Rick Warren's Controversial Comments on Gay Marriage

I sense Rick is walking a thin line. He sure knows how to word his "words" so not to "offend" anyone but maybe God???? Only God knows and for me the court is still out on Pastor Warren. The TRUTH shall set us free!

I am trying to figure out how someone else, anyone else, getting married takes away a stranger's rights. All the people who have divorced haven't affected my marriage, all the people with terrible abusive marriages haven't affected my marriage, and all the people with long loving marriages don't affect my marriage or my rights, or my choices. What kind of people let the marriages, divorces, and private sexual encounters of strangers define who they are? Maybe people with no REAL faith in themselves, their god, or their ability to make good choices.

Rick Warren is either a liar or ignorant. His statement "For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman." is absolutely false. The bible itself condones incest, polygamy, concubinage & divorce. Those are facts that can be found in the King James bible, both old & new testaments. Also, Muslims today have the right to multiple wives, that is a fact; even early Christianity did not legally define marriage. This is a perfect example of how conservatives deny the past to shape the future to their totalitarian view of society. What a shame that the bright new future is now shadowed by the hatred this man embodies.

If Rick Warren had been anti-Black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-any other minority other than gay, then he would not have been given a place at Obama's inaugural table because it would have been wrong to give such a person a platform in which to give validity to their bigotry. But since Warren is anti-gay, Obama tries to defend his choice by saying he wants to listen to differing viewpoints. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what rhetoric you wrap it in. If we are to use Obama's failed logic on this issue, then white supremacists should have a chair at Obama's inaugural table (but they won't because we know their positions on social issues are wrong, just as Rick Warren is wrong). Obama blew it with this one. It is painfully obvious to anyone that this is simply pandering to the radical religious who have held this country hostage, via the Bush regime, for the last 8 years. With this most egregious of decisions, Obama has flushed his credibility down the toilet. This is not change we can believe in. This is just more of the same garbage that gay people have had to deal with the last 8 years. And it stinks. Obama benefitted greatly from gay people's, their friends', and their families' financial donations and their votes (including financial donations and vote from this gay person). And how are we repaid? We are thrown under the bus. The hearts and minds of a huge segment of the U.S. population are lost by such a purely political maneuver, and we cannot be one people/one country because of it. Here's hoping Obama wises up. If he wants to fix this country, he's going to need everyone's involvement, and right now, gays, their families, and friends are feeling like their involvement in cleaning up this country is neither wanted nor desired. Not a good message. Not a good way to begin Obama's presidency. Not good at all. And there's no excuse for it.

To Jamie - the Bible most definitely does NOT condone polygamy, incest, concubinage and divorce. Just because those items are mentioned and even practiced by some revered biblical patriarchs (King David comes to mind for polygamy and concubinage) doesn't mean the Bible says it's OK. Things tended not to go well when multiple spouses got involved (just ask the Jews and Arabs about Hagar/Sarah and Ishmael/Isaac). King David also committed adultery and essentially murdered the woman's husband. Does that mean the Bible condones adultery and murder? No. Just because God didn’t zap someone with lightning doesn’t mean He approved of certain behaviors. The Bible interprets the Bible. You have to read the whole thing to understand the holistic message, not pick and choose. Psalm 51 is about David's repentance. God forgives completely when we repent. David was punished for his sin, BTW. The child that was born from the adultery died. The Bible is about how God uses very broken, mixed-up people to achieve His purposes. At the same time, God never compromises on sin. He is holy as well as loving.

To Russ – it is inaccurate and unfair to link Warren with the Bush administration ideology. If Warren was an ideologue, he would have toed the Republican party line. If this situation flushes Obama’s credibility down the toilet, then his credibility was shaky to begin with.

To all - I fail to see how Warren's comments are "hateful." He's not inciting people to violence against gays or even to ostracize gays. Disagreement does not equal hate. Do you agree with your friends on EVERYTHING? I too have gay friends, and they know where I stand on this issue. We don’t talk about it much because we value the friendship more.

