Obama picks Rick Warren for inaugural invocation

[Sean]

Setting the specific issue of gay marriage aside for a moment, I believe that it's simply another example of Obama finding ways to achieve real progress. Time and time again, he's shown that his governing style is to engage people he's in ideological opposition to by finding a foundation of trust and respect to build the possibility of change on. For example, Lieberman embraced and perpetuated the idea that Obama "pals around with terrorists" during the campaign. Democrats wanted retribution, but Obama voiced his support for Lieberman to retain his chair on the Homeland Security Committee. You can bet he'll be able to work more effectively with Lieberman now than had he continued the chain of tit-for-tat squabbling.

Regarding the social acceptance of equating gay marriage with paedophilia and the like, yeah, that's completely wrong. But if welcoming Warren into the fold means Obama may be able to work more effectively with him in ultimately changing some of those views for the better, then it's worth it to me.

[kagenaki koe]

i don't really see the furor over Rick Warren. what exactly is he going to do on Inauguration Day? it's not like he's going to preach about rights/laws/my religion is better than your religion etc. it's just one day and a prayer people!

[gambit]

Furor. Fewor. furoooooor. ffffffuuuurrrrror. Furrreeer.

[Deckard]

Having been reading and listening to more of Warren's views, I have to say I'm growing less and less bothered by Obama's decision than I was before. Clearly I think Warren's reasoning is fundamentally wrong, and I still feel frustrated knowing that he wouldn't have been invited if he was appearing to compare African-American marriages to paedophilia - but as I said, there's worse out there than him. On that point, I just watched the clip in which he apparently 'equated gay marriage with paedophilia and incest'....

"The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

When asked whether he views these things as "equivalent" to gay marriage, he answers: yes.

So is he suggesting gay marriage is as bad as paedophilia, and by extension, gay married couples are no better than paedophiles? It might seem that way from invoking that equivalence - and yet, I'm not so sure that's really what he necessarily meant to suggest. I don't think we can be so quick to assume that he views gays and paedophiles as equally sinful, which is what much of the media coverage of this has implied. He may have just meant that when it comes to the definition of marriage, anything other than a grown man and woman is equally unqualified.

I guess the fact that Warren is clearly a charismatic speaker, has been receiving a lot of exposure, and was already known for his remarks on the Terri Schiavo furor, fewor, furoooooor.... controversy.... has made it easy to cast him as the great bête noire. Which frankly just furnishes him with too much credit.

(We all know Jody Wisternoff should take some of it too )

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by //\/\/

i think he's a cracking dj and his work with way out west isn't to be overlooked - obama's gonna rock the capitol with this selection...

They didnt even blink. I thought it was funny though.

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

December 17, 2008

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

[Deckard]

I'm not going to start a new thread for this, but it made me laugh.

Pope likens "saving" gays to saving the rainforest

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. "(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."



"Transsexual behaviour" you say?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

"Transsexual behaviour" you say?

He actually has a point, you know. Chemical pollutants in the eco system are causing decreases in male hormones, sperm count, quantitatively measured masculine attributes, in not only our species but evident in several mammals.

So really, if we don't do something about the environment the world will be filled with nothing but lesbians.

Hmmmm.. Sorry just taking a moment to reflect on that sentence.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

He actually has a point, you know. Chemical pollutants in the eco system are causing decreases in male hormones, sperm count, quantitatively measured masculine attributes, in not only our species but evident in several mammals.

No longer fashionable to say it in this post-PC-backlash era, but I wonder if a small decrease in male hormones wouldn't be a bad thing for the future of the planet.

Seriously though, I accept the environmental impact on sperm count and even the social impact on masculinity (I know they're more intertwined that), but I wish that was his point! The concern that gender theory (gay marriage can't have been far from his mind) will lead to "self-destruction for humans" honestly strikes me as just a bit premature and silly, and a proxy for what's really bothering him. After all, it's hard not to think we'll be done for by the climate, by war, by starvation long before any destruction arising from gender theory. If anything, the results of ever greater promiscuity may even pip the post to destruction before gender benderdom. In the meantime, a slowdown (or decrease) in population should, if anything, help save - not detroy - the world (let's be generous here and not get into the issue of contraception or question the Catholic Church's motives!)

But hey, I suppose when it comes to the topic of neglecting our reproductive duties, we should cede to the greater knowledge of the celibate man in the frock every time.

So really, if we don't do something about the environment the world will be filled with nothing but lesbians.

Hmmmm.. Sorry just taking a moment to reflect on that sentence.

You spend as long as you need contemplating a world full of nothing but Rosie O'Donnells.

(...with apologies to Rosie)

[Deckard]

Back to Warren, and Melissa Etheridge has written a piece that to me at least sounds very encouraging.

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

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

No longer fashionable to say it in this post-PC-backlash era, but I wonder if a small decrease in male hormones wouldn't be a bad thing for the future of the planet.

Seriously though, I accept the environmental impact on sperm count and even the social impact on masculinity (I know they're more intertwined that), but I wish that was his point! The concern that gender theory (gay marriage can't have been far from his mind) will lead to "self-destruction for humans" honestly strikes me as just a bit premature and silly, and a proxy for what's really bothering him. After all, it's hard not to think we'll be done for by the climate, by war, by starvation long before any destruction arising from gender theory. If anything, the results of ever greater promiscuity may even pip the post to destruction before gender benderdom. In the meantime, a slowdown (or decrease) in population should, if anything, help save - not detroy - the world (let's be generous here and not get into the issue of contraception or question the Catholic Church's motives!)

Frankly, we could do with some "damage" to human reproduction. The rate of human expansion on the planet is rocketing us towards unsustainable numbers. Maybe even before the climate gets us...