Dan Savage and Brian Brown sit down to debate at dinner

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, and Dan Savage, writer of the Savage Love column, met at Savage's home in Seattle for dinner and a debate over same-sex marriage and the Bible. Moderated by Mark Oppenheimer from the New York Times.

I watched the entire "debate." Here are a few of my own opinions:

• I do wish this had been more of a debate in the traditional sense that a debate gives way to more back and forth and exchange of ideas. This format gave Dan Savage and Brian Brown each 15 minutes to make "opening statements." That accounted for practically half the debate time in total. I get that opening statements are customary in debates, but fifteen minutes each in a one hour debate seems excessive in that both of these men often have the opportunity to put forth their own lengthy statements of position.

I really would have liked to have seen 5 minute or so "opening statements" and then see the moderator ask more questions and address actual answers. I'm not blaming the moderator - I don't know who made up these rules. Just saying what I'd have rather seen.

• Many times Brian Brown doesn't answer questions put directly to him. Almost in the same vein of Sarah Palin in her one 2008 election debate, he brushed aside things he didn't want to address, and instead addressed what he wanted to talk about. He never really answered the question of would any evidence ever change his mind on the issue of same-sex marriage. This happened a couple of times.

• As in any political debate - which this was since it regards laws and civil rights - a common "trick of the trade" is deflection. Brian Brown over and over again deflects to polygamy as if it's the topic of the day. Over and over again. As Dan Savage points out, no one in the LGBT community is promoting that idea or legalizing polygamy. But because it is seen as a stark negative, Brian Brown kept coming back to that idea - at times demanding that Dan Savage "defend" polygamy, as if it were Dan's position. This became very off-putting and, as if often the case in opposing marriage equality, tried to pose an alternate idea as if it were the one being debated.

• I appreciate that these two men remained civil and had the discussion they did. As I mention earlier, the rules seemed set up to just allow talking points at times. I'm not saying I want to see yelling and talking over one another, but I believe shorter time frames for questions and answers would have led to a more diverse and deeper discussion.

Just my thoughts. I may add more upon more reflection.