Rick Warren upsets gays, but he should pray at Obama's inauguration

It's hard to discern any insult in my last response to you. Whatever.

Edith, I was rather enjoying the discussion with you, but it seems that rather than us sinking our teeth into broadening the topic, the teeth are sinking into insults instead.
I wish you the best of luck- but my blogging in response to this topic is finished.

Where you can roll in your bigoted nonsense to your heart's content.

"They want the word!"

What a complete flaming idiot. Come up with a few more Bible misquotes to justify your hatred, then go dish with your girlfriends about who else you'd like to see dead.

They think that "marriage" is a right. They would not be happy even if civil unions came with all rights assigned to marriage. They want the word! If they don't get the word, they've somehow lost a right. Yes, I know we aren't there yet with the rights under civil unions, but most people, even Rick Warren, I believe, is in favor of equal rights regardless. BUT THAT WORD IS A RIGHT. We used to call it something on the farm "don't look a gifthorse in the mouth".

I'm not sure where your contention that this is all in aid of the pursuit of happiness came from. I also don't see how treating everyone equally unless forced off that position for some really good reason is somehow diluting everything to the point of meaninglessness. It may make me happy to force everyone to wear their underwear on the outside, because my ideals prize cleanliness, and this way we can check! but I guess I'll just have to stay less happy. Two fags holding hands may make me feel icky, but what right does that invest in me to deny them civil rights? You seem to be arguing that forcing them to NOT hold hands, or gaze into each other's eyes, or speak of love and commitment in front of the children, somehow preserves individuality!

Examine your beliefs (all of them! in twenty seconds or less!) from the standpoint that homosexual activity makes you uncomfortable, and whether you've spent considerable time in finding reasons that support your discomfort, rather than asking why you should feel discomfort in the first place.

Well Steve I gave you my own personal definition of political correctness earlier. No attempts made to throw anyone off my trail and if I smell like fish, I need to switch deoderants.
Btw, we all are about half way to the pub that is about 1/2 mile past the 9th hole as far as blogging about the original topic is concerned. All well.

One other item to add to my previous post, is that we can in fact listen to one another's opinions, rally and make our views known, but the govt has no business diluting or allowing the dilution of ideals thru rewriting every facet of the civil rights.
I gotta get some work done.
Later.

(which is an expression I've never heard but grasp the meaning of by context) is that political correctness is a red herring. From wikipedia:

"Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring".

The term red herring comes from the time when criminals would use fish to lead sniffer dogs off the trail."

I am gonna try to post something like this one more time, but web staff, your server is messing up. This is the third time I have blogged this week when I completed my thought, hit post comment and the damn thing goes poof.

In essence, Edith, you are right when you say that those instances derrived from two sides disagreeing and the result of a court mandated amendment of marriage due to the "right for the pursuit of happiness."
I hope you did not think my intent to bring that up was to point out that biblical principles had anything to due with the timeline I gave. Interesting reading below.

http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/page05.htm

My thrust is that the groups(cogs) who need frequent oiling are putting the govt in the position of "defining marriage and expanding it's definition" based on the constitutional right of pursuit of happiness.

They will continue to dilute every premise until the nation is jello.
But hey, what ever makes people happy right?
It's about people being allowed to be happy right?The pursuit of happiness.
I want to marry my honda, and my hamster. I want to be happy so the govt should get out that big WD40 can and start spraying me until I get what I want.
Create new legislation to also make other people happy who want to teach creation in schools in addition to evolution.
What?! You all think I am shoving my ideals and theories down your throat??
BUT it makes me happy!
I am supposed to accept the happiness( of gay marriage and such) so accept the fact that I will be happy when kids are taught that "theory" in school.
I am being sarcastic for a reason, not because I am dogging on anyone. I am trying to point out the premise on which things get altered in govt civil rights does indeed fall prey to conflicting ideas, as you mentioned, but it is all under the feel good premise of "pursuit of happiness"

I don't see anything like "government" setting up an arbitrary set of definitions for marriage that all must bow down to. I see in your list a series of heavily-argued legal issues that must be decided simply because two parties started arguing over them at some point, and the decision has to come down, generally, on one side or the other. Without going through them one by one, note that very few of the issues consist of beating down some religious group that decided that something in the Bible demands that they be permitted to marry off 12-year-olds, beat children unconscious because they're under the authority of the father, etc. Most are of the form, if the Constitution says this and state law says this, then you can't do that inside a marriage any more than you can outside a marriage.

