight that I wouldn’t go there.”… Well I hate to say it, If that man decides to go through with the fight He deserves to get knocked out! And That’s What Happened In This Debate!

    2nd Point. I’ll be brief. This is one of those issues that really doesn’t need a lot of thought. “Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal? There is a built in emotional presup In the question, It sounds something more like this…”I Always Feel Judged And If America Would Just Make Same Sex Marriage Legal, I Won’t Feel Judged Because The Courts Made The Judgement in Favor For Me”

    This isn’t about Tax Benefits for the Average Practicing Gay person. It’s about him or her feelings about feeling Condemed.

    And Lastly, I Would Have liked To Have Heard more “Justification” And the genesis behind “Traditional Marriage” From Dr. Brown. But, That was not the title of the debate. I thought Dr. Brown controlled the whole debate and took it where He wanted to Go. Brown’s Arguments Where a lot More Satisfying to say the least than that of Dr.Smaw!

  9. [...] can also watch the videos from a formal academic debate on same-sex marriage held at the University of Central Florida. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse also debated same-sex marriage [...]

  10. [...] can also watch the videos from a formal academic debate on same-sex marriage held at the University of Central Florida, featuring Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse [...]

  11. Very good debate, but the real issue is homosexuality itself, is it a benign thing, which does not have detrimental consequences or is it a very detrimental set of sexual actions, which cause huge amounts of money, pain and suffering for individuals and a nation?
    The answer is the later. Homosexuality itself, is a very detrimental set of sexual actions, which creates unnecessary medical and financial costs, all of it is documented in my new book “What Nature Intended, Six Factors Demonstrating Homosexuality to be a Dysfunction” @

    You see, homosexuals took away homosexuality by political intimidation of psychiatrists out of the psychology books back in 1973 (you can read more about that in my book and website), and they have gain all kinds of grounds for “acceptance” in society, BUT the detrimental results of their unsound sexual actions (which is what make anyone being define as homosexual) do not go away… ever! The high rates of anal cancers, oral cancers, high rates of venereal diseases, etc, etc, etc, have not gone away even though they have made huge strides in the manipulation of the masses into brainwashing them into seeing homosexuality as an abstract thing (it is about love, equality, etc) instead for what it is, two guys having sex with each other anally and orally for example.

    So, the reality of what homosexuality is, and if that set of sexual actions by a few in society even deserves acceptance is the issue at hand. Decades ago other dysfunctional actions such as alcoholism and smoking for example where completely acceptable by society. But as the monetary and human cost of such actions were more and more expose for what they were to every one, society slowly changed and started to come to the truth and realization that although it was glamorized by liberal elements of society those behaviors were not acceptable, given the detrimental I impact they had on society and the people. Homosexuality is no different.

    And so, people need to get their blinders off and see homosexuality for what it is, a very detrimental set of sexual behaviors that needs to be stopped, and that what the individuals with such affliction really need is medical help and no more rights due to their sexual dysfunction, in addition to the rights granted to them as citizens by the Constitution.


  12. [...] gay marriage debate against Dr. Eric Smaw. I highly recommend that people watch this debate here:…. [...]

  13. [...] Michael Brown vs. Eric Smaw on same-sex marriage [...]

  14. [...] debates about God’s existence, the resurrection, the reliability of the Bible, abortion, and same-sex marriage. That would be more practical, and would be less inflammatory that Romans 1, since it concentrates [...]

  15. [...] issues like gay rights and same-sex marriage, it’s a good idea to hear both sides in a formal debate. [...]

  16. It isn’t that what Dr Brown is saying is wrong; in fact everything he is saying has existed as the staple of civilization since the dawn of man. The problem is that these kids have never been taught to think through the reasons as to WHY things like marriage exist. They have been taught that marriage is inconsequential.

    But I should point out that it’s easy to argue against marriage and the family when you’re a direct result of one — just like it’s easy to argue that gravity is fiction when you’re standing on solid ground. It’s another thing entirely to argue that gravity is fiction when when you’re falling in mid-air!

    There is a reason why these kids refuse to acknowledge the necessity of marriage and a stable family. It’s because our society 1) doesn’t like responsibility 2) our society doesn’t like accountability and 3) our society doesn’t like to face the consequences of its behavior.

    Think about it this way: We have always heard claims of “unwanted pregnancies” when referring to abortion. This is often used as a defense for a promiscuous lifestyle. But the question is, have those who defend promiscuity ever argued against the “unwanted sex” that led to the “unwanted pregnancy”? (this excludes any obvious crime of rape of course. I’m referring to willful promiscuous sex.)

    No, “unwanted pregnancies” are always seen as “unwanted”, because they are an inconvenient consequence. However, they never seem to argue that the sexual pleasure they got that led to the consequence of the “unwanted pregnancy” was unwanted.

    Why? Because our society doesn’t like to face the consequences of its behavior. They want the pleasure without the consequence. The homosexual issue is the same way. We never think through the consequences of redefining marriage. We only want what we want without question.

Leave Comment