Rick Warren - "A Man and a Man is a Fine Marriage"

[MsVirtuousWarrior]

Your video is CHOPPED and SCREWED....This gentleman didn't say this AT ALL!

[Lastonthecreek]

I don't get why people are against gay marriage. If they feel that its against their religion, then they won't get married. But what gives them the right to push their beliefs on other people?

[watdeshit]

@Lastonthecreek to the same extent having gay marriages condoned legally pushes the gay and lesbian's rights onto the Christians at an institutional level. So begins the debate of how far and to what extent is the church separated from government? Should it be? Just some food for thoughts. Be open minded here, its a difficult issue to address. Who do we offend? :)

[Lastonthecreek]

I'm sorry for making a close minded statement. I realize that this issue is a difficult one to address, and I for one am probably not the right person to be asking haha. I probably should have just not made the commetn

[watdeshit]

No not at all, how are people to engage and challenge them self if they do not assert their right to question and make statements? Everyone has their opinion, whether it is wise to consider it different. I am glad you have your opinion, I am semi for gay marriages.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

To further point out the baffling inanity of this analogy, the fact that the two bank robbers consented is, in fact, more moral than if they hadn't consented.

If one person forced another to aid in a bank robbery, that is more immoral than if the two had consented. In either case, the fact that a bank is being robbed of money makes the act immoral, but the use of coercion by one robber over another adds an extra element of immorality.

Your analogy utterly fails on every level. Congratulations.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

That example is perhaps the most inane, idiotic argument against homosexuality that I have ever heard. I don't know YOUR background, but I personally see no similarities between marriage and bank robbery.

A better analogy is this: if a bank customer asks to withdraw money from his/her account, and the banker willingly hands over the money, that is obviously morally permissible. If, instead, the customer threatens to kill the banker unless they hand over others' money, that is morally wrong.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

It doesn't matter in either case if the customer and the banker are the same gender or opposite genders. The fact that there is a victim makes robbery morally wrong, whereas consent makes a transaction morally acceptable.

Similarly, if two adult, mentally competent people agree to any sort of contract or relationship, then it is morally permissible. If one person rapes another person (one party violates another and acts against their will), then that is morally wrong. The genders don't matter.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Do you think before you speak or write?

In the case of the bank robbery, the two robbers "consent," but the people they are victimizing obviously do not. The bank is the victim. The bank loses money. The bank has their property rights violated, and the banker and customers have their lives threatened.

Duh.

Who is the victim in a same-sex relationship? Nobody. Whose rights are they violating by being married? No one's.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Bestiality- one person who violates an animal. The animal has no choice and is clearly the victim.

Incestuous pedophilia- the father takes advantage of his authority to violate his daughter, who is too young to possibly consent. Such a sexual union could result in children who are deformed.

Homosexuality- two adults who consent. There is no victim.

How is that so hard to understand?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Are you seriously that incapable of critical thought that you can't distinguish between predatorial behavior and consensual behavior?

Homosexuality is not natural? It is. It has been observed in nature. Period. Just because it's naturally doesn't automatically mean it is right, but it refutes your argument that it's wrong because it's "not natural."

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Regardless of what you or your God think, people in any civilized society need to have logical reasons for the laws they make and the rights they restrict. You have yet to make any valid points which would justify preventing same-sex marriage. The Constitution is a secular document, not a holy book, and the United States is a secular government, not a theocracy. No one has the right to make a law and abridge freedoms just because they claim their god wants it.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Your understanding of morality ihas no basis in logic. Instead, it's based on blind obedience. It's no different than a parent saying, "Why? Because I said so!" (except that you know for a fact that your parents exist).

You need to grow up. The United States does not revolve around you or your religion.

[kenandjasha]

Seenandnotseen is correct when he says that heterosexuality can bring about disease too. The disease is a penalty for the sin. The fact is that ultimately there is a choice for and a choice against homosexuality. Seenandnotseen listens to himself and the opinion of other like minded people. You and I listen to God and his word in the Bible. Sorry Seenandnotseen, we choose God's opinion over yours.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

"Seenandnotseen is correct when he says that heterosexuality can bring about disease too."

Yet you are perfectly happy condemning homosexuality as a whole because it can also bring about disease...

"Sorry Seenandnotseen, we choose God's opinion over yours."

We live in a secular society. Laws need a logical, and not strictly religious, basis. If this is the best that your side of the argument has, you will lose this battle hands down.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

"Seenandnotseen listens to himself and the opinion of other like minded people."

???

I have listened to all sides. My parents are strongly opposed to gay marriage. The entire religious right is opposed to gay marriage. The National Organization for Marriage and other bigoted group run their smear campaigns all over television. It is practically impossible to live in America and NOT hear people opposing homosexuality. The problem is, none of their arguments are valid. Not one.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

The problem is not that I haven't listened to the heterosexist side of the argument. I was raised to oppose same-sex marriage! No, the problem is that I HAVE listened to the heterosexist side of the argument, and there is nothing to support it except fear and lame excuses.

