What do you guys think about Warren giving invocation at the inaguration?

[BreakfastSurreal]

Just wondering what your views are. I consider myself a political moderate and a realist. If you had to place me in a category I would fall no where...probably behind Lou Dobbs who is known as "Mr. Independent". Anyway...I know the bible very well, and I while I believe in tolerance, I do understand why Rick Warren stood up against prop. 8. He would be going against everything he believed if he didn't. He doesn't hate gay people, but he believes it's a sin. That's his choice. I don't think he deserves a scarlet letter for this choice, and I think Obama is smart for choosing him. Obama himself does not support gay marriage, so I don't understand why the gay population thinks he is going to be their hero or something. He doesn't have to please everyone.

 

[Alien Allen]

I think it is typical hysterical reaction by those that have their underwear on a bit too tight. This nation could you use a damn good ass whipping to get rid of the PC crowd and the uber religious

 

[SgtSpike]

I think it's awesome. Rick Warren's a great guy, and if he wants to do that for Obama (and Obama wants him there), all power to him.

 

[All Else Failed]

Why would you want a rabid homophobe giving your invocation?

 

[Accountable]

I agree, but Rick Warren's not a rabid homophobe. I have to say I'm pleasently surprised by Obama so far.

 

[PinkZebra]

I think it's awesome. Rick Warren's a great guy, and if he wants to do that for Obama (and Obama wants him there), all power to him.

I totally agree:thumbup:thumbup
If Obama keeps surrounding himself with people like Rick Warren, maybe he'll do ok

 

[All Else Failed]

I agree, but Rick Warren's not a rabid homophobe. I have to say I'm pleasently surprised by Obama so far.

what

he has likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy.

 

[Hoffa]

I agree, but Rick Warren's not a rabid homophobe. I have to say I'm pleasently surprised by Obama so far.

I really don't care what this clown believes , but in my understanding , he is a homophobe. >f
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjective

• S: (adj) homophobic (prejudiced against homosexual people) wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

ho·mo·pho·bi·a (h

m

-f

b

-

) n. 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
ho·mo·pho·bic [ hmə fṓbik ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Warren has stated that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right, and should not be tolerated,[14] and that civil unions are not a civil right.[15] In a conversation with Sam Harris for Newsweek, Warren also spoke out against evolution and in favor of creationism, and compared atheists to Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.[16] Asked about the difference between himself and Focus on the Family president James Dobson, Warren claimed that "it's a matter of tone."[17]

Rick Warren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Accountable]

what

he has likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy.

I guess this would be the wrong time to discuss the irony of the attitudes displayed in this thread of Obama's relationships with clergy and what message it sends.

 

[ssl]

The extension of civil rights to other groups of people, other than those that are non-conforming to the idealized definition of marriage, will be this generations' struggle.

This really begs these questions:

What is a right?
When is it right to exercise a right?
When do such rights affect others in their practice of their rights?

Is society going to let themselves be ushered into an era of definitions?
What is a definition?

Sadly, a definition, in purest sense, is an opinion; unable to have Boolean logic applied. Science falls into this same category.

Humanity has created a society that strives to be better, but better is a subjective area, dependent upon a point of view, an opinion, a set of morals, a set of beliefs of what is right and wrong.

Therefore, we are doomed to repeat history. However, this time there will not be a winner to write any lessons learned from the conflict, nor anyone to read them.

 

[Accountable]

ssl, I was with you right up to the concluding sentence, which I don't get at all. So what do you think about Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration?

 

[Alien Allen]

The extension of civil rights to other groups of people, other than those that are non-conforming to the idealized definition of marriage, will be this generations' struggle.

This really begs these questions:

What is a right?
When is it right to exercise a right?
When do such rights affect others in their practice of their rights?

Is society going to let themselves be ushered into an era of definitions?
What is a definition?

Sadly, a definition, in purest sense, is an opinion; unable to have Boolean logic applied. Science falls into this same category.

Humanity has created a society that strives to be better, but better is a subjective area, dependent upon a point of view, an opinion, a set of morals, a set of beliefs of what is right and wrong.

Therefore, we are doomed to repeat history. However, this time there will not be a winner to write any lessons learned from the conflict, nor anyone to read them.

