I believe the “delayed gratification” he’s talking about is that if you remain lifelong celibate then the sky fairy will take your soul into sky-fairy-land once you die.

I think that by delayed gratification for homosexuals he must be talking about heaven.  That doesn’t make his attempts to impose his religious beliefs on us non-believers via legislation and referenda any less odious of course.

Brava, Amanda, brava.

Or, what Wireless just said.

I’ve actually got Warren pegged as the next Pat Robertson, but I hadn’t even started considering the fact that he’s probably getting a little sumphin-sumphin on the side.

The other commenters have already covered it, but yeah: Whenever these fuckers yipyap about “delayed gratification”, what they mean is, “Do as you’re told, obey your leaders (i.e. us) unquestioningly, and you’ll be rewarded in heaven.” Never mind about how shitty your life is here on Planet Earth.

“After all, Rick wants to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees, but he can’t, because god says no.  Also, so do the beautiful women, with the law backing up their right to do so, but it’s a lot more pleasant to imagine it’s merely a matter of willpower.”

Christ, no kidding. Has Warren, ugly, gresy fat fuck that he is, ever even looked in a mirror? Who does he think he’s kidding?

while you, Joe Blow Ugly Christian, can’t even get your spouse to pity fuck you more than once a month.

Now hold on a gol darn minute, Ted Haggard said that Christianist womenfolk have orgasms every night thanks to their studly hubbies, so what gives?  You know, there must be a whole lotta sterile Christianists because, with the no contraception clause of their contract, you’d think there’d be a permanent state of pregnancy in those gals and a whole bunch of “dry” streaks for their horny menfolk.

Which reminds me, when do you DEMONcraps hold your next bisexual orgy?  I need to be there to pray over you, to ask the Lard’s forgiveness on your behalf and such.

RiM: Please, no LARD at our next orgy. We’ve got all the vegetarians on our side, and they’d prefer plain ol’ Crisco.

I believe the “delayed gratification” he’s talking about is that if you remain lifelong celibate then the sky fairy will take your soul into sky-fairy-land once you die.

what I figured too.

of course, the difference is we don’t make it illegal to sit on your ass and watch TV instead of go jogging. We don’t spend millions on publicity to convince people they’re mentally sick and need to “pray away” their desire to buy a case of PBR and a box of Charleston Chews instead of saving up for a vacation to Southern Spain. We don’t nullify your marriage if you drop out of school because studying for a degree is just too hard. We don’t form thuggish gangs to go viciously beat people who decide they’d rather have a 2 day weekend than the extra 8 hours of time and a half.

If someone wants to enjoy delayed gratification, that’s fine. If you really want to be a lifelong celibate because you have faith in an eternal reward for that coming up, go right ahead. Plenty of Priests have taken vows of chastity seriously. You aren’t in bad company. But you do not have the right to enforce the choice of delayed gratification on anyone else. No one does.

Wow. “You’ll have pie in the sky when you die” is so 19th-century.

I almost feel sorry for Warren, because the primary focus of his ministry isn’t hate. He just sorta signed up for the homophobia and misogyny when he bought the smugness and social services and the rest of the megachurch package, and now he has to look like an idiot defending it.

OK, that’s almost in the sense of “not really at all, about as much as I felt sorry for John McCain” because he does have the choice of recognizing that his position on committed relationships is as pernicious and incoherent as the rest of the christianists’ position on the environment.

Rick Warren is trying to hide his anti-gay beliefs on his website now.

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49 now redirects to http://saddlebackfamily.com/home/whatwebelieve/index.html which makes no mention of homosexuality.

However, there are still archives and caches:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071026063007/www.saddlebackfamily.com/smallgroups/saddleback_church_faq.html

http://www.webcitation.org/5dEzhdI4w

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:PXTZQFA_15kJ:www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_saddleb/unack.asp?id=7509

After all, Rick wants to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees, but he can’t, because god says no.  Also, so do the beautiful women, with the law backing up their right to do so, but it’s a lot more pleasant to imagine it’s merely a matter of willpower.

