« Violence in Middle East | Main | Israel forced to defend itself »

January 03, 2009

Obama’s inaugural pastor

Mary Sanchez (12/30, Opinion, “Warren needs a faith driven by tolerance”) kills pastor Rick Warren softly with her “enlightened” brand of tolerance. In truth, she reveals her own intolerance and illogical reasoning in her critique of President-elect Obama’s inaugural chaplain.

She brands him as intolerant for upholding traditional marriage. Since when is honoring marriage an expression of prejudice? The majority of California citizens thought so, including the blacks and Hispanics who carried Proposition 8 to victory.

Sanchez insists, however, on pairing Warren’s view of homosexuality with racism, a foolish parallel at best. Ethnicity is 100 percent biologically based and immutable, while sexual identity is subject to multiple variations (Lindsay Lohan, anyone?) and variables.

Moral decision-making is one such variable. And Warren has consistently demonstrated true tolerance by loving those who embrace homosexuality while gently disagreeing with their insistence on marriage rights.

Maybe Sanchez should follow her own advice to Warren and reflect on the quality of her own brand of tolerance and reasoning.

Andrew Comiskey
Kansas City

Mary Sanchez talks about how those against gay marriage hold “old-time beliefs” despite the fact that many states have bans against the measure, most of them voter-approved. If California, one of the most liberal states in the country, does not want it, what does that tell you? The majority of people do not want gay marriage, and we all know it.

Maybe Ms. Sanchez can explain to me how for decades Billy Graham, who was close to many presidents of both parties, was universally admired despite being a religionist who preaches that without believing in Jesus one would go to hell.

As one who voted against Barack Obama, I am impressed with the courage our president-elect has shown in this matter. Ms. Sanchez just might be discouraged because Obama is not the all-pleasing, perfect American savior that many have made him out to be.

Matt Bloomer
Kansas City

Mary Sanchez believes that Rick Warren needs to learn to be tolerant of homosexuality. She says he differs with mainstream (and that makes them right?) views of evolution and same-sex marriage.

But I must ask Mary whether it is right, by her standard, to be intolerant of Warren’s intolerance? It seems easy for people today to speak out against intolerance, but they must realize that they are being just as intolerant by calling Warren the same.

Total tolerance is impossible when there is intolerance. Our world should not be fighting for tolerance of lies. We should fight for truth, which leads to intolerance of lies.

Sawyer Nyquist
Smithville

Comments

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Be as gay as you choose and you are afforded the SAME rights. Marriage is not a right and actually I believe with such a high divorce rate, government should set some requirements and some limits regrading marriage. So long as gay couples do not expect to be treated differently, who cares, so long as they are happy. Two guys kissing in front of my nieces and nephews will be asked to knock it off, just as would a hetero couple, in a public forum. Keep that crap at home.

dolcemusica1

Have a question for those who believe homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice - what venue would you suggest for two adult individuals who were born with the same orientation and want to be in a loving, monogamous relationship recognized by law that would have the same benefits/responsibilities, etc as heterosexuals in a marriage? Is there any other venue than marriage out there? Or should they be condemned to a life alone?

Quad Kings

Some good responses here. Some not so good.

The point about procreation and raising children was offered to explain why the one-woman-one-man definition came about. It certainly wasn't posited as the ONLY reason for marriage. The one-woman-one-man definition also has Biblical and age-old basis and tradition.

If you're going to modify the definition to be more 'inclusive' or more 'progressive,' why not expand marriage to include multiple spouses, siblings as spouses, or even marriage to beloved pets?

The point is this: Why tinker with the definition of marriage? I agree that MOST homosexuals do not choose that preference. They should not be punished for their orientation. But at the same time, we should not redefine marriage to make them feel better about themselves -- especially because any legal inequity can (and should) be rectified by other means. People who are born mentally retarded or with Downs Syndrome (two very different conditions, by the way) to not choose to be born that way. But we don't redefine society to allow them every benefit available to other, more able members. We don't say they can be doctors, lawyers, judges, or CEOs (though maybe they'd do just as good a job as some!), just so they feel more fully and wholly integrated into society.

People have to live with how they are born. Super-models don't fall for us average Joes; Sports fans don't pay to see below-average athletes; and the world does not stop walking when a child is born without legs. It's just the way the world is. A vast majority of voters in many states understand this, and have voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Even the voters in arguably the most liberal state: California.

