You know, it is still okay to hate and discriminate and be prejudice against homosexuals. This is perhaps the last group of people left to publicy denounce and to get away with it. The potential speakers mentioned above would never be considered for the inauguration because they are people that are seen as hateful, ignorant, racist, anti-semite.
See, their words harm people that are protected by society as society finally sees their speech and their beliefs as the atrocities they are. Yet it is still okay for someone to speak against a group of people, in the name of their god or book or church, who causes no harm or threat to another. That's sick.
Some liberal minded folks (Melissa Etheridge for one) have recently stated that after speaking with Warren they realized he had more issue with the use of the word "marriage" than actually having a problem with homosexuality. Hm...really? That just doesn't ring true.
More importantly, why is that such a bone of contention? It's a word. If I have Civil Union and you have Marriage they are equal but separate so it's the same? That sounds familiar doesn't it? Separate but equal...can't quite put my finger on it...where have I heard that before...
Hide behind the bible, hide behind a god, hide behind your church - it's hate and it's gross and pathetic. You condemn a group of people by love; yes, who they LOVE. Seems harmless when you break it down to what is really going on between two people. You refuse them basic rights; if it weren't for laws protecting us up to this point we would have even less and, in some places, that is still the way it is.
In reference to the difference between himself and James Dobson(Focus on the Family founder), Warren claimed "it's a matter of tone." So then it would be true that they hold the same beliefs just have different ways of expressing them. If I tell you your god is a crutch for the decisions you make but I say it nicely, will you not take offense? It's all about tone so I would be sure to lift my voice at the end to ensure the edge is off.
That's a thinly veiled separation between the two to say the least. His intolerance is not better or worse than any other who is anti-homosexual. Homophobic is a black and white answer - there are no shades of grey; much like any other form of hate. You don't hate black people a little. You don't hate Jewish people a bit. You don't hate illigal immigrants a tiny smidge. Racism, bigotry, religion-bashing - it all comes from the same place.
Regarding his point of view on homosexuality and gay rights, he stated, "... my wife and I had dinner at a gay couple's home two weeks ago. So I'm not [a] homophobic guy, okay?"
That argument has been made time and time again with racist individuals usually saying, " I have a (insert nationality here) friend so I can't be racist". Does THAT ring a bell for anyone. C'mon is he serious?!
Here's a snipit from an interview with Larry King - tell me if his concerns are the WORD.
CNN interview in entirety here:
WARREN: I think -- I think I was wired by God to like women. I think they...
KING: So, what did he do to the gay person, God?
WARREN: I don't know that God did that. I really don't.
KING: You mean he did it to you but he didn't do it to them?
WARREN: You know, Larry, we all have instincts and we all have urges and we all have desires. That doesn't necessarily mean that I fulfill all of them. In other words, as a heterosexual man I might desire to have sex with 100 women. That doesn't mean I do it because that wouldn't be the right thing.
(** editorial note here: a man with 100+ "conquests" boasts this fact and is not tainted by society but is usually lauded for his prowess so his analogy sucks anyway...just saying)
KING: All right, but if you desire another man and you're a man and you're an adult, who are you harming if the two of you agree and it's your life?
WARREN: Yes.... Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is it natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here's an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time?
To be fair to the church and that there are many points of light that are positive and good and hold true to the teaching that Jesus supposedly came to deliver, you have Reverend Ed Bacon.
Recently stirring controversy in his own right from Oprah shows on Spirituality 101:
Bacon: If these people have developed a theology that makes them dependent on a doctrine or a dogma, they are not interested in being liberated to trust their inner voices.
Oprah: So what is the difference between doctrine, dogma, and true religion or being a religious person?
Bacon: My faith, my spirituality, is what I live for – it’s actually, what I would die for. My doctrine and my dogma is what I would kill for.
(**ed note again: taking the idea "to kill for" could be likened to ostracizing groups, removing rights from groups; just wanted to point out the obvious because this entry simply isn't long enough, lol)
"Being gay is a gift from God," the Rev. Bacon said. "But our culture doesn't understand that. And consequently, the culture sends messages that you ought to isolate. And isolation is the antithesis of what all of us need.
Rev. Bacon joined Oprah again to react to an onslaught of emails rec'd regarding his statement. "I meant exactly what I said," he says. "It is so important for every human being to understand that he or she is a gift from God."
Raised with a very religious mother, THIS is what I thought we were being taught.
Acceptance * love * peace * understanding
We are all made in his image, etc. I am an atheist so I no longer hold any belief in god or the bible. I think religion can be used for good - some people need that community to help them and that's great if it helps them find their strength.
Unfortunately, religion tends to be used for evil . Why does it seem to always be so condemning instead of uplifting? What is the point of religion except to find superiority and isolate others? Seems some lost their way... er Warren?