Incidentally, note that the prohibition of polygamy was an agreed-upon deal with the Mormons to get Utah statehood.

Yeah, I agree and stated that, but in the timeline I noticed that govt went beyond that framework and started making it's own interpretation of what "the institution of marriage" is.
Notice that, Edith?
I wonder, just wonder what motivated them to examine and act on creating such definition?

I hear Chipotle calling. Ta.=)

(2009-Whomp,there it is."

What exactly tarts you off about political correctness Big Steve? Is it that my definition of it means that the world expect every one to dilute and dissolve into jello so we can all gel.
Do you embrace gelling?
Wanna be without seasoning, without flavor or individuality and unique voice?
To me it isn't merely a cliche, it is a serious symptom of society.
I would also assume by your post that you may feel like every diverse voice outside the jello bowl reaks of racism.
That really isn't much of a definition, but to each his own.
Ta.

"2009- Whomp, there it is."

Marriage definitions are critical to orderly civil process because they are SO important in assigning property rights and parental rights and duties.

""Remember, darbyhunt, nobody I'm aware of is demanding that as a matter of civil rights your church must conduct gay marriages. The demand is that the STATE conduct gay marriages.""
That is true. You will get no argument from me there, however, those who do protest gay marriage and vocalize their own opinions whether thru rallies or soap boxes are merely doing it based on their own personal ideals and convictions. Much the same as those who support and rally in pro gay avenues. Both are exercising free speech.

One curious thought would be looking at a timeline of civil marriage. It has changed quite a bit over time.

Civil marriage has undergone significant changes in the United States since the country's inception:

1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban. [1]
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).[2]
1969 - The first no fault divorce law is adopted in California [2]
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker v. Nelson).
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1993 - "All fifty states have revised laws to include marital rape". [2]
1996 - President Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
2008 - California briefly recognizes same-sex marriage, which is later overturned by a State Constitutional amendment.
2008 - Connecticut recognizes same-sex marriage.

All of these have morphed into the govt having to step in and DEFINE marriage as time went along.(squeaking cogs) There was a time, mormons could practive polygomy or bigomy was something that was in practice, but they got prohibited and punished by law.
So govt has taken it's steps to dictate for it's people what the definition of the instituion of marriage is and all the rights it has therein.
Something I ponder about it all, is why the govt chose to go beyond the mere documentation and legalities to ensure married individuals had rights as a united marital base- why they choose to start defining and interferring with definitions in the first place?
(hearing cogs again)
One last thought as I get my ball out the sandpit is that both the Old and New testament have validity, but Jesus did say He came to fulfill the Law not abolish it.(cultural practices established back then no longer were the norm)
The old covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant.
Anyway, I am off to lunch and hopefully by the golf pro store to get a putter.

"2009-Whomp,there it is."

Darbyhunt, I don't know if you're a racist. But I do know that racists are prone to wrap themselves in the mantle of 'political incorrectness.' Why don't you see if you can go a whole day without relying on that worn out concept? Then you can try for a whole week. And then maybe someday you'll be able to think without a crutch.

I have little problem with basing our laws on the Bible, as long as I get to pick which version we use. This would start with posting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn--I'm not really bothered by that, as long as I can pick which of thirty-five or forty versions we use.

Nobody seems to agree with me on this one, somehow.

You have to decide FOR YOURSELF whether you conduct and beliefs will be guided by:

-What is explicitly permitted by the Bible, or
-What is explicitly forbidden by the Bible.

If you don't establish this up front, you end up a confused bigot like twas_was, who believes he can start out with his own prejudices and then go to the Bible and read only those verses that support his pre-existing prejudices.

Then you have to decide whether you're going to "let the whole Bible speak," or fixate on individual verses. And, of course, you have to decide whether the whole Bible is of equal authority or whether the New Testament overwrites the Old, as the New Covenant.

Remember, darbyhunt, nobody I'm aware of is demanding that as a matter of civil rights your church must conduct gay marriages. The demand is that the STATE conduct gay marriages.