By the way, the comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia was not a direct comparison. It was an analogous comparison. People engaging in intelligent discourse or debate need to be able to draw comparisons without getting all sensitive, defensive, or accusatory. Rick Warren did not say homosexuality is the same as pedophilia (and neither did I).

solomon

dolce',

Are you kidding. NEAWG has been biased against by whites because he's part Asians, blacks because he didn't answer "Hi, may I help you?" quickly enough and by whatever salesperson sold him his sissy sky blue s-10. Notice he did not say which of the serial marriage nutcase he bitches about here he was the victim of, #1 or #7.

dolcemusica1

OIbviiously, NMMNG has never experienced prejudice personally. At the time I took the class, I was frustrated - my prof's comments to me were "it just doesn't seem like an A" without any tangible constructive criticism on improving while several of my male colleages had several red marks on their papers, tangible constructive comments, and.... and A or A-. It wasn't until the following year when he did the same with several female doctoral students (I was working on my master's and the only female in my class) - they couldn't get anything better than a B. When confronted, he told them - women were not intellectually capable of getting an A - only men - at that time, the university forced him into an early retirement. Subjects/papers can have subjective matter, however, teachers/professors do have to have reasonable explanations as to why various individuals received the grade other than "it sounds like....". I like the concept - leave it up to the states - shouldn't we do that with everything - age discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. If someone of Oriental descent wants to marry someone who is Hispanic - we'll let the states decide whether or not they can marry - right? Did they do the same when they were determining whether blacks should remain slaves, women could vote, whether or not women/minorities could have jobs, etc? Obviously, those who bury their head in the sand cannot deal with reality and look at the world with very rosy colored glasses.

TinaMcG

Andrew Comiskey, "ex-gay", healed from "sexual brokenness", as described on a 700 Club web page. Gack. Homosexuality is not something to be 'cured'. It is what it is. It isn't a choice people make. If Rev. Comiskey was once a practicing homosexual, there's a good chance he is now a non-practicing, closeted homosexual. In other words, the man has issues.

Rick Warren made some really ignorant remarks that compared homosexuality to pedophelia and incest. I'm sure he wishes he could take them back. I don't think he's a bad guy and I'm not all that bothered by him giving the invocation at the inauguration. Melissa Etheridge wrote a beautiful blog about him on Huffington Post a couple weeks ago. She met up with him at an event they were both speaking at, and she found him to be very tolerant, and a good man. He is also a big fan of hers, which probably influenced her opinion...She asked the gay community to please chill over this.

In any case, Pastor Warren is certainly a nice change from the Robertsons, Dobsons and Falwells of this world. Gack...again.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Dolce actually a man that has been married multiple time is generally viewed as being a womanizer, yet when a woman is married numerous times they are generally labeled vicitims. An example would be my ex-spuse, she has been married 6 or 7 times, has not worked in that duration of 20 years, yet is viewed as not having compatability issues.
Personally it seems that after about 2 or maybe 3 shots at marriage, maybe someone has issues that THEY need to look at?

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

The issue of gay marriage should be left to the States and voted on by the constituency.
Dolce is obvioulsy bitter about feeling like a victim due to being female, that is the choice you made not the truth. Unfortunately professors have enough clout to "give grades" based on subjectivity and the professors personal and/or politcal agenda. Organized religion is something I personally stay away from, far too commercialized, hypocritical and bogus IMHO.

dolcemusica1

Hanson - I agree. I guess any woman who is in her 40s and older can never, ever get married - most aren't planning on having any more children by that age. QK's argument does support older men getting married to much younger women (provided they haven't had a vasectomy or injury) so they can continue to procreate. I thought marriage had evolved to be more than just procreating but to have a life partner. Such a shallow existence to only get married to have children - especially as we get older.

dolcemusica1

Hanson - I agree. I guess any woman who is in her 40s and older can never, ever get married - most aren't planning on having any more children by that age. QK's argument does support older men getting married to much younger women (provided they haven't had a vasectomy or injury) so they can continue to procreate. I thought marriage had evolved to be more than just procreating but to have a life partner. Such a shallow existence to only get married to have children - especially as we get older.

dolcemusica1

QK - Your analogy regarding homosexuals and pedophiles is flawed. I thought pedophiles were attracted to children for sex - not other pedophiles. A better analogy would be two individuals who have downs syndrome. Let's say their level of downs syndrome is such that they are able to "be on their own" however they are unable to raise children - therefore, they are sterilized. They get married and have a happy, loving life together. Both were born with the same affliction - downs' syndrome - just like two homosexuals were born being gay. Pedophilia implies harming innocent children - more of a form of deviant, PROMISCUOUS lifestyle. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting ADULTS born with the same affliction in a loving, MONOGAMOUS relationship. To compare homosexuality relationships with pedophilia is not supporting one's argument as the two aren't even close to being similar (unless you consider monogamy to be a form of promiscuity).

solomon

"what if he takes the oath on an old upside down Chinese version with half of the pages missing? Is it still a valid oath then?"

