Creationist to Give Invocation at Inauguration

Yes, it was more than disappointing to see his selection for invocation, which I question to begin with, i.e. bless his administration? But then again he's still steeped in the religion thing though he talks about supporting science. We'll have to see where this goes. The fundies aren't all that happy about it either because Obama supposedly supports a woman's choice, etc. None-the-less it makes me wonder about Obama and where he's heading with this.

It is a strange choice, especially after Obama has re affirmed his position on woman's reproductive rights, and has chosen a promising Science department,
I loath Rick Warren, hes an ignorant douchebag like the rest of them.

3 seconds of research would show him: 1. evolution is a fact, and we know more about it than gravity. and 2. we understand why homosexuality occurs in nature, which it does for many other species besides humans.

idiot.

The obvious choice for the invocation would have been Jim Wallis, the most visible face of progressive evangelicalism, founder of Sojourners and author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It and The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post–Religious Right America. Wallis is a strong voice who believes that addressing poverty is one of the central issues of our time, particularly for those of us who call ourselves Christians.

I see Obama as an inclusive agent for change. The greatest change is that he seeks to include individuals from any and all ideologies who agree upon the material goals.

Regrading Warren, I am not shy about my disdain for him. I find him generally destructive to humanity. I place him in the same garbage bin as anyone whose opinion is determined by ideology rather than by evidence.

That said, if Obama's choice of Warren can direct the efforts of many destructive individuals toward constructive ends, then I'm all for it.

Time will tell.

Let me rephrase that before I get into trouble: If he wanted an evangelical, then Mr. Wallis should have been the obvious choice.

Warren said:

"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest[,] then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that [sic] homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.”

How can a behavioral trait be a gene? How can a gene be recessive? How can a sexual preference prevent reproduction? How can selection completely remove a recessive from the gene pool?

If this guy doesn't even know what the words mean, why does he use them and why does he use them in this order? Once again, this clueless nitwit proves the rule that an uninformed opinion isn't worth the paper it wasn't printed on.

DS said: "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest[,] then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because..."

I am honestly concerned at the unquestioned following of Obama so many science bloggers have submitted themselves to. I see no reason why a critical eye, a realistic eye, cannot be used in the realm of politics, yet the very scientists who claim to go where the evidence leads seemingly ignore whole swaths of evidence when it comes to questions of political ideology.

Choosing Obama over McCain was a pragmatic choice, because if people chose Nader or some other candidate it would have given McCain an edge in the polls, but since when has science ever been pragmatic? We don't choose intelligent design because it could so easily remove the ideology of creationism; we stick to the facts and do as best we can to show the reality of evolution.

I just wish more scientists would refuse to use this method selectively.

/rant

I’m not sure what good can come of this. I’m not even sure I’ve ever heard Obama give any explicit comments on what he understands about science and evolution in particular; not many politicians are very knowledgeable or articulate about these issues.

On the other hand, perhaps keeping the creationists talking about their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science and being refuted by professionals in public is better than having their stealth activities continuing to screw up the science curriculum in schools.

If these misconceptions are going to be exposed permanently, it might be better to do it right out in the open than to leave it to naive public school students who are unable to assess and counter the misconceptions and misrepresentations.

But it also seems like a waste of time; ID/Creationists are incapable of learning science (although, hopefully, more enlightened people might benefit from seeing professional refutations of ID/Creationism). Better science reporting in the press would be preferable.

On the radio this week I was hearing callers to the progressive talk shows say they were cancelling their plans to attend the inaugural events in Washington because they are so angry about the Rick Warren thing.

I came up with an analogy: The inauguration is like a big family gathering or reunion. At this time of year, many of us get together with people, many of whom we would never socialize with if we didn't share some familial relationship. There is the aunt who revels in spreading juicy gossip, the uncle who gets drunk and makes racist comments, the super-religious cousin who insists that everyone hold hands and pray, the diehard vegetarian who always makes disparaging comments about the menu. There are political differences, social differences, wealth differences. Some of them very deep and stress-provoking. But every year or so we gather in the same place as part of our family tradition. And we live through it.

I'm not thrilled about the religiousity of the inauguration much less the selection of Warren, but I don't think it warrants cutting all ties with the family. And, hey, some of the "cousins" (Warren's followers) are just as put out about it as we are.

As to Obama’s selection: Warren can spout whatever gibberish he wants for 5 minutes in the cause of inclusion. The fact is that Obama’s science appointments show that we are going to get to return to the real world after eight long years.

— chuck

but if it represents the “spirit” of Mr. Obama’s administration, then I am not, shall we say, optimistic that Mr. Obama is truly the agent for change that he purports to be.

Whenever I hear gay activists and their straight sockpuppets whining about Obama's selection of Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation-prayer, I just smile and point out the world-class hypocrisy of all that bellyaching:
Obama's selection to do the inaugural benediction-prayer is, after all, gay-marriage-supporter Joseph Lowery.

Sheesh, guys, your censorship is showing again....

*******************

Btw, for some of you that are easily susceptible to paranoia, rest easy. Relax. Put your feet up. Be assured that both Obama and Biden are true-blue evolutionists. Biden even sounds like you guys on occasion, when he gets worked up.

So please stop worryin'. Everything's kewl. You boys just whistle and they'll both come a-runnin like a coupla good lapdogs!!

FL

Weird. Last March, when it was politically risky, he said "I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry." --from the York (PA) Daily Record of 03/30/08.

Now that he's won the election, he seeks to appease the evo-deniers. I suppose that demonstrates his political acumen, or something.

And this is a surprise to you?

FL said: Whenever I hear gay activists and their straight sockpuppets whining about Obama's selection of Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation-prayer, I just smile and point out the world-class hypocrisy of all that bellyaching: Obama's selection to do the inaugural benediction-prayer is, after all, gay-marriage-supporter Joseph Lowery. Sheesh, guys, your censorship is showing again.... ******************* Btw, for some of you that are easily susceptible to paranoia, rest easy. Relax. Put your feet up. Be assured that both Obama and Biden are true-blue evolutionists. Biden even sounds like you guys on occasion, when he gets worked up. So please stop worryin'. Everything's kewl. You boys just whistle and they'll both come a-runnin like a coupla good lapdogs!! FL

Happy Monkey!

Is it a disappointment that Obama did not pick Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher or Oderus Urungus?

Censorship, FL?

It is very interesting to hear a committment to truth and charity being described as "censorship". You lie, of course. I hope you think your god is pleased with you. I rather doubt that you will find out to the contrary, but it would please me if you did.

there seems to be a suggestion that, since Warren is wrong, he should be excluded from dialog. To me, that's what christians are famous for. Warren represents a very large slice of the community who, despite their apparent retardation, need to be welcomed as part of the community despite the fact they also need to be opposed

snaxalotl said: there seems to be a suggestion that, since Warren is wrong, he should be excluded from dialog. To me, that's what christians are famous for. Warren represents a very large slice of the community who, despite their apparent retardation, need to be welcomed as part of the community despite the fact they also need to be opposed

I think it was largely a move to try and put the whole Jeremiah Wright thing behind him by using a very popular and appealing figure that many Americans (especially Conservatives of the social sort) would not object to. Unfortunately I wish he'd managed to pick somebody who wasn't anti-evolution and who doesn't think atheism has "killed more people than all the religious wars put together."
His appointments for people that will actually shape policy and make a differences is VERY encouraging. Just a leeeeeeettle bit more effort for this one, that's all I'd have asked for.

snaxalotl said: there seems to be a suggestion that, since Warren is wrong, he should be excluded from dialog. To me, that's what christians are famous for.

Matt Young said: Let me rephrase that before I get into trouble: If he wanted an evangelical, then Mr. Wallis should have been the obvious choice.

his parents never loved him enough to teach him appropriate social skills

ETA: HT to Dana Hunter for the second news item, link fixed here.

P.S.: Merry Christmas, FL! Now, I have to go back to mercilessly censoring those scientific manuscripts from the ID proponents that are never submitted in the first place. ;-)

So in other words, I take it that you were taught to mock all those who do not share your world beliefs and opinions, and to never to view such people as being human? I mean, that you refer to Obama and Biden as being dogs means that you don't regard them as human, after all, right?

By the way, how come you haven't bothered to explain why Jesus Christ disproves things like the observed appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria in response to misuse of antibiotics or the development of orchid and dog breeds?

Why is it that posters like FL leave a smile emoticon at the end of an attack? Is this to be understood as an ironic "FYATHYRIO"?

There's only one person I would recommend in place of Warren and who shows any intelligence; that person is Barry Lynn, head of the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

"A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

The York Daily Record (known for its coverage of the Dover ID trial) interviews Barack Obama: Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What's your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools? A: "I'm a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."

Ben Abbott said: I see Obama as an inclusive agent for change. The greatest change is that he seeks to include individuals from any and all ideologies who agree upon the material goals. Regrading Warren, I am not shy about my disdain for him. I find him generally destructive to humanity. I place him in the same garbage bin as anyone whose opinion is determined by ideology rather than by evidence. That said, if Obama's choice of Warren can direct the efforts of many destructive individuals toward constructive ends, then I'm all for it. Time will tell.

FL said: Btw, you can afford to smile instead of frown about my assessment, because you already know it's da truth, da whole truth, and nuthin' but da truth, so help me Darwin! FL :)

PvM said:

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

What a sad statement. I am glad that our new president has the insight and foresight to go down a more reasonable path. It's exactly this kind of attitude which has been so divisive in the last 8 years of the Bush presidency. Ignorance and bigotry are not 'qualities' unique to the fundamentalist Christians it seems.

PvM, I was interested enough to read some of Warren's own words. These were enough to persuade me that he is a creationist and a biblical literalist. That means he's ignorant.

His other opinions were not clear from what I have been able to find so far, but I understand that he thinks that homosexual behaviour is immoral by definition. That would make him a bigot, in my book, if true.

It is not for me to say who President Obama should invite to help inaugurate him. But I stand by what I wrote. I regret your opinion that it is sad. I challenge your implication that it is unreasonable.

If you cast your minds back to Ken Miller's address in Ohio, the professor actually stated, in reply to one of the questions in the Q&A session, that scientists often had more problems with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

I was surprised at this statement at the time, but I can now see what he means.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN’s Larry King in 2005, “If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest[,] then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that [sic] homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.”

Serendipitously ON TOPIC, with even a mention of Pastor Rick Warren in the advanced bloggle study material at bottom of this post! Just another EXAMPLE of God's blessing of the good work I'm doing on behalf of atheist's everywhere!

FIRST Documented Miracle of the last....errr....EVER!!

GOD'S GOES GUI ALL OVER THE WORLDWIDE WEB !!!

FIRST MIRACLE OF THE POINT AND CLICK GENERATION!

DOCUMENTED. FREE ADMISSION.

EXCITEMENT and ENTHUSIASM of the EVER EXPANDING CROWD NOT WITNESSED SINCE THE ERA OF PT BARNUM!! Helps answer the question everybody's been asking, namely "WHO THE HELL IS THIS TIM GUY, AND WHY IS HE SO PROMINENT ALL THE SUDDEN?

Take the pilgrimage. Find the answer. Don't miss out on this historic ONCE IN A LIFETIME opportunity to witness something you will be reminiscing about with with your future grandchildren.

Exhibit is hosted at the Electronic Showcase of Perpetual Bandwidth here (ESPB):
http://flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3123978019/

Background research for the rapidly growing members of my congregation who wish to do a little advanced bloggle study while watching the Sunday morning preachers on TV:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/timtimes/2008/12/those-crazy-fockers.php

or

http://tinyurl.com/3wgshv

Enjoy.

If people just could stop whining about how unfair this all is, and realize that the Obama ‘table’ is large enough to accommodate people of all faiths, beliefs etc.

— PvM

Good to see PvM taking a zero-censorship stand here...perhaps y'all might listen to him on that point. Maybe.

Have to point out that the point concerning Obama's equal-time invitation to the gay marriage supporter Rev. Lowery was not addressed by anybody----I guess that was asking too much to think about.

FL

PvM said:

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

What a sad statement. I am glad that our new president has the insight and foresight to go down a more reasonable path. It's exactly this kind of attitude which has been so divisive in the last 8 years of the Bush presidency. Ignorance and bigotry are not 'qualities' unique to the fundamentalist Christians it seems. Ironic isn't it...

I suppose some will liken this to "playing the Nazi card," but if you think it is OK to honor a notorious creationist by inviting him to deliver an invocation at the inauguration, ask yourself what you would think if it were a notorious astrologer or Holocaust denier instead. It is OK to have a dialog with a creationist or even an astrologer (not that you'll get very far), but having a dialog with someone who garbles evolution as remarkably badly as Mr. Warren is a far cry from honoring him. The point is not our political differences with Mr. Warren, but the fact that he is an unrepentant ignoramus who publicly discards the theory that lies at the heart of modern biology. If we want science to prosper in the United States, we simply cannot afford to honor the likes of Rick Warren.

PvM said:

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

What a sad statement. I am glad that our new president has the insight and foresight to go down a more reasonable path. It's exactly this kind of attitude which has been so divisive in the last 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Ignorance and bigotry are not 'qualities' unique to the fundamentalist Christians it seems.

Ironic isn't it...

Actually Damian I think the symbolism is quite different. Namely that the Democratic party is not going to let itself be defined as the party of atheists, so that we can quickly and efficiently weed-out the believers from the non-believers nonsense. Fear prevents rational discourse and if you play-up the fear in social conservatives that they are essentially shut-out from the government instead of helping them to do a nice careful revaluation of their positions and strategy they will merely retrench with more demagoguery than ever. If you continue to play into the all battle all the time mentality it is next to impossible to bring new people over to a more measured view of the roles of religion and science.

FL said: Good to see PvM taking a zero-censorship stand here...perhaps y'all might listen to him on that point. Maybe.

Have to point out that the point concerning Obama's equal-time invitation to the gay marriage supporter Rev. Lowery was not addressed by anybody----I guess that was asking too much to think about. FL

moneduloides said: I am honestly concerned at the unquestioned following of Obama so many science bloggers have submitted themselves to. I see no reason why a critical eye, a realistic eye, cannot be used in the realm of politics, yet the very scientists who claim to go where the evidence leads seemingly ignore whole swaths of evidence when it comes to questions of political ideology.

Have to point out that the point concerning Obama’s equal-time invitation to the gay marriage supporter Rev. Lowery was not addressed by anybody—-I guess that was asking too much to think about.

— FL

I like the Rick Warren pick, because once again we see Mr. Obama refusing to allow himself to be put into a box.

There are people on the far left who have an entitlement attitude toward Mr. Obama. "He is OUR candidate, he should do everything that WE want."

There are people on the far right who want....who NEED....to believe that Mr. Obama is the secret-Muslim terrorist socialist kook-fringe leftist thug who threatens their very way of life.

Every time Mr. Obama throws an inclusive, tolerant curveball like this, the ideological panties of extremists on both sides get bunched up into a confused, manic wad.

Good. The zealots are distracted, while Mr. Obama grows the center.

Besides, we have an incoming administration that looks hellbent on finally addressing the most pressing issues of our time: energy and environment. Thank goodness! In the grand scheme of global priorities, this is far more important than which religious fanatic gets to say a prayer at an inauguration.

We're going to get far more done with respect to the most urgent scientific issues of the day that require forceful, mandatory action, by being tolerant and inclusive, when we can, with respect to the stuff that doesn't matter so much. I happen to think that an invocation doesn't matter so much, and is an ideal opportunity to reach out across the ideological divide. It is a symbolic gesture that may yield value political capital, to be spent on the things that really can't wait.

It would be nice to kill off creationism and anti-gay bigotry, AND make energy breakthroughs AND save the environment, all in one fell swoop! But, realistically, it is going to take a broad, focused coalition to....ummm....save the planet. We're going to need all hands on deck. Even the creationists. Even the bigots. We are going to have to work with people we don't like.

jfx said: I like the Rick Warren pick, because once again we see Mr. Obama refusing to allow himself to be put into a box. There are people on the far left who have an entitlement attitude toward Mr. Obama. "He is OUR candidate, he should do everything that WE want." There are people on the far right who want....who NEED....to believe that Mr. Obama is the secret-Muslim terrorist socialist kook-fringe leftist thug who threatens their very way of life. Every time Mr. Obama throws an inclusive, tolerant curveball like this, the ideological panties of extremists on both sides get bunched up into a confused, manic wad. Good. The zealots are distracted, while Mr. Obama grows the center. Besides, we have an incoming administration that looks hellbent on finally addressing the most pressing issues of our time: energy and environment. Thank goodness! In the grand scheme of global priorities, this is far more important than which religious fanatic gets to say a prayer at an inauguration. We're going to get far more done with respect to the most urgent scientific issues of the day that require forceful, mandatory action, by being tolerant and inclusive, when we can, with respect to the stuff that doesn't matter so much. I happen to think that an invocation doesn't matter so much, and is an ideal opportunity to reach out across the ideological divide. It is a symbolic gesture that may yield value political capital, to be spent on the things that really can't wait. It would be nice to kill off creationism and anti-gay bigotry, AND make energy breakthroughs AND save the environment, all in one fell swoop! But, realistically, it is going to take a broad, focused coalition to....ummm....save the planet. We're going to need all hands on deck. Even the creationists. Even the bigots. We are going to have to work with people we don't like.

Hear, hear, jfx. I've just posted that last paragraph (credited) on FB.

Dave Luckett said: PvM, I was interested enough to read some of Warren's own words. These were enough to persuade me that he is a creationist and a biblical literalist. That means he's ignorant. His other opinions were not clear from what I have been able to find so far, but I understand that he thinks that homosexual behaviour is immoral by definition. That would make him a bigot, in my book, if true. It is not for me to say who President Obama should invite to help inaugurate him. But I stand by what I wrote. I regret your opinion that it is sad. I challenge your implication that it is unreasonable.

Frank J said:

If people just could stop whining about how unfair this all is, and realize that the Obama ‘table’ is large enough to accommodate people of all faiths, beliefs etc.