Finally, remember that we don't have a government by special interest groups. It's a government based on the rule of law, starting with the Constitution. That's why liberals were so upset over the Bush Administration's cavalier attitude towards the Constitution and the separation of powers.

I love that twas spells 'backpedal' as 'backpeddle' because peddling is exactly what Warren is doing.

And yeah right, I'm the one who only sees what he wants to see. Warren in the first video says one thing, and in the second video says he never said that. I believe there's something in the Bible about "false witness" being wrong.

But the important point is that the Bible cannot be the source for our laws. The first amendment plainly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Christianity is NOT the "established" religion of the US, no matter how many of its citizens claim to adhere to it. So whenever our legal system is being discussed, keep the Bible out of it. It's irrelevant.

As others have said, a US citizen has the right to live his or her own life according to what is in the Bible, but no right to force those beliefs on others.

I guess you have another point in the fact that civil rights should be allowed to all people and the arguement that it shouldn't should not be based merely on what the Bible says. To each their own and I am not throwing the bible at anyone, unless they ask me directly why I believe the way I do. I guess that is my civil right to free speech.
Civil rights protect against discrimination correct?
Civil rights uphold each individual the right to be fairly treated right?
Well then , I suppose in the goverments eyes, the people who yell the loudest get their cogs oiled first on the civil machine.
They are called special interest groups. Christians have them, gays have them, environmentalists have them, people for the ethical treatment of darn near anything has them.
I supposed that is the birth cry of a world trying to be politically correct, however, I believe rather than tolerating each groups beliefs, the world is trying to dilute the ones who don't "go with the flow" until they morph into jello and melt away under fire.
I hate jello.
Does that make me racist?=P

"2009-Whomp, there it is."

The point is that the bible is not the ultimate authority on homosexuality. Yet you who oppose civil rights for gays keep quoting the bible. You can use that as a guide for your personal life but not to impose your values on others.

Apop, you are right. The bible isn't everyone's hand book.
But I find it interesting that it always seems to come up( the bible) from people who do not believe in it.
They want to have us show them where it says such and such, or doesn't. They want to point out discrepencies in a book they simply do not believe holds a measure or rule of how to live life.
You are very correct in your statement. No shocker there to me.
On another thought-
Jesus's love and message was meant and still is meant to draw us in to a right and fulfilling relationship with Him.
But, Jesus also taught that it isn't just enough to love and have mercy, but we must be ever trying to listen to God and change our sinful ways.
Also, something else of interest(which we are so far off the blog course but I might as well putt anyway)
Jesus spent much time teaching parables and living His testimony infront of people, His disciples, but the most engagment that provokes much thought is His constant clash with the Pharisees.
He pointed out self righteousness when He saw it( which by definition means running around judging people and DENYING your own sin.)
The bible never said believers cannot speak the truth in love, but they should be reminded of their own lives when they gently help people look upon their own.
If people believe in the Bible or even think it may hold value, then look at the WHOLE word of God. If you don't believe it, then I guess you are probably exhausted with arguing with people who you deem in error for basing their life on one of the oldest books in history.
Having said that, to each their own. It is after all, just an opinion blog anyway.

That's not the reason for my post. One of your buddies keeps harping that, since the Bible doesn't mention lesbianism, he attempts to insinuate the Bible must not recognize it as forbidden behavior, and as such, may put it on a different plain from men on men. I'm just asking people to use some common sense. Your friend says he uses common sense, but I say he selective uses it.

What you single focused twits don't understand is the bible is a book that is not (you may want to sit down for this) the guide for every single human being's life. So if it says so in the bible doesn't mean the whole universe has to adhere to it. You of course are free to use the bible to guide all you do. However, you can't dictate that practice to others.

That permits slavering bigots like twas_was to act on their most perverted whims and claim it's either not forbidden in the Bible or it's not permitted in the Bible, therefore I can own slaves! Sleep with my daughters! Shun those who eat shrimp!

Just come out of the closet, twas_was, declare your various hatreds, and stop pretending you need to justify them from the words of the gentle, inclusive, and loving Jesus Christ.

