"Oh no he ditent. Twan, did that bi+ch just say 'genuine blow'?"
Posted on 12/26/2008 4:25:39 AM PST by Kaslin
Barack Obama's decision to have Pastor Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration next month has provoked anguish among some of his formerly ardent supporters. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, upbraided the president-elect according to The Politico. "Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. (W)e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination." Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen accused Obama of condoning a man who "dehumanizes" homosexuals. NPR talk show host Diane Rehm called some of Warren's comments on gays "ugly."
What had Warren done to provoke such feelings? He supported California's Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. But wait, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage, didn't he? He stated explicitly during the campaign that he believed marriage to be the union "between one man and one woman." His supporters clearly assumed he was being disingenuous. Based on Obama's other beliefs, the atmospherics of the campaign, and their own hopes, they dismissed his opposition to gay marriage.
Other supporters of traditional marriage don't get such gentle treatment from proponents of gay marriage. Instead, as the above quotes on Warren demonstrate, there is a pretty systematic effort to portray opponents of gay marriage as simple bigots, no more deserving of respect than racists or anti-Semites. What particularly outraged gay rights activists was a comment Warren made in a TV interview when he compared two homosexuals getting married to a brother marrying a sister or an adult marrying a child. Those were not the most felicitous comparisons and probably unnecessarily hurt the feelings of gays and lesbians.
And yet, the point Warren was making was a valid one. Once you abandon the traditional definition of marriage to suit the feelings on an interest group, by what principle do you stop redefining marriage? Gays and lesbians argue that their same sex unions are loving, committed relationships. Fine. But there are, or could be, other loving, committed relationships involving more than two people. Supporters of gay marriage say this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
But consider the name that many gay activists have adopted. You no longer see gay and lesbian alone. Instead, the new terminology is LGBT -- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Lesbians and gays say that without gay marriage, they cannot fully express themselves as they really are. But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone's feelings, but in all seriousness. How does gay marriage help a bisexual? I assume that if you are bisexual, you believe that you need to have sexual relationships with both men and women. If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don't you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality? If you choose to express just the homosexual side of your bisexuality, then aren't you gay? Likewise, if you choose to express only the heterosexual side, how are you a bisexual? Why is bisexuality not a recipe for infidelity? As for transgender people who believe that they are "assigned" to the wrong sex, their sexuality seems a deeply complicated matter. According to Wikipedia, the term "transgender," which is always evolving, today encompasses "many overlapping categories -- these include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual (TS)." We are now in the realm of a multitude of sexual deviances.
Where do you draw a line? Once traditional marriage -- supported by centuries of civilization and the major Western religions -- is undermined in the name of love, there is no logical or principled reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. Gay activists recoil from incest. But on what grounds exactly? Suppose, after we formalize gay marriage, two 25-year-old sterile (to remove the health of offspring argument) twins wish to marry? Let's suppose they are loving and committed. What is the objection? That it offends custom and tradition? That it offends God? Isn't that just bigotry?
When asked which was a greater threat to marriage, divorce or gay marriage, Rick Warren laughed and replied that it was a no-brainer -- divorce. He was right. But there are very solid reasons to oppose any redefinition of marriage -- and it isn't bigoted to say so.
There is no “line”.
Traditional marriage is not a line, it is a dam, holding back the worst excesses of humanity.
Break the dam, and you’re in for a world of hurt.
Society will implode.
Homosexuals can do what they want in the bedroom, and make legal contracts for anything else they want.
They have no “right” to redefine marriage in their own image.
"Oh no he ditent. Twan, did that bi+ch just say 'genuine blow'?"
Why is bisexuality not a recipe for infidelity?Because one of the goals of gay marriage proponents is to also open up "marriage" to multiple partners.
As the author says earlier in the article, once you redefine marriage beyond "one man one woman" how to you stop the redefining.
The answer is: you don't.
Once gay marriage is legal, polygamy will be next.
I think Rick Warren has succumbed to the lure of fame within the M.S.M. like so very many politicians do.
Enough of this let’s make nice with the libs. How about tar and feathering a few of them? Then lets just hang the RINO turds from the George Washington bridge in D.C.
The problem with Mr. Warren is that he is not really conservative: he just reluctantly takes a few conservative positions here and there. Does he backtrack once he takes a conservative position? That, I don’t know. He must know his congregation is full of CA liberals and responds accordingly.
That’s a possibility. So many in all areas want a liberal to say something nice about them, GWB being foremost among such.
Southern California is full of what I call “pop Christian Churches.” Many have spread to the rest of the country, as well. They stand for little more than another form of self-help for the masses.
And I'm sure the islamists would be happy to have their marriages to 8 and 12 year old girls recognized by the US as well.
So, what are these fags complaining about?
My cousin goes to his church.
Simply one reason to like Nixon, he really didn’t care if he was liked.
And, and, and....
What would he say about the posts here?
Inquiring minds want to know?
Good point. Second reason: Pat Nixon.
“And, and, and....
What would he say about the posts here?
Inquiring minds want to know?”
A good and fair question.
I don’t know much at all about Rick Warren.
I assume his intentions are good.
If there were a catholic bishop or priest up there, I personally (as a catholic) would oppose it.
Many here are saying there is nothing wrong with a pastor praying for Obama.
That is true, but I don’t think that is the point.
Many here say Obama might benefit from the prayer, and that Jesus mingled with prostitutes, and tax collectors.
That is true too, but Jesus always revealed the sin and called them to repentance. “Go and sin no more”
Will Warren do this? I doubt it - too embarrassing for the president-elect on inaugeration day.
Obama has promised to pass FOCA. He’s promised to fund embryonic stem-cell research.And then there are his Marxist tendencies on top of all that.
Not only does there not appear to repentance -there is no recognition of the sin, and the promise to sin bigger and more boldly with taxpayer money to boot.
But it’s your brother who is in “the belly of the beast.” A guest editorial would be so interesting.
Not my brother - but I agree - his opinion would be a good read.
Brother - cousin. It’s a paesan.
what I mean is - I think you’re confusing me with a previous poster.
She and beats the heck out of me. I’ve talked to her for 5-10 minutes at the Christmas party, hadn’t seen her seen her since like the Clinton administration when we were just kids.
She said she “liked his message’ that it’s “inclusive” or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.