Marriage is not a “right.” It is a religious institution. Like Warren, I have no problem with people making their own choices re. who can visit them in the hospital and insurance beneficiaries. I think civil unions are appropriate for gay couples as well as heterosexual couples without religious beliefs, and I think there are aspects in our healthcare and judicial systems which need to be adjusted to accommodate that. But marriage is rooted in religion, and I, like Rick Warren, am very concerned how the push for gay marriage and other “equal rights” will impact religious institutions.

Warren’s selection for this event has nothing to do with the gay community. It’s about his innovative and diligent social justice work and the positive impact he’s had on millions of people around the world in those arenas. For the gay community to take this as a personal slap is ill-founded and frankly a little egocentric. If Obama compatriots have to agree with him on every single issue, then he’s just the liberal version of the neo-cons who silence and oust the opposition. We voted for Obama (yes, I voted for him – and rather enthusiastically, I might add) because, among other things, he showed that he’s a complex and holistic thinker, which we haven’t seen in a while. But we have to take the stuff we disagree with as well as the stuff we agree on. Our culture LOVES inclusiveness until someone gets included that we don’t like. That’s intolerant, too.

These are all very short term arguments. I think what Warren is warning of is the end result of pulling down a societal construct that has been clearly defined since the beginning of recorded history... of course no gay or lesbian people are asking for incest, polygamy and pedophilia to be legalized. However, they are asking for the normalization of an arbitrary societal construct, and once you start to pull these things down, why only stop at your arbitrary constructs.

In other words, what will you as a gay man say to the polygamist or the pedophile when they what normalization of this activity? Anything you say would simply be hypocritical, and I think that's the point that's being brought up here.

This guy is a disgusting piece of trash.

Marriage is nothing other than a binding legal contract.

People try to play it up into being a religious sanctimony. When did religion become a part of the constitution? I'm pretty sure god didn't write the constitution. You can believe what ever you want. But keep it out of my life and the state constitution.

Religion is such a weak argument.

For 5000 years (almost) every religion told us that women were not equal to men and were here to serve them. We were smart enough to obliterate that piece of religious wisdom and I know eventually this gem will also be looked upon as ignorance and hate too. It is horrifying that someone responsible for the spirituality of others can be so narrow minded. I truly hope what was said in this interview was merely pandering to the lowest common denominator, but I guess even that is hardly comforting. To equate Sexually Transmitted Disease with "not playing by the rules" is beyond backward. I guess Mental Illness, then, must be a result of unchristian thoughts? Perhaps no one would be obese if only they would say grace before wolfing down six big macs? I am horrified and insulted at the lack of reason in the answers above and see here merely another example of "us vs. them". At no point here is it explained, what harm gay marriage would do to any heterosexual marriage. The part about visitation rights is insulting. Although it is an important right all it does is show a lack of logic in the argument. If you pick and choose what parts of your morality - what bits you agree with and those you disagree with - from the bible then your morality is NOT based on the bible and your argument is inconsistent and wrong. In 50 years time people will shake their heads with dismay when they read hate like the hate that is written in this article.

I am sorely tired of the argument that attempts to cast Prop 8 as "right" just because it passed. There's such a thing as tyranny of the majority. Just because a greater number of people support something than oppose it, it is not automatically the "right" decision. We as a nation have a history of overwhelming popular support for ideas and traditions that, by today's standards, were/are/will always be despicable. Slavery. Disenfranchisement of women. Segregation. Bans on interracial marriage. At some point in history, each of these enjoyed the support of a majority of the country. When the rights of a marginalized minority population are at stake, sometimes the angry mob just can't be trusted. In these cases, it is totally justified for the courts to step in and protect the interests of those whose numbers are too small to represent a powerful voting bloc. I've even heard the argument made that the majority simply isn't "ready" for gay marriage. I have news for you, tyrannical majority: it matters not one bit whether you feel like you need a few more decades to get the warm fuzzies about someone else's family. Like it or not, that family still has a right to exist, provided they are not forcing YOU to change the way YOU live. Nothing about the legalization of gay marriage would force religious types to approve of homosexuality. They would still have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how bigoted, and to teach their children to be as closed-minded as they are--just like there's no law against being racist or sexist, as long as it's in words only. But your rights end where theirs begin. This isn't some abstract concept you're opposing--your "opinions" are directly preventing actual people from doing things that you take for granted, things that will in no way harm you, your marriage or your children.