But Darby, if the Bible doesn't say anything about it, then it must be o.k. That's the kind of reasoning we have from some people. I think these people are so "book smart" that if they didn't read it in a book, they couldn't tie their shoes.

I watched the videos and have to agree with twas about this one.
I am rather intrigued by two things he said, particularly in the first video.
First off he makes the comment about the fact that christians like to point out sins in other people and ignore or accept their own- which unfortunatley makes them judgemental and in error. To me to accept your own faults and while pointing out others in the the old "plank in my eye, speck in yours statement".
I understand where he is coming from in that he points out that divorce is even a bigger problem than is gay marriage.
But my whole bottom line of this first video is that he is talking about the definition of marriage as the BIBLE portrays it. No where does it say same sex marriage is accepted nor blessed in the BIBLE. So that is one slant. I think he could have better worded his thoughts to avoid having lumped incestial relationships(which do exist) and children marrying adults(which exists in other places) with the same sex marriage thing. He lumped them together to make point that they were not among the kind of God blessed unions that have been traditionally mentioned in the bible were between one man, one woman for life. A life long relationship is far from the course too, in today's marriages-which is sad, cause now days, divorce is the accepted "get outta jail free card" SO THAT TOO, reduces the sanctity of God's intended design for marriage.
In the second video, I will admit he sounds nervous and anxious because it is hitting him that he spoke too quickly in the prior interview.In the midst of an interview and in the middle of him giving his definition of what he believes the Bible says about the way marriage and sex were intended between man and woman and not other forms that are rampant today- the announcer asked in essence,
"so you think gay marriage falls under the same thing" Rick said yes and continued a thought about his view of BIBLE BASED marriages spoken of in the bible.
No doubt,he got public response and outrage. He messed up. But I really cannot fault him for messing up. Yep he backpeddled and should have better thought out his responses in the first round.
Reminding everyone, this is an opinion blog. I am glad you showed the links to the video.

As far as the bible scriptures, rather than filter thru them this morning, my thought is to let one question post that may answer previous ones. Where does it say that women marry women or men marry men in the bible? Where does it say that it is a sacred union given to us by God?
I doubt there is anyone who practices both old and new testament scripture to it's fullest extinct( or we would be jailed in today's society)
However, why negate Paul's teaching?(1 Cor 6:9) It doesn't contradict Jesus's does it? He talks about God given marriage in Matt 19. Further than that, does Paul's teaching contradict the Bible anywhere?Think about it. Just let me know.
Believe me, I walk around with plenty of planks in my eye. I am still waiting on the Carpenter to remove them all.

But without God's daily forgiveness of my own sins, which I still stumble over, I would not have a hope of being in heaven.

Will be back later.

"2009-Whomp,there it is."

That's a real stretch. You heard what you wanted to hear. He was talking about marriage, and what he thought it should be. And "backpeddling"? He "backpeddled" because people like you read something into what he said that he didn't say. The 2nd video was to clarify that he didn't say what people read into his prior interview. This is ridiculous, but it keeps you going, I guess.

The comments equating homosexuality with incest and pedophilia begin at about 2:15:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nXq0wO5-n0

In this clip, made after the previous one got a lot of attention, the backpedaling starts ate about 0:30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJEqL0OP7x4

Darby asked for it, so there it is. Responses that don't hinge on the tired expression "pc" are appreciated.

It's even funnier in Aramaic.

That was pretty damn funny.

And saw your picture on the wall.

And a special letter from the Dean. And anything else I care to claim, just like yourself. Try taking the entrance exam to The School of You Can't Make It Up As You Go, and see how long you last.

I am a graduate of the School of Common Sense. It guides me well. You should take the entrance exam.

In the case of gender-specific transgressions. You want to pretend that, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" is the same as "If a woman also lie with womankind, as she lieth with a man, both of them have committed an abomination," you go right ahead, but that's not what the Bible says, and now you're arguing what "is" is.

Face it, fruitloops, fags make you feel icky, and you're going to twist the Bible to mean whatever it takes to justify your hatred of them. That's what you cons do best, isn't it, hate?

you're no hermeneuticist.

He is hung up on the Bible excluding mention of lesbianism. Why would the Bible prohibit man on man, but allow woman on woman? The Bible throughout talks in masculine terms in the context of man=human, but he somehow doesn't understand that. It's just a lame arguing point.