Rick Warren, Chick Magnet.  My day is now officially made.

while you, Joe Blow Ugly Christian, can’t even get your spouse to pity fuck you more than once a month.

Nah, I’m sure much of that fucking is the performance of one’s womanly duty and/or the result of four weeks’ nagging.

Not to get all nerdly or anything, but Warren’s assumption that our natural inclinations (be they straight or gay) are something that God wants us to resist is so, well, puritanical Protestant.  And it’s a great example of exactly why the argument that gayness is something natural is never going to work on evangelicals, as opposed to (at least some) Catholics.  Educated Catholics are, at least, familiar with Thomas Aquinas’s theories of natural law, in which he posited that the Creator imbued us with the nature we are supposed to follow in order to live an ethical and divine life.  Evangelicals don’t think like that, which is why any appeal to the “naturalness” of gayness is not ever going to go anywhere with them.

The pro-gay rights camp has advanced a conception of autonomy and respect for people’s private, harmless choices, which would embrace rigorous gay rights in either case, whether being gay is a choice or not.

I understand the need to win over those who would only be sympathetic if being gay were not a choice; however, that should not cause gay rights advocates to resort to weaker demands for only those freedoms and social recognition that a society already gives to heterosexuals. In case it is not already clear from abstinence education targeting straight teenagers, prostitution laws, and the like, the evangelicals and moderates who kowtow to them have already created a sex-is-naughty ethic in the USA, which doesn’t permit even straights to exercise the full extent of their liberty and privacy rights in sexual behavior.

He thinks anybody is going to take him seriously about boinking beautiful women? Like that’ll happen.

A couple of male fundies I’ve known have told me that part of what’s wrong with Teh Ghey is it’s not demanding enough.  Men relate more easily to men than women, according to them, and so a hetero relationship is challenging.  Meeting the challenge is a virtue.  Rick Warren might have been trying to say something along these lines.  Sure sounds like gay envy.

Which men does Rick Warren regularly have all-male social nights with? Among that number are his closety gay friends. That’ll be who he’s talking about.

Alright, I see an overweight dullard with hideous facial hair who just went on national television to announce that he’d like to fuck everything that moves. What does Obama honestly think he can gain from the support of the assuredly equally disgusting people who take this fool seriously? I wonder if this is all a desperate ploy to keep the Right from going after him like they did Clinton.

Nah, I’m sure much of that fucking is the performance of one’s womanly duty and/or the result of four weeks’ nagging.

The catch-22 for a lot of Fundies like Warren, though, is that if a woman, even one sanctified by holy matrimony, wants and/or initiates the sex, she’s a castrating whore. The first because wives are supposed to follow their husbands’ lead; the second, because that’s the only non-virgin (where “virgin” in sex-wacko religious terms transitions to “chaste”, which means not getting any screaming dirty fun out of sex) category available for women. So the other thing that cheeses them right off about gay marriages is that they’re pretty much all of two people who really want to be together, and who aren’t lying back and thinking about the sistine chapel.

(Well, OK, maybe they are, but not in the properly devout way.)

I hope that there will be enough of an outcry to make Obama back down on this.  But I wish that I would have heard Rachel respond to the Warren rhetoric with something like, “I, as a gay woman, find this particularly offensive.”  Others have mentioned before how Ms. Maddow does not tend to try and speak for gay issues on her show, and I think that stands out in the YouTube clip above.

And I have to ask about this:

I believe the “delayed gratification” he’s talking about is that if you remain lifelong celibate then the sky fairy will take your soul into sky-fairy-land once you die.
Wireless Enthusiast on 12/21 at 02:26 PM

I think that by delayed gratification for homosexuals he must be talking about heaven.  That doesn’t make his attempts to impose his religious beliefs on us non-believers via legislation and referenda any less odious of course.
Fatman on 12/21 at 02:28 PM

It’s really cool to see two people make almost the same comment at the same time - especially in cases like this, where the point is so spot-on.  Does anyone know if there is a name for this internets phenomenon?