Even if you are opposed to homosexuality, there is no legal basis by which you can deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. You might also oppose interfaith marriages, but they're still legal.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

2) "Perversion has no limit." Here you talk about all sorts of horrible things like pedophelia and bestiality, which are indeed perverted. You attempt negative transfer, where you try to make the evil of rape rub off on homsexuality by associating the two. Even if I grant to you that homosexuality is perversion, that does not mean that perversion is homosexuality. "Perversion" is a larger category, of which homosexuality (supposedly) is a member.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

The category "perversion" includes child and animal rape, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality includes those things. You are basically saying, "B is A, C is A, and D is A." Therefore, B is C and D.

Your argument boils down to this: Homosexuality is perverted. Child rape and bestiality are perverted. Therefore, homosexuality is child rape and bestiality.

It's like if you said, "Liquid water is H20. Ice and water vapor are H20. Therefore, liquid water is ice and water vapor."

[kenandjasha]

Your introduction of pseudo-logic is irrelevant here. Re-read her comment. She clearly says that homosexuality is a perversion, and CAN include other perversions as well. She clearly did not make the B is A, C is A, and D is A. Therefore, B is C and D arguement. You fabricated that leap.

The only logic presented in her comment is valid. That is that just because someone exercises a choice (homosexuality in this instance) should not guarantee them universal acceptance ie same marriage rights.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

What she did is called negative transfer. It's a propaganda technique. She implied that homosexuality is akin to child rape and bestiality by juxtaposing them. Other than associating it with clearly immoral acts, she makes no case for homosexuality being "perverted" except that it brings about disease. She spends most of her comment talking about bestiality and pedophilia while supposedly making a case against homosexuality.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

"She clearly says that homosexuality is a perversion, and CAN include other perversions as well."

Well I say that heterosexuality is a perversion, and CAN include other perversions as well. For instance, when a man rapes a female child or a female animal, that is heterosexual perversion!

You don't think that's quite fair, is it? What if I tried to make a case against heterosexuality, but instead of showing why it's perverted, I spent most of my time talking about predatorial sex crimes?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Anything can INCLUDE perversions. Basketball isn't perverted, but it can be if you play it naked.

The fact is, both of you have failed to show that homosexuality is perverted in the first place. Until you do that, don't even try to link it with perverted acts, because it proves nothing.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

"Your introduction of pseudo-logic is irrelevant here."

The only "pseudo-logic" is in the original comment. I had two ways to interpret her original comment: Either she was including a bunch of irrelevant ideas like pedophelia and bestiality (and murder!) just as a propaganda technique, or she was attempting to make a valid point. I acknowledge that she could just be using propaganda, but I also gave her the benefit of the doubt, that she could actually be attempting a logical argument.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

I inferred the only logical argument that could possibly be pieced together from her jumble of words-- that homosexuality, pedophelia, and bestiality are all perversion, and thus all equally immoral. And in order for her to claim that we should discriminate against homosexuality just like we do against murder and rape, she would HAVE to establish that the acts are equally immoral.

I see now that I gave her too much credit. She was just using scary words to demonize homosexuality.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Let's analyze your logic here:

1) Start with a premise: "Homosexuality is unnatural and perverted." Why? Because it brings about disease. Many things bring about disease which are natural and not perverted: being out in the sun too long, eating a calcium-deficient diet, heterosexual intercourse, etc.

Therefore, this is a non sequitur- your conclusion that homosexuality is perverted and unnatural does not follow from the reason you gave.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Heterosexuality brings about disease, too. That's why sex should be safe and monogamy should be encouraged, whether gay or straight.

Homosexuality does not involve child- or animal-rape. It involves two consenting adults who are of the same gender.

GROW UP, people! Right and wrong should not be arbitrarily assumed, but ought to have a logical basis. There is no logical reason to oppose homosexuality.

[iheartnurdz]

Brilliant edit. Shame it's not real. :(

[ProfRaphaello]

This is a false compilation. Rick Warren has never said as it is in this video. The clip is a slander, a false testimony, and it's creators ar under rhe curse for slandering the man of God.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

From the video description:

"Satire.

The following is real audio from Rick Warren, edited so that he makes much more sense."

I don't worry about curses, either. I've got a personal witch doctor.

[generaleskimo]

I don't think that "satire" is the word you are looking for. More like parody or re-edit, as satire would imply that you don't actually support gay marriage.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

You're probably right.

[Dragknight11]

mmmm... Well done... It almost sounds real...

[ProfMTH]

LOL! Nicely done.