Hi Bob,

My decoder ring says what you meant was to say this is a bunch of bull shit

Sounds like you are being a bit PC. So society should not dictate its norms??

Couldn't it be stated that to give in to minorities also is counter productive?

 

[ssl]

Hi Bob,

My decoder ring says what you meant was to say this is a bunch of bull shit

Sounds like you are being a bit PC. So society should not dictate its norms??

Couldn't it be stated that to give in to minorities also is counter productive?

Hahaha.

I could not care less about political correctness.

Societal norms naturally arise out of the protection and survivability of its members; such that in order to survive, inherent rules, like those dealing with murder, will eventually crop up. Don't misunderstand, some rules should be defined right away, but when such defined rules, such as marriage, interfere with personal values and the rights of individuals, the rules in question should be broken.

Minority concessions have to be made, but the minority should also understand that such concession-ability should not be exploited, but instead focusing on bettering themselves -- even to the point of becoming the majority, and in that majority, they must remember the concessions, and give them to the new minority.

When the minority have to fight a majority's definition, the majority's last defense of a belief of something, you are actually intruding upon the minority's right, which is a belief, which is protected, at least in the United States.

The homosexual marriage issue is developing a major rift, and I think it will be one of the primary nails in society's coffin.

 

[SgtSpike]

what

he has likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy.

Your point? Aren't they all down the same path?

 

[Obdurate]

Gay marriage is just like doing someone in your family.

 

[All Else Failed]

what.

 

[Obdurate]

who???

 

[Accountable]

Hahaha.

I could not care less about political correctness.

Societal norms naturally arise out of the protection and survivability of its members; such that in order to survive, inherent rules, like those dealing with murder, will eventually crop up. Don't misunderstand, some rules should be defined right away, but when such defined rules, such as marriage, interfere with personal values and the rights of individuals, the rules in question should be broken.

Minority concessions have to be made, but the minority should also understand that such concession-ability should not be exploited, but instead focusing on bettering themselves -- even to the point of becoming the majority, and in that majority, they must remember the concessions, and give them to the new minority.

When the minority have to fight a majority's definition, the majority's last defense of a belief of something, you are actually intruding upon the minority's right, which is a belief, which is protected, at least in the United States.

The homosexual marriage issue is developing a major rift, and I think it will be one of the primary nails in society's coffin.

That's because we've confused separation of church and state and are instead substituting church with state. It's not government's job to legislate morality. If gov't would simply drop any legal definition of marriage, everyone would be free to define it as they see fit. Nothing says a church can't unite whomever they choose in holy matrimony. The confusion and anger come when we try to connect the legal definition to the moral act.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hahaha.

I could not care less about political correctness.

Societal norms naturally arise out of the protection and survivability of its members; such that in order to survive, inherent rules, like those dealing with murder, will eventually crop up. Don't misunderstand, some rules should be defined right away, but when such defined rules, such as marriage, interfere with personal values and the rights of individuals, the rules in question should be broken.

Minority concessions have to be made, but the minority should also understand that such concession-ability should not be exploited, but instead focusing on bettering themselves -- even to the point of becoming the majority, and in that majority, they must remember the concessions, and give them to the new minority.

When the minority have to fight a majority's definition, the majority's last defense of a belief of something, you are actually intruding upon the minority's right, which is a belief, which is protected, at least in the United States.

The homosexual marriage issue is developing a major rift, and I think it will be one of the primary nails in society's coffin.

It is late so I am gonna have to think about this one.

Might take a day or two as things will be occupying my time , but this makes no sense to me Bob.

 

[BlackCherry]

That's because we've confused separation of church and state and are instead substituting church with state. It's not government's job to legislate morality. If gov't would simply drop any legal definition of marriage, everyone would be free to define it as they see fit. Nothing says a church can't unite whomever they choose in holy matrimony. The confusion and anger come when we try to connect the legal definition to the moral act.

I couldn't agree more! :thumbup

I have to admit that was one issue that disappointed me in the Obama/Biden ticket; that they did not support gay marriage. But candidates cannot be all things to all people and you can't just vote based on one issue.