At this point the negatives from disinviting pastor shithead exceed those of just going ahead.  I think it’s worth it to let Obama’s team know that this is a very bad thing (I’ve emailed with details of exactly how much and when I contributed to his campaign to drive home the point that continued flirting with these assholes will have consequences, f’rex).  OTOH, ditching this guy will provide fodder for the noise machine at a time when it desperately needs something to drive people into opposition to Obama.  It’s not the hard core right that matters here, it’s the squishy right, the ones who might be convinced to stay home if they are thrown the occasional bone (heh).  Unfortunately our political system is in the hands of low information voters.  Sucking some of the energy out of the right, especially at the beginning of the term, is probably a good thing.

That said, Obama damn well better deliver on key progressive issues, and he better do it early, because too much more of this flirting with the religious right without seeing some benefit will have me staying home in 2012.

I wonder if this is all a desperate ploy to keep the Right from going after him like they did Clinton.

Perhaps Obama should realize that if that is his aim, it might very well not work.

Juan Cole had an interesting perspective on this, whether you agree or not. I like that Cole spends a lot of time analyzing nations where a lot of the citizenry is as religiously-based as the Evangelicals are.

What a charlatan this douche is. On the archive page, I can barely count how many so-called QA are about tithing. Jeez, Barack, you are so disappointing dude.

Should I pay off my debts or tithe?
Answer: The Bible encourages us to do both, not one or the other. In fact, I’ve found again and again that one of the keys to paying off debts is beginning to tithe. It not only brings God’s blessing to a person’s finances, it also helps them to begin to think more sacrificially, to plan more carefully and to see God’s direction more clearly.

If you’d like more resources on money management, Saddleback offers financial counseling, budget workshops, and small group studies about finances.

Sadly, the “delayed gratification” nonsense may refer to church therapy for homosexuals and sex-addicts. (I’ve just run out of quotation marks.) But the fact that he took the anti-gay lie off his website seems like a very good sign.

I wonder if this is all a desperate ploy to keep the Right from going after him like they did Clinton.

More like an attempt to marginalize crazies like Paula Jones and their murder accusations, since we can’t count on the media to do it.

“I hope that there will be enough of an outcry to make Obama back down on this.  But I wish that I would have heard Rachel respond to the Warren rhetoric with something like, “I, as a gay woman, find this particularly offensive.” Others have mentioned before how Ms. Maddow does not tend to try and speak for gay issues on her show, and I think that stands out in the YouTube clip above. “

Tom, I don’t think you really have any right to tell Maddow what she should and shouldn’t say about her own sexual preferences.  Will you please rewind the clip and tell me where she backs down from the issues?  She doesn’t.  She speaks to them succinctly, coherently and pretty damned strongly.  She doesn’t need to say, “I’m a lesbian” for her words and beliefs to carry weight.  She has moral clarity on her side here.  And isn’t that the point?  It’s not really, in the end, about WHO is delivering the message - she is just delivering the message that it’s wrong to hate non-heteros.  Period.

I like that Cole spends a lot of time analyzing nations where a lot of the citizenry is as religiously-based as the Evangelicals are.

I like that, too.  I really, really DON’T like that those nations are backwards third-world dirtholes that most Americans wouldn’t visit on a bet, let alone wish for their country to emulate.

Okay , I like Juan Cole’s reporting on the Mid East very much.  But he was a religious studies major in college, so take his views on religious matters with a huge grain of salt.

He wrote:

“Warren also talked about the increasing rudeness and rancor of public life in the United States, and urged greater civility”

You mean like comparing homosexuals to pedophiles?  You scumbag.

In many parts of the country, there is no “delayed gratification” to marriage because they rush into unons hastily—because they see it as something to be done before they have sex.

That’s why the divorce rate is highest in Dixie, people get married younger down there and don’t see amrrying the partner as a big mistake until after the ceremony.