— PvM

Lately I have to remind myself that if I say out loud that something is "unfair" most people infer that I want the government to fix it, which is usually not the case. What I think is unfair regardless of who is in office is not that all "beliefs" are accommodated, but that "theories" that have not earned the right to be taught in public schools are. It's up to us to make sure that opportunities are earned. Sometimes the system works, as it did 3 years ago in a small town in PA where a Bush-appointed judge ruled in favor of science. If someday an Obama-appointed judge rules in favor of the misnamed "academic freedom," we only have ourselves to blame.

FL said: Good to see PvM taking a zero-censorship stand here...perhaps y'all might listen to him on that point. Maybe. Have to point out that the point concerning Obama's equal-time invitation to the gay marriage supporter Rev. Lowery was not addressed by anybody----I guess that was asking too much to think about. FL

Damian said: PvM, you are perfectly entitled to "dialogue" with Rick Warren as often as you so wish. I — and I would imagine most of those who have a real problem with this choice — don't have a problem with "dialogue", or "bringing people together" (even if they are essentially vacuous statements). But that is not what the inauguration represents. It is the symbolism that I object to — the veneer of respectability that his views are afforded by this invite. As you are well aware, the inauguration isn't really about dialogue, anyway. So people are beating up on a strawman, I'm afraid. Talk is of course useful, but it's also cheap, as well (and too often, one sided). There is plenty of time for dialogue.

Lest we forget, barely a month has passed since millions of your fellow citizens were dealt the dehumanizing and spirit crushing blow of Proposition 8 — the realization that for a majority of Americans — in 2008, no less! — LGBT's are simply not worthy of the recognition that is equality. And as I'm sure that you are aware, Rick Warren was a prominent figure in the campaign (where he lied, over and over again — see below).

As I'm also sure that you are aware, he believes that is valid to compare homosexuality (and by implication, millions of human beings) to pedophilia and incest, no less.

As for Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to lead the Inauguration convocation, I see that as his effort to reach out to the substantial minority of Americans who are Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians. By choosing Warren, Obama is not endorsing Warren’s inane support of creationism.

I like the Rick Warren pick, because once again we see Mr. Obama refusing to allow himself to be put into a box. There are people on the far left who have an entitlement attitude toward Mr. Obama. “He is OUR candidate, he should do everything that WE want.”

No, the last 8 years have been marred by an unprincipled accommodation of bigotry and ignorance, not their exclusion.

Ignorance and bigotry are not ‘qualities’ unique to the fundamentalist Christians it seems.

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand"

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren's welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference. Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren's church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama's position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama's solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.

During a summit press conference, Rick Warren was questioned on whether working alongside groups that oppose Christian moral values on Aids issues might require compromise. "I don't believe in compromising biblical convictions," he responded, according to World Net Daily. "I don't believe in that at all. If it's in the Word, then that's the way it should be done. I do believe in treating people with respect, even people that I disagree with. I think Jesus did that." The megachurch pastor noted that he can work with people in areas of common interest to help others although he might disagree with them in other areas. "I see Jesus as my model, not politics," Warren said. "And I think too many people look at issues from a political viewpoint, and they choose politics over saving lives. "To me, if someone is dying on the side of the street, and I need help to save that person, it doesn't matter to me if they are Republican or Democrat, or Jewish and Christian, Muslim or atheist," the Purpose Driven Life author said. "If they will help me get that person to the hospital, I want their help." Warren affirmed, however, that his church's "number one goal" is still to "help people to get into heaven".

PvM said: Some have accused Warren of equating gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. It is important to understand the full context of his statement

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Hope this clarifies and contributes to a more balanced conversation.

I do not like that Obama selected somebody with such ignorant and bigoted views of science and fellow humans (who describes the difference between himself as Dobson as one "of tone") to perform a prominent dignitary function. I think there could have been much better people to fill that role. However, I also recognize that it does at least serve a symbolic, diplomatic function regarding Obama's message against divisiveness (ironically by given some time for an outspoken advocate of such). It's also worth noting that the real benediction at the ceremony will be performed by a pro-gay rights reverend. It's clear that Obama will not share Warren's anti-science and anti-equality views, nor incorporate them into national policy. You can view this as Obama returning the favor to Warren for inviting him to speak at Warren's church several years ago despite their ideological differences, if nothing else.

That said, someone else brought up the point about inviting a Holocaust denier in Warren's stead. What if the group to be "included" was the Westboro Baptist Church, and Obama invited Fred Phelps over Warren (assuming for a moment that God miraculously intervened and convinced Phelps to participate instead of his more likely response of picketing the inauguration)? Would that be just as praiseworthy, or would it be foolish? Is there really no other way to reach out to the opposition than to uncritically give them a prominent place in your inauguration? Because that still strikes me as more of the same "fairness" as Equal Time for Both in Science Class.

Whatever the intention, it seems to have backfired at least somewhat.

Is there really no other way to reach out to the opposition than to uncritically give them a prominent place in your inauguration? Because that still strikes me as more of the same “fairness” as Equal Time for Both in Science Class.

Wheels said: What if the group to be "included" was the Westboro Baptist Church, and Obama invited Fred Phelps over Warren ...

PvM, your attempts to whitewash this cretin’s vitriol is quickly becoming embarrassing. You claim that you don’t want to see ignorance and bigotry go unchallenged. Well, then start challenging it already. Making apologies for “clarifications of” it is the opposite of that.

Warren is no fan of the Religious Right, and he recognizes that it is inappropriate for people of faith in a pluralistic society to impose their will on others simply by majoritarian fiat. So that is why I found his announcement on October 23 that he supports California's Proposition 8 so disturbing. Proposition 8, a ballot initiative, seeks to overturn the California supreme court's ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally permissible. Warren has every right to his views on the definition of marriage, which he insists (not without foundation) is mandated in the Bible. Millions of Americans - a majority, I'm sure - agree with him. "If you believe what the Bible says about marriage," he declared on his website, "you need to support Proposition 8." Warren goes on to note that, by his reckoning, gays and lesbians make up only 2 percent of the population in the United States. "We should not let 2 percent of the population change the definition of marriage." Warren, a Baptist, knows better. The cornerstones of the Baptist tradition are adult baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and the principle of liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state. Baptists inherited these ideas from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist tradition in America. And, at least until the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Baptists have always been watchmen on that wall of separation and fierce guardians of liberty of conscience. Thankfully, Williams's ideas were incorporated into the United States Constitution, both in the First Amendment, which forbade a religious establishment, and in the recurring principle of respect for the rights of minorities.

It’s all about where you draw the line. Some religious person is required at this event, and Obama could have chosen anywhere along the spectrum. He stopped just short of Phelps and chose Warren. I think a more middle-of-the-road, low profile guy would have set a more civil tone for the new administration.

You can watch Rick Warren on FoxNews

You be the judge.

Dunford,

You're an idiot. Warren isn't "homophobic". He merely believes that marriage means the union of a man and a woman, which is what most people believe. Gay people can marry now. They can marry people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Nobody has aa absolute right to have their sexual preferences licensed under law.

Do you believe that polygamy or incest or bestiality should be sanctioned as marriage under law? If so, you're an asshole. If not, then are you 'polygaphobic' or 'incestophobic' 'bestialityophobic', or do you just have moral standards.

Mark

PvM said: In response to the Proposition 8 debacle, people have resorted to behavior with which I disagree, including the boycotting of businesses where owners personally contributed to the Proposition.

mark said: Dunford, You're an idiot. Warren isn't "homophobic". He merely believes that marriage means the union of a man and a woman, which is what most people believe. Gay people can marry now. They can marry people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Nobody has aa absolute right to have their sexual preferences licensed under law.

But I didn't like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience. "I agree with you on this," said Fred Karger. On his Californians Against Hate website, Karger has been outing Prop. 8 supporters, but he thinks Christoffersen's small personal donation didn't warrant such a backlash against El Coyote. Karger also spoke out against the resignation of a Sacramento theater director who gave $1,000 to Yes on 8 and happens to be Mormon.

tomh said:

PvM said: In response to the Proposition 8 debacle, people have resorted to behavior with which I disagree, including the boycotting of businesses where owners personally contributed to the Proposition.

That's an interesting take on things. So, if a business donates a percentage of their profits in order to pass policies like prop 8, that alone, (in your view), wouldn't justify giving one's business to a competitor? Just so they didn't have quite as much money to fight you the next time? Why not?

The present historical moment carries a remarkable confluence of progressive opportunities.

Never before have we...as a nation, sure...but especially as a civilization, had these conversations on creation, faith, and equality with such frequency and tenacity.

Obama's "Rick Warren moment" is an opportunity to acquire and share information in a way that furthers civil discourse. If we who operate as free-thinking scientists, evolutionists, humanists, secular-progressives, etc., believe that we have information about creation and existence that is "true" and "right", and is critical to the preservation of the world, the viability of a sustainable human-friendly ecosystem, and enlightened equality among human adults, then we have an obligation to be MORE tolerant than the Creationist, MORE inclusive than the homophobe, and MORE humane in our advocacy for truth and equality than those who we feel are "wrong".

This means we have the difficult task of articulating scientific revelations in ways that move people to think and act productively. Bludgeoning Creationists with data and scorn is a great way to let off steam, and might win a few clammy high-fives in the rarefied air of the evoblogosphere, but it does not move the masses who, if suitably moved, could cultivate a healthier Earth.

Rick Warren fills a need that, apparently, millions of people have. He offers purpose, hope, and salvation. He leverages a warm, congenial, Papa Bear personality to do it. He happens to operate within a religious framework that, I'm sure many of us believe, stands as an impediment to scientific and societal progress.

If we would do away with that pesky religious framework, or at least the interpretation of it that fears gays and scorns science, then we have to offer purpose, hope, and salvation. We have to offer a worldview that, while secular, sober, and fact-based, also happens to be attractive, and fun.

It is not enough to say "this is real". People will not choose "real", if it is not in some way redemptive. And they certainly won't choose "real" if it is being shouted at them...angrily, mockingly...by frowning, harrumphing academics.

I would suggest we need people with the positive personal qualities of Rick Warren (I am talking here about affable, ebullient personality) to speak on the national and global stage with OUR message. It is not enough to have the data on our side. We have to move people with it, and demonstrate a sincere generosity of spirit in doing so. I regret that Dr. Sagan is gone, but he was the perfect prototype for a progressive Guru of the Information Age. I am sorry to say that Mr. Richard Dawkins seems to have fallen prey to the hero-trappings of the Cult of Scornful Atheism.

Specifically with regard to homosexuality, gay marriage, and Prop 8, I do not understand why there isn't a more concerted effort to promote homosexuality as a biological reality (like being "black"), to the point of being taught as such, both philosophically and empirically...or, if there is, I don't see it. Perhaps the science of homosexual origin is simply not quite there yet, but I know that there are still far too many people who are...sadly, wrongly...comfortable in believing "gay" is a sort of rebellious, anti-establishment lifestyle choice. We might think it appropriate that gays be accepted, simply out of moral decency, but full free and fair equality for gays would be greatly accelerated with a more robust scientific, legal, and activist media thrust regarding the "Why?" and "How?" of homosexuality in humans. The people who are anti-gay need to hear a better argument for why they should question their entrenched, inherited convictions.

For example, in California, framing the question of gay rights in the context of biological reality...framing it in a natural physiological context along the lines of being black, or being a woman....aggressively framing it in a way that fits the issue squarely into the continuum of civil rights granted in this country as a rejection of any perceived inferiority...might go a long way in winning the support of all those African-American voters who, right now, still aren't drawing the parallels to the point of feeling any real solidarity on principle.

The Prop 8 battleground is a place where scientists and vocal advocacy groups can do powerful work together.

jfx said: The present historical moment carries a remarkable confluence of progressive opportunities.

Given that Obama is going to live under a specter of potential assassination unrivaled by any president in living memory, I'm okay with him giving a, policy irrelevant, hat tip to a highly motivated sliver of the American populace that would prefer to watch his inauguration down a rifle sight than on television.

I seriously wouldn't worry about it. Everyone in his administation who has anything to do with a science related post reflects a deep understand of their field, not creatoinist fantasies. He has surrounding himself with an awesome team, but if he really wants to fix things, he is going to need two terms. This means he can't really do everything he wants until at least 2012, and by then, I would expect democrats to hold a 60+ seat majority in the senate, meaning that they can actually do what they need to do.

So I wouln't worry so much about these first four years - he's going to have to toe the line a bit.

PvM said: Again you seem to be using ad hominems rather than logic. I am not white-washing Rick Warren, as I do not agree with his position. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of rhetoric, ignorance and whining, I make an effort to educate myself and others as to the position of those with whom we disagree.

This allows us to make a much better judgment and avoid broadly painting the evangelical christian movements as ignorant and bigoted.

I am thus challenging ignorance and bigotry but perhaps not in a manner you had in mind. Remember that there is a two edged sword when fighting ignorance and bigotry. Let us not fall victim to much of the behaviors we so deplore in others.

As to Rick Warren, I find his position against gay marriage ill informed, however I do understand that the concept of marriage from a Christian perspective is reasonably well defined.

And although some religions consider multiple wives a religious right and duty, Warren holds the opinion that this is not a religious right or duty. Again, this is largely a matter of opinion, where Warren focuses on his interpretation of what defines marriage under the laws of his God.

Does this make Warren more or less ignorant or bigoted than those 70% black voters who voted in favor of Proposition 8? Does this mean black voters also do not deserve to be participating in the inauguration and the policy making of the Obama government?

Well now that you mentioned it, are you OK with that “equal time”?

mark said: Dunford, You're an idiot. Warren isn't "homophobic". He merely believes that marriage means the union of a man and a woman, which is what most people believe. Gay people can marry now. They can marry people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Nobody has aa absolute right to have their sexual preferences licensed under law.

FL said: (In fact, it wouldn't even hurt to support a few "equal-time" arrangements in science classrooms!!) FL :)

H.H. said:

PvM said: Again you seem to be using ad hominems rather than logic. I am not white-washing Rick Warren, as I do not agree with his position. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of rhetoric, ignorance and whining, I make an effort to educate myself and others as to the position of those with whom we disagree.

Right, you aren't engaging in ad homs, merely saying those who disagree that it is proper to include Warren in Obama's inauguration are guilty of jumping on a "bandwagon of rhetoric, ignorance and whining." Your stunning hypocrisy is noted.

This allows us to make a much better judgment and avoid broadly painting the evangelical christian movements as ignorant and bigoted.

Broad brush? Warren is a leader and spokesperson for a large evangelical population. Up on that stage, he becomes the representative for everyone who holds these views. If this isn't the case, then why are you going on about "reaching out" to a entire group of people? You can't have it both ways, PvM. Either Warren's ignorant and bigoted views represent a large bloc of American evangelicals, and thus his inclusion is important for outreach, or his views aren't typical and he has no business being on that stage.

I am thus challenging ignorance and bigotry but perhaps not in a manner you had in mind. Remember that there is a two edged sword when fighting ignorance and bigotry. Let us not fall victim to much of the behaviors we so deplore in others.

Not including outspoken bigots in public events is not itself a form of bigotry, no matter how many times you try to bang that drum.

As to Rick Warren, I find his position against gay marriage ill informed, however I do understand that the concept of marriage from a Christian perspective is reasonably well defined.

Really? Just like it was "defined" to exclude miscegenation a few decades ago? Or was it illustrated by the many examples of polygamy found within the pages of the bible itself? When Warren says the biblical view of marriage hasn't changed in 5000 years, he is lying, PvM. Presenting it as a reasonable, consistent view that we should all try really, really hard to understand is partaking of that lie. It's certainly not "fair and balanced," despite whatever misguided perspective may have led you to believe so.

And although some religions consider multiple wives a religious right and duty, Warren holds the opinion that this is not a religious right or duty. Again, this is largely a matter of opinion, where Warren focuses on his interpretation of what defines marriage under the laws of his God.

Thank you for making my point for me. So you admit Warren's claim that the Christian definition of marriage hasn't changed in 4000 years is an egregious lie and is actually based on nothing more than his own personal bigotry and historical ignorance. Then why would you offer this lie as a "clarification" and hope that it "contributes to a more balanced conversation?"

Does this make Warren more or less ignorant or bigoted than those 70% black voters who voted in favor of Proposition 8? Does this mean black voters also do not deserve to be participating in the inauguration and the policy making of the Obama government?

No, he is equally ignorant. But because of his status as a conspicuous leader of a organized movement to deny gay rights, his inclusion in a Presidential inauguration gives a stamp of approval to his cause.

There might very well be creationists in attendance at the inauguration. That isn't the same thing to handing the mic to Ken Ham. Please, use your head. You keep claiming to want to be reasonable about this, then stop offering emotional false equivocations in place of arguments.

FL said:

Well now that you mentioned it, are you OK with that “equal time”?

Sure, Frank J. You've seen no comments from me opposing Rev. Lowery's invitation. "Equal time" is the American way. (In fact, it wouldn't even hurt to support a few "equal-time" arrangements in science classrooms!!) FL :)

H.H. said:

mark said: Dunford, You're an idiot. Warren isn't "homophobic". He merely believes that marriage means the union of a man and a woman, which is what most people believe. Gay people can marry now. They can marry people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Nobody has aa absolute right to have their sexual preferences licensed under law.

This is the same argument bigots used in the battle against interracial marriage. "Blacks and whites have the same right to marry a person of the same color as themselves just like everyone else, they just can't break 'traditional marriage' and marry each other out of love." Guess what, this sort of hateful ignorance didn't fly back then either. And you have the gall to call someone else an idiot? The rest of your post so ignorant and offensive as to be beneath comment. I can't believe it didn't earn a deletion, let alone praise from PvM.

H. H.- "I can’t believe it didn’t earn a deletion, let alone praise from PvM."

I couldn't agree more.

Rick R said: H. H.- "I can’t believe it didn’t earn a deletion, let alone praise from PvM." I couldn't agree more.

Shorter Pim- "It's not bigotry if it's faith based, it's "religious differences."

Does that bout sum it up, Pim?

Rick R said: Shorter Pim- "It's not bigotry if it's faith based, it's "religious differences." Does that bout sum it up, Pim?

To see Warren 'debate' Harris

Newsweek

Harris totally pwned Warren, especially on the issues of morality and evolution. Why is it that so many Christians insist on being on the foolish side of the argument?

