I, like so many of my gay friends, gave a lot of money to Obama's campaign. We worked tirelessly to get him elected. Now Obama decides to invite Rick Warren, who equates gays to rapists and child molesters; and who excludes gays from being members of his church to do the invocation? How many of Warren's followers do you think gave as much to the campaign as gays did? How many of Warren's followers worked as hard to get Obama elected as gays did? Warren is to gays what a Grand Wizard of the KKK is to African Americans. Obama has made it perfectly clear with this invitation how he feels about the gay community.

Do you think Obama would have had as much of a landslide if it wasn't for the gay community? I don't think so. I hope for his sake that all the evangelicals he is pandering to move over to his camp come reelection time; gays will be voting for a third party candidate from now on. It's been made perfectly clear that the Democrats don't want us. Good luck to Obama with his presidency. I don't support him any longer. I, like so many fell utterly betrayed.

Would you say the same thing if the times were the 60's and the very popular statements even by preachers that interracial relationships were wrong...unnnatural and unholy...on occasion being compared to bestiality, pedophilia and incest.

Yes they were...sound familiar.

What would Obama say if in the 50's or 60's a President picked a preacher who said that about interracial couples to lead the moral authority at what may be the most watched event in human history?
What if his mother lived in a neighborhood that bought into that belief... that interracial relationships were on par with bestiality and pedophilia...and this preacher was active and vocal about reinforcing that belief. What if Obama's mother had to walk the streets of those neighborhoods...daily ...late at night comign home.

How would he feel about the president giving that man the hnor and gravitas of the moral voice at the Nation's most unifying and honored event?

and what if without Obama's help that president (with promises of helping them and protecting them and his promises of belief that interracial relationships were not on the level of pedophilia and bestiality...and those in those relationships deserved equality.

but that president said "you know we just have to reach out"

and the preacher came out to defend his statements by saying "slavery was the norm for 8000 years and was supported in the Bible"
and Obama had gone into thos eneighborhoods with those beliefs that he was created out of something sinister and wrong... neighborhoods he probably should not have been going...and defending that President and fighting for that President in the face of that President's own bigotry he was facing.

Lets say Obama gave up daily 2 years for that.

How do you think Obam would feel and what would he say about that president.

What do yuo say about that president.

I did that.
For him.
for 2 years.

and I am gay.

I also am a very very good person who loves someone...has loved someone monogamously for a decade.

I could teach Rick Warren a lot about being a good person and about beign a child of God...and about living up to Christ's ideals.

but I am gay.

I just happen to love someone different than Mr Warren...just like Obama's mother.

Rick Warren literally snatched away my daughters' and their moms' right to a legal marriage. Without his efforts, Prop 8 would have failed. How can inviting him to bless Obama's presidency possibly be justified? Would Obama have invited someone opposed to interracial marriage to officiate? There are many ways to reach out to the right without selling out your own people. Obama chose a different way, one that discounts and marginalizes and delegitimizes millions of people. This is a really really bad sign. It indicates that he does not see gay and lesbian folks as real people with real rights that are being violated.

I am a straight white 60 year old male. Like millions of others I have been more excited by this campaign and by Obama than by any other campaign and candidate in my lifetime. Until now, I am sorry to say. To all you folks who are saying "oh get over it, let's move on" - sorry, it does not work that way - can't move on if you cannot even see us as people. I say "us" because what Obama may not realize yet is that GLBT folk are NOT isolated. They have friends and families. However many GLBT there are, multiply that by ten to get an idea of the community. So no, this conversation is not going away.

I should clarify that I fought for Obama for two years going into small towns and down dark wooded roads in back woods New Hampshire...arguing for our first black President with a few people I am sure that would no sooner put a bullet in my head and bury me in the back North Country had they had realized that I was what I am...

"But I do believe President-elect Obama has made this choice to set an example for the country of a new type of tolerance--in religion and politics."

I have yet to hear embracing words of tolerance from Rev. Warren. Instead, I've heard him repeatedly equate me and my fellow gay men and women to those who practice incest, pedophilia and polygamy. I've heard him compare women who believe in their own productive rights with those who commit a holocaust. What, pray tell, suggests this man should represent the U.S. in front of a worldwide viewing audience at the inauguration? If there are bridges to be built with Warren and his ilk, please do it out of the public eye.

As one who was thrilled to see us elect our first African American president, this has thoroughly sapped the joy from me. I suspect that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters share my disappointment.

I am White, heterosexual, male, religious and DISGUSTED by the choice of Rick Warren as a symbol of spiritual leadership on what was supposed to be one of the greatest days in history for the American conception of liberty.

Equality for gay and lesbian Americans is a fundamental civil and human rights issue. It is no more the type of issue that we can "agree to disagree" on than were universal suffrage or desegregation.

BO even with RW saying a "Palin-type" freedom from voodoo prayer over him will still be the leader of the Immoral Majority gaining said presidency on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies and the 70+ million votes of their "mothers and fathers".

Look, I've tried to patiently read your junk, but enough is enough.

I've always wondered how some groups' human rights are less important than everyone else's. (Being Jewish, I would naturally wonder this.)

So, explain, sir, why a man who would deprive gays and women of their civil and human rights is an appropriate speaker at an inauguration.

How do you "unite" with someone who says your intimate relationships are morally comparable to incest and pedophilia? That's disgusting.

Now it turns out that Warren has made some anti-semetic statements. It will be interesting to see if the ADL comes out with a statement.

He's also called for the assassination of the President of Iran. Why does Obama want to give legitimacy to this nut?

And no, I haven't read "the Purpose Driven Life" - though I've read reviews. It just sounds like fast food religion to me.

Surely this was political payback that went too far. While the invocation will soon be forgotten, Obama has chosen an individual that represents the antithesis of democratic principles, and that will not be so soon forgotten.

And the new Billy Graham? Does this make him the de facto pastor of the nation? Ye gods, we hope not.....

And was this gesture to the rightests from the evangelical constituency really worth it?

Paybacks are hell, as the saying goes.....

Yeah, Rick Warren is such a leader on AIDS treatment in Africa that his clinic does more harm than good.

"Warren's transformation into the evangelical AIDS "it person" is relatively recent....Warren's own AIDS work, together with his wife Kay, began in 2002, ostensibly when Kay read a magazine article about the burgeoning population of AIDS orphans in Africa. That year, Warren led a group of evangelical churches in pushing a reluctant Bush administration to adopt a global AIDS policy... PEPFAR, launched in 2003...

A division of aims within the global AIDS movement between those advocating for prevention funding and those working for treatment access helped draw faith-based groups....Treatment access advocates sought out partnership with evangelicals... But the faith-based solution naturally brought with it skewed policies that limited prevention options and led to what Jacobson calls the "profoundly ineffective" spending of AIDS money: with $20 billion spent on treatment over the past five years, but six new infections for every person treated...

But churches anxious to follow Warren's lead didn't want to provide comprehensive HIV prevention services, such as safer sex education or condoms, so they lobbied for PEPFAR funding policy to be interpreted narrowly, creating stand-alone abstinence-until-marriage programs out of the law's 30% abstinence-only earmark. The new faith-based arm of the AIDS movement Warren had energized asked for, and got, a number of obstacles to prevention services: a prohibition on needle exchange programs for drug users; a ban family planning services in Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission clinics; and the anti-prostitution loyalty oath, which required all groups receiving PEPFAR funding, including those that work with sex workers, to condemn prostitution. As with conscience clauses, Jacobson says, this ideological interpretation of PEPFAR became a source of U.S. funding that "allows groups or organizations to avoid having to provide prevention treatment or care according to evidence-based criteria."

Warren and his fellow evangelicals brought new visibility to the issue; simultaneously, faith-based AIDS groups such as Kay Warren's HIV/AIDS Initiative at Saddleback Church began receiving significant funding through PEPFAR and disbursing it to organizations on the ground that follow their religious guidelines....How that flawed policy plays out can be disastrous. As journalist Michelle Goldberg noted... one of Warren's protégés in Uganda, the rabidly anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa, has interpreted Warren's faith-driven solutions to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by burning condoms at universities and offering faith-healing to disease-stricken congregants. Other PEPFAR grantees, as Jacobson's colleagues in the global AIDS movement have witnessed, use their funds to promote fundamentalist interpretations of marital roles, advising women that if their husbands beat them, they should try harder to please them."

Full article at http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

I think Barack Obama should rescind the invitation to Rick Warren
because all men are created equal.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

-from the Declaration of Independence

Live the equality Barack Obama
rescind the invitation

Of all the panelists who post on On Faith, I have found timothy shriver's to be the most shallow, the most poorly thought out and often the most mealy-mouthed drivel.

I fail to see how someone who is against rights for any group of people in this country based on personal sexual choices or lifestyles, calls for the assassination of the leader of another country (weren't we satisfied with Saddam's?) and is antisemitic, hardly represents a bridge to anything except nowhere. And didn't they put a stop to one of those in Alaska?

warren is a mistake. It's really a shame- there are so many more intelligent, inclusionary choices Obama could have made- the evangelists will think they are being pandered to because they are important, the rest of us will just look on in dismay as we send yet another wrong message to the world.

Athena,

Your post has convinced me - I am now dead set against Warren. I should have known that he was running a horror show in Africa. Sickening.

Mr. Shriver doesn't understand either the nature of the inaugural occasion or the qualities required of the religious personage who prays there.

The inauguration is for every individual American regardless of any characteristics s/he may have.

It should be a unifying occasion. How can it be that when the one-who-prays has compared a significant number of Americans to pedophiles and practioners of bestiality and incest?

Thus, what's required of one who delivers an inaugural prayer is that he be noncontroversial, a quiet, traditional clergyperson, not one involved in crusades, political action, the megachurch "religion business", or personal aggrandisement.

That President-elect Obama did not recognize and act on these obvious and simple principles does not reflect well on him.

Obama's "reaching out" to Rick Warren brings to mind the maxim that "He who is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind".

NorrieHoyt,

I think the only way to have an inclusivist ethical statement is to leave the deity out of the inauguration. This would mean that the one chosen should not be a clergyman.

Persons who have done good works, who are admired for values we profess to have, who believe that all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would be the right persons to express hope for this nation.

I am disgusted with Obama. I think he needs to deal with his internal homophobia. His inabilitiy to understand that this is a civil rights issue is hard for me to comprehend. I gave money to Obama and now I wish I had given all of my queer money to 'No on 8".

The bottom line is that Obama has never believed in my right to marry and my hope that he would change after the election was naive and misplaced. He doesn't beleive I deserve the right to marry--he beleives I do not deserve full citizenship---much like many racists still believe it was wrong for his mother to marry a man of a different race. His inability to make this connection is scary.

I will no longer be celebrating on Jan. 20. My same-sex spouse and I will be protesting in our homestate of CA instead.

KKR3,

You have the right to mutually masturbate with your partner. It is physically and biologically impossible for you to marry your same-sex partner.

Mr. Shriver, I find your position appalling. Obama's invitation to Warren had nothing to do with tolerance; rather, it was a crass political maneuver designed to appeal to young evangelicals. You say that Warren has been asked to pray, not govern. Yes, he has been asked to lead us all in prayer. Don't you have more respect for prayer than to see it used as manipulative political tool? Warren and his ilk use religion to make their bigotry seem sanctioned by God. And Obama is using it to pander for 2012.

If I were to let Waren LEAD me in prayer, I would feel as though I were giving this guy legitimacy and I would feel complicit in the marginalization of gay people and women. I would feel used.

Thank goodness I won't be there.