“Warren also talked about the increasing rudeness and rancor of public life in the United States, and urged greater civility”

Yeah, Notorious P.A.T., what I was thinking about were his statements that abortion is a Holocaust (and therefore pro-choicers are Nazis).

I think there should be some kind of law that no-one will ever be allowed to call for civility ever again under pain of death. We’ll all just have to continue to talk about how we hate each other’s guts and want to dispose of one another. At least its honest.

I think Rick Warren just doesn’t believe there can be such a thing as a monogamous gay relationship.  It’s like by definition gay equals promiscuous, so They can’t be allowed to marry because the marriage will _necessarily_ be a sham.

To the dim-witted followers of Rick Warren, it’s enough to stoke jealousy and fear of gay people by suggesting they live in a sexual fairyland of endless opportunities, while you, Joe Blow Ugly Christian, can’t even get your spouse to pity fuck you more than once a month.

This reminds me of a hysterical rant written several years ago by a pair of gay-hating pastors(whose names escape me at the moment) around the time the Texas anti-sodomy law was being considered for repeal.  They argued that we have to keep sodomy illegal or straight men will find the lure of gay sex ‘irresistible’—their word—perhaps telling the reader a lot more than they intended. 

It also shared this same transparent undercurrent of jealousy for the alleged sexual decadence that supposedly covers the lives of gay people like so much kudzu.  I guess if you’re a repressed closet case preacher who has spent years reading bigoted propaganda claiming the average gay man has over 500 partners, eventually the envy begins to rot your brain.

They argued that we have to keep sodomy illegal or straight men will find the lure of gay sex ‘irresistible’—their word-

One of my favorite arguments by Amanda (and I’m obviously paraphrasing, hopefully relatively accurately) has always been the idea that what conservative sexists fear most about same-sex partnerships is that they show that intimate relationships don’t _have_ to be hierarchical—and egalitarian intimate relationships would _devastate_ a huge swath of patriarchy as we know it.

“I have to admit that I’m surprised that he is as popular as he is, because he’s pretty incoherent, even by low wingnut standards.”

Gee, why should you be surprised when you have so much in common with him?

Nice sentence and great image of fucking the past, by the way:

“All you get is time lost that you will never get back.  The awkward fumbling is the same awkward fumbling this week or the next, and putting a wedding ring on in the meantime won’t change that.”

Yeah, I love how many men resort to that argument.  It’s blatantly misogynist, like, okay, no one wants to debase themselves by partnering with a mere woman.  They don’t seem to get that many straight men actually like women.

In the world Rick Warren inhabits, no one had better want to debase themselves by partnering with a mere woman.  If a married man gets to like his wife well enough, he might start to back her up against his male friends or even (horrors) against the strictures of his pastor.  At which point the whold alternative-realm social structure Warren and his pals have spent so much time and effort building over the past few decades* would begin to go down.  Obviously Warren & Co. can’t have that.  That’s a worst-case scenario, one which must be fended off at all costs. 

Loyalties between men must be fostered, but ties which lead outside the male circle present a danger.  (The ideal situation, the situation which Evanga-righties try to cultivate, is one in which men have wives who are loyal to them but to whom they themselves are comparatively indifferent.)  The interests of the Men’s Club must come first.  At the same time, the ultimate cementing bond, the strong bond of sexuality, is the one most strictly forbidden among male Evangelicals, and is, in fact, one which the Bible prohibits.  What to do?  This is the tightrope Warren and his ilk must walk, and I must say that he and men like him have so little wiggle-room in which to operate that I for one do not envy them their earthly probation. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m not surprised that so many of these guys end up wrapped in methampheminated stupors in the arms of gay hookers.  What amazes me is that they don’t all end up that way.  (I guess strength of character does count for something.)

*Yes, I know that it’s only an exaggeration of the social system which already prevails, but it is an exaggeration, and it’s one that’s extreme enough that its ultimate effects strike many straight secular males as bizarre.