The other argument I'm sick of is the semantics one: "By calling gay unions 'marriages,' you’re re-defining a beloved religious word." Well, fine. Keep your word. If "marriage" is exclusively a religious term, then in the spirit of compromise, you can have it. Let’s separate the concept of "marriage," the spiritual union of a man and a woman in front of God, from the concept of a two-person union recognized by the government and granted special benefits. Fundamentally, all marriages are civil unions. In the eyes of the government, all adult couples who wish to be joined by law should be granted a "civil union." If, then, a religious heterosexual couple wants to further define that union as a "marriage" before God, then mazel tov. If semantics is the only issue, I'm all in favor of exorcising the word "marriage" from the government's vocabulary and letting the religious folks have it. Let's all have civil unions, homo and hetero alike. If that's what it takes to stop gays from being treated as second-class citizens, then so be it.

Marriage is NOT rooted in religion. Cavemen were getting married. I've also been to gay wedding ceremonies held by progressive churches, so whose religion has the final word?

Rick is just selling schlock to his flock...He's in the religion business, after all. The fact that he's so ignorant about his own Bible and the Constitution and many people buy his bs is pretty frightening...What did O say about clinging to guns and religion in bad times...Hold on!!

The idea that gay marriage or sex is sinful is not a legal issue, but a religious one. Gay relationships are not and should never be illegal. Our constitution protects an individual's religious freedom, including the freedom to believe that their love has the approval of a higher being. The existing definition of marriage and its significance is also religious by nature, however because it is protected by law, it has become a legal issue.
It seems that the only way to follow the constitution would be to either REMOVE the legal definition of marriage altogether and leave marriage to be a religious rite only (with equal rights for straight, gay, and single people), or give the SAME legal definition to any marriage between two individuals that does not break the law (for those who argue about incest, pedophilia, and polygamy).
I have yet to hear a logical argument for any harm that a gay marriage would cause to any other individual.

LB wrote on 12/26 @ 12:58am: "I have yet to hear a logical argument for any harm that a gay marriage would cause to any other individual."

I don't believe you. Cogent arguments and the underlying evidence are voluminous if you but look. Try viewing the work of Sorokin and Unwin for starters. Hint: no culture has EVER survived more than a few generations, including the 'Golden Age' of Greece.

But one only needs to view present day W. Europe to see the effect of the non-primacy of heterosexual marriage and the deprivations it causes, primarily to children and women. Roughly, W. Europe can be divided into a northern (Scandinavia, Holland), a middle (UK, Germany, France) and a southern tier (Italy, Spain). The numerous and exaggerated social pathologies in the northern tier where traditional marriage has been reduced by culture/law/social sanction to an afterthought are such strong evidence of social breakdown that you have to purposely ignore them to not recognize what is happening.

Secondly, your argument about polygamy is circular (which ironically belies your statement about "logical argument"). As soon as the basis for defining marriage as something other than one unrelated, adult man, and one unrelated, adult woman, polygamy will become viable again (as in Europe with Islam [and the non Muslim threesome who was recently married to one another, think in Holland]). It has already raised its head in the US among lesbians who desire to live communally to raise their children. Echoes of Plato's 'Republic'? You cannot destroy the foundation and expect the structure to stand.

Moreover, your statement that "marriage and its significance is also religious by nature, however because it is protected by law, it has become a legal issue" ignores history- marriage is a natural principle that predates positive law, much like freedom of speech, religion. Your bias toward man as the measure of all things is not hidden very well.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

The comments of marriage is very nice.I have yet to hear a logical argument for any harm that a gay marriage would cause to any other individual.
http://www.relationshipsaver.org/

Gay marriage should not be considered a sin or even a problem. Our society has changed greatly in the past 5,000 which has caused the redefinition of many words. There is no harm done by changing the definition of marriage. No matter what sex of people involved, everyone deserves the right to enter into a "marriage" binded by love and commitment.