But only before 10AM

Edith, this is worthy of discussion, perhaps tonight, I can gather more thoughts. Until then have a good evening. Will attempt to post more tomorrow.

"2009-Whomp, there it is"

I'm sure you're aware that this is old, old argument that predates the current debate centuries.

Here's the basic arguments:
-Jesus said nothing about homosexuals.
-The Bible nowhere addresses the concept of lesbian activity.
-The injunctions against homosexuality in Leviticus are part of six hundred other injunctions that are only rarely adhered to today.
-Paul inveighs against homosexual activity, as well as heterosexual activity. Also note that Paul is a difficult source to use authoritatively since he is famously in direct opposition to the other writers of the New Testament and Jesus Himself on several important issues, notably the primacy of faith or works in salvation.

Please note that these arguments do NOT depend on nuance, context, translation, etc.

Interfacce said,"It's the bleeding over of religious dogma into impacting people's civil legal rights that's the issue"

Well and it goes deeper than that. It is the inclination that anyone who feels threatened or offended by anything that goes against their core values or beliefs, that those forces must some how be eliminated for them to feel validated and fairly treated.
I will admit some religious people are up in arms about certain changes that eliminate or dilute their ability to express or practice their beliefs- much like any other special interest group.
I guess the only way to truly solve the problem with this over all is either complete total tolerance (which will never happen cause pc is only a concept that the govt uses to pacify Americans)- or a muted numb society where everyone dresses, acts, talks and thinks the same- with no distinctive traits nor individuality.
So my point is, it isn't just religious dogma. I think that is a fair enough assumption.

Snowbirds...I agree with most of what you said.

Edith, I would only have to say for every scripture given, there is always a matter of context, biblical cultural history and root language meaning. If I find any sites that look good, I will post them later.

After thought- Any one ever watch the episode of Spongebob Squarepants, where Squidward gets tired of the antics of the people around him and moves to a "squid only " community? He is elated at first that everyone is the same and day after day he is exposed to the same thing over and over. He soon realizes, that he is bored and misses the diversity that made his life both frustrating and humorus.
I think I will buy me a leaf blower.

In which any kind of sexual perversion must be tolerated, in which sexual perversions are taught to children, and where being anti-gay is somehow Christian.

Farrrr out. Didn't know that. Enlighten me, sweetlips: tell me what Jesus says about homosexuality. Tell me what the Bible says anywhere about lesbians. Tell me which of the injunctions of Leviticus you practice and which you ignore. And tell me, oh toothless one, are you a selective reader of Paul, or do you take everything Paul says as, well, Gospel?

The "gay rights" activists won't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them. Like with most liberal causes tolerance only works one way. Any type of sezual perversion must be tolerated and considered "ok" and even promoted to children as "normal" behavior, but being a Christian, and especially speaking publicly about it, must not be tolerated.

but rather, his opposition to gay couples having equal rights under the law that have people up in arms.

Think if the Pope opposed allowing divorcees who had never had their marriages annulled the legal right to remarry under civil law.

It's the bleeding over of religious dogma into impacting people's civil legal rights that's the issue.

Since homosexuals believe that their sexual behavior and beliefs are valid, then why should they feel threatened by Warren saying a prayer. Do they really believe that this man is going to make a scene?

Do you have a link for both so we can compare both? I would like to see for myself that Warren stated something and then covered over it.
It wouldn't be the first time someone like him stepped up and said strong things, only to realize later the stand was too strong to take.
In his view, sin is sin. And if he truly believed that they are all sins, he should have better organized his words.
As far as Obama, were you expecting him to be anything more than a politician? LOL?!
As far as the whole blog written here,
Rick Warren upsetting gays with his viewpoints is one thing, but for someone to blog that gays are upset that he will be doing something in the inaguration that represents a prayer- I guess I just have to wonder what they'd say if the grand ole Bishop got the job instead.
Would they say,"Whoopee! Now everything is all fair!"?
Would every one be happy and feel all warm fuzzied then?

My bottom line is I don't fault the man for standing up for what he believes, regardless of how un pc it may be. However, in all fairness he should be ever prepared to stand under the same rebuke.
We all do, one way or the other- one judge- GOD.