Obama is just playing the oldest political game: sliding to the middle and trying to broaden his appeal. He knows gays are on his side. Seriously, what else are they going to do?? Start voting Republican? Im sure he thinks he can pick up some points with the right without losing any guaranteed Democratic votes.  Just reinforces my belief that Obama is nothing new - just more of the same middle-left Clinton policies (DADT anyone??)

If one is not for gay-marriage, does that mean they hate gays?

Does Obama hate gays too?

Someone who compares homosexual relationships to incest might be said to have a wee bit of homophobia, but being against gay marriage isn’t homophobic, per se, because there are a few homosexuals who are against marriage as a concept, as there are heterosexuals as well.

Another tour de force, Amanda.

If one is not for gay-marriage, does that mean they hate gays?

Does Obama hate gays too?

You and Dana are pretty damn stupid. Obama is politically indifferent to gay marriage. He has never fought for prohibitions of gay folks’ civil rights. He is opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act, and supports letting states legalize gay marriage.

Now, this “let the states decide” view is foolishly conservative and will one day be recognized for the reactionary mistake that it is. But it’s a far cry from actively working for anti-gay political initiatives like Prop 8.

Warren has fought to make gay marriage illegal.

Obama has promised to fight against DOMA, a law that works against gay marriage at the federal level.

If you can’t tell the difference, you’re a moron. If you can, like Dana certainly can, you’re a liar.

Being politically actively against gay marriage, like Rick Warren is, for reasons remotely similar to Warren’s (excepting Dark Avenger’s technicalities), does make you a homophobic gay-hating bigot.

While some of of you may disparage Warren’s appreance and demeanor, he’s got TONS of chances at whatever sexual indiscression he might desire as the leader of a megachurch. I don’t understand it myself, but Warren rolled at least a 16 on the 3d6 for Cha.

As for the whole thing about gay relationships being less problematicfor guys because they’re both guys, I just don’t get it. I’ve known plenty of gay guys who have had problems with their bf’s, I’ve had huge problems with one or two gfs and plenty of straight women I know have similar problems or worse. And the gay women I know fare just as badly, That old joke about the U-Haul has a basis in truth and the U-haul almost as often goes the other way quite soon.

What’s to envy about Teh Ghey? I think one would envy it only if you kinda wanted it but couldn’t have it.

-Sniffle
What?  You’re comment made no sense; please clarify.

-Matt
Gays could always not vote, or not campaign, or contribute.  When I sent Obama my letter expressing my displeasure at his inauguration pick, I made mention that my contributions to this election were not set in stone for his next election.

Bekabot, I’d go further. Their real problem with the gays is that they don’t like women, they only respect and like men, but they have to be hetero, even though they despise women. Gay men offer the promise of physical intimacy with people they respect, and that’s threatening. One can’t over estimate the hatred wingnuts feel for women, and the way their hatred for gays is prompted by their fetish over how men are admirable. One gets the feeling that these guys are desperate to somehow bridge the gap between their admiration and adoration of other men and their need for physical intimacy with someone who they don’t believe is disgusting and vile.

Bacopa, charisma or not.  He’s disgusting.  I don’t know about other women, but I’ve met some pretty charismatic slobs in my life and believe me.  There is nothing they could do, say, or give me that would make want to see them naked.  Yech.

Ginmar—you may be on to something with the fear of actually equal relationships.  Though, in Warren’s defense, he has said that women only have to submit to THEIR husbands, not anyone else’s.  How generous.  I think the idea of a sexual relationship that does not involve dominance is terrifying to them.

I wish he would explain why two consenting adults engaging in perfectly safe and legal behavior should have to exercise self-restraint.  And, if self-restraint is such a virtue why would we want the government policing it?  Why would we want the government doing the work we should be doing as individuals?

I don’t understand it myself, but Warren rolled at least a 16 on the 3d6 for Cha.