CCNL, Son of Crossan,

You write to KKR3:

"You have the right to mutually masturbate with your partner. It is physically and biologically impossible for you to marry your same-sex partner."

Marriage is not a biological process. You know nothing of sexualities different from your own.

Solutions:

1. Lay off the booze, and get to an AA meeting.

2. Get therapy for your OCD.

3. Take courses in LGBT Studies.

4. Stop masturbating: You'll go blind.

Farnaz and Sunnyday1 said everything I was going to say.
And they said it well.

Farnaz: "I think the only way to have an inclusivist ethical statement is to leave the deity out of the inauguration. This would mean that the one chosen should not be a clergyman.

Persons who have done good works, who are admired for values we profess to have, who believe that all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would be the right persons to express hope for this nation.

Sunnyday1: "If I were to let Waren LEAD me in prayer, I would feel as though I were giving this guy legitimacy and I would feel complicit in the marginalization of gay people and women. I would feel used"

Hear hear.

FARNAZ2: I agree with you that it would be best to not have a clergyperson participating in the inauguration ceremony.

But as at least a partial realist I don't see that happening, so I'm opting for choosing the least offensive sort of clergyperson to participate.

CCNL: You seem to like the phrase "mutual masturbation" since you continually throw it out as some sort of presumed insult.

Actually, heterosexual intercourse can reasonably be considered to be a form of mutual masturbation. Both gay and straight sex involves stimulating the erogenous zones of the partner. What's the big difference as far as sexual pleasuring goes?

fr cgnl:

>...It is physically and biologically impossible for you to marry your same-sex partner.

The act of marriage is a legal contract. I think you meant the term "consummate". I DID marry my same-sex partner on June 28, and whether YOU like it or not, we ARE legally married!

It is a good thing to reach out to people with whom you disagree. The inauguration is something different. The inauguration is not just about the incoming President and Vice President. It is a grand act of symbolism for the country and the world. The messages of the inauguration, from those who pray to those who offer music and poetry, to the Inaugural Address, are messages to symbolize a new dawn...messages that the ceremony is about more than just the figure at its heart...messages that the ceremony is for all the people who watch and celebrate. It is one thing to have someone pray at a dinner, or a small affair, and another thing to offer a prayer at this grand ceremony in front of millions. It sends a message to the world, just as the Inaugural Address sends a grand message to the world, of the goals of the new leader.

The inauguration is not the time to send a message of exclusion, even if that message is couched in love, or in gentle terms. The inauguration is a time to welcome the world into the greater "White House". The inauguration, and the prayers offered, are a time to seek blessing on all who enter this great journey together, not to imply that some are not worthy to come in the gate (or even the back door).

Even if Rick Warren gives a very generic, non-Christian prayer (as a Jew, I would hope he would be sensitive to my beliefs, too), for millions, that prayer is being spoken by someone who has gone too far to disenfranchise, to disinclude, to disinvite a whole group of people who should feel they are welcome at the table, not strangers at the gate.

This is so wrong.

President-Elect Obama, if you wanted to include Rick Warren, there are so many ways you could do so without using this time of great symbolism to convey a message that is the polar opposite of so much that you have conveyed up till now. Yes, reaching out to those with whom you disagree is good, but remember, there is a time and a place for everything. This is not just your time. It is our time, too.

Well. I have to say I'm disappointed in Obama for choosing Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural. Not because Warren opposes gay marriage, but because Warren and his followers belittle gay people. In one interview Warren equated gay relationships with incestuous and pedophilic situations. In another, he compared my desire to love one person of the same gender with his desire to have sex with multiple partners of the opposite gender.

Mr. Warren claims to love gay people, but I don't think he does. Loving someone invlves respecting them and he has shown no respect for gay people.

I doubt Mr. Warren would feel loved and respected by me if I gave his relationship with his wife the same respect I would give to some man who slept with 15 women in the last 15 days.

The choice of Warren is wrong, wrong, wrong! As an Obama (financial)supporter, I expected more sensitivity to the citizens of America than this. Unfortunately, "politics as usual" has arrived before innauguration day. Obama is already campaigning for 2012.

Choosing Warren gives a higher importance to a person representing an extremist minority viewpoint than he ought to have. Just because "Evangelicals" do a lot of screaming in public doesn't make them the voice of the majority of Christians. Humoring their bad behavior and racist/homophobic/sexist conservatism only encourages it. Treat them like the embarassment they are, make it clearly known that their views are not acceptable, and people will shy away from joining them. I say, shun them, don't include them. Inclusion is what should happen to people of good will who disagree with you, not people who intend to break all the civilized rules of social discourse and misuse power once they have it...

Obama is going to hurt our feelings. He's a politician and this choice of Warren is a political one that I understand but still dislike. Of course, I am still excited about Obama, but this choice reminds me to still keep a reserve about even this promising president.

I think the most offensive line of argument is the one that chides us for not tolerating disagreement. The whole idea that we can legitimately disagree on the fundamentals of gay rights is wrong and insulting. Others have made the analogy of civil rights and feminism. We cannot agree to disagree to disagree. We will work together on other issues--but we are just not opposing sides in an argument. On this issue, we are right.

Please explain to me how Rick Warren working to stem the tide of AIDS in Africa proves he loves gay people in America. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is by and large a heterosexual occurrence and has virtually NOTHING to do with gay Americans.

Just because "Evangelicals" do a lot of screaming in public doesn't make them the voice of the majority of Christians. Humoring their bad behavior and racist/homophobic/sexist conservatism only encourages it."

That's's rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The small tiny fanatical screaming minority are the gays. Hounding elderly people who gave to prop 8, disrupting church services, screaming about their "rights". The overwhelming majority of this country does not suppport gay marriage or the gay agenda. What a joke!

I can accept Rick Warren at the inaugural as soon as Obama appoints a KKK or Aryan Nation member to also give an invocation. Would this offend blacks, jews and catholics? Yes, of course. But obviously, inclusion is far more important than intolerance. Obama is disappointing many before he even steps into the oval office. And by the way, Tim, you have no right to a column in the Post just because you're Maria's brother! Nepotism only provides mediocrity.

"... but agrees with him that the most important issue is the search for purpose and justice and mercy."
.... and just what form of justice is there in dissolving 18,000 marriages that were legally performed due to a California Supreme Court decision? And, what part of mercy is it to call women who have abortions, murderers?
Timothy Shriver needs to do some more research before he writes his views for the public to see!!

I should clarify that I fought for Obama for two years going into small towns and down dark wooded roads in back woods New Hampshire...arguing for our first black President with a few people I am sure that would no sooner put a bullet in my head and bury me in the back North Country had they had realized that I was what I am...

Making assumptions about others and jumping to conclusions regarding their beliefs is the same attitude that so many who have posted here are complaining about. Before painting everyone with one broad stroke, perhaps some open-mindedness is in order.

Again, BO even with RW saying a "Palin-type" freedom from voodoo prayer over him will still be the leader of the Immoral Majority gaining said presidency on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies and the 70+ million votes of their "mothers and fathers".

I was upset with the choice of Rick Warren at first, but have become less so in the past few days.

Let me explain:

-Though I vehemently oppose Rick Warren on the gay rights front, in the end he is still Billy Graham-lite. This isn't a monster in the same way the Dobsons, Falwells, and the Ayatollahs of the world are.

The key here is that Warren's church threw its weight behind McCain after the Saddleback forum, but not fully. There were significantly larger chunks of Warren's church backing Obama than had ever backed a Dem for office before.

By having Warren give the invocation, the message is much more "Warren supports Obama" and NOT "Obama supports Warren". With one fell swoop, Obama is muting a potential 'religious Oprah' from using the pulpit to speak out against him. The fine print that Warren had to sign off on is: "by accepting to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, I hereby tacitly give my approval of his forthcoming administration".

The roar of the religious right will now be more bark than bite. Honestly, has no one here read Sun Tzu?

The marriage act is definitely physical and biological and is something that differentiates heterosexual unions from gay mutual masturbation.

Reiteration is such a great educational process.

The bigger issue here is that more than 50% of the country doesn't support gay rights. How can we (including Pres. Obama) go about changing that? I think that if Obama could use his platform to support gay rights consistently, he could do more to improve the situation for gay couples than Rick Warren could do to set them back. But how does he achieve this ability? He has to gain some legitimacy with the 46% of the country that didn't vote for him (which probably overlaps a lot with the 50+% that don't support gay rights). Perhaps its best to view the choice of Rick Warren as trying to improve his standing with this segment of the country.

What if he had picked someone very liberal, supportive of gay rights, etc, etc, such as Mel White? Then all the conservative evangelicals would be upset at the choice, and Obama would be judged for not trying to bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals, but simply furthering the divide between the two halves of the country. And in the end, this would be unproductive.

Best not to judge this choice as completely determining the Obama stance towards gay rights. If you see it as a tool that could in the end be used to further gay rights, it might look a little different. I realize that is taking a highly politicized view of a highly personal issue, but that is what the president is supposed to do. If you take issues personally, you end up with a president who invades another country.

First, Rick Warren is not a hate-monger. He is a minister from what many call the moderate wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (and his church contributes to that Convention). And like it or not, a majority of Americans are against same sex marriages. That fact that California voters (arguably the most gay tolerant state in the union) voted to ban same sex marriage from its Constitution, shows this. The "Evangelical Right" does not have a monopoly on this view. There are many who are not from the Evangelical Right who oppose same sex marriage. Rick Warren is a fine choice to perform the invocation at the inaugural. When his books became best sellers, he gave back every dime of salary his church had ever paid him. He donated also a chunk of the profits for HIV/AIDS relief efforts in Africa. If his critics would bother to listen to the man and go to the Library and actually read what he's written, they might find that their views are cartoonish and don't really understand what Rick Warren is about.

There's certainly no shortage of racist Evangelical, Mormon, Baptist and Pentacostal preachers who won't marry interracial couples -like Obama's parents, for example. If Obama truly wants to be president of ALL the people then he ought to have invited one of them as well. Anti-gay bigotry seems to be just one of those trifling little things we can all oh-so-civilly agree to disagree about. How about anti-black bigotry, Obama?

Since the dawn of humankind, nothing has so poisoned the public well like religion has. The American Founders were spot-on when they envisioned a total separation of church and state. Unfortunately though, this evolving country has not lived up to that expectation, and it increasingly appears that it never will. Rather than distinguishing church functions from state functions, we seem to be increasingly blurring the lines of separation. If Mr. Obama really wants to bring positive change to this country, he would strengthen rather than continue to weaken and undermine the wall that separates from church and state.

IT SADDENS ME THAT I CANNOT FIND A CHRISTION AMONG THIS GROUP. I CAN FIND THAT VERY FEW HAVE READ THEIR BIBLES AND MEDITATED ON THE WORD. NONE HAVE MADE A SUGGESTION OF WHO WOULD BETTER FILL THIS SLOT. DON'T SOME OF YOU HAVE PASTORS AND MINISTERS THAT YOU SUPPORT? I BELIEVE THAT WHOMEVER OBAMA NAMES WILL BE UNACCEPTABLE. MAYBE MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OR REV. LOWERY SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE HE STANDS. HOW MANY OF YOU GAY DEMS VOTED FOR LINDON JOHNSON OR JIMMY CARTER OR BILL CLINTON ? HOW MANY OF YOU GAY GOP'S VOTED FOR BUSH 1 OR REAGON OR BUSH 2?