"2009- Whomp, there it is."

Obama is just being a politician, which is very disappointing.

"My only muse about the comment would be that bigotry masquerading as inclusiveness doesn't apply to Warren, since he at least out right states what he believes of this patricular issue of homosexuality, rather than use vague tactics to appear pc."

Incorrect. He blatantly lied in a video on his website, claiming that he had never compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia, when there is video evidence to contradict that claim. These are in fact "vague tactics to appear pc." Actually I think Warren just doesn't want to do anything that will stop the flow of money into his bank account.

So Big Steve are you calling Obama the bigot or Warren?
Clarify if you please.
My only muse about the comment would be that bigotry masquerading as inclusiveness doesn't apply to Warren, since he at least out right states what he believes of this patricular issue of homosexuality, rather than use vague tactics to appear pc.

"2009- Whomp- there it is."

Write a letter to Obama. He's the villain here. He had the gonads to invite him to pray. I guess you can hit the mute button during Warren's prayer.

It's not only that Warren opposes gay marriage (also known as equal protection under the law). It's that he equated homosexuality with incest and pedophilia. And then he lied and said he had never said that, even though there's video evidence that he did in fact say that. I guess the god he prays to doesn't have the internet.

Spare me this bigotry masquerading as inclusiveness.

right said,twas.

"2009- Whomp, there it is."

He seems to have some gonads. I hope the far-left doesn't remove them.

Why would it be wrong for Warren to appear to deliver the prayer?
Why?
Is it because he is not pc?
Is it because he is not feely touchy, "I'm ok, your ok" type guy?
Is it because he likes women?
Or is it because the Bishop has unresolved bitterness to christian people who still believe homosexuality is wrong?
Hmmm-let me think on that a little.

"2009-Whomp, there it is."

.

"Take my bait"--I'm asking is that you back up what you wrote, that's not baiting--that's a challenge. Which you don't want to take, thus no balls. I would guess since you won't do that, it pretty much shows you are full of it.

Poor, poor Interface/Alma. Since its a cold day here in KC (what's the temp where you live?) I've pretty much got all day to wait for your next comeback. But we both know you won't provide the response I've asked for.

I've balls aplenty, twas/Jenny, but I know that it irks you when I don't take your bait.

So, I guess you've given up your twas identity for the nonce, hmm? I'm sure you'll pick it back up, though, but we'll know.

Not at all, I'm actually having fun here. You still haven't responded to my request. Why can't you cut and paste the comment that you claim "showed my hand". Those are your words--back them up.

Even anonymously, you have no balls.

Guess you'll have to come up with another alter ego.

Ha. Just like I thought, nothing. Put up or shut up, dude. Either you can back up what you wrote or you just pull s@@t out of your a@@. Looks like you made your choice.

Love the tough talk, though.

Jenny/twas, it's certainly amusing to see how you've got your panties in a bunch at being exposed.

C'mon Interface/Alma, please, please tell me (or how about actually cutting and pasting) where I 'showed my hand'.

You made the claim, now back it up. I'm betting you won't do it--you've never really showed the ability to actually respond directly to a question I've asked you--but then again, those questions were on specifics on anything Obama--you always ran and hid.

So let's have it--tell me what I supposedly did--or STFU.

For what it's worth Interface, as a man, (a bigoted one at that), I would not take a feminine blog name. But if that's what you've convinced yourself - have at it!

you take the cake! ;-) I figured you had an alter ego, and when you showed your hand yesterday, I wasn't surprised.

You ain't fooling anyone. :-D

tell him you & I were not the same, but figured he had already convinced himself. So I decided not to bother. I may be wrong, but I see a lot of similarity between him and Alma too, and Alma was rather abrupt in leaving the blog.

Nice try. Doesn't really work that way, Interface/Alma. See I've been reading and writing on this blog for a very long time--long enough to see patterns in writing. Long enough to see people come and go (based on the topic of post, natch)

I also live here in the KC area and am an actual subscriber to the KC Star (a waste of $18/month). No reason to have a different user name to say the same thing or to have 'someone else' agree with me.

twas, don't agree with a lot of his/her writing, but I consider your partnering me with him/her a compliment.

