29 December 2008

Another idea stolen ...

I really ought to put a copyright at the end of all my posts and other statements. More on that in a moment.

First, what did Rick Warren really say? He is accused of


More recently, he even compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

Did he say that? Yes and not really. Yes, if you take it out of context. But in context, this is the relevant portion of the interview:

BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?


WARREN: You know, not a problem with me.


The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.


BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?


Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman.


[Warren later offered some corrective passages that I have omitted, but are on the Beliefnet web page linked. There is also video there.]


In context, what Warren said is that redefining marriage to include incest, etc would be the same as redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Not his most artful turn of a phrase, but not what he is accused of.

In defending Rick Warren, Mona Charon over at NRO makes a point I have made all over the place at church meetings for years:

[T]he point Warren was making was a valid one. Once you abandon the traditional definition of marriage to suit the feelings on an interest group, by what principle do you stop redefining marriage? Gays and lesbians argue that their same-sex unions are loving, committed relationships. Fine. But there are, or could be, other loving, committed relationships involving more than two people. Supporters of gay marriage say this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.


But consider the name that many gay activists have adopted. You no longer see gay and lesbian alone. Instead, the new terminology is LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Lesbians and gays say that without gay marriage, they cannot fully express themselves as they really are. But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone’s feelings, but in all seriousness. How does gay marriage help a bisexual? I assume that if you are bisexual, you believe that you need to have sexual relationships with both men and women. If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don’t you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality? If you choose to express just the homosexual side of your bisexuality, then aren’t you gay? Likewise, if you choose to express only the heterosexual side, how are you a bisexual? Why is bisexuality not a recipe for infidelity? As for transgender people who believe that they are “assigned” to the wrong sex, their sexuality seems a deeply complicated matter. According to Wikipedia, the term “transgender,” which is always evolving, today encompasses “many overlapping categories — these include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual (TS).” We are now in the realm of a multitude of sexual deviances.

Where do you draw a line? Once traditional marriage — supported by centuries of civilization and the major Western religions — is undermined in the name of love, there is no logical or principled reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. Gay activists recoil from incest. But on what grounds exactly? Suppose, after we formalize gay marriage, two 25-year-old sterile (to remove the health of offspring argument) twins wish to marry? Let’s suppose they are loving and committed. What is the objection? That it offends custom and tradition? That it offends God? Isn’t that just bigotry?

When asked which was a greater threat to marriage, divorce, or gay marriage, Rick Warren laughed and replied that it was a no-brainer — divorce. He was right. But there are very solid reasons to oppose any redefinition of marriage — and it isn’t bigoted to say so.

The part she stole from me, even if she didn't know it, is in italics above. What exactly would a committed, monogomous, bi-sexual relationship look like?

1 comment:

victorsleeps said...

To answer your question...

I imagine it would look like a big ball of tattooed arms and hairy legs wearing high heels.