Sigh

PvM said: Your interpretation does not seem to capture most of my argument. Calling something bigotry just because we disagree with it seems rather silly, to call a whole group bigoted and ignorant just because we disagree with something one of its leaders has said, seems rather silly.

Given that Warren seems to accept that there are those who are holding to different beliefs, lifestyles and opinions, I would be reluctant for calling him a bigot because he holds to a religious interpretation of the meaning of the term marriage.

Here’s the bottom line: Warren IS a bigot. He advocates his bigotry to others, and there is a very sizable chunk of the public which already shares it. We don’t call him a “bigot” just because we disagree with him, we call him a bigot because he actively engages in promoting institutionalized, ugly discrimination against other human beings based on matters over which they have zero control (like their sexual orientation) and defaming them based on their ideological differences (spreading the lie that atheism is more murderous than theism). Whether he justifies these things with his interpretation of Scripture or not, it’s still bigotry in addition to any sectarian difference of opinion.

Insisting that his religious interpretation of marriage should be enshrined above all others in our secular government’s laws, preventing people who do not share his religious beliefs from marrying because of it, and even trumping the real definition of marriage that scientists who study and observe the human institution use, is bigoted. While it’s understandable that he might hold such a position, that doesn’t relieve it from the label. It’s just as bigoted as the sadly-not-so-old rules of Bob Jones University that once banned interracial relationships.

A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class (see bigotry).

PS, since Obama also seems to oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, do you think he is a bigot as well?

PvM said: PS, since Obama also seems to oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, do you think he is a bigot as well?

I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized. "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society." Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law." "And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement outlining the reasons for his vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage: "This debate is a thinly-veiled attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. A consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Red States and Blue States, that it's time for new leadership in this country - leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans. "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

PvM said: Is he proposing discrimination? Is he defaming them? Is he spreading lies that atheism is more murderous than theism?

Both have their 'champions'. To call this bigotry seems rather a dubious usage of the term.

In fact, I disagree that he advocates bigotry against others and I doubt that he would be opposed to extending the same rights to gay couples as to heterosexual couples, however, he, based on religious faith, does not want the term marriage to be used to describe such a union.

To call him bigoted because of this seems rather missing the point but it often is much simpler to call people bigots rather than to engage in a description that much better does justice to the person in question.

Sigh... Seems that Obama will have quite a task to unify where his supporters seem to be not much different from that which they despise. Why call him a bigot for holding an opinion about the concept of marriage, and to call this similar to interracial relationship bans ignores how 70% of blacks supported Prop 8. Guess they are not much different from those 'bigots'? Is that your argument?

Rejecting Christian Evangelists because they have people amongst them who we believe hold bigoted positions seems rather unnecessary and ill founded.

A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class (see bigotry).

Is this how you see Warren and why? Is Warren intolerant of gays? Is he a bigot by a meaningful application of the word?

So should we call a large group of evangelical Christians bigoted and ignorant and avoid having their opinions heard?

Do we want to re-interpret Warren's contribution to the inauguration as somehow rubber stamping his beliefs?

PvM said: PS, since Obama also seems to oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, do you think he is a bigot as well?

John Kwok said: Dear jfx, Thanks for offering some intelligent, well-reasoned commentary to this discussion thread:

jfx said: I like the Rick Warren pick, because once again we see Mr. Obama refusing to allow himself to be put into a box. There are people on the far left who have an entitlement attitude toward Mr. Obama. "He is OUR candidate, he should do everything that WE want." There are people on the far right who want....who NEED....to believe that Mr. Obama is the secret-Muslim terrorist socialist kook-fringe leftist thug who threatens their very way of life. Every time Mr. Obama throws an inclusive, tolerant curveball like this, the ideological panties of extremists on both sides get bunched up into a confused, manic wad. Good. The zealots are distracted, while Mr. Obama grows the center. Besides, we have an incoming administration that looks hellbent on finally addressing the most pressing issues of our time: energy and environment. Thank goodness! In the grand scheme of global priorities, this is far more important than which religious fanatic gets to say a prayer at an inauguration. We're going to get far more done with respect to the most urgent scientific issues of the day that require forceful, mandatory action, by being tolerant and inclusive, when we can, with respect to the stuff that doesn't matter so much. I happen to think that an invocation doesn't matter so much, and is an ideal opportunity to reach out across the ideological divide. It is a symbolic gesture that may yield value political capital, to be spent on the things that really can't wait. It would be nice to kill off creationism and anti-gay bigotry, AND make energy breakthroughs AND save the environment, all in one fell swoop! But, realistically, it is going to take a broad, focused coalition to....ummm....save the planet. We're going to need all hands on deck. Even the creationists. Even the bigots. We are going to have to work with people we don't like.

As many of you know, I supported Senator McCain in his unsuccessful quest for the Presidency, primarily because I feared the consequences of an Obama presidency. I've radically shifted my point of view only because of Obama's generally excellent choices for Cabinet positions, especially those in science and technology. As for Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the Inauguration convocation, I see that as his effort to reach out to the substantial minority of Americans who are Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians. By choosing Warren, Obama is not endorsing Warren's inane support of creationism. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

Wheels said:

PvM said: Is he proposing discrimination? Is he defaming them? Is he spreading lies that atheism is more murderous than theism?

... Yes. He is doing those things. He has been documented doing those things. Links have already been provided where he says and does these things. Do not repeat Jon Kwok's mistake.

Sigh... Seems that Obama will have quite a task to unify where his supporters seem to be not much different from that which they despise. Why call him a bigot for holding an opinion about the concept of marriage, and to call this similar to interracial relationship bans ignores how 70% of blacks supported Prop 8. Guess they are not much different from those 'bigots'? Is that your argument?

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think the racial make-up of Prop 8. supporters is relevant here. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to say that 70% of blacks supported a bigoted amendment, and has nothing to do with Rick Warren being bigoted against homosexuals. Don't use racial make-up as a red herring where I'm using racist practices as an analogy to homosexual discrimination.

Rejecting Christian Evangelists because they have people amongst them who we believe hold bigoted positions seems rather unnecessary and ill founded.

Who here is "rejecting Christian Evangelists" as a group? How so? I want answers to these two questions.

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

Is this how you see Warren and why? Is Warren intolerant of gays? Is he a bigot by a meaningful application of the word?

Do we want to re-interpret Warren's contribution to the inauguration as somehow rubber stamping his beliefs?

This is like asking "Do we want to re-interpret having the principal invite Kent Hovind to lead the prayer in our schools' science classes as somehow rubber stamping his beliefs?"

PvM said: PS, since Obama also seems to oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, do you think he is a bigot as well?

That's a good question, and I'm going to say that it is a bigoted practice also. "Separate but equal" isn't. At least Obama is moving in the right direction and advocating gay rights, non-descrimination, expand protection of "hate crime" laws to include homosexuals, repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the ability to adopt children, etc. While he has stated that he won't support homosexual "marriage," he also doesn't seem to stand in the way of it when states try to legalize it and is actively promoting greater inclusiveness of this genuinely excluded minority. Fighting for more equal rights on behalf of the disadvantaged is different than giving religious bigots more validity than they already have.
He's far more tolerant and progressive on equality than Warren and definitely recognizes the issue of civil rights in this. It's not going as far as I'd like, but it isn't going backwards.

Obama on abortion and gay marriage

I sorta had this argument on another blog - a very liberal one. I started out saying that there was something to be said for the idea of civil contracts - something that confers the same rights and responsibilities as "marriage" but isn't called marriage. It turns out that it isn't an option, in fact. Either it doesn't offer the same benefits, really, or it's marriage. A rose by any other name, etcetera. Anyway, the religious lobby is alive to that one.

Then I tried arguing that marriage does not and has never included same-sex partners. I got handed my head on that one. Human societies have always had some form of marriage - that and the general incest taboo are held to be practically the only things all human societies share - but there have been plenty of societies that defined marriage in terms that included same-sex partners. Anyway, what that argument boils down to is, "We don't do that hereabouts". Well, sorry, but some of us do. Note the use of the first person. The people who do are us, not them. There is a word for a person who calls human beings "them" for purposes of alienating, discriminating against, and disabling them. That word is "bigot".

The knock-down argument, for me, from which I never got up, is that it is not for a secular State to discriminate among economically-similar personal relationships contracted by its citizens by affording some of them more or different rights than others. A same-sex couple is quite likely to be raising children, and if they are, have every right to the same treatment - exactly the same treatment - as an opposite-sex couple doing the same. They are almost certain to be pooling income, or sharing it - and should be treated exactly the same as other couples who are. And so on, for all the secular, legal characteristics of marriage.

Sure, you can argue that religious law should determine the law of the State, at least in this case, but do you really want to?

The knock-down argument, for me, from which I never got up, is that it is not for a secular State to discriminate among economically-similar personal relationships contracted by its citizens by affording some of them more or different rights than others. A same-sex couple is quite likely to be raising children, and if they are, have every right to the same treatment - exactly the same treatment - as an opposite-sex couple doing the same. They are almost certain to be pooling income, or sharing it - and should be treated exactly the same as other couples who are. And so on, for all the secular, legal characteristics of marriage. Sure, you can argue that religious law should determine the law of the State, at least in this case, but do you really want to?

Anyway, what that argument boils down to is, “We don’t do that hereabouts”. Well, sorry, but some of us do. Note the use of the first person. The people who do are us, not them. There is a word for a person who calls human beings “them” for purposes of alienating, discriminating against, and disabling them. That word is “bigot”.

PvM said: The inauguration is about the start of a new era where dissent is not frowned upon or repressed, where our leaders are strong enough and confident enough and informed enough not the threatened by other strong opinions and reach their conclusions based upon consideration of any and all relevant opinion. That Obama is reaching out to the evangelical christian through a controversial character like Warren, even though within the evangelical christian movement, warren's position may be considered more liberal, is quite symbolic and in fact shows that Obama is not afraid to mend to the wounds left by a contentious election where Palin and others led the evangelical charge of hatred.

PvM said: And, using your logic, a large percentage of black liberal voters ended up supporting proposition 8 as well and they may not have earned a place at the table either?

And by the way, the reason that it is acceptable to call people like Rick Warren a bigot, is because, despite his protestations, he doesn't actually take the bible literally, at all. If he did, he (and all others who claim to do so) would necessarily have to be in favor of all sorts of morally repugnant practices, as well.

So the only conclusion is that, for whatever reason, he has decided that God doesn't want us to put people to death for being a homosexual, but that he doesn't want them to marry. And just what is his justification for this cherry picking, I wonder?

The simple explanation is that, quite clearly, and as with so many other people, he doesn't like the thought of two autonomous individuals deciding what is best for their own lives. Ain't the bible terrific at retrospectively validating bigotry, though?

And as we already know, almost all of the "excuses" that were presented during the run up to prop 8 were entirely bogus, and largely fabricated. Rick Warren is on record as stating all sorts of made up claims in support of his position. You would think that when you are about to remove the rights of millions of your fellow citizens, you should really check whether your sources are intellectually valid, or not. That he didn't suggests that he simply isn't bothered about holding valid reasons for not allowing homosexuals to marry.

And that, in my opinion, is bigotry. You can call it something else if you like.

PvM said: Since I have not seen these links perhaps you can repeat them for me so that I can 'repeat Jon Kwok's mistake' ?

It has all to do with the issue here since you are extend the term bigots to 70% of the California blacks, and of course also to Obama who seems to oppose based on his faith, to extend marriage to gays although he does support civil humans. If you want to use racial marriage as a red herring then surely you should deal with its consequences.

Have you not followed the discussion? I responded to Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

So that makes him a bigot? For not allowing same sex marriage? Wow... What about being intolerant of his beliefs? Does intolerance only works one way?

I see nothing wrong in opposing abortion, same sex marriage etc based on religious convictions. I may disagree with them but calling them bigots cheapens the debate.

Very different issue here. Again missing the point. Is this about Christian beliefs more than about Warren's position on gay marriage?

First of all, the principal is barred by constitutional law to have Hovind lead in prayer in schools, and even if Hovind were invited to give a benediction, would this mean that one has to agree with all his positions?

So there are now gradations of bigotry and somehow Obama's position on other issues makes it more ok?

Should we thus not extend the same courtesy to Warren and not call him a bigot just because he holds to a position on gay marriage similar to Obamas?

Calling Warren a religious bigot is just without much merit...

So your position is that both Obama's position and Warren's position is one of bigotry, although wrt Obama, you also believe that there are redeeming qualities that make the bigotry less serious? Did I get this right?

*functionally identical

Blah. Too much editing tape covers up the errors.

It was, in fact, you who posted the link, which Warren argues that atheists have been responsible for more killing than all the religious wars put together. That covers the atheism part.

He doesn’t hold the same position on gay people that Obama does, especially in their relation to society. Just because neither one supports gay marriage doesn’t make them functionally. And where did I say that Obama’s no-gay-marriage policy isn’t bigoted? I think I said that it was. At the same time, I haven’t being making a “black and white” argument just to glue a sticker with “BIGOT” on Warren’s head. I believe his words and his actions justify the appellation.

I would definitely say that of the two, Obama is unquestionably more tolerant than Warren in regards to homosexuals. Warren is more thorough in his intolerance; while Obama has certain prejudiced views, he is less deserving of the title of “bigot” than Warren: just as we can say that while Darwin was racist to an extent, he was far less racist than most of his contemporaries and argued for compassionate treatment of humans regardless of race. I would have rather had a world full of people with Darwin’s attitude on race back in the day and I’d rather have more people with Obama’s attitude than Warren’s today.

“For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren wrote. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.”

— Warren

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

— Obama

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

— Obama

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law." "And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote

— Obama

Everything that I have read in psychology, and from those who were once a fundamentalist, suggests that the kind of barriers that are necessary to maintain beliefs that simply don’t jibe with the evidence, are not brought down by the presentation of facts. Indeed, just how successful have you been in persuading FL, William Wallace, bobby, as well as numerous others — even though the facts are clearly on your side — of the accuracy of the current evolutionary paradigm?

So don’t you dare attempt to make it seem as though anyone who doesn’t agree with you is somehow not wanting to engage with people of vastly differing views — that we are the ones who are ignorant and bigoted. Just don’t even bother.

And by the way, the reason that it is acceptable to call people like Rick Warren a bigot, is because, despite his protestations, he doesn’t actually take the bible literally, at all. If he did, he (and all others who claim to do so) would necessarily have to be in favor of all sorts of morally repugnant practices, as well.

You would think that when you are about to remove the rights of millions of your fellow citizens, you should really check whether your sources are intellectually valid, or not. That he didn’t suggests that he simply isn’t bothered about holding valid reasons for not allowing homosexuals to marry.

on January 29th, 2008, while on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, Warren casually remarked: "A Fundamentalist is someone who stops listening. There are Fundamentalist Christians. There are Fundamentalist Jews. There are Fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalist Atheists. Fundamental Secularists. It's an attitude that doesn't want to listen to anybody else."

on January 10, 2006, a Philadelphia Inquirer story reported: "Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be 'one of the big enemies of the 21st century. Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism—they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.'"

About The Bible The Bible is God´s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5)

Does Obama believe that the law of the State should enforce his religion's views, but not those of other citizens who are of a different religion, or of no religion? I don't think so, on balance, so I don't call him a bigot. Are the voters who voted for Proposition 8 bigots? I can't tell. I think mostly not - I suspect that fear, lack of consideration and habit are more to blame. I don't call anyone a bigot until I have evidence.

But I have seen evidence that Warren does think that, so I call him a bigot. On evidence, he is also a biblical literalist and a creationist, so I call him ignorant.

Is it an endorsement of Warren's ignorance and bigotry to select him to perform this office? A strict interpretation would be "not necessarily", and that is defensible, just about. PvM ably defends it.

But colour me unimpressed, all the same.

PvM said: From SaddleBack Church website

About The Bible The Bible is God´s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5)

So Warren may very well hold to an error free Bible although he also admits that the Bible includes metaphorical usage.

PvM said: So Warren may very well hold to an error free Bible although he also admits that the Bible includes metaphorical usage.

(In fact, it wouldn’t even hurt to support a few “equal-time” arrangements in science classrooms!!)

— FL

And yet there are people like me or Glenn Morton and others who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts.

— PvM

This thread is an example of what I like about PT, an open discusion of views with referrence to facts. There is no mistaking the steady advance of gay and lesbian rights. People need to keep that in mind when they complain about Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and Obama's marriage vs. union views. Clinton brought the question out in terms of the military and found that the armed services weren't quite ready for total equality. But now, ten years later, they are openly considering it. Civil unions may now be in Obama's reach, and he is inclined to try. That is very good news. Let the losing side have their invocation. That in not going change the outcome.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: Dear jfx, Thanks for offering some intelligent, well-reasoned commentary to this discussion thread:

jfx said: I like the Rick Warren pick, because once again we see Mr. Obama refusing to allow himself to be put into a box. There are people on the far left who have an entitlement attitude toward Mr. Obama. "He is OUR candidate, he should do everything that WE want." There are people on the far right who want....who NEED....to believe that Mr. Obama is the secret-Muslim terrorist socialist kook-fringe leftist thug who threatens their very way of life. Every time Mr. Obama throws an inclusive, tolerant curveball like this, the ideological panties of extremists on both sides get bunched up into a confused, manic wad. Good. The zealots are distracted, while Mr. Obama grows the center. Besides, we have an incoming administration that looks hellbent on finally addressing the most pressing issues of our time: energy and environment. Thank goodness! In the grand scheme of global priorities, this is far more important than which religious fanatic gets to say a prayer at an inauguration. We're going to get far more done with respect to the most urgent scientific issues of the day that require forceful, mandatory action, by being tolerant and inclusive, when we can, with respect to the stuff that doesn't matter so much. I happen to think that an invocation doesn't matter so much, and is an ideal opportunity to reach out across the ideological divide. It is a symbolic gesture that may yield value political capital, to be spent on the things that really can't wait. It would be nice to kill off creationism and anti-gay bigotry, AND make energy breakthroughs AND save the environment, all in one fell swoop! But, realistically, it is going to take a broad, focused coalition to....ummm....save the planet. We're going to need all hands on deck. Even the creationists. Even the bigots. We are going to have to work with people we don't like.