"you hate gays", Ha! You go girl!

you just hate gays. Sorry, babe.

Interface - been there, done that. You hate religion, I love religion. It all comes back to that.

Equality under the law, Jenny, and protection from theocracy. We're a nation of secular laws, not Taliban Afghanistan.

You are progressing to what? A world full of progressives like FT is a world of Sodom & Gomorrah.

Yael writes: "The controversy over Warren has spotlighted the inclusiveness of an Obama administration."

Sorry, but that sort of tepid, namby-pamby thinking doesn't fly. The only thing inviting a bigot like Warran spotlights is Obama's desire to pander and play Stepin Fetchit to the lunatic fringe of the religiously addicted. We had eight years of a president who played to the crazies. Now it is time for the reality-based majority to take charge.

Obama's selection of Warren was a slap in the face not only to gays and lesbians about whom he spouted the vilest sort of lies, but to Jews (who he claims are barred from heaben) and all true progressives who would like to see this country move beyond governing by superstitions.

male nipples.

"If the biology of male and female sexuality are complementary, there must be an ultimate reason for it. A rational person searches for that reason and draws ethical conclusions." (Cook) I would suppose that both the Rev. Warren and Bishop Robinson, being educated men, would agree with the ethical and rational conclusion that the human race depends on heterosexual sex. Obama impressed me and others with his intellectual integrity by selecting the varied and gifted thinkers for his inauguration. Everyone should just shut up, wait, watch, and really listen -- for a change.

So if the majority of Americans didn't want Mormons to be able to get married, it would be fine to have an anti-Mormon pastor speak at the inauguration? Obama should also invite Rev. Wright and Christopher Hitchens to speak at the inauguration just so everyone can be offended.

Here is a video of the homosexual hoodlums pushing around an old lady, taking away the cross she was carrying while supporting traditional marriage:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17811

And how about the when the hoodlums harassed peaceful marching Christians to the point that a police escort was required:

http://tinyurl.com/9uc8yk

And we have many examples of people fired for donating or speaking out to defend traditional marriage:

http://tinyurl.com/7ol354

Rick Warren is supposed to re-write the Bible for the gays. Since Rick Warren represents the majority on the issue, I feel like Obama's inclusion of him in the inauguration is appropriate and appreciated.

Since when is 6 million out of 38 million a majority? The majority of people that voted on prop 8 perhaps but not the majority of Californians. I will fight to the end for my rights!

As someone who has been compared to a rapist and pedophile by Rick Warren I must say the choice is offensive. I worked for Obama in the primary elections because his words of inclusiveness and his pragmatism were appealing. When my marriage came under attack by Warren and his friends, I no longer had time to work for Obama because I was in my community defending myself against Warren's lies and misrepresentations of what Prop 8 was all about. Unfortunately, Warren and his friends were able to convince a narrow majority of voters here in California with their distortions and fear-mongering that I am a threat to my community, state, and country.
Am I upset? YES! Not because Obama wants to dialogue or to work with Warren. I'm open to working with Warren on issues that matter, too. Our nations problems are such that we all need to work on them together. My problem is that Obama has given world stage credibility and status to a divisive and destructive man. Warren uses position and power to create division, proclaim falsehoods, and distract us from working on the real issues that are hurting and endangering our country and our well-being. Please don't let Rick Warren's facade of civility beguile you - look behind his words at his beliefs and his agenda.
In order to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of California he compared my relationship to a rapist, a pedophile, and a polygamist. If he were to apologize or express regret for going overboard in the heat of a campaign I would feel differently. He shows no sign that he will not engage in similar divisive, deceptive, mean spirited conduct in the future. He is not the person to set the spiritual tone of the next presidency.

Christians would be just as angry about having someone who called Jesus a pedophile speak at an inauguration, so it's not unreasonable for non-heteros to feel offended about Warren.

Who said anything about shutting him up? I was merely adding more info that the writer left out. This is NOT just about Proposition 8.

Try reading next time before you go all drama queen on us.

and SHUT HIM UP! Strange how you folks champion freedom of speech unless it's something you don't like.

He compared gay marriage to incest. This goes much deeper than merely supporting Proposition 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce1ILmS5yMo