Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?

Jim Burroway

December 18th, 2008

Rick Warren claims he’s not a homophobe because he has “many gay friends” and has “eaten dinner in gay homes.”  And yet, he still believes that his friends’ relationships are no different morally from child rape, incest or polygamy.

I wonder. How many child rapists, polygamists or incestist (to coin a word) has Warren broken bread with?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Ken
December 18th, 2008 | LINK

As I’ve said elsewhere, the offensive thing is that Warren and his ilk apparently think it is a mitigating factor that he counts some gays as friends and has broken bread in their homes.

I differ. If I tell people to their face that I am their friend, accept their hospitality and their bread and salt, and then turn around and tell the world they are the equivalents of child-rapists, I think that’s a mark of bad character, not a mark of tolerance.

MR Bill
December 18th, 2008 | LINK

How many child rapists, polygamists or incestist (to coin a word) has Warren broken bread with?
If it’s like most large congregations, quite a few.
Just sayin’…

Benjamin
December 18th, 2008 | LINK

Rick Warren is coming to the table of Barack Obama who is deeply and fiercely committed to GLBT equality so the table has to be turned around as well. Barack is seriously considering William White as Navy Secretary so that speaks volumes (including other gay people who are filling Barack’s cabinet) about Barack’s commitment. We need to hang on and trust that this is far more for Rick Warren and his follower’s to better understand that we are not the great satan that they seem to think we are. We are their doctors, their lawyers, their police officers. We teach their children. We are their children, parents, brothers, sisters and in some cases we are them. Demonizing them and pushing them away will further polarize and will only continue the rift. If we act like the true Christians they are not then hopefully many of them will eventually come around. It’s a win win situation.

SharonB
December 18th, 2008 | LINK

If Warren had eaten at my table, and then publicly tried to use my friendship in this manner, while sliming my people, I would publicly call him out on it; announcing that he is no friend if this is how he uses his friends – as props in his narcissistic power plays.

Dave
December 19th, 2008 | LINK

he still believes that his friends’ relationships are no different morally from child rape, incest or polygamy.

That isn’t what Rick Warren said in the quote you point out.

Warren was discussing other forms of marriage, all of which have existed in history, which he would oppose being legally recognized in the U.S. just as much as he opposes same-sex marriage. That does not require him to morally equate, or even make any moral comparisons amongst, those four different types of marriages.

Timothy Kincaid
December 20th, 2008 | LINK

No Dave,

Warren was not just “discussing other forms of marriage” which he would oppose. He was equating these forms of marriage to same-sex marriage. That was his only purpose in bringing them up.

Suppose I were to say, “I disagree with Dave. I disagree with Hitler. I disagree with Stalin. I disagree with Nero.”

Absent any other discussion of these tyrants, one would have to believe that I was equating you to Hitler, Stalin and Nero. It would be disingenuous to suggest that I was just discussing various people with whom I disagreed.

Dave
December 21st, 2008 | LINK

Absent any other discussion of these tyrants, one would have to believe that I was equating you to Hitler, Stalin and Nero. It would be disingenuous to suggest that I was just discussing various people with whom I disagreed.

Actually, since you are discussing rulers, you’d be suggesting that my public policies, or proposals for governmental policy, are as undesirable — at least for our country — as those rulers actions were.

One has to make a leap in logic to assume you consider all three dictators as morally equivalent, let alone that I am “no different morally” than they.

Jim said that Warren considers the love lives of his gay friends to be morally equivalent to “child rape, incest, or polygamy.” Warren never said that, nor was it directly implied by what he said.

Warren was discussing forms of marriage he considers undesirable for society. What he clearly meant is he considers changing the institution of marriage to allow same-sex marriages to be as bad for society as allowing sibling marriages, child marriages, or polygamous marriages.

You may strongly disagree with his opinion, but it is wrong to say he is saying that these four marriage forms are morally equivalent. To go even further and say Warren considers all gay relationships to be as bad as incest or child molesting is simply absurd.

Timothy Kincaid
December 22nd, 2008 | LINK

Dave,

As I insinuated above, you are being disingenuous.

You are splitting hairs and making distinctions where none exist. I’ve no idea about your motivation for arguing this point, but I suspect it is simply a matter of being contrarian.

And just to set the record straight:

it is wrong to say he is saying that these four marriage forms are morally equivalent.

Oh? Then I guess you disagree with Rev. Warren about exactly what he meant:

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that [having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage; an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage; and one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage] are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

Dave
December 22nd, 2008 | LINK

I am not being disingenuous nor is it my point to be merely contrarian.

I simply do not see any good in going beyond exactly what was said to give the man’s words the worst possible interpretation. The only purpose that can possibly serve is to make dialogue with the opposing side impossible.

I was well aware of the exchange between Warren and Waldman you now quote. It doesn’t tell us anything other than Warren considers same-sex marriage to be as bad for society as those other three forms of marriage.

John
December 22nd, 2008 | LINK

Dave does this sort of bizarre hair splitting all the time. Rick Warren is perfectly comfortable throwing gays in the same morally equivalent group as child molesters. In fact, when given the opportunity to clarify, like the proud bigot he is, he held firm.

I would have to agree with Timothy that Dave just wants to be contrarian by making up distinctions where none exist and going round and round on it. He has done this on so many threads. It isn’t even really challenging; it is just tiresome.

Jim Burroway
December 22nd, 2008 | LINK

Dave, I think it’s fair to take Warren at his word:

Steven Waldman:Do you think, Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

He was asked point blank if child molestation, incest and polygamy were equivalent to gay marriage, and Warren said quite simply, I do. You may wish to believe that “I do” means something else, but I really don’t see how he could have been any clearer. “I do” is as clear as it gets.

Dave
December 23rd, 2008 | LINK

Jim,

He was not asked if child molestation and incest were the same as gay marriage. Following up on his statement, he was asked if adult-child marriage and sibling marriage were equivalent to same-sex marriage. It was that question he answered yes.

It was a foolish thing for him to say, but you shouldn’t criticise him for saying more than he actually said. Given the context of the discussion — marriage and marriage laws — it was obvious that Warren meant that all four of these marriage forms, same-sex, sibling, adult-child, and polygamous, represent equally bad changes in our country’s marriage laws. Nothing he said indicates he considers polygamy to be the moral equivalent of child rape and incest, let alone that he considers gay couples to be so equivalent.

There is a difference between objecting to changing marriage laws to allow same-sex marriages as much as you object to changes that allow sibling marriages, and comparing gay relationships to incest. Warren explicitly did the former and not the latter. This is my entire point.

Gay activist often read a far more damning intent into their critics words than was actually present. Conservative Christian activists do the same to gays. It’s not a good thing.

Timothy Kincaid
December 24th, 2008 | LINK

Ahhh… distinctions without differences.

Priya Lynn
December 24th, 2008 | LINK

Dave said “Warren meant that all four of these marriage forms, same-sex, sibling, adult-child, and polygamous, represent equally bad changes in our country’s marriage laws.”.

That’s just another way of saying he considers incestuous and pedophilic marriages to be the equivalent of gay marriages – you’ve just conceded the point.

Dave
December 24th, 2008 | LINK

No, Timothy. I am making distinctions with differences. It is not my fault that you don’t want to see the differences.

You want to portray Warren in the worst possible light; to that end it is best for you to think of him in the worst possible way.

John
December 25th, 2008 | LINK

Spinning like a top, Dave. Spin, baby, spin.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.