As many of you know, I supported Senator McCain in his unsuccessful quest for the Presidency, primarily because I feared the consequences of an Obama presidency. I've radically shifted my point of view only because of Obama's generally excellent choices for Cabinet positions, especially those in science and technology. As for Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the Inauguration convocation, I see that as his effort to reach out to the substantial minority of Americans who are Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians. By choosing Warren, Obama is not endorsing Warren's inane support of creationism. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

John, I'm glad to see that you and I are FINALLY on the same page regarding Obama, after the beating we gave each other in Facebook over him about a month ago. I opposed McCain this year because I saw him as a follower of Bush Jr, not merely because he was a Republican. Back in the 1980s, I, like most of my Republican relatives, admired Reagan, and in 2000 I even supported McCain in the primaries, but eventually I became so disgusted with the Republican Party (because of Bush Jr's starting the Iraq War under false pretenses) that I vowed never to vote Republican ever again and to support Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens instead to knock out the GOP forever as a major party. I reasoned that was the only way to make sure we never elect anyone like Bush Jr ever again. Indeed, the more I look at the Libertarians, the better they look as the next major party to challenge the Democrats, including Obama, in 2012. Let it be so!

As a Canadian agnostic my dog's not fighting, but I wonder, pvm, just what *is* your definition of a bigot?

As far as the black community that vote for prop 8, does a person have to be part of an empowered majority to be considered bigoted? Or can members groups who are discriminated against also be bigots themselves?

I also have a hard time understanding how letting 2 to 10% of the population (depending on who you believe) call their union "marriage" soils any kind of supposed sanctity for the rest.

(shrug) "Is a puzzlement", as Yul Brynner would say.

Dave Luckett said: But I have seen evidence that Warren does think that, so I call him a bigot. On evidence, he is also a biblical literalist and a creationist, so I call him ignorant. Is it an endorsement of Warren's ignorance and bigotry to select him to perform this office? A strict interpretation would be "not necessarily", and that is defensible, just about. PvM ably defends it. But colour me unimpressed, all the same.

Nevertheless, ignorance and bigotry, the ugly twins at the head of fundamentalist Christianity, should not be accommodated, no matter how politic it might be. Compromise with them is no virtue; intolerance of them is no vice.

As a Canadian agnostic my dog’s not fighting, but I wonder, pvm, just what *is* your definition of a bigot?

I also have a hard time understanding how letting 2 to 10% of the population (depending on who you believe) call their union “marriage” soils any kind of supposed sanctity for the rest.

Frank J said:

And yet there are people like me or Glenn Morton and others who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts.

— PvM

True, but there is another (larger?) group that "escapes from YECism" (IOW stops promoting testable YE arguments) and converts to either OEC, theistic evolution or Omphalos creationism as a personal belief, but remains committed to misrepresenting evolution from the safety of the ID "big tent."

santareindeer386sx said:

PvM said: So Warren may very well hold to an error free Bible although he also admits that the Bible includes metaphorical usage.

Well, yeah, metaphorical usage as in your common every day metaphorical usage. Everybody will "admit" that the Bible includes that type of metaphorical usage. He doesn't like evolution because he believes all those crazy miraculous creation and flood stories and whatnot. And the one where God literally breathed life into man or mud nostrils or whatever. All that crazy fundamentalist stuff.

Then I tried arguing that marriage does not and has never included same-sex partners. I got handed my head on that one. Human societies have always had some form of marriage - that and the general incest taboo are held to be practically the only things all human societies share - but there have been plenty of societies that defined marriage in terms that included same-sex partners.

— Dave Luckett

PvM said:

It was, in fact, you who posted the link, which Warren argues that atheists have been responsible for more killing than all the religious wars put together. That covers the atheism part.

That was in response to a debate in which Harris was accusing Christianity of many evils.

And yet both Obama and Warren reject gay marriage because of their Christian faith.

From the interview with Warren it seems that he does not oppose gays having equal rights, just like Obama proposes. I'd say that both are functionally equivalent positions.

Warren has stated that homosexual behavior is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all."[13]

If Warren's words justify him being called a bigot then the same has to apply to Obama as well as the 70% of voting blacks in California for example. ... I guess a majority of the state of California should now be considered to be bigots.

Obama argued that the issue should be left to the states, until one of the states voted on maintaining a definition of marriage limited to woman and man, while still maintaining civil unions.

Perhaps the US could follow the example of the Netherlands where civil unions are required for marriage where gays and heterosexuals have similar rights while there is a separate ceremony for religious people who want to also be married in front of their God.

How is Warren more thorough in his intolerance? Because he supported Proposition 8?

Fascinating how the word bigot comes in so many gradations when it applies to those with who we tend to agree more or less.

PvM said: I personally see the Dutch solution where there is a civil marriage separate from the religious ceremony where the civil one is open to same sex partners while the religious ceremony is under control of the church in question.

Frank J said:

And yet there are people like me or Glenn Morton and others who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts.

— PvM

True, but there is another (larger?) group that "escapes from YECism" (IOW stops promoting testable YE arguments) and converts to either OEC, theistic evolution or Omphalos creationism as a personal belief, but remains committed to misrepresenting evolution from the safety of the ID "big tent."

who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts.

You escaped from YECism? Please explain!

YEC is still the most active form of ID I would argue, given the testimony during the Kansas mock trials.

— PvM

I would only offer one amendment: the DI hates theistic evolution.

— James F

This is the aspect of this situation that is not getting nearly enough press. How does Mr. Obama endorse science as a guiding force in his administration and invite an anti-intellectual like Warren to preside at his inauguration. Cho and the others should be profoundly disturbed

PvM asks for examples of societies that considered homosexual pairings the equivalent of marriage. I agree that there were and are very few societies that considered these relationships equivalent to an explicitly Christian view of marriage - monogamous, exclusive, lifelong, sacred, enjoined by God and specifically solemnised by the Church. This is because this view of marriage is found almost nowhere else but in post-medieval Western society, and was/is an ideal rarely attained even there. However, there are many societies that considered homosexual partnerships as equivalent to their institution of marriage, sharing its characteristics of providing an environment for raising children, and regulating property, inheritance and kinship. See http://washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm for some examples.

The American Anthropological Association released this statement on the matter:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

I believe that the American Athropological Association is the definitive scientific body in the US with expertise on this point.

I regret, pace PvM, that I have in no way altered my views on the bigotry and ignorance of fundamentalism, and on not accommodating these qualities. You make the point that asking an ignorant bigot like Warren to read a prayer at the Presidential inauguration is not the same as accommodating his ignorance and bigotry. I agree, grudgingly, that it is not necessarily so, but I doubt that many fundamentalists will draw the distinction. They will see this as an accommodation, a concession.

It could be argued that this is good politics, a gesture that costs nothing and might reconcile fundamentalists a little to an administration that is actually opposed to their darkly magical view of the world. Obama is a very, very good politician, and he might well be right about this. But I still don't have to like it.

Frank J said:

I would only offer one amendment: the DI hates theistic evolution.

— James F

They definitely hate TEs who argue against ID, but I was referring to personal beliefs regarding "what happened, when", which are in some cases nearly identical to those of their chief opponents.

James F:

In terms of what they personally believe, the line between TE and ID can be quite blurry. Francis Collins (TE) seems to think that there's supernatural causation, but that it's still evolution. Ken Miller (TE) speculates that "quantum indeterminacy" allows the designer to tinker. Meanwhile Dembski (ID) has speculated that the "information" might have been front-loaded at the origin of the Universe, and Behe (ID) makes a similar claim for the first cell. I think both even admitted that the designer could use natural laws.

The "break in the continuum" is how they "sell" their ideas to others. IDers pretend that their personal speculations are scientific and that they invalidate "Darwinism." And whenever an IDer concedes something like common descent or "the designer could use natural laws", they still try to have it both ways for the sake of the big tent.

TEs don't let IDers get away with the false dichotomy as often as atheists do, so they are even more despised by IDers than atheists are. Although the ID strategy is to first pretend that TEs don't exist (as in "Expelled"), then admit otherwise when cornered.

PvM said: Definition: A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant
- of any opinions differing from their own or
- of people of different ethnicity, race, or class

GBH said: This is the aspect of this situation that is not getting nearly enough press. How does Mr. Obama endorse science as a guiding force in his administration and invite an anti-intellectual like Warren to preside at his inauguration. Cho and the others should be profoundly disturbed

James F said:

Frank J said:

And yet there are people like me or Glenn Morton and others who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts.

— PvM

True, but there is another (larger?) group that "escapes from YECism" (IOW stops promoting testable YE arguments) and converts to either OEC, theistic evolution or Omphalos creationism as a personal belief, but remains committed to misrepresenting evolution from the safety of the ID "big tent."

I would only offer one amendment: the DI hates theistic evolution. One of their main objectives is to spin the situation as science vs. religion wherever possible.

Apparently Warren's Saddleback Church decided that they had to clean up their website a bit in light of all this publicity.

Wheels said: Apparently Warren's Saddleback Church decided that they had to clean up their website a bit in light of all this publicity.

JohnK said:

PvM said: Definition: A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant
- of any opinions differing from their own or
- of people of different ethnicity, race, or class

"Bigotry" against differing opinions, with their potential to be changed, vs.
bigotry against individuals' inate, unchangeable qualities - implacable prejudice which never has potential to be mollified by the target - seem to me to be quite different.

hoj said: who have managed to escape from YECism through reason and presentation of facts. You escaped from YECism? Please explain!

The Presidential Inaugural Committee, at the direction of President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, will organize an inclusive and accessible inauguration that reflects the new Administration's commitment to leadership that sets aside partisanship and unites the nation around our shared values and ideals.

GBH said: This is the aspect of this situation that is not getting nearly enough press. How does Mr. Obama endorse science as a guiding force in his administration and invite an anti-intellectual like Warren to preside at his inauguration. Cho and the others should be profoundly disturbed

Wheels claims: Oh yes it does seem that he opposes equal rights, PvM. He apparently thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and polygamy (nevermind the problem with lumping all of THOSE disparate issues together).

That's not exactly what he said, I did provide the context.

GBH said: This is the aspect of this situation that is not getting nearly enough press. How does Mr. Obama endorse science as a guiding force in his administration and invite an anti-intellectual like Warren to preside at his inauguration. Cho and the others should be profoundly disturbed

When I first heard of this story, my reaction was, "So what?" I'm in the crowd that thinks this is an example of Obama trying to keep at bay a politically dangerous portion of America, and seeing anything more is reading too much into it. My one reservation with Obama's science policy was that his economic plan originally called for delaying manned NASA missions, but I've heard that he's since changed that, so I have no complaints.

That said, PvM, I believe you questioned the assertion that there are different levels of bigotry. Personally, I think it's obvious that there are differing levels. After all, you can have people talk about "them lazy blacks, who need to get off welfare," but if this is the extent of their racism, then I would have to say this is less bigoted than people who advocate lynchings.

Good to see how even Saddleback is updating its policies to reflect reality.

That’s not exactly what he said, I did provide the context.

Wheels said:

Good to see how even Saddleback is updating its policies to reflect reality.

You're assuming they've updated their policies. They've only stricken this explicit discrimination from their website. Their policy might still be in place as far as we know. I find that far more likely than the whole of their church suddenly, silently, and conveniently admitting "unrepentant" homosexuals into membership.

That’s not exactly what he said, I did provide the context.

mharri said:

"Personally, I think it’s obvious that there are differing levels (of bigotry). After all, you can have people talk about “them lazy blacks, who need to get off welfare,” but if this is the extent of their racism, then I would have to say this is less bigoted than people who advocate lynchings."

I regret I do not agree. They are equally bigoted. Both share the characteristic of unreasoning and obstinate prejudice unrestrained by fact, and both display the further property of making a group of human beings alien for the purpose of acting against them. That is what bigotry is.

What is obvious is that some consequences of bigotry - some acts that arise from it - are worse than others. Nevertheless, the bigotry consists of the attitude, not of the act. If you doubt this, consider that it is the act, not the attitude, that may be culpable before the law.

PvM said: Sure. I am sure we all have our opinions as to the why and what. Funny how we tend to draw conclusions so easily

He states that he is against marriage between brother and sister or the marriage between one man and multiple women or man and younger child for the same reasons he is against marriage between the same sex.

The only person I can think of who is not, in some aspect of his existence, a bigot, is Mr. Spock.

And he's fictional.

A quick survey of many, many definitions of "bigotry" yields, roughly, the notion of unreasonable prejudice and intolerance.

I'm willing to bet we all carry some sort of unreasonable prejudice against something.

Yes, it is an attitude. But doesn't attitude have nuance? Can't attitude exist on a gradient?

And can't we demonstrate unreasonable prejudice, out of all context and compass, against a bigot, thereby becoming bigots ourselves? This is how the over-loud negative reaction against Mr. Obama's Warren selection strikes me. It is disappointingly knee-jerk, and more like the predictable braying of the career victimologists over at Townhall.com.

Speaking of attitude, we have a choice whether to take offense at a guy like Rick Warren, and to what extent we take offense. Whether or not we react negatively to him, and to what extent, is a choice we make in our brains. And hopefully that choice is rooted in rational consideration of the context of the moment, and not borne of a preordained, inflexible, permanent negative bias.

Rote condemnation is, I think, hardly warranted in this case. Isn't it possible to take a short break from playing Flay The Douchebag Creationist, just for one invocation?

This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world. Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us. I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

And watch Warren's Dec 21st video in which he discusses some of the issues raised here, and also notice how the comments approach Warren.

Gives a whole new meaning to bigotry, doesn't it? Or at least the inability to listen to what is being said versus what one believes one hears.

Fascinating exercise in humanity.

PvM said: And watch Warren's Dec 21st video in which he discusses some of the issues raised here, and also notice how the comments approach Warren. Gives a whole new meaning to bigotry, doesn't it? Or at least the inability to listen to what is being said versus what one believes one hears. Fascinating exercise in humanity.

PvM, I just watched the video you linked.

If (I say if) Warren has eaten his words, then I will eat mine. If he really does believe that gay people are entitled to exactly the same rights, including the right to contract the relationships they mutually wish, and to have these formally recognised by the State on a precisely equal basis to his own, without exception, exclusion, or alienation, then I will eat the word "bigot". Mind you, he hasn't said as much, but after listening to that video, I'll suspend judgement.

He is mistaken to say that these relationships may not be called "marriage" because they contravene his religious precepts, and here he displays an element of unthinking arrogance. Warren plainly thinks that his Church, or Christianity in general, has the power to define what is "marriage" for everyone else. He mistakes hegemony for universality. He is wrong.

He is also plainly wrong about the history of marriage, and about the teachings of religions other than his own about it, but that is simple ignorance. He is also palpably wrong about sex, again because he has conflated his religious doctrines with received reality. His church may teach that sex is unifunctional, and must be practiced only between married partners, one of each sex; but that is palpably not the reality experienced by many, and it is reality, not a religious precept, that the State must deal in, if it is to be called "secular".

Mind, I do not in any sense change my position that ignorance and bigotry are not to be accommodated, and that they are characteristic of fundamentalist religion. I still think Warren is ignorant. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on bigotry, pending conclusive evidence.

Wheels said: Remember the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? It would be an extraordinary claim for the Saddleback Church to drop this policy so suddenly rather than simply take a damning criteria for exclusion off their site under public scrutiny. What makes you think they have dropped the policy? I would expect such a significant change to be accompanied by a statement of retraction rather than stealthy silence.

But aside from that, his lies grated on my nerves the entire time. To his claims that there is a universal religious and cultural monogamous hetersosexual institution of marriage which has not changing in 5K years, he’s dead wrong about that. The most obvious problem? Polygamy.

He is mistaken to say that these relationships may not be called “marriage” because they contravene his religious precepts, and here he displays an element of unthinking arrogance. Warren plainly thinks that his Church, or Christianity in general, has the power to define what is “marriage” for everyone else. He mistakes hegemony for universality. He is wrong.

He is also plainly wrong about the history of marriage, and about the teachings of religions other than his own about it, but that is simple ignorance.

He is also palpably wrong about sex, again because he has conflated his religious doctrines with received reality.

His church may teach that sex is unifunctional, and must be practiced only between married partners, one of each sex; but that is palpably not the reality experienced by many, and it is reality, not a religious precept, that the State must deal in, if it is to be called “secular”.

And you know how some creationists cry for freedom of speech when they want to teach their anti-science views but refuse to extend it to anyone else? Yeah, that’s wholly dissimilar from minority African Americans voting against extending rights to minority gays, because you see, Wheels, most people are never self-serving and always seek to extend the privileges they enjoy to others. Plus, if 90% of black voters voted against Prop 8, then we can’t call such behavior bigoted, because bigotry is rare. If enough people engage in it, it ceases to be bigotry.

There is plentiful evidence from historical and extant cultures across the globe that his alleged 5,000 year old, universal religious condemnation of monogamous heterosexual alternatives is bunk, there are even glaring examples within the Old Testament. He’s not just mistaken, he’s clearly wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Amazingly and clearly demonstrably wrong, even. For him to stand in front of audiences time and again and make these sorts of declarations is wrong beyond my ability to construct a metaphor! Either his is profoundly ignorant even of his own religious texts, or he’s being dishonest. Dishonest to himself, intellectually, or to knowingly to his audience.

For five thousand years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhists, Muslims, the Jews, historically marriage is a man and a woman.

PvM, do you feel that homosexuals acts are a sin against god?

H.H. said: PvM, do you feel that homosexuals acts are a sin against god?

Recently Melissa Etheridge talked to and met with Warren (snip) "Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world. Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us. I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us."

"Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us."

FL said:

"Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us."

A heartfelt sentiment echoed by gays and ex-gays, evolutionists and non-evolutionists, on this Christmas Eve 2008. FL

FL said:

"Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us."

A heartfelt sentiment echoed by gays and ex-gays, evolutionists and non-evolutionists, on this Christmas Eve 2008. FL

PvM said: It's not that we fear creationists, it's that we fear what they want to do to this country and its educational system. Ignorance, especially from fellow Christians, is always disturbing, especially when it comes to matters of science.

Cans of worms.

Law in a democracy is not whatever set of restrictions a thin majority of citizens (or an organised cabal) can impose on everyone else. Its purpose is no such thing. It is complex, but it comes down to providing liberty and justice for all. For all.

Now, these two aims - liberty and justice - are in some conflict. Your liberty to drive at high speed is in conflict with my just right to safely use the public roads. Your liberty to ingest what substances you please is tempered by my just right to be unaffected by your altered behaviour, perceptions, or the cost of your health. The law must provide a working compromise between these, and this compromise must continually be inspected and adjusted, in all its dimensions.

However, the general underlying principle, in a democracy, is that behaviours and practices that do not encroach upon the just rights of other citizens must be lawful. Homosexual union does not do so, given the usual provisos, a fact that has been recognised for decades now.

Further, the law of a democracy is equal in effect without respect of persons. It recognises and extends specific rights and privileges to persons who cohabit for the purposes of regulating inheritance, parenting, guardianship and kinship, under the general title of marriage. If the law is to be equal in effect, then it must extend those rights, privileges and title to all who contract these arrangements, without respect of person.

The fact that the Christian church, or some parts of it, think different, is irrelevant. The State and its law is secular. That a majority of citizens think different is a political datum, not a principle for restricting the rights of the minority. Their own rights derive from the mutual determination of a community to grant them. Those rights descend from and depend on the goodwill and the sense of justice, not only of themselves, but of all their neighbours.

And who is my neighbour? That question was answered some time ago, PvM. I like the answer, and celebrate the man who gave it.

A merry Christmas to us all.

PvM said: Understanding Warren's position may be hard if our minds have been made up. But let me give a possible interpretation where Warren focuses on the concept of marriage to refer to a relationship between man and woman. Polygamy would still fit that description.

Rick Warren I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year old defintion of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marring a child and calling that a marriage. and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Does he need yet more clarification to extricate himself from his own words now? Perhaps he is simply a monumentally bad speaker.

It’s not that we fear creationists

and let’s not forget Creationist and ex-creationists

or claim that Jesus Christ miraculously disproves evolution without ever explaining why?

Come to mind Rachel Maddow. I generally love her program and her wits but on the issue of Warren she has quote mined his video in which he states his position and then mentions the interview in which he compared extending marriage to same sex partners with extending marriage to polygamists etc. In her ‘response’ Rachel cut him off after the part where he explains that he has never used such language in his sermons and then explains how people may have come to the conclusions because of the beliefnet interview.

FL said:

It’s not that we fear creationists

Of course not. Nobody fears anybody (or more accurately, nobody will own up to it) if you ask upfront, "Do you fear such-and-such?"

FL said: (And of course science is always on "our" side, whether it actually is or not.)

It's always "they" who needs to get to know "us", as Melissa Etheridge phrased it, not "us" who needs to get to know "them." Above all, it's "their" minds that need changing.

Hence the chasm between each group, the chasm between two simple individuals, can run deeper than the Marianas Trench. (Btw, for Christians, it's no accident that in Ephesians, the Apostle Paul locates the source of Christian unity completely OUTSIDE of Christians themselves. Other than the power of the Spirit of God, there would be no hope of Christian unity in this life at all, the deep chasms between Christians would never get bridged.)

and let’s not forget Creationist and ex-creationists

or claim that Jesus Christ miraculously disproves evolution without ever explaining why?

Once again, Stanton, if PT allows you or another evolutionist poster to initiate a new and separate thread (although you seem to have come up with a new proposed topic or weren't carefully reading mine), I will participate in that separate thread and explain my position. Are you willing to discuss the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis evolution and guest-contribute a new thread? I am. If you are, I will look for your new thread beginning tomorrow.

However, today I feel more like just celebrating Him and just being with family. FL

I'm always puzzled watching people argue with FL. When
I see his postings I get a PINKY & THE BRAIN moment:
"YES! Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?!"

"Ur, oi think so, Brayne, but where are we gonna get a
duck an' a length of garden 'ose this toime of night?"
I get the same expression as the Brain does: Huh?
What? Nah, better off not asking ...

Whatever he
meant, there's no profit in trying to get to the bottom
of it. When I see those postings now they register
momentarily as sets of words assembled by some loose
algorithm that mimic English syntax.

Cheers -- MrG

PvM said:

Does he need yet more clarification to extricate himself from his own words now? Perhaps he is simply a monumentally bad speaker.

Or we are very poor listeners?

Once again, Stanton, if PT allows you or another evolutionist poster to initiate a new and separate thread (although you seem to have come up with a new proposed topic or weren’t carefully reading mine), I will participate in that separate thread and explain my position.

Are you willing to discuss the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis evolution and guest-contribute a new thread? I am. If you are, I will look for your new thread beginning tomorrow. However, today I feel more like just celebrating Him and just being with family.

Wheels said:

PvM said:

Does he need yet more clarification to extricate himself from his own words now? Perhaps he is simply a monumentally bad speaker.

Or we are very poor listeners?

I'm taking his own word for what he meant. He talks about not wanting to change this 5K years old definition and lists, under things excluded from the definition of marriage, polygamy (specifically polygyny). If you or anyone else can provide me with something that contradicts this seemingly obvious and correct interpretation, I might concede. Otherwise I simply don't wish to exercise the mental gymnastics necessary to interpret his statement as anything other than what was said.

But aside from that, his lies grated on my nerves the entire time. To his claims that there is a universal religious and cultural monogamous hetersosexual institution of marriage which has not changing in 5K years, he’s dead wrong about that. The most obvious problem? Polygamy.

For five thousand years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhists, Muslims, the Jews, historically marriage is a man and a woman.

— Warren

I see, you are unwilling to defend or explain your position?

The virgin birth of Christ has nothing to do with evolution.

So you say. I’d love to critically examine that claim with you if given a fair opportunity.

PvM said: He stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, based on his religious faith and his observation that such has been consistently been the case. He also objects to polygamy, brother sister marriage and marriage between an older man and a young child, but it is not clear to me that he does so based upon the 5k argument.

Rick Warren on Beliefnet: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage. Rick Warren on Youtube: In that [Beliefnet] interview, I was trying to point out that uh- I don't just- I'm not opposed to gays having their partnerships, I'm opposed to gays using the term "marriage" for their relationship. And I'm opposed to any redefinition of the definition of marriage: the definition of marriage that's been universally accepted since the beginning of man. The definition of marriage that every religion, whether it's Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Jew, or Christians, has said it's been between a man and a woman. Now, in that interview I named several other relationships, in fact I've done it several times, I've named other relationships such as living together, uh or a man with multiple wives or brother sister relationship or adults with children or common law partnerships or all kinds of other relationships. I don't think any of them should be called marriage. Now I was not saying that those relationships were the same thing because I happen to not believe that and I've never taught it. I was just pointing out that I believe the definition of marriage should only be included one definition, a man and a woman for life.

But let's accept for the moment your interpretation of his comments and conclude that he is inconsistent in his application of how society has defined marriage as it did/or does include multiple wives, how does this affect his (and Obama's) and many others' arguments that they interpret, based on their religious faith that marriage involves a man and a woman, and that within those guidelines they also oppose man/woman relationships such as polygamy etc.

Is he a bigot for holding to religious beliefs? Is he a bigot if he does believe in equal rights for all, however wants to reserve the meaning of the word 'marriage' to mean something substantial to his religious beliefs?

If the term marriage has such excessive baggage, then why is it so hard to compromise and provide civil unions to provide the relevant rights and allow religious institutions to implement their preferred interpretations of what marriage should be?

Should Christians be forced to abandon their faith just because we disagree?

This is not a trivial issue especially when secular and religious issues conflict at the level of policy and government. Can we force Islam girls to not wear their traditional gowns because we believe that there is a security risk or because we believe that such gowns are demeaning? Can we force Amish people to accept modern technology? Can we force Jehova witnesses to accept blood transfusions?

If we as a society deny these positions under the guise of 'secular government' then are we not censoring religious faith and beliefs? Where do we place our limits?

It seems that we are quick to judge when we believe that we understand what the other side means or intends to say and that we are reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt.

PvM said:

But aside from that, his lies grated on my nerves the entire time. To his claims that there is a universal religious and cultural monogamous hetersosexual institution of marriage which has not changing in 5K years, he’s dead wrong about that. The most obvious problem? Polygamy.

You call them lies and yet how much time have you spent evaluating what he said, what he means? I am not sure that he claimed that there was a universal monogamous institution of marriage, but rather than marriage involved a man and a woman, something which obviously covers polygamy. So rather than jump to a nasty accusation of lying, we may want to understand if Warren would indeed be so foolish and that there are no more generous interpretations which could explain his words?

Sometimes we are so intent on debunking that we only see and hear what we hope to see.

"I was just pointing out that I believe the definition of marriage should only be included one definition, a man and a woman for life."

He may believe what he likes. He may not attempt to impose his beliefs upon others. I cannot tell from these words whether he means that his beliefs should be followed voluntarily, or that they should be imposed by law. If the latter, he is a bigot. There is still doubt in my mind as to this, and I give him the benefit of it.

Dave Luckett- "I cannot tell from these words whether he means that his beliefs should be followed voluntarily, or that they should be imposed by law. If the latter, he is a bigot. There is still doubt in my mind as to this, and I give him the benefit of it."

I hope this helps you with your doubt.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29209

Wheels- "You keep phrasing these questions as one of “forcing” other people to give something up. Why?"

And this is the whole crux of it. If marriage equality is achieved in the U.S., the only thing anyone is "forced to give up" is their unreasonable insistence that others outside their church live by the tenets of their faith.

Not in America.

Shouldn't religion and science be seperate? If someone wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old and and virgin birth why should 'science' tell them they are not allowed to believe those things?

robert said: Shouldn't religion and science be seperate? If someone wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old and and virgin birth why should 'science' tell them they are not allowed to believe those things?

iml8 said:

robert said: Shouldn't religion and science be seperate? If someone wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old and and virgin birth why should 'science' tell them they are not allowed to believe those things?

Urr ... it's not like anyone says it's illegal. But they do say that's not the way things really are. "No, the Moon is really not made of green cheese, sorry." Personally, if someone wants to be a classic biblical creationist and say they don't care about science, I would just say: "OK!" -- and go on about my business. The problem is pretending that it is scientific to think the Moon is made of green cheese. Cheers -- MrG

What about the virgin birth? Is it unscientific to believe in that?

robert said: Who said it is scientific to think the Moon is made of green cheese.??

Sorry, but I decline as I see no redeeming value to such a discussion.

robert said: What about the virgin birth? Is it unscientific to believe in that?

Excuse me, make that "a single Y chromosome in her body".
Sigh, be more careful before hitting ENTER. Cheers -- MrG

Yep, that resolves it. Warren thinks that the laws of his church should be the laws of the land. He thinks that people not of his religion should be forced to live by its edicts and its holy book. He is a bigot.

Dave Luckett said: Yep, that resolves it. Warren thinks that the laws of his church should be the laws of the land. He thinks that people not of his religion should be forced to live by its edicts and its holy book. He is a bigot.

FL said:

Sorry, but I decline as I see no redeeming value to such a discussion.

That's okay, no problemo. However, your question (and also Stanton's) about me being "unwilling to explain or defend my position" WRT that topic, is now fully answered. My willingess is clear.

Plus, the reason why Pim refuses to let you "guest-post" on Panda's Thumb to explain your extraordinary, albeit factually bankrupt, claims is because if you were given the opportunity to explain yourself, you will not explain yourself, like all the times you've refused to explain yourself before, but, instead, use this opportunity to proselytize at what you think is a captive audience.

Stanton said: Plus, the reason why Pim refuses to let you "guest-post" on Panda's Thumb to explain your extraordinary, albeit factually bankrupt, claims is because if you were given the opportunity to explain yourself, you will not explain yourself, like all the times you've refused to explain yourself before, but, instead, use this opportunity to proselytize at what you think is a captive audience.

However, your question (and also Stanton’s) about me being “unwilling to explain or defend my position” WRT that topic, is now fully answered. My willingess is clear.

— FL

robert said: What about the virgin birth? Is it unscientific to believe in that?

robert said: Shouldn't religion and science be seperate? If someone wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old and and virgin birth why should 'science' tell them they are not allowed to believe those things?

Rick R said: Wheels- "You keep phrasing these questions as one of “forcing” other people to give something up. Why?" And this is the whole crux of it. If marriage equality is achieved in the U.S., the only thing anyone is "forced to give up" is their unreasonable insistence that others outside their church live by the tenets of their faith. Not in America.

Dave Luckett said: "I was just pointing out that I believe the definition of marriage should only be included one definition, a man and a woman for life." He may believe what he likes. He may not attempt to impose his beliefs upon others. I cannot tell from these words whether he means that his beliefs should be followed voluntarily, or that they should be imposed by law. If the latter, he is a bigot. There is still doubt in my mind as to this, and I give him the benefit of it.

Now this is more to the point. However, I have not seen nor have I been given any good reason to assume that Warren means anything other than what he has said in this case. You can suggest that Warren includes polygamy when he says “between a man and a woman” as opposed to homosexual marriage, but I think his own words have strongly indicated otherwise.

The fact that the Christian church, or some parts of it, think different, is irrelevant. The State and its law is secular. That a majority of citizens think different is a political datum, not a principle for restricting the rights of the minority. Their own rights derive from the mutual determination of a community to grant them. Those rights descend from and depend on the goodwill and the sense of justice, not only of themselves, but of all their neighbours.

I still believe he’s a bigot for his stance on homosexuality, actually. Again, to use the comparisons with race that you have pointedly ignored, he is insisting the equivalent of blackness being a sin and advocating reparative therapy to make blacks into whites, even to the point they can’t (or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, couldn’t until days ago) become full-fledged members of the church he founded and led unless they DID pledge to renounce their blackness.

PvM said:

Rick R said:f marriage equality is achieved in the U.S., the only thing anyone is "forced to give up" is their unreasonable insistence that others outside their church live by the tenets of their faith. Not in America.

Does that work in both directions? What about those who believe that those within the church should live by the tenets of those outside the church?

Why is it reasonable to expect Christians to give up something that is of high importance to some of them, while we oppose the opposite? ... Again this is a two edged sword. He believes that the judicial actions in California imposed beliefs upon Christians.

So perhaps we can envision a compromise which satisfies both concerns: such as a civil ceremony which provides all the rights and obligations and a religious ceremony which follows the rules and obligations of the church in question?

As I have attempted to explain, it is often a two edged sword where we easily forget that those with whom we disagree may be asked to do exactly that which we oppose doing to others?

Why is it bigoted to enforce beliefs by law, that is what happens all the time? After all do we not limit marriage to exclude polygamous relationships or relationships between closely related people, or between people of too large an age discrepancy where one involves a teenager?

Are we bigoted for imposing laws here?

I personally haven’t seen Obama oppose polygamy, though I assume he would. I’m commenting only on Warren’s claims. Warren is the one who tied homosexual marriage with other forms of taboo unions and claimed that his justification for denying same-sex marriages was an alleged ancient universal definition of marriage. It’s the argument he uses which turns my stomach here.

Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males may also do similar things. However, these acts of union are viewed as acts of forming sisterhood and brotherhood rather than a marriage. In Japan, Shudo (衆道 shudō), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo is analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia). The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.[11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[citation needed] The “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, added marriage as a sacrament of the Christian Church in Rome.[12][13]

From Life of Nero: esides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. 2 This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images,84 fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal

"John Boswell has argued that "marries" (nubit) here refers to the kind of gay marriages described by Juvenal and Martial. But the consensus is that the term is merely a euphemism for sexual relations. (Venus here means simply "sexual intercourse", a sense it bears in poets like Virgil and Ovid.)"

I have already said I would not oppose this measure. However, at the same time it should be recognized that religion does not have exclusive right to the term “marriage,” so we can equally argue that the state adopts marriages for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Despite what people like Warren may say or feel, having religious bigotry hijack an institution as broad as marriage would be an even greater loss in my mind.

I’m sure similar arguments were made when Bob Jones University fought desegregation. It’s scary how many of your arguments can be addressed by replacing “homosexuals” with bigotry against race. It’s also scary how you completely fail to even acknowledge this sort of problem. Why do you keep avoiding the comparisons? If they were ridiculous and faulty, surely you could shoot them down at least once in a while?

WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

Adopting a legal definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriages will not simultaneously force any churches to adopt the practice. I can think of several churches locally that refuse to wed people who have had divorces prior to meeting their new partners, despite the legal ability of these people to obtain a secular marriage license. They don’t face any legal penalties for this.

Further, permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not alter the substantive nature of the legal institution of marriage; same-sex couples who choose to enter into the relationship with that designation will be subject to the same duties and obligations to each other, to their children, and to third parties that the law currently imposes upon opposite-sex couples who marry. Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72

Although it is true that authorizing same sex couples to marry represents a departure from the way marriage historically has been defined, the change would expand the right to marry without any adverse effect on those already free to exercise the right.

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

PvM said: Which part? Pointing to the fact that we have rejected the term marriage to other relationships between man and woman? That we have historically extended the term mostly to cover a relationship between a man and a woman, with some minor disagreements? So let's rephrase Warren's statement slightly: Over the last few thousand years most cultures have uniquely defined marriage to be between man and woman. Depending on culture, some have further limited marriage to exclude sibling relationships, polygamous relationships etc.

Certainly, historically speaking, man man or woman woman relationships have seldomly if ever received the term 'marriage'.

PvM said: But marriage hardly seems to be as broad as you may wish it to be? In fact, separating civil unions from marriage would strengthen a sense of separation between the secular state and religious beliefs and churches.

I have not ignored such arguments, I have instead rejected them as misleading at best. Surely you must not confuse me not addressing a particular 'argument' to your liking with me accepting your argument?

You want me to argue the same position I have against Warren’s claims once you change the nature of Warren’s claims? That’s ridiculous, PvM.