With apologies to GC if the quote is off.

T. Hanson

QK,
While you wrote a very structured argument which is a rarity on this board, I have to ask one question. Should we grant barren woman/man the same rights as married couples b/c they can not procreate?

Using the 18th century reasons to describe what is going on today is a dangerous precedents.

Quad Kings

There is no "civil right" to marry someone of the same sex. Civil rights are a function of society, created to promote the best interests of that society. We have to consider why marriage (between a man and a woman) is considered a civil right. It is because marriage is considered the best way to bear and raise children, and consenting heterosexual couples should not be denied that ability. Gay marriage does not promote the same interests.

That does not mean we cannot provide some protections for homosexual couples. For instance, when a homosexual is sick in the hospital, he or she ought to be able to designate anyone he or she wants to be allowed to visit (the marital visitation privilege resulted from the presumption that a spouse had a vested interest and would want, more than anyone, to be present). Likewise, insurance beneficiary and "spousal share" laws can be modified to accommodate the interests of persons who choose to have a partner of the same sex.

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior that does not promote the interests of society, but there's no reason we cannot treat homosexuals with dignity and respect ... without modifying age-old tradition and society-promoting custom simply to appease those who would like the society's 'stamp of approval.' We see more demands from homosexuals these days because their lifestyle is better tolerated. That doesn't mean it is better for society, or that it's more "mainstream."

And what about Warren's discussion? Pedophilia is also deviant sexual behavior that does not promote the interests of society. It can be said that pedophiles are born with that deviation, just as homosexuals are born with theirs. Should we say that people have a right to practice pedophilia simply because they are born that way? That they have a civil 'right' to pedophilia because denying them that conduct would be denying them the right to live out their genetically-driven destiny? Of course not!

There is a difference between desires and rights. Somehow some people among us believe that just because someone wants to do something they have a civil right to do it, and that not allowing it is an insensitive abridgment of their fundamental and core expressions of who they are as human beings. This is not "progressive" thought. It is erosion of societal norms that are established for good reason.

Men are genetically programmed to propagate the species. But, through experience, we've learned that multiple wives is not best for society as a whole. So we do not allow bigamy, and we do not change the meaning of marriage to accommodate those of us with the strongest urges to impregnate more than one woman. Nor do we want to promote children out of wedlock or absentee fathers (though we could do a lot more to shore up those problems).

Homosexual marriage is an emotional issue because it feels like 'discrimination' when couched in terms like "not allowing everyone the full benefits of the institution," or "no one's dignity should be trampled by not including them in the sanctity of the basic human relationship."

But most people don't say homosexuals can't be full members of society. We just don't think the institution of marriage should be modified to suit the whims and the pleasures of those who would like the stamp of approval to feel better about their deviant sexual behavior.

dolcemusica1

Ignorance is not easily accepted - and when it harms others - it shouldn't be. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get above a B on any of my papers in one of my graduate classes though rarely was anything noted wrong - my professor said it "seemed" like a B. We found out the next year that he thought women were intellectually inferior and only men were capable of getting the higher grades (he had a stroke a couple of years before and it had affected his logic). The university "forced" him to take an early retirement. I know first hand what it is like to be considered "inferior" because of the way I was born (female). I believe someone who is 100% homosexual is born that way. Is it not denying them the same rights as heterosexuals when they are not allowed to marry just because of the way they were born - heterosexuals marry heterosexuals and allow gays to marry gays - what is the problem? If it's just semantics - make ALL legal unions - civil unions - and only those joined together in a religious ceremony - call THAT marriage.

T. Hanson

Ahh.. the good ole Andrew Comiskey... the "Reverend" that makes his sole money by "curing" homosexuals. Just type in his name into google and you will find so much fun. DELETE. What a scam artist.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright