Jump to content

interesting question about gays & rick warren


mizzufalcfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rick Warren: We must love gays. But only the sick ones.

Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass defends Warren thus and so:

"Warren has been a passionate advocate on behalf of the poor and has really led evangelicals to champion the interest [sic] who suffer from HIV and AIDS..."

Interesting coincidence. Last week a local pastor here in Maine, Neil Farrar, wrote an op-ed against gay civil rights in which he echoed the same thing to distract from the fact that his main arguments are crap:

My own father, as a singles pastor in a megachurch in Texas during the '80s, told me of the countless times that he would go to the hospital and visit young men in AIDS wards who were dying; he told me how he would hold these men in his arms as they gasped in terror for their last breath. Fear did not take my father there, but rather love.

Here's my question: why is love and compassion so freely offered by conservative Christians when a gay person is dying, but so stingily withheld when a gay person is healthy and headlong in the pursuit of happiness? Why are we only worth a **** to them when we're gasping in terror for our last breath? What kind of mind makes such a distinction? Healthy one minute: "**** you." Sick the next: "We love you." Talk about passive-aggressive.

i think there's a kernel of truth in this. but it's time for PB&J sammic b/c i'mma drunks right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Warren: We must love gays. But only the sick ones.

Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass defends Warren thus and so:

Interesting coincidence. Last week a local pastor here in Maine, Neil Farrar, wrote an op-ed against gay civil rights in which he echoed the same thing to distract from the fact that his main arguments are crap:

Here's my question: why is love and compassion so freely offered by conservative Christians when a gay person is dying, but so stingily withheld when a gay person is healthy and headlong in the pursuit of happiness? Why are we only worth a **** to them when we're gasping in terror for our last breath? What kind of mind makes such a distinction? Healthy one minute: "**** you." Sick the next: "We love you." Talk about passive-aggressive.

i think there's a kernel of truth in this. but it's time for PB&J sammic b/c i'mma drunks right now.

I guess the same way they claim to be against abortions but they don't want to feed the kids with welfare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Warren: We must love gays. But only the sick ones.

Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass defends Warren thus and so:

Interesting coincidence. Last week a local pastor here in Maine, Neil Farrar, wrote an op-ed against gay civil rights in which he echoed the same thing to distract from the fact that his main arguments are crap:

Here's my question: why is love and compassion so freely offered by conservative Christians when a gay person is dying, but so stingily withheld when a gay person is healthy and headlong in the pursuit of happiness? Why are we only worth a **** to them when we're gasping in terror for our last breath? What kind of mind makes such a distinction? Healthy one minute: "**** you." Sick the next: "We love you." Talk about passive-aggressive.

i think there's a kernel of truth in this. but it's time for PB&J sammic b/c i'mma drunks right now.

Once again I'm in the unfortunate position of having to defend Rick Warren, who I don't like very much, but where is the evidence that Rick Warren has no love or compassion for homosexuals when they are not sick?

Or do you falsely equate "love and compassion" with "giving in to their every whim and agreeing with them in all things?" And if that's it, why is disagreement "hate?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I'm in the unfortunate position of having to defend Rick Warren, who I don't like very much, but where is the evidence that Rick Warren has no love or compassion for homosexuals when they are not sick?

Or do you falsely equate "love and compassion" with "giving in to their every whim and agreeing with them in all things?" And if that's it, why is disagreement "hate?"

Excellent observations!!!!

How does the OP know the heart of Rick Warren? It seems like he was being judgmental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I'm in the unfortunate position of having to defend Rick Warren, who I don't like very much, but where is the evidence that Rick Warren has no love or compassion for homosexuals when they are not sick?

Or do you falsely equate "love and compassion" with "giving in to their every whim and agreeing with them in all things?" And if that's it, why is disagreement "hate?"

the criticism is probably less fair directed @ warren then @ other evangelical leaders who have made very hateful statements about gays.

rick warren is very hot & cold on this issue. he frankly acknowledges divorce is bigger threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage, he frankly acknowledges that the reason evangelicals focus on gay marriage is b/c they don't want to talk about their own sins so they focus on others' sins, but then he compares homosexuality to pedophilia, beastiality, &incest & makes weird "free speech" exaggerations about prop 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren is hot and cold about **** near everything.

Bestiality and pedophilia are poor comparisons. Incest isn't a very good one, but assuming we are talking about incest between adults, it's closer.

Frankly, I think polygamy is the correct comparison (and he talked about that as well). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why 2 men or 2 women can be allowed to be married, but 1 man and 6 women, or 1 woman and 4 men, or whatever cannot. Once you make the leap to gay marriage, prohibitions on polygamy must fall as well. The same equal protection argument applicable to gay marriage is applicable to polygamy.

And if you then want to say "that's not what marriage is," well, you already forfeited that argument along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren is hot and cold about **** near everything.

Bestiality and pedophilia are poor comparisons. Incest isn't a very good one, but assuming we are talking about incest between adults, it's closer.

Frankly, I think polygamy is the correct comparison (and he talked about that as well). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why 2 men or 2 women can be allowed to be married, but 1 man and 6 women, or 1 woman and 4 men, or whatever cannot. Once you make the leap to gay marriage, prohibitions on polygamy must fall as well. The same equal protection argument applicable to gay marriage is applicable to polygamy.

And if you then want to say "that's not what marriage is," well, you already forfeited that argument along the way.

there is a valid argument that multiple partners in a marriage is detrimental in financial & legal sense. if man is incapacitated then which of his three wives has power of attorney? how is estate divided among three wives?

i'm actually okay w/ polygamy if those issues could be addressed in fair, equitable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a valid argument that multiple partners in a marriage is detrimental in financial & legal sense. if man is incapacitated then which of his three wives has power of attorney? how is estate divided among three wives?

i'm actually okay w/ polygamy if those issues could be addressed in fair, equitable manner.

The problem isn't whether you are "okay" with polygamy.

The problem is that neither constitutes a marriage.

I am "okay" with civil unions, and frankly, I don't give a rip how many people want to be part of such an arrangement. There is nothing right now prohibiting 1 man from living with multiple women and all of them doing whatever they want.

But it's not a marriage. And ironically enough, from a historical perspective, polygamists have a better claim that it is a marriage than homosexuals, but that's neither here nor there. Government has one interest in preserving marriage -- attaching children to their parents. Apart from that, government has no business regulating marriage at all. Anything (laws prohibiting interracial marriage) that would prevent children from attaching to their natural parents should be stopped. Anything else should be left alone by government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't whether you are "okay" with polygamy.

The problem is that neither constitutes a marriage.

I am "okay" with civil unions, and frankly, I don't give a rip how many people want to be part of such an arrangement. There is nothing right now prohibiting 1 man from living with multiple women and all of them doing whatever they want.

But it's not a marriage. And ironically enough, from a historical perspective, polygamists have a better claim that it is a marriage than homosexuals, but that's neither here nor there. Government has one interest in preserving marriage -- attaching children to their parents. Apart from that, government has no business regulating marriage at all. Anything (laws prohibiting interracial marriage) that would prevent children from attaching to their natural parents should be stopped. Anything else should be left alone by government.

anti-polygamy laws prohibit children from attaching to their natural parents if the father is already married to another woman. you just made rock solid case against anti-polygamy laws.

also, are you saying laws prohibiting sterile or older couples from marrying would be permissible under the law b/c they don't prohibit children from attaching to their natural parents.

the legal definition of marriage is separate from the biblical definition of marriage. that's problem w/ anti gay marriage argument -- you are imposing biblical definition onto legal definition. the legal definition can (should) change w/ changing values & beliefs of public. the biblical definition as protected by the church is free to remain the same even while gay couples are able to obtain the legal rights that marriage provides them.

several states, btw, have prohibited contract agreements that provide legal protections to same sex couples that married couples have so the question isn't just over the definition of marriage, the question is fundamentally about denying gays equal legal rights such as power of attorney & inheritance & visitation rights that other people have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anti-polygamy laws prohibit children from attaching to their natural parents if the father is already married to another woman. you just made rock solid case against anti-polygamy laws.

Not so. Such laws do not prohibit the child from attaching to their natural parents at all. They DO presume that the marriage will have fidelity, but when promiscuity enters the picture, everything goes to **** in a handbasket anyway (as with our current lax divorce laws, see below....)

also, are you saying laws prohibiting sterile or older couples from marrying would be permissible under the law b/c they don't prohibit children from attaching to their natural parents.

Permissible? Probably not.

But the purpose of government involvement in marriage is precisely what I said it was. Take away that interest (and there's a good argument to be made that it has already been taken away by lax divorce laws and the consequent influx of new paternity laws), and government has no interest at all in determining who can do what with whom. That's why I favor government getting out of marriage entirely. It is a giant charlie foxtrot that is doing nothing to uphold marriage and family and is doing quite a great deal to destroy it.

Keep in mind we are talking about why government has any business ENDORSING marriage. Government PROHIBITING marriage is a different matter entirely. I would be wholesale against a law saying that homosexuals may not enter into a religious covenant in their own church or whatever. But when you talk about government saying "thus and such is a marriage, and shall have all the legal protection of the same," the interest defines the scope of the right. And government has no interest in human relationships other than preserving the next generation, i.e., attaching children to their natural parents. Beyond that, government has no business even getting involved in the question to begin with.

the legal definition of marriage is separate from the biblical definition of marriage. that's problem w/ anti gay marriage argument -- you are imposing biblical definition onto legal definition.

Strawman -- I didn't say jack squat about the Bible. You are imposing your own bias and assumptions on the argument.

the legal definition can (should) change w/ changing values & beliefs of public. the biblical definition as protected by the church is free to remain the same even while gay couples are able to obtain the legal rights that marriage provides them.

I have no problem with gays having all the legal rights that marriage provides married couples. But that's not what they are asking for.

several states, btw, have prohibited contract agreements that provide legal protections to same sex couples that married couples have so the question isn't just over the definition of marriage, the question is fundamentally about denying gays equal legal rights such as power of attorney & inheritance & visitation rights that other people have.

No, it's not. Those states are wrong. Period. THAT question -- whether contractual agreements are allowed between domestic partners -- is an equal protection issue. Frankly, two sisters who are elderly and never married ought to be allowed to enter into such contractual agreements as well. I have no problem with that, and the Constitution SHOULD protect everyone's right to pass property, ensure visitation, etc. But you are wrongly conflating the two issues, saying that because some states acted improperly, the only solution is to impose marriage (presumably, as has been the only way it has been done so far, by judicial fiat). That is going too far by half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...