The apparent CHA is a persistant Illusion brought on by possession of a copy of the Magic Book of the Literal Jeebus. If a PC or NPC viewing a person with the Magic Book has INT and/or WIS of 11 or less, he must make a saving throw for each characteristic lest he be enchanted. If either saving throw fails, it will take heroic measures to break the spell.

A once-great kingdom was almost ruined when half of its population (including most of the peasants, but also a dim-witted prince) fell under the thrall of a group of Lawful Evil clerics who possessed such Magic Books. Then the townsmen put their regional differences aside and pooled their resources to summon a hero known only as The Dusky Paladin. What happened next? Well that’s the quest…

“Obama damn well better deliver on key progressive issues”

You may want to look on his science appointments for one. Also some are complaining about one choice yet the people in that choice’s home state are the ones who say he is one of the best choices for that position and if he was as extreme as people claim that guy would never have been elected in Colorodo on enviromental issues.

Obama is picking competant people instead of incompetants like Bush. For obvious reasons a lot of the younger more competant people were in the Clinton adminstration so why are people on the left bitching about Clinton appointees? Who else would be that qualified and now how things are in Washington?

“You mean like comparing homosexuals to pedophiles?  You scumbag.”

If you read a little further, Cole points this out.

Given this account of what Warren is at least trying to do for poor Africans in several countries I think I agree with the idea that more of him and less of Dobson would be a good thing. He’s still a bigoted ass, but that’s part of the job description of ‘uncrowned pope of conservative American Evangelicals.’ Caring about African orphans ain’t.

Gay men offer the promise of physical intimacy with people they respect, and that’s threatening.

I think it’s more than that.  The fundy/patriarch mindset is at some level obsessed with the penis.  Gay men are threatening because to a fundy gay sex means anal penetration, and that is the most extreme form of domination possible.  Gay means consensual mutual domination, something inconceivable to a mind entirely structured around orderly hierarchies.  Lesbians, of course, are invisible, or if they come to mind at all are odious because they refuse the domination of the penis.

Rich Warren does like homosexuals. However, sodomy should not be condoned and should be illegal. It is an unnatural, unsafe act which can cause many heath problems.

Sucking cock is safer than penis-in-vagina sex, and pussy munching is safer still.  Health has nothing to do with it.

However, sodomy should not be condoned and should be illegal. It is an unnatural, unsafe act which can cause many heath problems.

Well, let’s just examine that for a minute, shall we?

What’s your proposal for making “sodomy” (or as most people call it, anal sex) illegal?  Should we set up cameras in the bedrooms of all Americans so the government can make sure they’re not doing anything naughty?  Should anyone who buys a condom have to sign a pledge that they will not use it for anal sex?  Maybe we should stop selling condoms altogether since there’s a possibility that people could abuse them by using them for illegal anal sex instead of perfectly legal vaginal sex.

What’s your enforcement mechanism to make a private sexual act illegal, James?  Should everyone have to submit to an anal exam by the government once a month just to make sure they’re not doing what they shouldn’t?  Should the cops be allowed to break down your bedroom door if they think that you and your wife aren’t having sex right?

Mnemosyne,

No to all of that.  Just make it illegal like it use to be.  We didn’t have to enforce it, but we shouldn’t put a stamp of approval on unsafe sex acts as well.

Just make it illegal like it use to be.  We didn’t have to enforce it, but we shouldn’t put a stamp of approval on unsafe sex acts as well.

What’s the point of making something illegal if you’re not going to enforce it?

Oh, right—because what cops used to be able to do in the pre-Lawrence v Texas days was to break into the homes of law-abiding gay citizens and arrest them for what they were doing in the privacy of their bedrooms.  I’m sure you’re very disappointed that the police are no longer allowed to randomly terrorize law-abiding gay citizens in their own homes.  Because that’s what selective enforcement is—terrorism.

Tom-

It’s really cool to see two people make almost the same comment at the same time - especially in cases like this, where the point is so spot-on.  Does anyone know if there is a name for this internets phenomenon?

the term is “hivemind” more often “HIVEMIND” as a single word post after quoting them.