Rick Warren is such an ignoramus he can't even think one sentence ahead of his half-baked statements. Like another person pointed out, how can he say divorce is worse for American families than gay marriage and not support a Prop 9 ban on divorce? And what kind of idiotic excuse is "I am against gay marriage to protect my free speech"? Haha! Special pleading at its finest. What kind of contorted mental twisting is he trying to pull off here? That's like saying that you want ban Mexicans from being able to get driver's licenses because it violates your 2nd amendment right to bear arms. ASTOUNDING. Rick Warren, please stop having conversations with an imaginary invisible being that says he loves us so much that if we don't love him back we will burn in hell for eternity and shut your hate spewing mouth.

I think you people should stop criticizing Warren because he clearly says that he will let anyone to choose what to do just as God has left us to make choices, for instance God created us to live holy lives and we don't honor that fact and God lets us leave or does HE kill us of which is capable of doing than letting us and continue to sin ah! Our duty as Christians is to speak of what is not Godly according to the scriptures and leave everyone to make choice, and as Paul says he lived with everyone according to their way of life so as to win them to Christ. there is no way you are going to win a soul as christian by hating people and criticizing them of their sins as though yourself you holy. Here although Warren says he has many gay friends he does not support their choice of marriage since its contrary to the bible of which is fit since a friend should be able to tell you the truth. and when he tells the truth he will not stop your friendship but he will continue to be your friend coz his intentions were without strings attached to . So give Warren a break. But anyway some things unless the Spirit of God revels them they are hard to understand because even when Jesus was preaching most of the time people did not understand them. So pray for Gods wisdom and you will be able to see as Gods wants us to see!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Bartz, maybe some of us who opposed Proposition 8 did use overheated rhetoric. I agree that not everyone who supported 8 was a "homophobe" or knuckle-dragging bigot. But, please, don't ask anyone "to heed to (sic} the bible ALL that God has commanded" unless you're ready to stone adulterers to death and stop eating shellfish.

Same sex marriages: What's the big deal?

First and foremost church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That's it.

If Britney Spears can party it up in Vegas with one of her boys and go get married on a whim and annul her marriage the next day, why can't a loving same sex couple tie the knot? How could our society grant more rights to a heterosexual one night stand wedding in Vegas vs. a gay couple that has been together for 3, 5, 10 years of true love? The divorce rate in America is currently 50%. I am willing to bet that same sex marriages have a higher success rate than heterosexual marriages.

Maybe I am a man ahead of my time. However, looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?

First and foremost church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! chat sohbet

Nike Air Force 25 Supreme

jordan basketball shoes 10.5

Sex is nothing more than an itch and is separate from love, sex can also become an addiction. there are all kinds of Love. love for friends, love for children, love for animals,(pets) love for husband or wife.what love are gay talking about??
Sex between a man and a woman is a very secrete thing.
Between a husband and wife which have made a commitment to one another, to build a life together, the fulfillment is procreation of having children in their own image and likeness to build a better part of themselves. Sex can be used for a positive or a vary destructive purpose, we all know that.
IF sex is all about what one can get out of it, then it really don’t matter how one sexually satisfies oneself, whether that is having sex with a sheep(or other animal) or having some other man suck your duck,, if sex doesn't’ matter how one satisfies oneself, why should we care if one keeps a sheep in the backyard for sexual relief?

Homosexuality is a Hoax, and is an excuses for ones sexual behavior, when i say its a hoax I mean that our government and other organization are lying to us(the people of this great nation)
its a fact that homosexuality is not do to genetics, and if its not a mental disorder then it is a perversion of the ACT of sex.

in 1973. On December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the same measure on January 24-26, 1975.

Just as today, the Democrats had reclaimed control of both chambers of the Legislature in 1973

Another lie that the government and organization which promotes homosexuality is that some people are born attracted to the same sex . this is a lie, fact is that a dominate Butch dike lesbian will dress and fix themselves up like a man to attract a more submissive lesbian female to simulate a male and female relationship.? and the male submissive will dress and look like a women to attract a more dominate male type.??

Two man are not equal to a man and woman, their is no equality in the relationship, they are separate in relationship, marriage is govern by the protection of the children involved. also the function between a man and woman are different. Now you can argue that their are similarity’s But not the same. therefore under a different title and category is appropriate. Nobody is denying gay from sharing property and living a life together.. But gays thinks they are entitled to the title of marriage, man and woman equal biological children.

Man has a problem with keeping their sexual organ in the proper place.

— The survey, released last year (2005), showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it. Source