I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY AND THE CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO PROVIDE OR DENY THE SERVICE. SO IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TO HAVE A WEDDING THAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS WEATHER OR NOT THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE MARRIAGE. PEOPLE GET A STATE LICENSE TO MARRY NOT A FEDERAL ONE. EACH MINISTER OR PASTOR, PRIEST, RABBI OR ANY SPIRITUAL TEACHER HAS A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT HE OR SHE BELIEVES. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW. NONE OF THEM HAS CONTROL OF YOUR AFTERLIFE. MAYBE YOU ARE FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. GOD MADE EVERYONE TO HIS OWN PURPOSE AND UNLESS HE SPEAKS TO YOU, YOU WON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PURPOSE IS. WE ALL KNOW THAT HE MEANS FOR US TO LOVE AND CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER. IF EACH OF US COULD JUST DO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HUNGER, POVERTY,WAR, FAMINE AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR ABORTION THERE WOULD BE NO PORNOGRAPHY, NO CHILD OR ELDER OR SPAUSAL ABUSE. WHAT A GREAT WORLD THIS WOULD BE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MAKE IT BETTER.

It really needs to be pointed out to people who are suggesting that gays are overreacting that this is NOT primarily about Warren's stance on gay marriage. If Warren were simply opposed to gay marriage and nothing more he'd be no different from Obama and Obama was overwhelmingly supported by gay Americans. The fact is that for all Warren's claims of being a new kind of evangelical he is every bit as bigotted towards gays as the typical Christian fundamentalist.

After reading some of the posts on here I felt obliged to give my $0.02 worth. Pastor Warren is not the hatemonger that everyone makes him out to be. The only reason that people have written him off is because he decided to speak out in favor of Prop. 8, something in which a MAJORITY of people in CA voted for. Pastor Warren has also spoken out in support for AIDS relief and research, something the gay community is not enough of. Warren has also spent time in other countries to personally deliver provisions and support to underprvileged communities, something I have not done enough of myself and feel ashamed.

If all the people who are crying out about the invocation are saying that it causes division, let me hold a mirror up to you. If Prop. 8 didn't pass, would people throw objects and protest in the street in the same manner you did? You have done more to bring derision to your cause by acting in such a manner; do you really think these actions of yours are helping your cause? The correct answer is they are hurting it. Moreover, you classify everyone who disagrees with your life-style choice (yes, it is a life-style choice, not a race or an effect of bad genes) as a homophobe. I'm not afraid of any of you. The fact that you automatically dismiss me and others shows that you are more bigoted than the people you target like Rick Warren, who probably would still love you even if you spat in his face.

If you are afraid of intolerance, take a good look at yourself and see if you aren't the one causing the intolerance.

I believe that gays should be allowed to marry and be just as miserable as the rest of us. BTW it's my 24th wedding aniversary today.

fr genericrepub:

>First, Rick Warren is not a hate-monger. He is a minister from what many call the moderate wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (and his church contributes to that Convention...

Anyone who claims that GLBT's are on the same level as pedophiles and those who are zoophiles IS a hatemonger, and pouring the same purple koolaid that "dr" dobdork did. We WILL get Prop HATE overturned!

The real problem is beyond gay marriage. First it was civil unions, then now it's marriage, tomorrow it will be protected class status and demanding that the gay lifestyle be legally accepted and taught. Then hate speech if you disagree. It's just one demand after another and that is what most people understand and overwhelmingly disapprove of.

FIRST OF ALL WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE HAVE THIS INVOCATION CRAP FOR PRESIDENTIAL SWEARING IN. CUT THIS SUPERSTITIOUS CRAP OUT OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE. SWEARING IN OF THE PRESIDENT IS A PURELY SECULAR EVENT. DON,T POLLUTE IT WITH RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES.

Timothy:

I think you mean well, but you are incredibly naiive. Warren is a bigot. There is no way to walk around that fact. Anyone who equates homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, as Warren has, is a hatemonger. I have no interest whatever in unity with bigots and hatemongers. And, yes, I am intolerant of intolerance.

In the end, Warren's personal views on homosexuality are not that important - sad but not the key issue. It is his opposition to equality under the law, a core American value, that bothers me. Same sex marriage is not a moral or religious issue, it is exclusively a legal issue, and the American people have been found wanting.

On a related matter, you said prayer was a good path to tolerance. There you go - excluding at least 45 million Americans upfront because we do not pray. So, did you just forget about us or does your concept of unity work only when you exclude the people you don't like? I actually doubt that you think the way I parsed your thoughts, but Christians pretty much reflexively exclude us from their thinking. In that sense, I think you just fell into your own unity trap.

Regards,

DZ

"The only reason that people have written him off is because he decided to speak out in favor of Prop. 8, something in which a MAJORITY of people in CA voted for"- ecglotfelty

So if the majority of Californians also voted to reinstate slavery, that would make it ok? Or to put the Japanese in internment camps? Or Jews and gypsies in concentration camps? How about the majority of citizens in this country vote to take away your church's tax exemption because you can;t keep your nose out of other people's personal business? Let's hear you defend that tyranny of the majority now.

Intolerance begets intolerance- if you weren't practicing intolerance in the first place, you wouldn't be dealing with your bad karma now -and fyi- I'm straight, not gay, and I'm telling you, this is what your intolerance has created. Only the most profound hypocrisy and moral irresponsiblity on your part blinds you to your full repsonsiblity for intolerance.

PWAA said:

"The overwhelming majority of this country does not suppport gay marriage or the gay agenda. What a joke!"

That is because the overwhelming majority of this country are brainwashed by the lies of religion, and no other reason.

What part of "all men are created equal" do you have a problem with?

CCNL:

"The marriage act is definitely physical and biological"

SOURCES PLEASE.

I just love the leftists that scream "bigot" and at the same time, in the same breathe, consider and express how backwards evangelicals are, and make their own comments that sound pretty bigoted.

Look. The gay lifestyle, or orientation, is about something contrary to natural biological process. It is contrary to common sense, and it is about immoral behavior. People have FREE SPEECH in this country, and can disagree about this and still actually love the gays.

Same sex marriage IS a moral value, and it IS an issue about what is good for society as WHOLE. Granting gays, 3% of the population, marriage, is just another dent in the foundation of marriage which society should encourage people to pursue , for HETEROSEXUALS only. A man and woman have the dynamic in their relationship, that encourages stability and cohesiveness that same-sex unions can't achieve. They have the potential to share something - their natural children- that gays can't. They have psychological and spiritual dynamics that gays can't achieve due the very nature of female and male brain structures and ways of thinking about life from several different perspectives.

And to equate it to women's right to vote, or even worse, what African Americans have been through from slavery to drinking out of water fountains, to riding in the back of bus, shows true ignorance of what happened .

Warren is a good and decent man being critqued by radicals that care more about their selfish , twisted ways of going about their personal business than what is good for society.

Civil unions are fine, but marriage should have a special status, and be restricted to one man, one woman, as it is the superior model for our society and our children , that needs to be put up a pedestal for them to see how fantastic and grand it really is. To tarnish it with another dilution (like divorce has in the past and presently) is a error in judgment society cannot afford....

Norrie Hoyt:

Thank you for your reply. I agree that instead of a clergyman exemplary citizen would be controversial in the current theocratic mood of this nation.

It will take time to prepare some of the citizenry to recall that we have a secular government and to act accordingly.

Never in my lifetime do I wish to see a repetition of this fiasco.

I agree that Obama has made an effort to lead by example in choosing Warren. Both sides in the evangelical-gay war should stop shouting and take notice. It's about working together to live together. And I'm neither evangelical nor gay. What better course could Obama have taken? To have one representative -- not necessarily clergy -- from every religion represented in the US? Possibly, but how much more of a stink would we have raised the?

"The marriage act is definitely physical and biological"

SOURCES PLEASE.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In high school plane geometry--an excellent place to learn how to think--one always begins with axioms. An axiom is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. The definition of a "marital act" is such an axiom. It is a physical, sexual joining of a human male and a human female. Source: any elementary sex-ed class.

Hijacking the word "marriage" from this essentially male/female, complementary fact of life is not only wrong, it's impossible. Does anyone have a "right" to redefine a natural act?

One can SAY gays can marry, but it's like saying a ball will drop up from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

"Look. The gay lifestyle, or orientation, is about something contrary to natural biological process. It is contrary to common sense, and it is about immoral behavior. People have FREE SPEECH in this country, and can disagree about this and still actually love the gays.

Same sex marriage IS a moral value, and it IS an issue about what is good for society as WHOLE. Granting gays, 3% of the population, marriage, is just another dent in the foundation of marriage which society should encourage people to pursue , for HETEROSEXUALS only."- counterww

You know- i wish it could be impressed on you how similar the justifications were for putting Jews, gypsies, disabled persons and gays into concentration camps, or how easily this kind of thinking segues into justifying a heinous institution like slavery.

granting gays the right to a civil marriage is going to dent the foundation of marriage? You mean the foundation of marriage that is presently already decimated by a 50% divorce rate? The institution of marriage that has lost most of its "sacred" meaning to straight people (including the evangelists who have one of the highest divorce rates in the country?) It doesn't occur to you that gay marriage will never ever be as destructive a force to marriage as straight marriage has been? You must be blind, deaf and dumb.

If it takes that little to make you think the sacred nature of marriage will be destroyed, all your relationships called into question and society will go down, you've set a very low bar.

We can argue the basis for homosexuality from now until doomsday- it doesn't matter what hte cause it- it has nothing to do with immorality (except in your mind) and everything to do with choice of a partner. You will never be forced into a gay marriage and no gay man would look at your wife- so just how are you affected? Do you think less of your wife? Will there be an earthquake of biblical proportions? Tell me how gay people have brought down the morality or ethics of the world- as compared to bigots, terrorists, greedy politicians and CEOs, or religious fundamentalists?

what an unthinking, ignorant, self-righteous prig you are.You believe all that garbage the religious right feeds you- ask your wife how she feels about bestiality. Lord knows she married a sheep.

"That is because the overwhelming majority of this country are brainwashed by the lies of religion, and no other reason.

What part of "all men are created equal" do you have a problem with? "

What liberal drivel. Everyone who disagrees with them is brainwashed. People are universally disgusted by homosexuality in all cultures on earth. Where does the constitution ever say people are entitled to engage in perversion and others should stand idly by and let it be enshrined into law?

Bluefish2012 Author Profile Page:

"The marriage act is definitely physical and biological"

SOURCES PLEASE.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In high school plane geometry--an excellent place to learn how to think--one always begins with axioms. An axiom is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. The definition of a "marital act" is such an axiom. It is a physical, sexual joining of a human male and a human female. Source: any elementary sex-ed class.
________________________________

In other words the marriage act is "definitely physical and biological" because it is definitely physical and biological.

READ AND LEARN:

Begging the question

Also known as a circular argument, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy in which the premises in an argument for a proposition contain the proposition itself, and thus are equally doubtful. In essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, which is neither very persuasive nor logically valid. Further, as the phrase is used in philosophy today, a question-begging argument needn't go so far as to include its conclusion in its premises. Rather, the argument need only rest upon premises so contentious that no detractor of the conclusion would accept them anyway. For example, The Bible says God exists, and the Bible is always right, therefore God exists begs the question, for no atheist would accept that the Bible is always right. Though the argument is not circular, it is as good as circular, given the context of the dispute.

The name comes from old Greek ways of arguing - people were to prove or disprove a certain proposition (called 'the question' - which here means 'matter to be discussed'). To do so, they would sometimes make certain statements, which they would ask their opponent to accept as a mutually agreed truth. If you're begging the question, then you are asking for the proposition itself to be such a 'mutually agreed

Rick Warren literally snatched away my daughters' and their moms' right to a legal marriage. Without his efforts, Prop 8 would have failed.

the ignorance and willful disregard of the facts is sickening. California had passed a law in 2000 determining that marriage is between a man and a woman. The gays sued and got a ruling of 4-3 that they found some invisible right in the Ca. constitution for this perversion to be allowed. The VOTERS of California roared back (again) that marriage is between a man and a woman. So no one took anything away. it should never have been narrowly ruled by 7 people that this perversion should have been allowed.

pwaa opines:

"That is because the overwhelming majority of this country are brainwashed by the lies of religion, and no other reason.