If a short summary of their point is simple enough, it will often substitute for the “hive”

rendered here thusly:

sky fairy will take your soul into sky-fairy-land once you die.

I think that by delayed gratification for homosexuals he must be talking about heaven. 

HIVEMIND/HEAVENMIND/DELAYED GRATIFICATIONMIND (pick one)

However, sodomy should not be condoned and should be illegal. It is an unnatural, unsafe act which can cause many heath problems.

wha?! I’m not sure what “unnatural” means here, it feels pretty natural to me… and unsafe? do you have any evidence for this?

i’ve had way more problems from PIV sex (bladder infections, yeast infections… i actually have to take an antibiotic after EVERY TIME i do PIV so i don’t get a bladder infection…) than anal or oral (neither has ever given me or my bf any health problems).

and illegal?! how the fuck would you enforce that?

i have a feeling you’re just jealous no one wants to suck YOUR cock.

This is perhaps a bit off the topic of the OP, but something that made me go into a sputtersome laughing fit was the running subtitle that said, somewhere near the end, words to the effect of, “Pastor Warren argues that homosexuality is evidence that evolution doesn’t exist.” Yeah. Because a trait (tendency of some individuals to homosexual behavior) that we share with just about every other animal species ever documented is clear evidence against evolution. Hah!

There’s no such thing as “safe” sodomy as it will land you in jail.

We didn’t have to enforce it, but we shouldn’t put a stamp of approval on unsafe sex acts as well.

WTF? What kind of moron needs the government to tell him which sex is ok for him to have?

Oh, right. Republican morons.

“Someone who compares homosexual relationships to incest might be said to have a wee bit of homophobia, but being against gay marriage isn’t homophobic, per se, because there are a few homosexuals who are against marriage as a concept, as there are heterosexuals as well.”

Not quite, but close. Anything can be excused if you oversimplify sufficiently - as in “just in breathing, we kill millions of micro-organisms, so we can’t complain about nuking Hiroshima.”

Who says gay people can’t be homophobic, so anything you can find a gay person supporting can’t be a homophobic attitude?

Someone, and there are gay and straight people alike who feel so, who thinks ALL marriage is wrong, or that some aspect of marriage AS marriage is wrong, who applies it to both gay and straight marriages alike, may not have homophobic reasons for thinking so, true.
But if they then take those beliefs and singly out same-sex marriage as needing to be outlawed without the equivalent demand to outlaw straight marriage, then they flop into anti-gay prejudice.

So “being against gay marriage” definitely IS homophobic. There is a possibility that “being against marriage” is not, but in most cases even that doesn’t work. Kind of like “shorts look bad on everybody, but only black people in shorts get turned away at the door” damn well is racist, no matter why you can justify disapproving of shorts in general.

What kind of moron needs the government to tell him which sex is ok for him to have?

Hey, what happened to “Get big government off of our backs”?

Get big government off our backs and let us turn over.

“No to all of that.  Just make it illegal like it use to be.  We didn’t have to enforce it, but we shouldn’t put a stamp of approval on unsafe sex acts as well.”
James on 12/22 at 01:28 PM

Yeah, and while we’re at it, let’s ban every kind of sex act that’s not missionary position between opposite-sex partners. Honestly, I think people who practice sadomasochism are much more likely to accidentally hurt someone, and I have never heard anyone say that should be illegal. Since lesbian couples don’t generally practice anal sex, I guess they’re just dandy, right? Look, any kind of sex act where safe practices are used won’t harm anyone. (Ever hear of condoms and lube, or are they illegal in happy traditional Christian land?) And even opposite-sex couples have risks, whether it’s missionary or anything else that they’re doing. The real issue here is not anal sex, but fear and disgust of homosexuals. If you think anal sex is unnatural, don’t do it. But don’t project your own sexual “morals” on other people.

Warren can’t admit the obvious—that the “biblical standard” of only having sex when married to a member of the opposite sex has little to no logical justification.