There have been examples, even if they are within the extreme minority. Should an extreme minority alone be able to dictate what a word means and how something is practiced? Not necessarily, but I believe I have put forth a good case specifically against Warren’s invented Universal Definition of Marriage, which he uses to prop up his argument against same-sex marriages. He’s going to have to find another one and stop spreading this misinformation about world cultures. I

I have not ignored such arguments, I have instead rejected them as misleading at best. Surely you must not confuse me not addressing a particular ‘argument’ to your liking with me accepting your argument? I’m making no such confusion. Where did you reject the argument? The only time I can see you addressing my comparison is by throwing in the red herring that 70% of Prop. 8 supporters were black. Another time you responded to John Kwok along the lines that we’re not certain that sexual orientation is innate (despite the repeatedly arrived at conclusions of psychologists and others who study the issue which state that not only is it impossible to alter a person’s orientation once it’s established, it is also harmful to try to do so). If you have dismissed the argument that this can be compared with racism, please feel free to share with us your reasons for doing so. Otherwise, you’re not being fair with us.

Why is it bigoted to enforce beliefs by law, that is what happens all the time? After all do we not limit marriage to exclude polygamous relationships or relationships between closely related people, or between people of too large an age discrepancy where one involves a teenager?

PvM said: You are nicely creating a strawman here. First of all he is not insisting reparative therapy.

He rejects to behavior which includes same sex and premarital relationships in general and rejects them to be a full member of his church. Is that bigoted? He extends a welcome to all but limits membership to those who have show willingness to repent of their sins. In other words, a poor analogy at best, which ignores or misrepresents Warren's position on these issues.

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life.

3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

Wheels said:

PvM said: You are nicely creating a strawman here. First of all he is not insisting reparative therapy.

Talk about Straw Man! I didn't claim he "insists" on it. I said he advocates it. You must be conflating this with the fact that he insisted on homosexuals repenting of their orientation before becoming members of his church.

Again, to use the comparisons with race that you have pointedly ignored, he is insisting the equivalent of blackness being a sin and advocating reparative therapy to make blacks into whites, even to the point they can’t (or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, couldn’t until days ago) become full-fledged members of the church he founded and led unless they DID pledge to renounce their blackness.

— Wheels

The conflation of biological features with behaviors is not an adequate rebuttal, especially since he actively tries to straighten gays. Not just get them to stop their homosexual behavior, but actually become heterosexual. You know, use those body parts they way they're "meant to fit together." Someone who heads up counseling for "reparative therapy" is not just rejecting the behavior of homosexaulity.

PvM said:

You want me to argue the same position I have against Warren’s claims once you change the nature of Warren’s claims? That’s ridiculous, PvM.

So perhaps Warren's claims are not that dissimilar from yours?

That's a red herring because as proposition 8 showed, this may not be what you refer to as an 'extreme minority'.

Warren is correct that most if not all cultures have historically defined marriage between a man and a woman.

Perhaps we may come closer to understand Warren and not insist on attacking minor discrepancies to avoid dealing with the larger picture.

I’m making no such confusion. Where did you reject the argument? The only time I can see you addressing my comparison is by throwing in the red herring that 70% of Prop. 8 supporters were black. Another time you responded to John Kwok along the lines that we’re not certain that sexual orientation is innate (despite the repeatedly arrived at conclusions of psychologists and others who study the issue which state that not only is it impossible to alter a person’s orientation once it’s established, it is also harmful to try to do so). If you have dismissed the argument that this can be compared with racism, please feel free to share with us your reasons for doing so. Otherwise, you’re not being fair with us.

My reference to Prop 8 supporters was to show how under our liberal definitions of bigotry, we would end up accusing large proportions of Prop 8 voters under the same term.

I doubt that I ever argued against sexual orientation being innate, in fact, I think that sexual orientation may be very innate.

"Bigotry” against differing opinions, with their potential to be changed, vs. bigotry against individuals’ inate, unchangeable qualities - implacable prejudice which never has potential to be mollified by the target - seem to me to be quite different.

I appreciate your definition of bigotry to include what you believe to be unchangeable qualities. I personally am not convinced that science has sufficiently addressed the issue although there do appear to be some genetic components to homosexuality.

As to your latter request, I have shared the reasons when addressing the strawman about gay marriage and being black.

Wheels said: The conflation of biological features with behaviors is not an adequate rebuttal, especially since he actively tries to straighten gays.

. A reader writes to Andrew Sullivan pointing out that Warren’s Saddleback Church operates a program called Celebrate Recovery that seeks to “help people overcome their hurts, habits and hang-ups” by encouraging people to “grow toward full Christlike maturity.” As Sullivan’s reader notes — and the website for the program at First Baptist Church in Russellville, AR confirms — one of the “hang-ups” that Celebrate Recovery tries to cure is “same sex attraction“: Most people probably don’t know this, but Warren’s Saddleback Church has a Friday night program called Celebrate Recovery. On the whole the program is modeled after the twelve steps, albeit with an evangelical supplement to it. There are subgroups in the program that cater to men with “addictions” to pornography, recovery alcoholics, and women with codependency issues. There is also a group for those who struggle with “same sex attraction”, the discourse of which is directly borrowed from the ex-gay movement. I know this, of course, because I was involved with the group in Spring of 2007.

Given those views, it should come as no surprise that Warren is also a supporter of the ex-gay movement that tries to cure people of their homosexuality.

PvM said: In fact, as I pointed out blackness is a quality that cannot be change and he is not advocating reparative therapy as much as repenting of sins.

He does not even force homosexuals to be heterosexuals to become members of his church.

That's a poor argument and I am sure you recognize it as such. Just because Warren also believes that gays can be 'cured' does not mean that he advocates reparative therapy as a requirement to join his church as a member.

PvM Other examples include “In 2005, Warren told Fortune magazine that “he would counsel gays and lesbians to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle“:” Wow, counseling gays to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. I am shocked.

Only if we, unlike Warren, take this statement to be non-exclusive, that is we don’t take it to mean “one man, one woman, and no more of either at any point in time when the original marriage is still in effect.” Remember, Warren excluded polygamy via his definition, whereas I have already shown that it is not universally rejected but preferred and/or at least accepted by the majority of the world’s cultures.

You could have done this without invoking race at any point, but you consistently chose to emphasize the racial makeup of Prop. 8 supporters, why? I asked about this odd emphasis even while you were doing it, and you haven’t answered me about why the racial break-down of supporters is supposed to be relevant about whether or not they’re supporting a bigoted proposal. And I should point out that your assumed “liberal definition of bigotry” was not being so applied, because my usage of the term “bigot” referring to a person rather than “bigoted” referring to a position did not depend on so singular a criterion as whether they oppose gay marriage. Others seem to disagree with me on that point.

I doubt that I ever argued against sexual orientation being innate, in fact, I think that sexual orientation may be very innate.

“Bigotry” against differing opinions, with their potential to be changed, vs. bigotry against individuals’ inate, unchangeable qualities - implacable prejudice which never has potential to be mollified by the target - seem to me to be quite different.

he does advocate reparative therapy. I’ve given you sources, though I imagine you might somehow bend around them the way you seem to have done with his exclusion of polygamy as falling under the definition of “marriage.” Frankly, if this is going to be the case, then I no longer have the energy to try and untie your mental knots.

Other examples include “In 2005, Warren told Fortune magazine that “he would counsel gays and lesbians to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle“:”

Again, to use the comparisons with race that you have pointedly ignored, he is insisting the equivalent of blackness being a sin and advocating reparative therapy to make blacks into whites, even to the point they can’t (or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, couldn’t until days ago) become full-fledged members of the church he founded and led unless they DID pledge to renounce their blackness.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

Dale Husband said:

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

Unless most of those childless and unmarried young men get drafted into the military. And since China still has a dictatorship, there is no reason to think such a military would not make an ideal tool for imperialistic conquest. Starting with Taiwan and then continuing with South Korea, Vietnam, and maybe even Japan.

And as I’m sure that you are aware, Rick Warren was a prominent figure in the campaign (where he lied, over and over again — see below).

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman. In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

Wikipedia reports: According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[4] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[5] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy.

My reference to blacks shows that despite most of them voting for a progressive like Obama, they also feel that marriage is a term best reserved to indicate a union between man and woman.

(African-American) Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said... ...."Today, we look back with scorn at those who twisted the law to make marriage serve a racist agenda, and I believe our descendants will look back the same way at us if we yield to the same kind of pressure a radical sexual agenda is placing on us today. Just as it's distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it's also distorting if you subtract gender." Boston Globe, Feb. 10, 2004 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/10/black_clergy_rejection_stirs_gay_marriage_backers/

Dale Husband said:

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

Unless most of those childless and unmarried young men get drafted into the military. And since China still has a dictatorship, there is no reason to think such a military would not make an ideal tool for imperialistic conquest. Starting with Taiwan and then continuing with South Korea, Vietnam, and maybe even Japan.

FL said: Gay marriage is not even marriage. It's a poisonous distortion of marriage, a distortion every bit as egregious as the distortion advocated by racists decades ago. It is a sin and a mess with far-reaching long-term adverse consequences for all members of a society. It should not be legalized. FL

Stanton said: I strongly doubt that the rulers of Communist China would be foolhardy and or stupid enough to think that they could get away with a military conquest of Asia, or even of Taiwan, given as how the Western World, Communist China's biggest group of customers, would immediately sever all trade, and the US, China's most important trade partner, would also not only sever trade relations, but also respond with military force. Of course, then there's the little problem of how Taiwan's navy is, at the very least, equal to the Communist Chinese naval forces. I mean, the people who run China may be members of a dictatorship, but, that doesn't mean that they're all slavering, mustache-twirling powermongers who plot insidious, nefarious plots in a vacuum in relation with how the rest of the world will react.

Dale Husband said:

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT reasons for banning polygamy, I can think of one. The fact that humans reproduce with a roughly 50/50 split between the sexes means that allowing polygamy would leave a significant percentage of males with no viable mate, or force them to marry significantly later in life. This would bring on the same sort of problems China will soon face with the (unintended?) consequent excess of young males from the one-child-per-family policy. In short, young males who are not occupied with taking care of a family get into more mischief than those who are so occupied.

Unless most of those childless and unmarried young men get drafted into the military. And since China still has a dictatorship, there is no reason to think such a military would not make an ideal tool for imperialistic conquest. Starting with Taiwan and then continuing with South Korea, Vietnam, and maybe even Japan.

There is no escaping the direct impact, the sheer correctness, of Bishop Thompson’s highlighted statement there. THAT is the rational refutation of the “interracial marriage” excuse that some pro-gay people try to pull. It’s the reason why blacks said No to gay marriage while saying Yes to Obama in the state of California. Men and women are NOT interchangable. Gay marriage is not even marriage. It’s a poisonous distortion of marriage, a distortion every bit as egregious as the distortion advocated by racists decades ago. It is a sin and a mess with far-reaching long-term adverse consequences for all members of a society. It should not be legalized.

Please explain why allowing two people of the same gender to marry each other has the same insidiously destructive power as denying two people of two different races from marrying each other.

But there is more. Is it not obvious that opinion is irrelevant here, just as religious law is? It doesn't matter what your opinion is of same-sex unions, because nobody is asking anyone to contract one. The question is not whether you approve. Nobody is asking you to approve. It is whether your disapproval should be enforced upon your fellow-citizens by the law of a secular State, a State founded upon the principle that governments exist only - only! - to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Gay relationships are hardly more or less sinful, than opposite-sex relationships.

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." ---1 Cor 6:9-11

"Haven't you read," (Jesus replied), "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." --- Matthew 19:4-6

Just as it’s distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it’s also distorting if you subtract gender.”

"FL is beyond redemption here as he believes that gay relationships should not be legalized which is a shameful, foolish and embarrassing position to hold."

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

So, do you have any real world examples of how homosexual relationships are inherently destructive and sinful in comparison with heterosexual relationships?

PvM said: And even if it were a sin, this is no reason for a secular government to object to extending the same rights to all those who wish to be involved in a loving and caring relationship. Hope you appreciate that I have to reject your claims both on religious and on secular grounds.

a State founded upon the principle that governments exist only - only! - to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't think it does any good to try to come up with some rationale that would allow us to continue to ban polygamy while supporting gay marriage, especially when the rationale is this flimsy. I think (Tim) Sandefur is right to agree with the conservative critics of gay marriage that acceptance of the premises of gay marriage also leads logically to acceptance of the legality of polygamy. --- Ed Brayton, 09-07-2005

David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, wrote in The Michigan Law Review that those who support plural marriage ought to also support gay marriage. He argued that rather than reinforcing a two-person definition of marriage, gay marriage would make society more accepting of further legal changes: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more." -- Megan Basham, NRO, 2005

Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect. -- Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 2006

A secret sexual relationship with his daughter was not enough. There had to be a wedding. And it had to be a grand celebration befitting a Fisher Island, Florida, multimillionaire who controls billions from Wall Street to Bermuda, from London to Dubai. So on a sunny June day two years ago, father and daughter exchanged rings at Westminster Abbey. --- "Daddy's Girl", Kelly Cramer, Village Voice, 2006

Jenny was 31 and just two weeks after meeting, father and daughter had sex. "John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults," Mrs Deaves told the Nine Network's 60 Minutes tonight. ....Their nine-month-old daughter Celeste, shown on TV, appears fit and healthy. Mrs Deaves said soon after reuniting with her father she began to see him as a man first and her father second. "I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad," she said. --- The Daily Telegraph, (Australia), April 6 2008.

"I'm the first out-of-the-closet 'zoo' to be attacked because of my sexual orientation," Philip Buble, a zoophile, told the Bangor Daily News four months ago. Buble says the "relationship" between man and beast "can develop to be a sexual one." Testifying before a Maine legislative committee a week ago, Buble accused proponents of a ban on animal sexual abuse of trying "to force morality on a minority. It will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground." He's a one-dog man.... ....Buble sent a formal request to the judge. "I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not an eyewitness to it, thank goodness," Buble wrote. "I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human." In his legislative testimony a week ago, Buble declared that he and Lady "live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married." -- William Saletan, Slate, (2001)

First Comes Gay Marriage then Comes Bestiality in Massachusetts By Hilary White BOSTON, November 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Four legislators in Massachusetts are quickly following up on their success at legalizing homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance. They have introduced a bill that proposes to reduce the penalties associated with the state’s criminal prohibition on sex acts with animals. The four Democrat legislators, Cynthia S. Creem, Robert A. O’Leary, Michael E. Festa, David P. Linsky, are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups.

Stop being such a fool FL, you were shown to be wrong and now you continue to deny equal rights?

Shameful, not just from a Christian perspective but also from an American prospective.
You were wrong about 1 Cor and now you want to deny equal rights to gay couples? Your arguments are pathetic and as a Christian I cringe at your display of foolishness and yes, bigotry.

FL said: Anything Goes. That's the marital standard that comes with legalized gay marriage. Anything Goes. Is that what you want for this nation, Dave? How about you PvM? You, Stanton? FL

In fact the King James Version translates your example: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”,

And note that this is not Jesus speaking but rather Paul. In fact, I believe Christ himself never spoke out against homosexuality.

In 1 Corinthian 6:9 Paul mentions “men who lie with males” (arsenokoitai)—a term formed from the absolute prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13—in a list of offenders that risk not inheriting the kingdom of God. Just as Romans 1:26-27 has Genesis 1:27 in view, so too 1 Corinthians 6:9 has Genesis 2:24 in view (partially cited in 1 Cor 6:16): “For this reason a man . . . shall be joined to his woman (wife) and the two will become one flesh.” Taken in the context of Paul’s remarks in chs. 5 (a case of adult incest) and 7 (male-female marriage), there is little doubt that Paul understood the offense of “men who lie with males” as the substitution of another male for a female in sexual activity; or, put differently, the abandonment of an other-sex structural prerequisite for a holistic sexual union. --- New Testament scholar Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, "Why Gay Marriage is Wrong." http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm

I believe Christ himself never spoke out against homosexuality.

It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion. ** Jesus was not suggesting that lifelong monogamy was a more important consideration for sexual relations than the heterosexual (i.e. other-sexual) dimension. Rather, he narrowed further an already carefully circumscribed sexual ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible. Sexual behavior mattered for Jesus. In the midst of Jesus’ sayings on sex in Matthew 5:27-32 appears the following remark: "If your eye or hand should threaten your downfall, cut it off. It is better to go into heaven maimed then to have one’s whole body be sent to hell." ** There are many other sayings of Jesus, besides Mark 10:6-9, that, taken in the context of early Judaism, implicitly forbade same-sex intercourse. These include: the reference to “sexual immoralities” (porneiai) in Mark 7:21, a term that for Jews of the Second Temple period called to mind the forbidden sexual offenses in Lev 18 and 20, particularly incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, and bestiality (cf. the prohibition of porneia in the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15, formulated with the sex laws in Lev 18 in view); Jesus’ affirmation of the seventh commandment against adultery in Mark 10:17-22, which presupposes the preservation of the male-female marital bond (cf. the reference to not coveting one’s neighbor’s wife in the tenth commandment) and could be used in early Judaism as a rubric for treating the sex laws in the Bible, including the proscriptions of male-male intercourse (cf. Philo, Special Laws, 3); Jesus’ acknowledgement of Sodom’s role in Scripture as the prime example of abuse of visitors in Matt 10:14-15 par. Luke 10:10-12, which in the context of other early Jewish texts indicates a special revulsion for the attempt at treating males sexually as females (e.g., Philo, Josephus, Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4; 2 Enoch 10:4; 34:1-2; within Scripture, Ezek 16:50; Jude 7; and 2 Pet 2:6-10 also point in this direction); and Jesus’ warning against giving “what is holy to the dogs” (Matt 7:6), a likely echo to Deut 23:17-18 which forbids the wages of a “dog” or qadesh (lit., the self-styled “holy man,” “sacred one,” but often translated “male temple prostitute”) from being used to pay a vow to the “house of Yahweh” (for “dog,” cf. Rev 22:15 with Rev 21:8). ** The unanimous and unequivocal opposition to same-sex intercourse that persisted in early Judaism and in early Christianity leaves little doubt about what Jesus’ view was. The portrait of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is of someone who, instead of loosening the law, closed its loopholes and intensified its demands (Matthew 5:17-48). Jesus did devote his ministry to seeking out the “lost” and “sick,” such as sexual sinners and the biggest economic exploiters of Jesus’ day (tax collectors). Yet he did so in the hope of bringing about their restoration through grateful repentance. He understood the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18; cited in Mark 12:30) in its context, which included the command to “reprove your neighbor and so not incur guilt because of him” (Leviticus 19:18). Continual forgiveness was available to those who sinned and repented (Luke 17:3-4). Jesus’ requirement for discipleship was self-denial, self-crucifixion, and the losing of one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39). It is time to deconstruct the false portrait of a sexually tolerant Jesus.

Hope you appreciate that I have to reject your claims both on religious and on secular grounds.

Switchman sleepin', Train hundred and two, Is on the wrong track and, Headed for you.....!! --- The Grateful Dead

PvM said: Stop being such a fool FL, you were shown to be wrong and now you continue to deny equal rights? Shameful, not just from a Christian perspective but also from an American prospective. You were wrong about 1 Cor and now you want to deny equal rights to gay couples? Your arguments are pathetic and as a Christian I cringe at your display of foolishness and yes, bigotry.

Wheels said: Another time you responded to John Kwok along the lines that we're not certain that sexual orientation is innate (despite the repeatedly arrived at conclusions of psychologists and others who study the issue ...)

BTW I’m still open to any argument that gay marriage is somehow socially destructive but calling it a sin and claiming ‘we are all going to hell’ is not particularly persuasive.

Blankenhorn says he avoided the gay marriage issue for years and didn't get into civil unions in his book because it's not directly linked to his concern over marriage as "society's most pro-child institution." He has been clear about other family issues: Marriage is good for kids. Voluntary single-motherhood isn't. Neither is divorce. He says he couldn't skirt same-sex marriage any longer because allowing gays to marry and form families conflicts with children's right to know and be raised by their two biological parents. His book also cites a new analysis he did on 35 nations from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme, which shows marriage is weakest in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest. "I'm not saying one causes the other. I'm just saying they go together," he says. "If you do support marriage and want it to be this robust social institution, then you ought to think twice about saying you're for gay marriage." --- Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

Stop being such a fool FL, you were shown to be wrong and now you continue to deny equal rights?

In a free country, to show that some act should be proscribed, one must show that one's own rights, or those of some other person, would be violated by the act, remembering that the State is secular, and that there is no right not to be offended.

No such rights are violated by same-sex couples contracting fully mutually consenting partnerships for the lawful purposes of parenting, and regulating kinship, property ownership and inheritance. No such rights are violated by having these partnerships recognised by the State and treated exactly the same as different-sex partnerships contracted for the same purposes, under the title of "marriage".

The "fully mutually consenting" part prevents child marriage, because one of the parties is unable to fully consent. The same applies to bestiality. Of course full consent is required, for otherwise the nonconsenting party's rights are violated. And yes, for some purposes, including this and laws against cruelty to animals, an animal is a person protected by the law.

The community also has a well-established right to protect itself from injury by proscribing clearly unsafe practices on the part of some of its members where these would injure others. Thus, speed limits. This would justify proscribing incest, which is clearly such an unsafe practice.

FL's attempts at a false equality should be dismissed as the flim-flam that they are. There is no such equality; anything does not go, and the assertion is ridiculous.

FL said:

Stop being such a fool FL, you were shown to be wrong and now you continue to deny equal rights?

With all due respect PvM, at this point you need to buckle down, get with the homework, and start SHOWING me that I'm wrong. I've presented quite a bit of information and resources on both the religous and secular sides of the gay marriage problem now, and (so far) I'm not getting anything substantive from you. I expect you'll work to change that situation -- you certainly show such willingness with the anti-Warren posters in this thread--but you can surely save the name-calling till you put something decent on the plate. FL :)

FL said: I've presented quite a bit of information and resources

FL said: .... However, for those who would prefer to read secular, non-biblical reasons against gay marriage, there are strong resources avaiable, and it’s no problem to share them. In particular, I recommend McGill University scholars Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson. (Young is pro-gay, and Nathanson is gay.) They argue effectively against gay marriage in their online article “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage”, cleanly dissecting and addressig 20 claims or objections often used by gay activists. Their article appears online at a Catholic website NOT because they are necessarily Catholic, but instead because their article is so good the Catholics wanted to use it for themselves. The article is completely secular. Their points are inescapable. http://catholiceducation.org/articl[…]/ho0064.html

I invite you, Sunswiper, to take some time at your convenience today (Saturday) and really look at and think about all these different SECULAR reasons to oppose gay marriage. They honestly make sense, and the time to speak up against gay marriage is NOW, while there's still time. FL

tomh said:

FL said: I've presented quite a bit of information and resources

You've presented quite a bit of bilge from the Bible. Why that is relevant to what the law of the land should be is a mystery.

"allowing gays to marry and form families conflicts with children’s right to know and be raised by their two biological parents."

This is an assertion, not an argument.

My assertion is that children need to be raised in an envirnment of love, trust, and support. Sexuality is irrelevant. I have friends with lesbian moms and guess what? They grew up just fine... they also happen to be straight, since that seems to be so important to FL.

environment.

FL said:

Stop being such a fool FL, you were shown to be wrong and now you continue to deny equal rights?

With all due respect PvM, at this point you need to buckle down, get with the homework, and start SHOWING me that I'm wrong.

I've presented quite a bit of information and resources on both the religous and secular sides of the gay marriage problem now, and (so far) I'm not getting anything substantive from you.

Your KJV quotation agrees with the earlier NIV quotation that homosexual behavior is a sin. The two key terms with the KJV quotation is “effeminate” (Greek, malakoi, the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship) and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (Greek, “arsenokoites”, the more active partner in a homosexual relationship.)

It says that Jesus was NOT neutral nor tolerant of homosexuality, but instead He implicitly but clearly OPPOSED homosexual behavior, and affirmed ONLY the heterosexual, male-female-gender-complementarity marital/sexual arrangement that God designed and created for humanity in Genesis.

The only other element in Mark's gospel commonly misinterpreted to support sex-negative ideologies is the vice list in 7:20-23, where porneiai (NIV "sexual immorality") stands first. However, this interpretation leaves unanswered the question why porneiai should be separated from "adulteries" that stands 4th in the list. In Matthew's version, porneiai is moved to follow "adulteries" (15:19) and the whole list reduced and ordered to follow the 10 Commandments. Hence the literal sexual interpretation of porneiai as "sexual immoralities" has support in Matthew's reediting, but probably in the sense of "harlotries" (as in 5:32 and 19:9; Countryman 1988:175). However, as Countryman points out, porneiai in Mark 7:21 is best understood in its common metaphorical sense (18x in Revelation) as idolatry (1988:85-86). In both versions of the vice list, all the individual items are presented as examples of oppression and injustice ("evils," Greek kakoi and "iniquities," Greek ponera; see Hanks 1986a).

However, for those who would prefer to read secular, non-biblical reasons against gay marriage, there are strong resources avaiable, and it’s no problem to share them. In particular, I recommend McGill University scholars Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson. (Young is pro-gay, and Nathanson is gay.) They argue effectively against gay marriage in their online article “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage”, cleanly dissecting and addressig 20 claims or objections often used by gay activists.

But marriage hardly seems to be as broad as you may wish it to be? In fact, separating civil unions from marriage would strengthen a sense of separation between the secular state and religious beliefs and churches.

His book also cites a new analysis he did on 35 nations from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme, which shows marriage is weakest in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest

Eskridge and Spedale are right. We cannot demonstrate statistically what exactly causes what, or what is likely to have what consequences in the future. But we do see in country after country that these phenomena form a pattern that recurs. They are mutually reinforcing. Socially, an advance for any of them is likely to be an advance for all of them. An individual who tends to accept any one or two of them probably accepts the others as well. And as a political and strategic matter, anyone who is fighting for any one of them should--almost certainly already does--support all of them, since a victory for any of them clearly coincides with the advance of the others. Which is why, for example, people who have devoted much of their professional lives to attacking marriage as an institution almost always favor gay marriage. These things do go together.

1. A child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily. 2. It is all right for a woman to want a child but not a stable relationship with a man. 3. Marriage is an outdated institution

H.H. said:

But marriage hardly seems to be as broad as you may wish it to be? In fact, separating civil unions from marriage would strengthen a sense of separation between the secular state and religious beliefs and churches.

Churches don't own the concept of marriage. I am getting married in the fall and no church, minister, preacher or reverend are getting within 100 yards of my ceremony. And it will be called a marriage, not "civil union" or some other such bullshit. Marriage is already an entirely secular institution. Religious assholes don't own the practice and there is zero reason to concede to their outrageous claims on this matter.

You think churches should have a "special" word to differentiate themselves from secular marriages? Fine. But they are the ones who should be forced to do that. Call them "holy" unions or "sacraments." What's that? They already do so? Then what's all the bitching about? What's this dishonest shell game about how caving into the prejudices of religious bigots would strengthen the separation of church and state? Because it's transparently false. Religious bigots want their Medieval edicts codified into secular law, and every clear-thinking, moral person should oppose their efforts at every turn possible.

So from that short snippet alone, you can see two strong, recent, secular arguments against legalized gay marriage, to go along with all those strong reasons offered by Young and Nathanson. Which is ON TOP OF the clear secular problems that are popularly classified as the “slippery slope”, and whose advocates are clearly waiting in the wings (you saw the examples already), for gay marriage activists to hold the doors wide open for THEM in the courthouse.

— FL

Proposition 8 was a fair democratic resolution of a disagreement ...

The bill would amend the Massachusetts penal code to give judges the option of imposing only a fine or an eighteen-month sentence in local jails for those convicted. It reads, “Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” The bill would also amend the penal code to de-criminalize adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. By calling the bill, “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes,” its sponsors have revealed their bias which assumes that traditional sexual morality is “archaic” and no longer relevant to modern society, an allegation that many family groups and legislators oppose.

AN ACT RELATIVE TO ARCHAIC CRIMES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Section 14 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 14. A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars. SECTION 2. Section 18 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars. SECTION 3. Section 20 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 20. Except as provided in section twenty-one A, whoever knowingly advertises, prints, publishes, distributes or circulates, or knowingly causes to be advertised, printed, published, distributed or circulated, any pamphlet, printed paper, book, newspaper, notice, advertisement or reference containing words or language giving or conveying any notice, hint or reference to any person, or to the name of any person, real or fictitious, from whom, or to any place, house, shop or office where any poison, drug, mixture, preparation, medicine or noxious thing, or any instrument or means whatever, or any advice, direction, information or knowledge may be obtained for the purpose of causing or procuring the miscarriage of a woman pregnant with child or of preventing, or which is represented as intended to prevent, pregnancy shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars. SECTION 4. Section 21 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 21. Except as provided in section twenty-one A, whoever sells, lends, gives away, exhibits, or offers to sell, lend or give away an instrument or other article intended to be used for self-abuse, or any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion, or advertises the same, or writes, prints, or causes to be written or printed a card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind stating when, where, how, of whom or by what means such article can be purchased or obtained, or manufactures or makes any such article shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars. SECTION 5. Section 21A of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 21A. A registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception. A registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription from a registered physician. A public health agency, a registered nurse, or a maternity health clinic operated by or in an accredited hospital may furnish information to any married person as to where professional advice regarding such drugs or articles may be lawfully obtained. This section shall not be construed as affecting the provisions of sections twenty and twenty-one relative to prohibition of advertising of drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception; nor shall this section be construed so as to permit the sale or dispensing of such drugs or articles by means of any vending machine or similar device. SECTION 6. Said chapter 272 is hereby further amended by striking out section 34, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, and inserting in place thereof the following section:- Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years. Section 34. Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION 7. Section 36 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. SECTION 8. Section 63 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 63. Whoever, not being under seventeen, or a person asking charity within his own town, roves about from place to place begging, or living without labor or visible means of support, shall be deemed a tramp. An act of begging or soliciting alms, whether of money, food, lodging or clothing, by a person having no residence in the town within which the act is committed, or the riding upon a freight train of a railroad, whether within or without any car or part thereof, without a permit from the proper officers or employees of such railroad or train, shall be prima facie evidence that such person is a tramp. SECTION 9. Section 64 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 64. A tramp shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than thirty days; and if he enters a dwelling house or other building without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof, or wilfully or maliciously injures or threatens to injure any person therein, or threatens to do any injury to any person, or to the property of another, or is found carrying a firearm or other dangerous weapon, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not less than one nor more than two and one half years, but notwithstanding the foregoing a tramp found carrying a firearm or other dangerous weapon in violation of section ten of chapter two hundred and sixty-nine may be prosecuted and punished thereunder. SECTION 10. Section 65 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 65. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or police officer, upon view or information of an offence described in the two preceding sections, may, without a warrant, arrest the offender, and make complaint against him therefor; and the state police shall make such arrests and complaints. Mayors and selectmen shall appoint special police officers, who shall also make such arrests and complaints in their respective towns. SECTION 11. Section 66 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 66. Persons wandering abroad and begging, or who go about from door to door or in public or private ways, areas to which the general public is invited, or in other public places for the purpose of begging or to receive alms, and who are not licensed or who do not come within the description of tramps as contained in section sixty-three, shall be deemed vagrants and may be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months in the house of correction. SECTION 12. Section 67 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 67. Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, constables and police officers, acting on the request of any person or upon their own information or belief, shall without a warrant arrest and carry any vagrant before a district court for the purpose of an examination, and shall make complaint against him. SECTION 13. Section 68 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 68. A person known to be a pickpocket, thief or burglar, if acting in a suspicious manner around any steamboat landing, railroad depot, or any electric railway station, or place where electric railway cars stop to allow passengers to enter or leave the cars, banking institution, broker’s office, place of public amusement, auction room, store, shop, crowded thoroughfare, car or omnibus, the dwelling place of another, or at any public gathering or assembly, shall be deemed a vagabond, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not less than four nor more than twelve months. SECTION 14. Section 69 of chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby repealed. Section 69. Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, constables and police officers shall take any such vagabond into custody without a warrant and shall, within twenty-four hours after such arrest, Sundays and legal holidays excepted, take him before a district court, and shall make complaint against him.

PvM said: No, marriage is not a secular institution since it can be performed either in front of a civil servant or a religious functionary. If it were secular then all unions would be in front of a secular person. Calling people who disagree with you "assholes" shows a disregard for the facts and a position which refuses any concessions.

I see much of the same hatred in you as I do in my fellow Christians who would deny equal rights to gays.

Calling those with whom you disagree religious bigots is not going to resolve the issue and if you insist on such then you should also accept that the Proposition 8 was a fair democratic resolution of a disagreement between two sides where both sides were unwilling to give an inch and the majority got to make its decision, even though a compromise could surely have been achieved which would take into consideration the religious beliefs of a majority and the secular requirements of the state.

It's exactly your kind of attitude which has granted the religious right its victory in California.

We can hope that the courts may resolve these matters, however by forcing the hand of those with whom we disagree to change to constitution we inadvertently may have worsened our own position. One may not care too much if one is not a gay person who wishes to join into a union with another gay person, but in the end we have a group of people who have become victim of our unwillingness to listen to each other.

Matt Young said:

Proposition 8 was a fair democratic resolution of a disagreement ...

I am sorry, but it was not. Fundamental human rights are not subject to a vote. In a democracy, the majority may not persecute the minority, no matter how overwhelming the majority. Taking away the right of consenting adults to marry is no different in principle from taking away their constitutional rights such as freedom of speech. Those who liken Proposition 8 to anti-miscegenation laws are precisely correct, and no amount of sophistry can change that.

There is no middle ground here, PvM.

PvM- "No, marriage is not a secular institution since it can be performed either in front of a civil servant or a religious functionary."

But marriage is not binding LEGALLY without a state-issued marriage license. A priest can tell me I can drive, but without a state-issued driver's license, I'm going to have trouble with the law when I get behind the wheel.

PvM- "You are claiming that the right to marry is a fundamental human right. I believe that this will have to be resolved."

Wrong. See the Loving decision-

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Wrong. Your attitude of making excuses for and covering up the ugly bigotry behind these “religion views” has done far more harm to the push for civil rights than open condemnation of such bigotry could ever manage. We need more people willing to stand up prejudiced attitudes and less who attempt to excuse away such behavior with twisted apologetics.

But then you should be willing to accept that others consider your position to be one of bigotry as well.

Rick R said: PvM- "You are claiming that the right to marry is a fundamental human right. I believe that this will have to be resolved." Wrong. See the Loving decision- "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Interestingly, in using Loving as precedent for the defence of same-sex marriage rights, Canadian courts have gone much further than American courts. As an example, in Hernandez v. Robles 2006 NY Slip Op 05239 [7 NY3d 338], the New York State Court of Appeal sought to distinguish the racist miscegenation laws overturned in Loving from the prevention of same-sex couples from marrying by pointing out that racism had been recognized as a societal evil for centuries, whereas homophobia had only been recognized as a societal evil relatively recently. The court in Hernandez accordingly found that the Fourteenth Amendment had not borne homophobia in mind when it was constructed but did concern itself with racism. Cases like Hernandez underscore the tendency among some American jurists (especially those belonging to the “originalist” school) to limit the scope of 14th Amendment to the perceived (race-related) intent of its framers. A concurring opinion in the same decision stated “[f]ar from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.” It is worth noting that although Chief Justice Warren did indeed note that marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival”, he did so only after stating that the freedom to marry was “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” which, to this writer, implies a privileging of happiness over justice as regards the purposes of marriage.

Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

H.H. said:

But then you should be willing to accept that others consider your position to be one of bigotry as well.

And why should I be "willing to accept" that when it's untrue? Oh, right. Because you still can't admit that opposing bigotry isn't in any way equivalent to bigotry itself. But since your entire stance rests upon that false equivocation, I guess I shouldn't expect any honesty out of you now. Both sides are same. We're all "extremists." Everyone's wrong but middle-of-the-road PvM.

There is no middle ground here

Wrong. Your attitude of making excuses for and covering up the ugly bigotry behind these “religion views” ...

What you call bigotry is to others a religious belief.

DOMA was drawn up for the express purpose of keeping legal challenges from being heard by the Supreme Court, under the guise of keeping "marriage rights" decided at the state level. However, it will be overtuned on Constitutional grounds as barring a segment of the population from "a redress of grievances" and "taxation without representation".