What part of "all men are created equal" do you have a problem with? "

What liberal drivel. Everyone who disagrees with them is brainwashed. People are universally disgusted by homosexuality in all cultures on earth. Where does the constitution ever say people are entitled to engage in perversion and others should stand idly by and let it be enshrined into law?
------------------------
You are permitted to publish your perverted thinking on the internet. Enough said.

Hi, Sparrow, you wrote to counterww,
"what an unthinking, ignorant, self-righteous prig you are.You believe all that garbage the religious right feeds you- ask your wife how she feels about bestiality. Lord knows she married a sheep."

ROTFLMAO! Goodness gracious! Unleash hell and take no prisoners! Remind me from time to time not to piss you off.

Ah, hell, I'm still laughing! Thanks for cheering me up.

"What part of 'all men are created equal' do you have a problem with?"

Well, with the part that wants to force me to believe that a marriage between people of opposite genders is identical to a "marriage" between people of the same gender. The latter is a physical impossibility. It's like trying to say the speed of light is equal to the speed of sound.

And this is not the kind of thinking that lead to slavery or annihilation of the Jews, or discrimination against disabled persons or Gypsies. Bilge! How dare you compare your non-existent right to "marry" to their real denial of justice?

Does it give you pause at all that African-Americans in California voted overwhelmingly for Obama and yet disagreed with him on Prop. 8?

"You are permitted to publish your perverted thinking on the internet. Enough said."

YAWN, that means so much coming from people who boink strangers in the rear in anonymous bathhouses, bushes,etc

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

In other words the marriage act is "definitely physical and biological" because it is definitely physical and biological.

READ AND LEARN:

Begging the question
[...]
**********************************

Well, all right. I'll stop trying to prove a negative (i.e., that gays cannot physically or biologically marry). Since proof must be provided by the affirmative, prove away, Farnaz2. And don't start with any self-evident principles, OK?

Apparently Mr. Warren has expunged his website of the admonition that no gays are welcome unless they repent of their "lifestyle". (Whatever that is). If I were a member of his flock I think I'd be a bit more disturbed that my spiritual leader makes changes based on the political winds than worried about gays. The integrity of religions suffers when they entangle themselves with the state. The founding fathers knew that. Too bad so many Christians in this country have forgotten their wisdom.

"Civil unions are fine, but marriage should have a special status, and be restricted to one man, one woman, as it is the superior model for our society and our children , that needs to be put up a pedestal for them to see how fantastic and grand it really is. To tarnish it with another dilution (like divorce has in the past and presently) is a error in judgment society cannot afford...."

Are you suggesting that divorce should be illegal?

Also, would the legal protections of the civil unions you propose for same-sex couples be any different from those that civil marriages currently offer?

fr pwaa:

>...The VOTERS of California roared back (again) that marriage is between a man and a woman. So no one took anything away. it should never have been narrowly ruled by 7 people that this perversion should have been allowed.

You are entirely INCORRECT. My RIGHT to marry my partner was ripped away by the fundies such as "dr" dobdork and widdle wicky warren. They need to stop pouring the purple koolaid of anti-GLBT HATE that was in Prop HATE.

However. We WILL get ALL of our RIGHTS back, whether YOU like it or not. We are not trying to marry our kids, farm animals or siblings, no matter what "pastor" wicky says.

pwaa:

"You are permitted to publish your perverted thinking on the internet. Enough said."

YAWN, that means so much coming from people who boink strangers in the rear in anonymous bathhouses, bushes,etc
__________________________________

Well, okay, you prove my point. You are a "pervert," but why think of yourself in this way?

Are you ashamed of what you are? As long as you don't harm another or yourself you need not be. If it causes you psychological pain, seek help.

I'm afraid I cannot help you with this. I'm not familiar with these kinds of problems, I'm afraid. The only person with whom I'm intimate is my husband, and we rather prefer our bed.

I mean no offense.

To all those arguing that gay marriage is UNNATURAL, yet somehow think marriage between one man and one woman is:

I call Bullsh*t.

The natural order is: one man sleeps with as many woman as he can in order to better spread his seed. His only troubles arise from fighting off other men (in order to get at their women) or from having to club the uncooperative women. This typcially involves the man running off without providing aid to the impregnated women.

Marriage is not the least bit natural. In fact it is a human-established higher order. Therefore, as human beings do to all human-created institutions, they must be improved and updated (aka, a computer designed in 2008 is a clear and obvious improvement to a computer designed in 1983 -- the only case in which MORALITY comes into play is choosing to deny the sale of said computer to someone different than the majority, whether they be gay, black, old, or born with 6 fingers)

PWAA:

You didn't mention whether you are straight or gay.
But it doesn't matter. If you are unhappy with your sexual behavior, you can get help.

"You are entirely INCORRECT. My RIGHT to marry my partner was ripped away by the fundies such as "dr" dobdork and widdle wicky warren. They need to stop pouring the purple koolaid of anti-GLBT HATE that was in Prop HATE."

Once again don't let those pesky voting facts get in the way. widdle wicky warren? dr dobdork? Wow, that's sooooooo clever, maybe you could write a jingle for a commercial.

57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63–37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin
Add to that California (again) with 52% (as high as Obama’s landslide) Arizona 57% and Florida 62%

Add the Supreme Courts of multiple states that were specifically chosen by gay “marriage” advocates for being the countries MOST sympathetic – like Maryland, New York, Washington State & those court losses combined with narrow, split decisions in the few states that have imposed same-sex “marriage”.

Only sheer vanity & pride propels their “cause.”

Rick Warren and President Obama are concerned with preserving the institution of marriage.

The feelings of gays are simply not the driving consideration behind America’s rejection of same-sex ‘marriage”.

Obama made a fine and centrist pick in Rick Warren

Fitz4 said,
Only sheer vanity & pride propels their “cause.”

Horse poop. What propels their cause is the 14th amendment. Equal rights. Remember that? Something about the Constitution? Something about America?

As to the statistics: if elections had been held 70 years ago about overthrowing the Jim Crow laws, your stats would have been accurate for the bigots voting against repeal. Does that make you happy?

FITZ4:

There will be gay marriage in the US. Have no doubt. It will happen.

Warren can diddle himself or do whatever else he does. Gays will be granted their civil rights.

"Only sheer vanity & pride propels their “cause.”

that's odd, fitz4- to my way of thinking it's their civil rights. On the other hand it is misplaced vanity that makes people think the marriage between only a man and a woman is sacred. If it is why is there a 50% divorce rate? Why do men beat their wives? why do they both cheat on each other (and please don't insist it is only atheist marriages that do this. that would be a BIG, HUGE lie.)

In fact, since you are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why allow atheists and agnostics to get married? I mean, how could they believe in the sanctity of marriage if they don't believe in G-d? How about we don't women who can't bear children get married- after all, isn't marriage and sex supposed to be for procreation?
Seems to me if you want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, you need to act like you actually believe in it yourself.

"As to the statistics: if elections had been held 70 years ago about overthrowing the Jim Crow laws, your stats would have been accurate for the bigots voting against repeal. Does that make you happy?"

This is such a red herring. Blacks in no way feel that affluent gays are similar to their struggle for equality. Which is why they voted in large majorities to reject gay marriage.

I agree with Shriver and would add that Obama's choice is a masterstroke. Warren has now been "outed," so to speak, and now has to defend his views on the national stage, not just from the safety of his Saddleback pulpit, where, in addition to nationally, he has already had to praise Obama's courage and model of civility.

How better to spark the debate that must be had? What other move on Obama's part would have launched a fraction of the comments that have been made here and elsewhere since the choice?

To those offended - get real. I appreciate, and agree that the choice is unnerving, but think. There is no priest, minister or rabbi of any major denomination who does not preach the same thing. Are we offended just because Warren is out front? That's hypocritical. How silly it would be to find some radical cleric who supports gay marriage to give the invocation. That's not how to advance the cause in the end.

Warren did not equate pedophelia and homosexuality. He said neither relationship is eligible for marriage. That follows from the mainstream position as night does day.

Nor is it quite credible to call Warren responsible for your loss of civil rights. 52% of Californians did that, and the rights you are talking about were only confered by a few judges a matter of months ago.

Gay marriage will happen, but not until an enormous amount of the dialogue that has now begun in earnest brings clarity to the distinction between civil marriage and sacramental marriage that the religious agenda strategically choses to ignore. Adam and Eve did not hold title to the Garden of Eden as tenants by the entireties, and the whole panoply of civil rights associated with marriage are secular creations of no sacramental origin. Nor is there any earthly or biblical reason that the word marriage can only be associated with the sacramental relationship. Our churches did not copyright its use, and no one would be harmed by its use in connection with the civil sense of the term. When Rick Warren is forced to admit that no one is trying to force him to marry gays in his church, but merely to permit the clerk of the court to create a strictly civil relationship to which he is not relevant, then the battle will be won.

The GLBT crowd has some more legwork to do to get that message through to a society that still doesn't get the above, and doesn't realize that their minister's ceremonies wouldn't even be recognized as civil marriages unless their ministers had a permit from the state to sign state issued marriage licences.

SPARROW4 (WRITES)

“that's odd, fitz4- to my way of thinking it's their civil rights”

Yes but to assert something is not to prove something….You are transparent question begging.

Arminius (writes)

“Horse poop. What propels their cause is the 14th amendment. Equal rights. Remember that? Something about the Constitution? Something about America?”

The 14th amendment along with the two other amendments were voted on and ratified by supermajorities of the American people. This is also the case with the 19th amendment.
The majority of courts have rejected your argument

Like the Washington State Supreme Court decision that made strong criticisms of the two dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with…

“sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots.

Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and a reflection of “the dominant political ideas of their legal community,” the concurrence says:

“[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”

The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots.

Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” the concurrence says:

“[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”

Your's is a misreading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage:

You are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision.

Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

to BLAKGAYMAN: you are incorrect. Warren did not say that having a monogamous relationship with one man was the same as him having multiple women while married - he said it would be the same as having multiple male partners. He's still wrong as a matter of logic, as that would be analogous to him bedding down multiple women while single, but the point is that he said nothing about a committed monogamous gay relationship.

Warren's acceptance of the invitation has forced him to endorse Obama more than vice versa, and praise him in public and at Saddleback. This is master strategy if it was planned, and will do more to advance the GLBT agenda in the long run than finding some wacky cleric who is for gay rights. shutting Hannity up for a while is fun too. it's all about keeping your eye on the prize. always look at the long term, not the immediate.

fitz4 wrote:
“that's odd, fitz4- to my way of thinking it's their civil rights”

Yes but to assert something is not to prove something….You are transparent question begging."

Can you say that in transparent english? Begging what question? As for their entitlement to civil rights (you know- i.e. "civil" marriage) the Constitution makes the assertion of basic civil rights for everyone.

The religious right has appointed itself the dictionary of all meaning- but marriage does not mean the same thing to everyone. For you its a relationship for the purpose of procreation. For others its a relationship of partnership, with or without children. It doesn't have to mean one thing- and you'll recall that most words in the dictionary have several related meanings. "gay" can be cheerful, or it can mean homosexual. "Right" can me correct or a direction.Just because you want to define marriage in the biblical sense doesn't mean it should only be defined your way.

pwaa wrote:"This is such a red herring. Blacks in no way feel that affluent gays are similar to their struggle for equality. Which is why they voted in large majorities to reject gay marriage."

No- they voted against prop8 because of their religious views. And for the record not all gays are affluent- in fact, far from it. Blacks, unfortunately did not see the issue for the civil rights issue it is.

I'm by no means comparing the scale or the scope of the black civil rights battle in this country- but when any group has to fight for civil rights in this country, it will echo that battle. Many people made the mistake of thinking blacks area monolithic whole- they aren't. I just would have hoped there would have been more empathy on their part, however.

The entire same-sex marriage disagreement stems from the existing inappropriate entanglement between church and state. The Rich Warrens of the world prefer to keep it this way, not just because they believe (as a matter of religious opinion) that marriage law should discriminate against same-sex couples, but because it serves their larger interest in preserving the shameful church/state entanglement that existing marriage law perpetuates. That should be painfully clear to anyone who is paying even the least bit of attention to this whole, and otherwise pointless, same-sex marriage controversy. Once they get a hold of it, prying the Priest's grubby little hands away from the reigns of government power is never an easy task.

Hi, Sparrow,

Prop 8 failed not only because of religion but because the opposition waged a clever and insidious propaganda campaign.

You are correct - the scale of the current gay rights movement is nowhere as immense as the civil rights movement. But, of course, at its heart the gay rights movement is about civil rights, as you well know. This will take a while, maybe a generation, to succeed.

"If people of faith believe any one thing, it is that we are each created by a compassionate God, that each of us was fashioned with care and love in the palm of divine light. In other words: each of us is a center of value.

Even if you don't agree with Rick Warren on everything, people of faith--and people of no faith too--can agree on that."

Timothy Shriver,

No. People of no faith do not agree on that! What planet are you from where they teach you that people of no faith believe that anybody was created by any god? If you believe that, then you are absolutely clueless about what people of no faith agree on. About the only thing that people of no faith agree on is the complete absence of evidence for the existence of any god(s)ess(es).

SPARROW4 (WRITES)
“Can you say that in transparent english? Begging what question? As for their entitlement to civil rights (you know- i.e. "civil" marriage) the Constitution makes the assertion of basic civil rights for everyone.”

You know absolutely nothing about the constitution. I am not saying this to be mean or offensive. Yours is a political slogan.

The question you are begging is --- What “right” are we talking about???
(please read carefully and attempt to understand the obvious supterfuge you are engaging in)

You are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision.
Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Multiple State Supreme Courts from Washington State, Maryland, New York have (within the last 5 years) upheld the clear weight of precedent and the law. This is in addition to 30 State constitutional amendments.

This right to marriage –is a right to marriage quo “marriage”.

The (very) few State Supreme courts that have said otherwise have done so against the clear weight of precedent concerning the very "right" they purport to uphold. As those dissents have clearly stated.

As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -

“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1

"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2

"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3

Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4

1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)

SPARROW4 (WRITES)
“The religious right has appointed itself the dictionary of all meaning- but marriage does not mean the same thing to everyone.”

It means the same thing as a matter of established constitutional precedent. The very precedent you are using in an attempt to redefine the very right you (wrongly) think you’re (somehow) entitled to redefine.

SPARROW4 (WRITES)
“For you its a relationship for the purpose of procreation. For others its a relationship of partnership, with or without children. It doesn't have to mean one thing- and you'll recall that most words in the dictionary have several related meanings. "gay" can be cheerful, or it can mean homosexual. "Right" can me correct or a direction.Just because you want to define marriage in the biblical sense doesn't mean it should only be defined your way.”

And for some people it means one husband and multiple wives & for others in means one wife and multiple husbands,,,,and for still others it means a whole group of people male & female married to one another!! (polyamory)

None of these understanding have ANYTHING to do with the established constitutional right to marriage as outlined in Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Fitz4,

Would the sky fall if we allowed same-sex couples to get married?

Why is it so important for the law to exclude same-sex couples from marriage?

It just doesn't strike me as that big of a deal?

Are you also opposed to same-sex civil unions?

Hi arminius! Yes- I think it will take a few more years. I only hope that it will happen peaceably.

Sparrow4,

I think it will happen peacefully because the opponents just don't have enough (if anything) to loose. The die-hards will be beaten in the end when all the leaners loose interest as a result of the fact that allowing same-sex marriage costs them nothing and continuing to fight it becomes a real pain in the arse and gains them little or nothing in return. That's what happened in Massachussetts, that's what is happening now in California and other places to varying degrees, so it's just a matter of time.

If I was part of a same-sex couple, I'd get married in Massachussetts and then move back to my home State and make an absolute legal and social ruckess until people got bored and caved in, which is exactly what will eventually happen once enough people realize how completely unaffected they really are by same-sex marriages.

Freestinker (writes)
“Would the sky fall if we allowed same-sex couples to get married?”

Emphatically No – (that’s global warming)

Freestinker (writes)
“Why is it so important for the law to exclude same-sex couples from marriage?”

It is important for the law to distinguish and privilege marriage.

Western civilization has always acknowledged it a “foundational” social institution. The word foundational is not a mistake….

Perhaps the most succinct & clear statement of the danger of same-se “marriage” is presented here by someone who’s people (with 70% illegitimacy rates) have every reason to know and understand the threat evident to the all important social institution of marriage.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

(note) 80% of ALL first born children in Scandinavia are born out-of –wedlock.

Freestinker (writes)
“It just doesn't strike me as that big of a deal?”

It is… One of the arguments used to support no-fault divorce laws was…

"What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?"

At that time the divorce rate was 8%

Freestinker (writes)
“Are you also opposed to same-sex civil unions?”

Yes
Remember – “No man is an island unto himself.”

The real situation in Scandavia with respect to children born out of wedlock and common law marriages:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-15-marriage_x.htm

The marriage act is definitely physical and biological and is something that differentiates heterosexual unions from gay mutual masturbation.

Reference: Grey's Anatomy

"The 39th edition of Gray's Anatomy was published on 24 November 2004 in the UK and U.S. and also made available in CD-ROM format.

Newer editions of Gray's Anatomy (and even several older ones) are still considered to be about the most comprehensive and detailed books of such type on the subject."

I think the Fauntroy quote is one of the saddest, most misguided opinions I have ever read. "it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship."

would that it were the case because the last thing marriage has done is guarantee a child anything. The country is full of deadbeat dad and abandoned or abused women and children. How has heterosexual marriage guaranteed a fruitful relationship when 505 of them end in divorce? All the issues Fauntroy is so worried about gay marriage destroying? Heteros have done a slam bang up job of it themselves.Maybe things would get better if they took responsibility for fixing what they've done instead of worrying about gay marriages.

Nice Sparrow, and Arminius, Prop 8 PASSED, so you are very, very mistaken, and it will pass Ca constitutional muster.It is a amendment, and you can't really make an amendment unconstitutional.

Sparrow, as for you, my wife agrees with me completely, as do the majority of Americans.

An actually mentioning concentration camps in the same post as if gays not being able to marry will somehow lead to gays being led to the gallows.

You ad homium attack with calling me a sheep was really special.

No , I am someone that looks at life from either a evolutionary perspective , or historical, or even from a spiritual sense. It's common sense that the body parts don't equate. It is common sense that men and women due to their different brain structure, hormonal differences, mindset, and thinking complement each other. They can form a family unit with natural genetic children where gays cannot. This does not preclude civil unions where gays can get most of what they want.

But that is not what they want- its not equality they want, but social acceptance of a behavior that years ago, no one would even think of calling it normal.

I happen to believe that gays should be protected with laws for many different things including hate crimes , employment law, and the ability to take care of one another's partners and have the benefits of civil unions that afford them everything they want - but to put it on the same plane as married heterosexuals is too much.

I am not going to drop down to your level and call you some name , and I can disagree with you without the personal attacks. I doubt the same is true for you given your post.

Sparrow is right.
Hetero marriage is already a farce.
What's to protect?

It's all better than the real tradition of marriage, which was a business transaction between families.

And CCNL,

Hetero sex is also mutual masturbation unless it results in a baby, which is most of it. You couldn't be more moot on this subject.

Arguments on the context of the constitution are moot. These men owned slaves, they weren't gods, just intellectuals. They can be corrected for the times . The question is what is right for today's world. And the only argument in today's world against gay marriage is belief in the magic homophobic sky fairy, who does not exist.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

The necessity of "toys" in lesbian mutual masturbation and the absense of a vulva and G-spot in gay male sex proves the point.

fitz4- you may not have noticed but the history of the Supreme Court shows that many laws once declared constitutional have later been overturned and vice versa. Slavery comes to mind. So does the definition of equality (separate but equal was overturned). It's all in the interpretation. As time s change, so has the thinking on the Supreme Court- now that its loaded with right wingers I'm sure we'll see some very repressive legislation enacted and supported. after all, this is a court that has looked the other way on many practices by the administration, and overlooked the encroaching pressure of the religious right into our everyday lives. In your case, as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

[Prop 8 PASSED, so you are very, very mistaken, and it will pass Ca constitutional muster.It is a amendment, and you can't really make an amendment unconstitutional.]

Except that even amendments to the state constitution must pass muster under the US Constitution. Otherwise any moron could get an amendment passed about anything- oh, yeah- let's make an amendment to stop interracial marriage (remember those laws?), make it illegal for Jewish stores to stay open on Sunday because that's the "Christian"" sabbath (Blue Laws), or disallow Blacks to sue for freedom (Dred Scott)? [In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories.-PBS]
------------------------------------------
[Sparrow, as for you, my wife agrees with me completely, as do the majority of Americans.]

So what? Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? the constitution is not to protect them. It's to protect the minority from them.
-----------------------------------------------
[An actually mentioning concentration camps in the same post as if gays not being able to marry will somehow lead to gays being led to the gallows.]

This is exactly what I said: You know- I wish it could be impressed on you how similar the justifications were for putting Jews, gypsies, disabled persons and gays into concentration camps, or how easily this kind of thinking segues into justifying a heinous institution like slavery."

Look it up-while I don't believe this country would ever put gays into camps (there will be plenty of us to fight anyone who tries), it creates an atmosphere- already in place- where people think its ok to attack gays and kill them. (i.e. Matthew Shepard).
--------------------------------------------------
[You ad homium attack with calling me a sheep was really special.]

glad you liked it. I am always amazed at how defensive people get when taken to task for their bigotry, for no other reason than - well, whatever justification you can drum up, be it the bible or "evolution."
-------------------------------------------------------
[No , I am someone that looks at life from either a evolutionary perspective , or historical, or even from a spiritual sense.]

You do so as long at it supports your prejudice. If the human race is only about procreation, then lets get rid of all the arts, the science, the architecture, the literature- anything that doesn't have us rolling around in bed, procreating like rabbits. Trust me- there are billions of people already doing it-gay marriage is hardly going to put the human race into extinction.

Man evolved a brain- Obviously it was supposed to be used for something other than biological impulses. We've evolved beyond just procreating- and so have our relationships (FYI- the animal kingdom is filled with homosexuality. Seems like it must be natural.) None of what you said re biological differences was untrue. It's just no longer true enough for what we are today.
----------------------------------------------------------
[But that is not what they want- its not equality they want, but social acceptance of a behavior that years ago, no one would even think of calling it normal.]

That's the crux of the matter- prejudice. Actually they don't really care whether or not people like you accept them. they care about whether or not the state and the nation gives them the rights and benefits they are entitled to. A legal marriage is one of the rights and benefits allowed to heteros. gays- also taxpayers fyi-are entitled to the same access.
---------------------------------------------------------

[I happen to believe that gays should be protected with laws for many different things including hate crimes , employment law, and the ability to take care of one another's partners and have the benefits of civil unions that afford them everything they want - but to put it on the same plane as married heterosexuals is too much.]

Why? If heterosexual marriage or morality is so tenuous that two guys or women getting married is going to destroy them, I have to say heteros have a lot of work to do. Gay people are in every aspect of this nation, including thousands who have fought and died for this country. They pay taxes, like you do. And obey the same laws.

And you're freaking out over whether or not they can get married? because you obviously think you and your wife are so much better than they are? (Isn't this where you give the G-d/bible argument?) what a truly stupid waste of time and effort when we have so much more to worry about. Unbelievable.
------------------------------------------------------
[I am not going to drop down to your level and call you some name , and I can disagree with you without the personal attacks. I doubt the same is true for you given your post.]

I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing worth attacking- but frankly, ignorance and prejudice really disgust me. I've dealt with it in my life (no- I'm not gay) and I refuse to stand by and watch others go through what I did. A bigot- even a rational presenting, seemingly logical one- is still a bigot. remember that's what you are when the next gay (don't ask, don't tell) soldier dies to protect you and your lifestyle. then explain to his life "partner" why he can't have the right to bury him.

Sparrow4:

Bravo! You get a standing ovation from me.

Sparrow,

Well done indeed!

In addition, it should be pointed out that no amendment is permanent. It can be overthrown by a subsequent amendment, as was prohibition.

“I think the Fauntroy quote is one of the saddest, most misguided opinions I have ever readwould that it were the case because the last thing marriage has done is guarantee a child anything. The country is full of deadbeat dad and abandoned or abused women and children. How has heterosexual marriage guaranteed a fruitful relationship when 505 of them end in divorce? All the issues Fauntroy is so worried about gay marriage destroying? Heteros have done a slam bang up job of it themselves. Maybe things would get better if they took responsibility for fixing what they've done instead of worrying about gay marriages.”

Rev Fauntroy is not worried about gay “marriage” – him, myself and the vast majorities of Americans and the Courts are worried about marriage.

You have revealed yourself through the rest of your comment here. You see the world in a ludicrous fashion as some battle between straights & gays. We on the other hand are looking toward something called the COMMON GOOD. Such a view point precludes closing the door on rebuilding the all important social institution of marriage.

Yours is like saying, - "the domestic violence rate is higher than ever so lets just chuck worrying about wife beating"…

Rev Fauntroy singles out the SEXUAL REVOLUTION for a reason… The troubles with marriage can be traced back to this mindset of the cultural left. The same cultural left that is now bringing us gay “marriage”. The same cultural left that brought us no-fault divorce, widespread pornography, sky high illegitimacy, and Fatherless America.

That is the proper paradigm. Social conservatives vs the cultural/sexual left (of which you are clearly a part).

When you start taking some responsibility rather than assigning it, you will earn some kudos’. This is near history we are discussing, all well within living memory.. Read Rev Fauntroy quote’s one more time and try to exercise some empathy. Gay’s are developing a reputation of being self centered and only concerned with their own little plight.

Of coarse changing the definition of marriage will impact marriage, those concerned (deeply) with its maintenance and rejuvenation know that we can’t defend what we cant define. There is a common philosophical maxim that reads “If its everything its nothing”..

Please think of others….Think of the common good.

Sparrow,

Another great post! I posted some comments on Evans thread, following that disgustingly racist display on Bronfman's thread. Haven't head back from the reverend yet.

Can't all these bigots be established in a large gated community (to which we nonbigots have the keys)?

I love the constant backslapping and cheerleading homosexuals and pro-homosexualists must engage in to keep their spirits up within these comment threads..

How transparent & insecure is that...

[Rev Fauntroy is not worried about gay “marriage” – him, myself and the vast majorities of Americans and the Courts are worried about marriage.]

gay marriage cannot do any more damage to "marriage" than heteros have already done to it. thisa is just an excuse for religious prejudice. You need to get your heads out of a society that existed 2000 years ago and live in todays.
-------------------------------------------

[You have revealed yourself through the rest of your comment here. You see the world in a ludicrous fashion as some battle between straights & gays. We on the other hand are looking toward something called the COMMON GOOD.]

I beg to differ- the COMMON GOOD is an inclusive term- that means gays, straights, right, left, religious, atheist, agnostic, etc. I don't see it as a battle between gays and straights- I see it as a battle between bigots and the constitution.
--------------------------------------------------
[Yours is like saying, - "the domestic violence rate is higher than ever so lets just chuck worrying about wife beating"…]

No- I'm saying that if you are so worried about marriage, you should be fixing your own mistakes, not blaming gays for the mess. you're really saying, "we're not fixing this so let's blame gay marriage for making it possibly worse."
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Rev Fauntroy singles out the SEXUAL REVOLUTION for a reason… The troubles with marriage can be traced back to this mindset of the cultural left. The same cultural left that is now bringing us gay “marriage”. The same cultural left that brought us no-fault divorce, widespread pornography, sky high illegitimacy, and Fatherless America.]

Why there is such a high divorce rate among evangelists? The real problem was not the cultural left- it was people like you who threw themselves into the sexual revolution with a passion. So what you're really saying is people like you simply didn't have the self-discipline or strong enough belief in their religion to refuse to give in.

The sexual revolution was a revolution for women who stood up for their rights and for the idea that their lives are worth far more than just as incubators and baby sitters. Religious, conservative men don't care for it, do they?
-------------------------------------------------------
[When you start taking some responsibility rather than assigning it, you will earn some kudos’.... Read Rev Fauntroy quote’s one more time and try to exercise some empathy. Gay’s are developing a reputation of being self centered and only concerned with their own little plight.]

Gays aren't developing that reputation- you're assigning it to them because they aren't shutting up anymore. They're tired of being treated like second class citizens by people like you, tired of paying taxes without equal legal benefits, tired of being called sinners and worse- all by people like you. You can't control the immorality and lack of ethics in the so called religious right so now its all the fault of the left. What hypocrisy. what blindness.
----------------------------------------------------------
[Of coarse changing the definition of marriage will impact marriage, those concerned (deeply) with its maintenance and rejuvenation know that we can’t defend what we cant define. There is a common philosophical maxim that reads “If its everything its nothing”..]

the definition of marriage isn't changing- it's expanding to mean the relationship between 2 people who have committed their lives to one another. Maybe if procreation was out of the mix, there would be stronger marriages, with people who are together for the right reasons, not just because someone got pregnant or because people stay together "for the sake of the kids." I've seen and dealt with kids from those marriages. Way to go.
----------------------------------------------------------
[Please think of others….Think of the common good.]
I do- for everyone. Including Americans who happen to be gay. I believe in pluralism and not judging someone by the color of their skin, the person they love or their faith, or lack of it. Pluralism is the foundation of this country- the great American Melting Pot.

thanks farnaz! That means a lot to me, really.I've been checking the Chanukah thread too. I saw what you wrote- right to the point! :-)
---------------------
fitz4- what a lame little jab. typical of the right- snarky, mean spirited, whiny.

Sparrow,

Yet another great post from you - keep it up, you're on a roll. Odd, isn't it, that the definition of the Common Good proposed by Fitz really includes only people who agree with his narrow view.

Yet more of those who think of the common good..

8/7/04 THE HAGUE -- an open letter to this newspaper, five academics raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.

(discussing the dramatic decline in marriage rates in the Netherlands)

…..“The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.”

”In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”

”Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order. “

Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam

["..“The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.”"]

Note the line about "as yet no scientific evidence". Number 1- there is no evidence gay marriage contributed to the deterioratoin of the instiution of marriage.
2. As yet implies they are diligently looking for some way to find it at fault somehow.

The last line is a red herring. Since gays are looking for the right to marry- a traditional institution- it seems odd to say they are looking for more nontraditional ways to cohabit. Parenting is thrown up as the great bugaboo- yet there are plenty of straight couples who marry and do not have children. shouldn't the onus be on them, for redefining marriage?

frankly, how gay marriage would pave the way for greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation is ludicrous. Straights have already come up wit myriad permutations without gay help. worrying about what gay marriage will do is like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

Essentially you want to set up a privileged class based on who can breed and who can't. (I can't wait for the breeders club where your kids have to compete for points in order to be registered with papers).

Maybe if those who complain the most actually got back to the basics of living in a civilized society, marriage wouldn't be so screwed up- you know, things like respecting other people, being kind to kids and animals, loving thy neighbor. teaching your kids tolerance, kindness, a thirst for education. The basics of being a human being, instead of being a procreator. You've had all the opportunities, all the advantages- now you're complaining because you blew it and you want to blame the left and gays. marriage has mutated far out of what it was supposed to be- there is nothing precious or sacred left in the wreck straight people have made of marriage.

On the other hand, gays probably have more respect for the institution than you do, because they are looking for a traditional, legally recognized union.

thanks arminius- I am just really passionate about this. I have nieces, nephews, cousins and close friends who are gay. I hate what is being done to them and the way people think of them. what gives these people the right to judge gays? You know, you could stand every person up in the world and cut them. we all bleed red. that's the bottom line. equal- under the law and in G-d's eyes.

CCNL,

"The necessity of "toys" in lesbian mutual masturbation"

There is no such necessity.

"and the absense of a vulva and G-spot in gay male sex proves the point"

Not at all. The G spot is for coming. And coming is the point of sex. Man don't seem to have any trouble coming without a G spot.

You were wrong twice in one sentence.

Sparrow,

Excellent analysis of a post filled with straw men.

I am really getting sick of people being selective about just who gets equal rights. Their cherry-picking of whatever biblical passage matches their bias is utter hypocrisy. Their absurd claim that gay marriage threatens hetero marriage is just about as valid as me claiming that people who like brussel sprouts, which I loathe, endangers my love of broccoli, which I adore. Good grief.

Timmy,

While I don't always like your posts, your reply to CCNL about his obsession with gay sex is a classic. Well done. That guy needs serious help.

Hi Sparrow,

Pastor Evans replied to me and will take a look at the Bronfman thread a bit later. Too bad, it never occurred to us before--that is, to confront the panelists with the filth that J people are so often subject to here. Right now,too, during the birth of their "Savior." For heavens sake, what kind of salvation have they attained? What do they hope for? Bigots Paradise?

The interesting thing is that I've heard
Quinn publicly discuss the particular problem of antisemitism on this blog, noting that it "outshines" all other prejudices, that it primarily comes from what appear to be Christian bloggers.

The great Catholic theologian Tosemary Reuther wrote thirty years ago that we Jews will never convince "racists not to be racists." In other words, don't try to make them understand; make them pay. What can I tell you? It makes me sick to my stomache, but it works.

Pastorliz1 :

Hey there, Farnaz2:

I haven't had a chance to look at Edgar Bronfman's thread yet. I will a bit later today. But I already know I can't defend what some Christians say about Jews. A lot of it is indefensible. Bigotry knows no boundaries, unfortunately. Sadly, many folks also find the Internet a convenient, and "safe" place to foment ugliness. I'm sorry you, and we, have to be subjected to it.

December 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on December 23, 2008 11:32

Farnaz2 :

Ms. Evans:

Maybe the best thing you could do humility wise is take a look at Edgar Bronfman's thread and explain to us nonChristians how it is that your co-religionists cannot surrender their anti-Jewish racism.

We'd be delighted to know. Acknowledging it would certainly be a step toward developing "humility."

I would like a reply, Ms. Evans. Set aside the rhetoric (mine), and please explain.

Mr. Shriver: This is from your colleague Richard Cohen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html

I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.

But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

Sparrow & all "concerned"

The forest for the tree's
And your sexual revolution.

There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone this cultural trend that has caused 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies —- those born out of wedlock —- to enter life disadvantaged

You can agree for any allowance you want to try and win what you want. Problem is the cultural left has a pedigree. They think marriage is archaic and patriarchal.

When Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his famous “Report on the Negro family” the cultural left called him a bigot.

When Dan Qualye eschewed Murphy Brown for making single Motherhood “just another lifestyle choice” the cultural left called him a bigot.

The Blogosphere is replete with articles from the NYT and other sources of the cultural left about single women and men “choosing” to raise youngsters on their own. No moral condemnation is made or even suggested. Illegitimacy is not a problem in New Delhi. The correlation with a declining marriage culture is not income, couples live on a bowl of rice and stay together.

I’m afraid the illegitimacy rate is still 70% among the underclass. The lesbian couple next door implicitly states that marriage is androgynized and Fathers are not important. If the cultural left has embraced monogamy and repented from their sexual revolution its news to me. My law school “family” law department was made up of three lesbian strident feminists/polymorist. None of them asserted anything except all family forms are inherently equal, and the traditional family is archaic and patriarchal.

The important thing is not the answer to the question, but who writes the question.

How do we provide a child with his natural mother and father living together under the same roof? Or.. What is the social utility of traditional morality? Or.. How has the feminist project undermined and alienated relations between the sexes? Or…What accounts for the disintegration of married intact families since the 1960’s? Or… How do we best alleviate and rebuild this broken structure? Or, what accounts for the decline in marriage and increase in cohabitation in Scandinavian countries that have adopted same-sex “marriage”? Or… How can we hope to build a marriage culture around a androgynized definition that separates a Childs natural parent from any necessary connection to his or her child? Or… why is the cultural left suddenly conceding the importance of the family unit when it has spent years calling it archaic a patriarchal?

Where were these same people during the divorce revolution? Where were they when Senator Moynihan issued his report on black family disintegration? Could this sudden concession on the importance of marriage and monogamy be a momentary faint in a well documented history of considering all family forms as being inherently equal?

I disagree. I say that allowing SSA couples to marry will do irreparable harm to the institution of marriage by showing that marriage is outdated, any family form is adequate; a Childs own Mother &Father are not inherently necessary to that Childs future and proper upbringing and either sex is ultimately irrelevant to the institution.

Freestinker asked:
“Why is it so important for the law to exclude same-sex couples from marriage?”

Fitz4 responed:
"It is important for the law to distinguish and privilege marriage.

Western civilization has always acknowledged it a “foundational” social institution. The word foundational is not a mistake….

Perhaps the most succinct & clear statement of the danger of same-se “marriage” is presented here by someone who’s people (with 70% illegitimacy rates) have every reason to know and understand the threat evident to the all important social institution of marriage. "

Fitz4,

You say marriage is such an important institution, you say it's been important for years, yet you fail to explain what harm would come if we expand the legal definition to include same-sex couples?

Your only argument is tradition and that is not a good reason to exclude citizens from equal treatment regardless of their gender.

And somehow your lack of reason, your inability to demonstrate any harm, is evidence of the validity of your position? That's funny.

The only danger that legalizing same-sex marriage poses is to end your ability to discriminate against people for no good reason and that train left the station long ago. It's only a matter of time now so you better get ready, the gay train is coming and you can't stop it.

FREESTINKER(WRITES)
“Yet you fail to explain what harm would come if we expand the legal definition to include same-sex couples?”

You need to read my post below of December 23, 2008 12:25 – (concerning) 8/7/04 THE HAGUE -- an open letter to this newspaper, five academics raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.(discussing the dramatic decline in marriage rates in the Netherlands)

Your also want to read my posts of December 23, 2008 10:55 AM |

ALSO _ Try the works that include those Scandinavian Academics, the entire family scholars movement – including luminaries like Maggie Gallagher…Linda Wait…. Kay S. Hymowitz… Robert P. George…. David Blankenhorn & countless others…Especially the works of Harvard Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz

FREESTINKER(WRITES)
“It's only a matter of time now so you better get ready, the gay train is coming and you can't stop it.”

Ahhh….the “fait accompli”…I can never figure if people who employ the rhetorical device actually believe it or just use it to buoy their own spirits…

Fitz,

Freestinker speaks the truth, and you speak neolithic nonsense in goose-stepping rhythm to whatever caveman is preaching from the pulpit of your choice.

That letter in the Netherlands is just that, a letter, some strange opinions. Proves nothing. You have proved nothing. You keep dodging the question - just how does gay marriage harm you, or the traditional view of marriage? You keep bringing up vague opinions. Get to the point, dude: exactly how do you personally feel threatened? Do you have the courage to undertake that task? Do you?

"Get to the point, dude: exactly how do you personally feel threatened? Do you have the courage to undertake that task? Do you?"

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

One of the arguments used to support no-fault divorce laws & the divorce revolution was…

"What do two people getting divorced have to do with YOUR marriage?"

FYI – (This is called a micro to macro elision..)

At that time the divorce rate was 8%

Fitz,

Rather sorry attempt on your point to change the subject. I asked how you feel threatened by gay marriage, and you answered with stats on no-fault divorce. Your argument simply made no sense under any context imaginable. Better luck next time.

Fitz4,

Merely stating that the institution of marriage is ever-changing, ebbing and flowing, as it has throughout history, does not demonstrate any harm by this latest change to include same-sex couples. Is the sky falling in Massachusstts now that same-sex marriage is legal? Of course not because no harm has been done.

If you can't summarize or at least list one or two real harms done by allowing same-sex marriage, then your argument remains completely unpersuasive.

Arminius, Freethinker,

You guys need to go easy on Fitzy. He thinks it's still the 18th century. He thinks that the USA is still a Christian nation. Majority rules right? Well their are more Christians than any other faith by far, so they should have a special place in the swearing in of the prez. We should acknowledge at all government ceremonies that this is still, after all, a Christian nation as our fore fathers intended. Under God.

He has no answer for your latest question. Just constitutional non preclusion babble.

farnaz- I sometimes wonder if there are people born with a "prejudice center" in the brain. I know it's mostly taught (do you remember the song from South Paciifc? "You've got to be taught to hate and fear, you"ve got to be carefully taught."?) but what gets me is is gets so frighteningly ingrained in their heads that no amount reason or fact touches them. (By the way, take a look at the Stevens-Arroyo thread. we need you on that one!) You too arminius :-)

Timmy,

Oh, dear, you are wrong. Poor Fitz is not nearly so advanced as the 18th century - he is neolithic.

All of us, you, Freestinker, and I, have implored Fitz to reply to the basic question: just how is he personally threatened by gay marriage, and just how is the standard hetero marriage really threatened. I think we will wait a long time before a reasonable answer is offered. If ever. His attempts at a constitutional defense cannot be accepted, for sure.

A

fitz4- first and foremost no society should like or accept those numbers for children. But this is nothing to do with gay marriage, nor is gay marriage indicative of what is happening to the institution of marriage. The fault lies with society, right, left, in-between, straight. there is no rationale to putting the onus on gays for the shortcomings of straight people.

that said, not only are you putting blame on gay people for wanting an equal place in society, you're blaming basically women for the sexual revolution. Do you have any idea what life was like for women? when we couldn't vote? when the ideal life was "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?" Or what it was like to be abandoned in a divorce and left penniless, with no ability to get a job? Or if you did get a job, you earned less than a man for the same work? You had to endure the sly comments, the roving hands, and judged more for the size of your breast than the size of your iq. How would you like to spend you life feeling like all you're good for is housekeeper and babysitter- that your interests, your career, your aspirations were secondary to your husband and your children?

Your problem is you don't know how to fix marriage or morality and here's why- you can't fix something with negatives. You're all about living in the past and condemning those who won't.

The most important thing for kids is love. Yes the ideal is 2 natural parents- but long before the sexual revolution there were problems- there have always been dysfunctional families. there have always been bad parents, and families whose idea of "normal" would have you run screaming fro the room. There is more than one way to raise a family- good parenting comes from knowing the basics of being a good human being, not from your ability to "procreate."

The left has never said that the family was unimportant. You should stop putting words in their mouths and interpreting instead of listening. society doesn't stay the same- and there are no universal laws. times change. stuff happens. By the way it was the left who was advocating support programs for decimated Black families, while the right was whining about welfare. so please- lets be accurate here.

[you wrote:"I say that allowing SSA couples to marry will do irreparable harm to the institution of marriage by showing that marriage is outdated, any family form is adequate; a Childs own Mother &Father are not inherently necessary to that Childs future and proper upbringing and either sex is ultimately irrelevant to the institution."]

And I have to say- that's your spin. If marriage was outdated, why would gays be interested in it? And I know quite a few single parent households, and gay households- the kids are doing great. they're healthy, happy, well-adjusted. Let's not confuse the failings of morality or marriage with gay marriage. Take responsibility- you broke it, you fix it.

sparrow4

I have to commend you sparrow - at least you are actually engaging in a conversation & (if wide ranging) argument.

Most of your co-patriots just keep asking "when did you stop beating your wife" (i.e. loaded questions) & "prove it" - (To who's satisfaction?)

sparrow4 (wrote)
"Let's not confuse the failings of morality or marriage with gay marriage. Take responsibility- you broke it, you fix it."

Yes - society wide is responsible for the condition we are in. By the cultural lefts who directly responsible for leading us into the sexual revolution.

I like that you admit to being a feminist and subscribing to its view of history and marriage. I think it is a false history that obscures the truth. However you are to be commended (again) for at least seeing the forest for the trees. Yes feminism is directly responsible along with sundry sexual liberationists, anti-religionists, gay liberationists, pornographers etc etc…. Rome was not burnt in a day.

sparrow4 (wrote)
“The left has never said that the family was unimportant. You should stop putting words in their mouths and interpreting instead of listening.”

The lefty and feminists in particular have spent the last 40 years calling marriage archaic and patriarchal.

Not only do they think the family is “unimportant” they think it is the font of oppression of women by men.

Believe me I have read and continue to read “gender” journals and all the works of cotemporary (and classical) feminist thinkers on sexual relations & the family.

Perhaps you could read what our scholars have written on the subject. To begin I must recommend…

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies By Kay S. Hymowitz,
Summary- An excellent chronology of how family breakdown was ignored and apologized for by the countries feminist elites

Try also the works that include those Scandinavian Academics, the entire family scholar’s movement – including luminaries like Maggie Gallagher…Linda Wait…. Kay S. Hymowitz… Robert P. George…. David Blankenhorn & countless others…Especially the works of Harvard Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz.

["Yes - society wide is responsible for the condition we are in. By the cultural lefts who directly responsible for leading us into the sexual revolution.

I like that you admit to being a feminist and subscribing to its view of history and marriage. I think it is a false history that obscures the truth. However you are to be commended (again) for at least seeing the forest for the trees. Yes feminism is directly responsible along with sundry sexual liberationists, anti-religionists, gay liberationists, pornographers etc etc…. Rome was not burnt in a day. "

fitz4- first of all scandinavia has its own problems, and its not america.

secondly- most "ism" literature tends to be hyperbolic and I have no idea what these "feminists "are who you are reading (but I'd like to see direct quotes thanks) but its very obvious from your post that you are ultraconservative and it goes without saying, of the religious right persuasion.