Obama's stance on DOMA-

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=24618

Certainly, the ruling did not generally override state law with respect to marriage, nor did it signify that all marriage restrictions were equally invidious. Only a few years later, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Baker v. Nelson, one of the first cases to challenge the constitutionality of a state's ban on same-sex marriage, "for want of substantial federal question." It thus left the state bans on same-sex marriage intact, despite Loving's strong language about the fundamental importance of the right to marry.

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Opinion of the court The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".

Review by the United States Supreme Court Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question."

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

Matt Young said: PvM has attributed to me comments that were not mine. I did not say

There is no middle ground here

nor did I say

Wrong. Your attitude of making excuses for and covering up the ugly bigotry behind these “religion views” ...

Please do a better job editing. I will, however, take you up on this statement

What you call bigotry is to others a religious belief.

and then I have to go to a Chanukah party. I have relatives and acquaintances who are Chasidic Jews. Some, but not all, of the men will not shake hands with women. If they refused to shake hands with blacks, then everyone would immediately recognize them as bigots. But because they have a religious reason for not shaking hands with women, they are automatically excused. I would argue, however, that they should not be excused. A religious belief is not sufficient to forgive bigoted behavior, and I consider any Chasidic Jew who refuses to shake hands with women to be bigoted against women. In the same way, I think it is fair to consider that those who would deny others the right to marry may also be bigoted. I do not presume to give religious advice, but it seems to me that those whose religion instructs them to behave in a fashion that could be perceived as bigoted might consider revising some of the specifics of their beliefs.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.

Rick R said: DOMA was drawn up for the express purpose of keeping legal challenges from being heard by the Supreme Court, under the guise of keeping "marriage rights" decided at the state level. However, it will be overtuned on Constitutional grounds as barring a segment of the population from "a redress of grievances" and "taxation without representation". Obama's stance on DOMA- http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=24618

IV. First Amendment In addition to upholding Appellees’ equal protection and bill of attainder claims, the district court ruled, sua sponte, “that the deprivation occasioned by the passage of Section 29 is the deprivation of the right to associational freedom protected by the First Amendment . . . and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which encompasses the right to participate in the political process, also protected by the First Amendment.” Citizens for Equal Protection, 368 F. Supp. 2d at 989. The court never clarified whether it was holding that § 29 violates the First Amendment as applied to the States. Appellees did not raise a First Amendment claim in the district court or on appeal. In any event, if the question is properly before us, we conclude that § 29 does not violate the First Amendment because (i) it “does not ‘directly and substantially’ interfere with appellees’ ability to associate” in lawful pursuit of a common goal, and (ii) it seems “exceedingly unlikely” it will prevent persons from continuing to associate. Lyng v. Int'l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 364-66 (1988). The district court cited no case supporting its suggestion that the First Amendment right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is violated by an enactment that makes it more difficult for a group with full access to the political process to successfully advocate its views. The First Amendment guarantees the right to advocate; it does not guarantee political success.

The federal DOMA thus far has survived the few direct challenges brought against it. In two recent cases, Smelt v. County of Orange (2005)41 and Wilson v. Ake (2005)42, federal district courts rejected challenges based on due process, equal protection, and (in Wilson) the full faith and credit clause.

Moreover, this Court is not inclined to elevate the ability to marry someone of the same sex to a fundamental right. Although the Court recognizes the importance of a heterosexual or homosexual individual’s choice of a partner, not all important decisions are protected fundamental rights. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 727-28. The Supreme Court has cautioned against the dangers of establishing new fundamental rights:

Therefore, the Court finds that the right to marry a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.

PvM- "We may disagree with the rulings but as I indicated, the issue of same sex mariages being a fundamental right is one that has yet to be resolved in an affirmative manner."

Marriage has been established as a fundamental right. Therefore, it is not the task of proponents of gay marriage to argue their case as to why the benefits of government marriage should be extended to them, but the task of opponents to argue why those benefits should be denied.

An exercise- differentiate a logical flaw between these two statements. Better yet, illustrate why one might be an example of bigotry but the other would not. (Caveat- you cannot use the "argument from tradition")

"I am barred from choosing a consenting adult human partner of a different race (relative to my own) from the rights and benefits bestowed by a civil marriage contract."

"I am barred from choosing a consenting adult human partner of the same gender (relative to my own) from the rights and benefits bestowed by a civil marriage contract."

Just an aside,Pim- are you an American? Because the more I read of your comments, the more I see indicators that your understanding of the American system is subtly but fundamentally flawed.

Rick R said: PvM- "We may disagree with the rulings but as I indicated, the issue of same sex mariages being a fundamental right is one that has yet to be resolved in an affirmative manner." Marriage has been established as a fundamental right. Therefore, it is not the task of proponents of gay marriage to argue their case as to why the benefits of government marriage should be extended to them, but the task of opponents to argue why those benefits should be denied.

An exercise- differentiate a logical flaw between these two statements. Better yet, illustrate why one might be an example of bigotry but the other would not. (Caveat- you cannot use the "argument from tradition") "I am barred from choosing a consenting adult human partner of a different race (relative to my own) from the rights and benefits bestowed by a civil marriage contract." "I am barred from choosing a consenting adult human partner of the same gender (relative to my own) from the rights and benefits bestowed by a civil marriage contract."

Therefore, the Court finds that the right to marry a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Just an aside,Pim- are you an American? Because the more I read of your comments, the more I see indicators that your understanding of the American system is subtly but fundamentally flawed.

From a personal perspective I see nothing different between rejecting marriage based on race or on gender. However, the point is not what I believe or not believe but rather how we aim to achieve what I/we believe to be 'fundamental rights'. However, what we wish and how the US judicial system interprets the Constitution are often at odds.
Understanding that Loving does not provide a legal argument in favor of same sex marriage will help us understand why our claim that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right to all is presently hard to support with existing case law.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that: “ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[10] ”

“ Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[10]

By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike—they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex. This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each other, was in substance anti-black legislation. Plaintiffs do not [*7]argue here that the legislation they challenge is designed to subordinate either men to women or women to men as a class.

If marriage has to do with procreation, then we need to test fertility before marriage. We also need to put a limit on how long a couple can be married and not produce a child before the marriage is annulled. On no basis is denial of marriage to gay and lesbian individuals defensible.

(John Kwok) With all due respect, FL, I am still waiting for answers to two simple ecological questions

Michael Fugate said: If marriage has to do with procreation,

Marriage has never been dependent on procreation, obviously. As you mention, infertile couples wouldn’t be allowed to marry, women beyond the child-bearing age, even couples who just refuse to have children.

Procreation is just another phony justification for bigoted religious views which the religionists have managed to impose on the rest of American society.

Washington state Supreme Court decision, Andersen v. King County [1] (discussed further below), that upheld state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage: "Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. ..... The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

A 2007 Maryland Supreme Court decision, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway[2]) (discussed further below), also upheld similar legislation, using similar reasoning based on the issue of procreation: "We agree that the State's asserted interest in fostering procreation is a legitimate governmental interest."

2005 - a U.S. district court judge, Judge Gary Taylor, rules that the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the U.S. Constitution's provisions for equal protection and due process (in the case Smelt v. Orange County (USDCCDCa) [4]). In defending the federal government's legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage", the decision states: The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents. .. Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest.

First, the acceptance of the procreative state interest does not depend upon excluding from marriage those who cannot physically procreate because of age or infertility. This is unfortunately a frequent and unpersuasive argument made by homosexual marriage advocates when the importance of maintaining the relationship between procreation and marriage is stated. Understanding and admitting the promotion and responsible exercise of procreation to be a vital or compelling state interest, logically separates same-sex couples from other nonprocreative classes. The elderly or infertile cannot be separated without a constitutionally impermissible, individualized inquiry. It would be highly intrusive of privacy for the state to inquire of heterosexual couples to determine if they are disinclined toward procreation or infertile, and settled constitutional jurisprudence provides that government may not intrude “into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Frankly, such individualized inquiry is unnecessary for the social good —or as the Supreme Court put it, “the existence and survival of the race.” It is unnecessary, that is, so long as the vast majority of those who do marry in a society are capable and inclined toward having children and then to rearing them responsibly. While the state can tolerate a modest level of disinterest or inability to procreate, it is far more questionable whether any state can rationally be indifferent to sustaining its population by giving public marital sanction to individuals who, because of physical reality and the nature of their sexual relationship, cannot procreate.

PvM said:

Marriage has never been dependent on procreation, obviously. As you mention, infertile couples wouldn’t be allowed to marry, women beyond the child-bearing age, even couples who just refuse to have children.

That seems to be somewhat of an illogical argument. After all, how does one establish infertility,

or couples who refuse to have children?

Procreation is just another phony justification for bigoted religious views which the religionists have managed to impose on the rest of American society.

Is it phony? Is it a bigoted view to restrict marriage to what people believe to be biblical teachings?

Somehow there appear to be a lot of 'bigots' out there. Or perhaps...

"Is it a bigoted view to restrict marriage to what people believe to be biblical teachings?"

Outside of a church? Of course it is.

Seconded. If you get married in church, it's reasonable of the church to ask you to abide by its teachings on marriage. If not, not.

I appreciate the fact that we can disagree on what we consider to be bigotry. Is it bigoted to refuse to shake hands with women because of a religious belief? Is it bigoted to force people to shake hands with women even if it disagrees with their faith? Is it bigoted that the Catholic church prohibits many positions of power to women participation? Is it bigoted that Islam expects women to cover their faces?

Expecting people to revise their faith may seem to some to be bigoted as well.

You are claiming that the right to marry is a fundamental human right. I believe that this will have to be resolved.

FL said:

(John Kwok) With all due respect, FL, I am still waiting for answers to two simple ecological questions

Would you mind providing the link? I'm sure you did ask the "two simple ecological questions", but I missed them. I won't answer them in this thread, of course. But if you provide the link I can try answering them (or simply say "I don't know" if I don't know the answer) within the thread in which you asked.

You must have missed me showing how your interpretation of 1 Cor 6-9 indicates an unfamiliarity with its history.

In 1 Corinthian 6:9 Paul mentions “men who lie with males” (arsenokoitai) — a term formed from the absolute prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 — in a list of offenders that risk not inheriting the kingdom of God. Just as Romans 1:26-27 has Genesis 1:27 in view, so too 1 Corinthians 6:9 has Genesis 2:24 in view (partially cited in 1 Cor 6:16) : “For this reason a man . . . shall be joined to his woman (wife) and the two will become one flesh.” Taken in the context of Paul’s remarks in chs. 5 (a case of adult incest) and 7 (male-female marriage), there is little doubt that Paul understood the offense of “men who lie with males” as the substitution of another male for a female in sexual activity; or, put differently, the abandonment of an other-sex structural prerequisite for a holistic sexual union. --- Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm

In fact malakoi is not necessarily the passive partner and arsenokoites the more active partner. In fact, malakoi means ‘soft’ and effeminate seems to be quite an accurate translation while arsenokoites is a word invented by Paul and used in Greek to reference temple prostitutes, slave traders of homosexuals. The interpretation given by some of the two words is in fact highly disputed. Seems to me that FL has found another example where the Bible is interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the likely meaning.

"Malakoi" = "Soft".... (1) "pertaining to being yielding to touch, soft, of things; clothes". Examples: Luke 7:25, Matthew 11:8. (2) "pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate." Example: 1 Cor. 6:9.

"Arsenokoites" = "A male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast, 1 Cor. 6:9." (BAGD continues by saying), "of one who assumes the dominant role in a same-sex relationship, opposite of malakoi." "...Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution...or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service."

There is no middle ground here, PvM.

Finally, Matt Young says: There is no middle ground here, PvM.

Side note for John Kwok: your questions are now answered in the Merry Kitzmas thread.

FL

I'm wearing a poly/cotton blend shirt. Come and stone me.

PvM, while I do appreciate your thoroughness and research in responding to the anti-Warren posters, (for example, I’ll be stealing that law journal reference on the “procreation” thing for future use myself!), the fact is that you haven’t been able to refute the arguments I have presented that clearly show that gay marriage is a flat-out sin in the first place. Not even close.

Nice try, but that statement directly ignores the scholarship I previously offered to you. It seems that it’s you who’s not familiar with the history of that passage. Let’s review the facts again:

We Christians don’t need to encourage and promote that kind of tragedy, PvM. That’s why, for those Christians that live in a voting democracy, our only Christ-honoring choice is to raise our voices and votes to OPPOSE legalized gay marriage. That’s the only possible Christian direction, PvM.

So it turns out, that YES, malakoi means the passive partner is a homosexual relationship. You’re welcome to refute or disprove that definition, but obviously you won’t be able to.

I Cor. 6:9-10 (NIV) "... Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor MALE PROSTITUTES (malakoi) nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

"We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and PERVERTS (arsenokoitais), for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

Malakoi suffers from the same lexical complexity. The word malakos means literally "soft." There is no indication that it was used in the time of Paul as a derogatory remark leveled exclusively against gays. On the contrary, Hellenistic literature is replete with examples of heterosexuals being characterized as malakos. The label seemed to indicate some sort of general moral weakness or excess. The early church fathers invoked the word malakos against masturbation. Moreover they never used the word to imply being "effeminate" but rather list other terms for this purpose including thelubrios and androgunos whence the term "androgyny." Did Paul intend to condemn homosexuals? It would appear that his writings leave us with no compelling evidence to decide in the affirmative. Regardless, Paul was a poor authority when it came to matters of sex. He remained single all his life and wished that all men were as he. He saw marriage as a last resort for those who couldn't control their sexual desires. Said Paul, "it is better to marry than to burn" (I Cor. 7:8-9). He thought marriage was good for younger widows to keep them from growing idle and becoming "gossips and busybodies" (I Tim. 5:13). Although Paul was a devout follower of Christ who communed intimately with the Lord, it is fair to say that he didn't fully appreciate the love which God created to be shared between two people.

I’m wearing a poly/cotton blend shirt. Come and stone me.

Differentiating the two types of laws answers the question, "Why do Christians quote the Old Testament on homosexuality, then ignore the commands that prohibit eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fibers?" The important distinction between these laws is reflected in the Old Testament penalties for breaking them: Disobedience to the ceremonial laws resulted in uncleanness (Lev. 11:24, etc.), while breaching the moral law meant death (Lev. 20). -- Bob Davies, (1994). http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/art7.htm

funny how FL is quick to reject other sinful behavior based on 'interpretations' but fails to extend the same logic to instances which do support his 'beliefs'.

Showing once again that the Bible is open to many a different reading and interpretation.

Thanks for playing FL.

PvM said: funny how FL is quick to reject other sinful behavior based on 'interpretations' but fails to extend the same logic to instances which do support his 'beliefs'. Showing once again that the Bible is open to many a different reading and interpretation. Thanks for playing FL.

And as Byrne Fone observes in his book "Homophobia" Leviticus 18:22 immediately follows another prohibition in 18:21 which has caused people to suggest that 18:22 is a prohibition against temple prostitution as a form of idolatry, a topic which seems to cause far more Biblical concerns.

If you are so against sin then why not oppose any an all sin, why focus almost exclusively on gays?

OR.….Christians can at least raise their voices and their votes here in this country and honor their professed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by refusing to give tacit nor overt approval to legalized gay marriage.

We remain with no direct statements of Jesus

It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion. ****** Jesus was not suggesting that lifelong monogamy was a more important consideration for sexual relations than the heterosexual (i.e. other-sexual) dimension. Rather, he narrowed further an already carefully circumscribed sexual ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible. Sexual behavior mattered for Jesus. In the midst of Jesus’ sayings on sex in Matthew 5:27-32 appears the following remark: "If your eye or hand should threaten your downfall, cut it off. It is better to go into heaven maimed then to have one’s whole body be sent to hell." ****** There are many other sayings of Jesus, besides Mark 10:6-9, that, taken in the context of early Judaism, implicitly forbade same-sex intercourse. These include: the reference to “sexual immoralities” (porneiai) in Mark 7:21, a term that for Jews of the Second Temple period called to mind the forbidden sexual offenses in Lev 18 and 20, particularly incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, and bestiality (cf. the prohibition of porneia in the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15, formulated with the sex laws in Lev 18 in view); Jesus’ affirmation of the seventh commandment against adultery in Mark 10:17-22, which presupposes the preservation of the male-female marital bond (cf. the reference to not coveting one’s neighbor’s wife in the tenth commandment), and could be used in early Judaism as a rubric for treating the sex laws in the Bible, including the proscriptions of male-male intercourse (cf. Philo, Special Laws, 3); Jesus’ acknowledgement of Sodom’s role in Scripture as the prime example of abuse of visitors in Matt 10:14-15 par. Luke 10:10-12, which in the context of other early Jewish texts indicates a special revulsion for the attempt at treating males sexually as females (e.g., Philo, Josephus, Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4; 2 Enoch 10:4; 34:1-2; within Scripture, Ezek 16:50; Jude 7; and 2 Pet 2:6-10 also point in this direction); and Jesus’ warning against giving “what is holy to the dogs” (Matt 7:6), a likely echo to Deut 23:17-18 which forbids the wages of a “dog” or qadesh (lit., the self-styled “holy man,” “sacred one,” but often translated “male temple prostitute”) from being used to pay a vow to the “house of Yahweh” (for “dog,” cf. Rev 22:15 with Rev 21:8). The unanimous and unequivocal opposition to same-sex intercourse that persisted in early Judaism and in early Christianity leaves little doubt about what Jesus’ view was. The portrait of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is of someone who, instead of loosening the law, closed its loopholes and intensified its demands (Matthew 5:17-48). Jesus did devote his ministry to seeking out the “lost” and “sick,” such as sexual sinners and the biggest economic exploiters of Jesus’ day (tax collectors). Yet he did so in the hope of bringing about their restoration through grateful repentance. He understood the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18; cited in Mark 12:30) in its context, which included the command to “reprove your neighbor and so not incur guilt because of him” (Leviticus 19:18). Continual forgiveness was available to those who sinned and repented (Luke 17:3-4). Jesus’ requirement for discipleship was self-denial, self-crucifixion, and the losing of one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39). It is time to deconstruct the false portrait of a sexually tolerant Jesus.