One of the things I find most interesting about those on the far right is their shallow thinking. everything is a headline. Anything liberal or left is what's destroying this country. I think a glance at the state of the country will show you that a. Its not destroyed B. the major damage was done by the right with its religious conservatives howling in chorus.

feminism equated with pornography and every other evil of society? Oh please- G-d gave women brains - men like you would love to keep women down. Men like you love treating women like chattel, refusing them property, or voting rights, making all the decisions for them so you could feel all powerful.They say you can judge a society by how it treats its weakest- well a looksee at how patriarchal societies work show them to be repressive, insensitive, demeaning and dangerous.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

You need a session with Dr. Ruth.

CCNL

Stumped now? Amo all gone?

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,

If Dr. Ruth is no help to you, try Grey's Anatomy.

Dear Dr Shriver

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2009 to you and yours!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Timmy -

Gray's Anatomy might be suspect as a resource, since it was authored by a 'homosexual'. Surely the author never imagined his own work would be used to document his own sexual 'defects'? Then again, he didn't know CCNL - the man with a mission(s).

http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=12862

Persiflage:

I think you may be incorrect about Gray's Anatomy. Gray's biographer is gay; as for Gray, we don't know much about him.

Now, about his illustrator....Well, draw your own conclusions.

Persiflage:

"Then again, he didn't know CCNL - the man with a mission(s)."

Did you mean--the man with (e)missions?

Persiflage:

Re: CCNL's emissions

I keep telling him to stop masturbating. He'll go blind.

Farnaz - on closer inspection, it looks like you're right about the biographer, although exactly why that inspired him to write this particular biography was unclear. Didn't he see the chapter about 'hormonal defects'? I guess I need to pick up a copy.

As to the CCNL (e)missions issue - quite beyond my imagination....

......the man with a mission(s) refers to the multiplicity of obsessively utopian reforms that CCNL pushes for at any given time - from re-balancing the hormones of homosexuals, to a pill for squelching sexual desire; obsessing about family planning issues, and of course advocating the complete reform of all religions to suit his jaundiced and sclerotic views. How does a perfectly good mind go off the rails?

Although I have never particularly been a fan, it's curious that the popular TV show Grey's Anatomy (whose spelling CCNL has confused with the title of the anatomy book) has entertained homosexual themes in the past.

We'll recall that one of the actors was fired awhile back for making publicly offensive statements as regards homosexuality - anyway, they've apparently sworn off that 'controversial' theme. The stuff you pick up when you read the news!

2008 has been kind of a crappy year for lots of folks in a number of ways - here's hoping 2009 is a vast improvement. I hope that doesn't sound too utopian!

Best Wishes -

Oops, make that Gray's Anatomy and again through all the rhetoric, gay sexual activity from below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more sexual defects. Such defects are visually obvious in for example the maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.

And then there's Jodi Foster, Drew Barrymore, Lindsey Lohan, Angelina Jolie, and a host of gay beauties to add to your list - all very hot ultra-feminine babes.

Needless to say, perceptions with regard to the overt 'maleness' or 'femaleness' of gender representatives is highly subjective (on the part of the perceiver) and is influenced by conditioning and personal bias - there's a continuum of attributes to be found in every population.

An abundance of estrogen and/or testosterone says nothing of the character of the person in question - if you like alot of testosterone, then join the NASCAR and WWE maniacs ... the world of cable TV is being taken over by fast cars and an apparent global wrestling phenomenon, rather than tennis. Surely there are a few gay males in that mountain of masculine meat?

A good synopsis of studies of gayness: (Wikipedia):

"Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

Whatever the cause/defect, gay sexual activity is still "mutual masturbation".

CCNL - One should beware of any leitmotif that points up a pre-occupation with the sexual activity of other people.....unless functioning in a therapeutic capacity, as a spiritual counselor, or as a director of films with an 'adult' content.

Otherwise, such predilictions could indicate an underlying and unhealthy tendency toward fetishim and allied compulsive behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idee_fixe

CCNL:

I've rethought my advice on your nocturnal proclivities. Mea culpa, I'm not used to Christian sexual obsession. This link, though apparently intended for Protestants may be of interest to you since many of you C folks think you're all one in the body of Christ. Note site warns only against excessive masturbation, counseling against going at it until one's genitals are "bleeding."

http://www.sexinchrist.com/masturbation.html

On the other hand, there is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

Now that you're all grown up and in your sixties, you get to decide some things for yourself, old boy. You need not go on mentally tormenting yourself (and others) in this way.

Hmmm, I don't believe the new RCC catechism is on-line so one must be cautious in copying and pasting from outdated documents.

That said, the RCC catechism is not an authority on biological functions or anatomy or gay sexual activity which again is:

from below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

"Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

CCNL:

Quite right about the Catholic Catechism. After all, they wouldn't want to cut into the still-to-be-made profits. On the other hand, methinks the gay old boys are probably as benighted as ever on the M issue, but check your own volume to be certain.

NB: A man your age must read widely, and synthesize. No single book, God knows not that one, contains all the answers.

CCNL:

I've fasted, prayed, meditated, and pondered. Forget the Catechism. You can't be a Roman unitarian or deist or unclassified.

Below is the link for you. Gayness is fine, but you and your friend are advised to drink your own rather than one another's semen. If you and your wife know a needy widow, you can have a threesome, since adultery would not be at issue. (Don't ask me. I'm a simple Jew, and the logic here, indeed throughout the site, is beyond me.)

http://www.sexinchrist.com/masturbation.html

Yes indeed, triples with combinations etc. and group gay/bisexual sexual activity add to the overall "yuckiness".

On the other hand, some celibate Catholics prefer another route to purity.....this is only for those of stout heart and strong wrist.

Mortification good for the soul?

It really does take all kinds......

http://www.rickross.com/reference/opus/opus56.html

Persiflage,

It is assumed you are talking about self-masturbation. Who knows what adult celibates do behind closed doors. One assumes "wet dreams" take care of some biological needs and prostate cleansing for males. Is self-masturbation "yucky" and unsanitary? Probably 50% of the former and fairly clean on the latter.

Is such activity a defect? Well it is not "marriage" sex so definitely it would not be the norm of nature and thereby defective.

And as in the mutual masturbation of gay sexual activity, no one is going blind and no one is going to Hell because of it.

CCNL - see 'self-flagellation' instead. Check the link - the other activity that you refer to is also known as onanism, which when done in moderation is recommended for everyone's health and well-being - the operative word being 'moderation'!

I dimmly recall in my Catholic youth that we were exhorted to report incidents of onanism in the confessional - you to? Penance (saying a rosary) seemed to be a small price to pay......

Certainly not remotely in the same class as religious 'mortification of the flesh'. Graphic examples are available in the Da Vinci Code!

Eh, seems CCNL has the Christian malady of thinking sex is only for the one permitted thing.

All's I can say is, if all you have is a hammer... No idea what a screw is for. :)

The fact is, that all the pseudo-science and anti-science that is used to hurt gay people (and the whole lot of bisexuals out there, however they identify,) *presumes* that a lot of the world's somehow 'deviant' and 'defective' for not participating in an *ideology.*

Claiming screwdrivers shouldn't exist cause they make lousy hammers is only a display of total ignorance.

Claiming gay people don't exist as a minority, then claiming you know how to 'tell' when someone has the 'defect' is hardly a display of blazing equanimity, either.

I have had straight sex, I have had lesbian sex, I've even *gasp* masturbated...

Different things. (Marriage, on the other hand, really isn't actually very different at all, personalities and social privileges aside.)

Asking 'Concerned Christians' who think everything's 'the same as masturbation' what *sex* means, though, is like asking a teetotaller to make the wine selections.

(And to extend the alcohol metaphor, most people who 'hate Scotch' are all that against it cause they cribbed a bottle of some Gods-awful cheap stuff at some point in their young lives, and now consider themselves experts.)

Oh, yeah. Topic.

I do personally consider Warren a horrible choice for an invocation, inasmuch as he's a raging homophobe and Christian-only-theocrat.

Then again, so many Christians claim to be excluded 'based on their beliefs' if they aren't allowed to use the government to rubber-stamp their intolerance.

The way I see it, Warren has been invited to the table, despite perpetrating the horrible 'Saddleback' frameup... and losing.

How he behaves is up to him.

I hope he behaves as an American.

Because his behavior will say an awful lot about what evangelical Christians are capable of doing in a *truly* pluralistic setting.

If he chooses to try and claim the right to exclude me, other non-Christians, non-straights, non-Evangelicals from this day of national celebration, well,

Well.

That'll say something, won't it?

Since when was it an American Value to tolerate bigotry? If Warren had equated Obamas mother and father's relationship (a black man and white woman) to beastiality, as Evangelical pastors were doing at the time of Obama's birth, would he have a place in the center stage of this country? Would you be asking black people to shake his hand and embrace him?

There is little difference between now and when Obama was born, a vast number of Americans believed that blacks were second class citizens. When they shouted for equality they were told that they were being disruptive, even though that was the whole idea. And when preachers went so far as calling the minority animals and all kinds of terrible lies, people like Timothy Shriver smiled smugly on the sidelines, quietly agreeing even while saying that he doesn't believe in every monstrous thing that comes out of the bigots mouth, just some it.

" Solanum

"Since when was it an American Value to tolerate bigotry? If Warren had equated Obamas mother and father's relationship (a black man and white woman) to beastiality, as Evangelical pastors were doing at the time of Obama's birth, would he have a place in the center stage of this country? Would you be asking black people to shake his hand and embrace him?"

A certain segment of the population and sociopolitical Evangelical machine *demand* this, and whine *they* are being discriminated against if their bigotry isn't *enshrined.*

I say let Warren speak.
Since he's the only one some will *have.*

If he chooses to use the chance to shame us before posterity, well.

We'll know, right?

You can rest assured that Obama will still be cursed and reviled by the bigots and racists that make up the religious community in this country.

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H.W. Bush, (R) as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27

Solanum (writes)
“There is little difference between now and when Obama was born, a vast number of Americans believed that blacks were second class citizens. When they shouted for equality they were told that they were being disruptive”
&
“Since when was it an American Value to tolerate bigotry? If Warren had equated Obamas mother and father's relationship (a black man and white woman) to beastiality, as Evangelical pastors were doing at the time of Obama's birth”

The problem with arguments from analogy is that there power comes from mere analogy. Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy.
Race is not sex & neither is who you have sex with. Neither is it revolution from a colonial power, nor chattel slavery, - and the rest. All strained and incredulous mere analogies.

Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of anti—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.

Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.

“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different KIND.”

The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of KIND.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually an analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same KIND of things being compared.

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

And no doubt there is a Wiccan climax spell for each of the modes of sex you are into :)) But again since the modes, as per your analyses, are all the same, one spell should do.

I always know when I've use an analogy that is spot on, it's when someone like Fitz4 brings up the old canard that analogy makes for a week argument. (Are you completely forgetting that much of what Jesus taught was analogy in the form of stories?) And then of course the knife blow is suppose to be rattling off some boring legalese: That is a weak argument.

My analogy is apt. The thing about ugly bigotry is that whether it is the color of a mans skin or his sexual orientation the same methods, and at times the same words and scripture, are used to oppress. That is what my analogy draws on, but I do thank you for animating it.

Solanum (writes)

The implications of your analogy are self serving and overbearing. Gay people are not subject to #1. Hundreds of years of chattel slavery & #2. Hundreds of years of denial of the vote, segregation, sitting at the back of the bus, lunch counters, separate bathrooms... and on & on.

I'm afraid you like this incredibly strained analogy because of its emotive power not its descriptive clarity.

Considering that the source of your analogy overwhelmingly rejects it, should be food for thought.

Protecting the definition of a foundational social institution that brings men & women together and provides children with their own Mother & Father is in NO way similar to slavery and segregation.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC