Warren: An Excellent Choice for the Invocation

[Dr Adequate]

(In any case, there's precious little evidence the political fads the "intellectual elite of progressive liberals" supported in the last 100 years -- from Communism to Eugenics to "Great-Societism" to Fruedian psychoanalysis, to name a few -- is any better, on average, than the equivalent fads on the part of the "stupid conservatives", such as creationism, for instance. Creationism is a dumb fantasy, but no dumber or fantastic than Communism.)

However, the core is much larger and homogenous in the liberal worldview: there are, it seems, a LOT more things you MUST believe are THE OBVIOUS TRUTH if you are a "liberal" than if you are a "conservative". The result is comulative close-mindedness on the liberal side, since on very many social, economic, and political issues, the conservative will be willing to more possiblities more objectively than the liberal -- because it isn't part of his "core" worldview, while it is part of the liberal's "core" worldview.

I always wondered why I was such a firm believer in Communism, eugenics, Freudian psychoanalysis (and "Great Societism", whatever that is ... at least I can define the first three). And now at last I know --- it's 'cos they're part of my "core world view", just like all the other homogenous liberals. It's that pesky cumulative closed-mindedness that makes us into dogmatic eugenicist Marxists, while all those open-minded and objective conservatives have rejected, to take your own example, creationism.

 

[drkitten]

The conservative kooks who don't like Obama say he does not meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency. If McCain had won the liberal kooks would be saying the same thing about him (McCain).

Really? What evidence have you for this?

I admit that there has been discussion about McCain's citizenship --- but I don't recall anything of the sort in a "mainstream" outlet since about June; the controversy was born, settled, and died. I don't recall any other challenges on any other basis, and don't recall any court cases being filed.

On the other hand, every anti-Obama nutcase with an axe to grind has filed suit, and they're being positively encouraged by the Fox-Hannity-Limbaugh brigade.

Either mainstream rightist media are all "kooks" (which I wouldn't disagree with) or the leftist kooks are actually much nicer than their rightist opposition (which I also wouldn't disagree with).

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Pastor says "God will punish Rick Warren" for bringing God to the "evil alien's" invocation.

 

[Alt+F4]

I admit that there has been discussion about McCain's citizenship --- but I don't recall anything of the sort in a "mainstream" outlet since about June; the controversy was born, settled, and died. I don't recall any other challenges on any other basis, and don't recall any court cases being filed.

That's because McCain lost.

On the other hand, every anti-Obama nutcase with an axe to grind has filed suit, and they're being positively encouraged by the Fox-Hannity-Limbaugh brigade.

That's because Obama won.

 

[Skeptic]

I always wondered why I was such a firm believer in Communism, eugenics, Freudian psychoanalysis

That's because we're not in the 1950s. Now, there are other liberal idols, e.g., affirmative action, Bush-is-evil, Zionism is bad, etc.

 

[drkitten]

That's because McCain lost.

Not in June he hadn't.

Why, when the election was still up for grabs in July, were ALL the election challenges directed at Obama?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's because we're not in the 1950s. Now, there are other liberal idols, e.g., affirmative action, Bush-is-evil, Zionism is bad, etc.

Oh, so now I'm one of the "homogenous" liberals who believes in those three propositions as "dogma" am I?

Even if I was, which I'm not, my point would still stand --- that the liberals whom you explain are homogenously closed-minded have rejected the woo-woo ideas that have floated around the fringes of liberalism, whereas the core conservative crap has remained the same.

Let me ask you a question. How much time have you spent trying to persuade your fellow-conservatives to reject creationism, a doctrine that most of them uphold, as opposed to the time you've spent trying to connect liberals with eugenics, a doctrine which we (AFAIK) universally reject?

 

[boloboffin]

Because, despite the "diversity 'n' respect" crowd's "he's a racist Nazi!" rants against Warren, which is their usual method of showing disrespect towards anybody whose views diverge from theirs, Warren is in no way, shape, or form, the same as the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK. I dislike and disagree with him on a lot, as I do with most evangelical preachers, but to claim he's the same as the KKK or NAMBLA is absurd.

Yes, that is absurd. Rick Warren possesses the ability to affect public policy, unlike the Grand Wizard or NAMBLA.

Incidentally, the sole practical result of the "diversity 'n' respect" folks labeling anybody they dislike as a "racist" (or "homophobe" or "fascist" etc.) is that such words lost most of their meanings through overuse. Obama would certainly never invite, and should not invite, a real racist (of course, a real racist would probably refuse the invitation).

Rick Warren preaches the same hate as a slavery- and segregation-supporting bigot of the 19th and 20th centuries because he uses the same reasoning. The Bible's agin it, so Rick Warren is agin it. I don't care how many gays Warren hugs around the neck in the Castro District, he's preaching bigotry and hatred because his Invisible Man in the Sky said he could.

He would never invite NAMBLA or the KKK precisely because he does not want to suggest they are a legitimate part of America (they must be tolerated due to free speech, but must not be accepted or legitimized). But that Warren is called a "racist" or a "homophobe" by the usual gang of left-wingers? So what? These guys call everybody who disagrees with them a "racist". No wonder Obama ignores them.

Is Warren called a racist? I haven't seen that. He was born about sixty years too late to have caught the racist American version of evangelicalism. He would have been right at home with the Bible-preaching racists preaching against mixed marriage and the mingling of the races. Like I say, he's doing it with exactly the same hermeneutic as the racists of old.

Rick Warren is also a bald faced liar. He told his congregation that he had never, ever compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Rachel Maddow was good enough to roll the tape. Watch Rick Warren lie to your face:



So he's a hypocritical, lying homophobe. One day Warren's hatred and homophobia will be just as socially unacceptable as NAMBLA and the Ku Klux Klan. I had hoped Barack Obama would help to hasten that day. Thus far, he has disappointed me greatly.

 

[eeyore1954]

Yes, that is absurd. Rick Warren possesses the ability to affect public policy, unlike the Grand Wizard or NAMBLA.



Rick Warren preaches the same hate as a slavery- and segregation-supporting bigot of the 19th and 20th centuries because he uses the same reasoning. The Bible's agin it, so Rick Warren is agin it. I don't care how many gays Warren hugs around the neck in the Castro District, he's preaching bigotry and hatred because his Invisible Man in the Sky said he could.



Is Warren called a racist? I haven't seen that. He was born about sixty years too late to have caught the racist American version of evangelicalism. He would have been right at home with the Bible-preaching racists preaching against mixed marriage and the mingling of the races. Like I say, he's doing it with exactly the same hermeneutic as the racists of old.

Rick Warren is also a bald faced liar. He told his congregation that he had never, ever compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Rachel Maddow was good enough to roll the tape. Watch Rick Warren lie to your face:



So he's a hypocritical, lying homophobe. One day Warren's hatred and homophobia will be just as socially unacceptable as NAMBLA and the Ku Klux Klan. I had hoped Barack Obama would help to hasten that day. Thus far, he has disappointed me greatly.

He may be a hypocritical, lying homophobe but not in this case you showed. The way I understand what he said is he equates a brother and sister having a partnership and calling it marriage or an older person having a partnership with a younger person and calling that marriage with a gay partnership being called marriage. He wasn't equating homosexuality with incest. He was equating calling a civil union between them marriage.
Here are other quotes from the same interview

I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

And how is two gay people having a loving relationship and wanting to get married any different than an adult brother and sister having a similar relationship and wanting to get married.

 

[Skeptic]

Rick Warren is also a bald faced liar. He told his congregation that he had never, ever compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

He didn't. He compared RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGES to RECOGNIZING INCESTUAL MARRIAGES. That is not at all the same thing as saying gays are the same as those who commit incest.

It's an analogy designed to point out that if gay marriage are recognized, society will lose all power to regulate what is recognized as "marriage", and that it will have to recognize incest (at least between adults), polygamy, etc., as "marriage" as well. In this he is almost certainly correct, I believe, since if the sex of the participants is irrelevant to what "marriage" is legally defined as, then surely their familial relationship or number is irrelevant as well. But even if he is wrong, it is simply not true to claim he is compating homosexuality to incest.

Same with the "Warren does not allow homosexuals to be members of his church" in the video you posted. It's true, but also totally irrenevant. He almost certainly does not allow Jews or Muslims or professed Atheists to be members of his church, either -- because they deny some of the basic tenents of his church's theology. What the heck did you expect? No organization is required to allow those whose life or beliefs explicitly oppose the organization's views to be its members. He is not a "homophobe" for not allowing homosexuals as church members any more than he's an "antisemite" for not allowing Jews.

Church MEMBERSHIP, of course, is not the same thing as church ATTENDANCE: unless I am greatly mistaken, he allows homosexuals -- as well as Muslims or Jews, or, for that matter, anyone else -- to attend his church, or pray with others in his church, or join in communal activities in the church, if they so wish. I will be extremely surprised if anybody checks sexual preference or religious affiliation at the entrance to one of his sermons. So, again, what's the problem?

Your "outrage" is a perfect example of what I am talking about: you totally ignoring both the context and what he is actually saying in favor of an obviously false smear. Your desire to "some day" have people like Warren seen in the same way as NAMBLA and the KKK is precisely what I'm talking about: your desire is, through lies and false accussations, to make any criticism of gay marriage, indeed any view except for the out-and-out acceptance of homosexuality as perfecly normal (a view which, frankly, I consider about as related to reality as Constantine the Great's belief that homosexuality causes earthquakes) as a "though crime" that marks the bearer as beyond the pale.

In your view, there must be one, and ONLY one, view allowed about gay marriage (or homosexuality in general). Everybody else is a "racist" and a "homophobe" and the same as NAMBLA members. Obvious lies and distortions and smears about those who disagree with you, as in the video you posted, are just fine -- you're fighting on the side of the angels, so a few little lies about some of those evil, EVIL people who DISAGREE WITH YOU about gay marriage is A-OK.

So much for "diversity" and "respect". But long experience showed me I shouldn't be surprised -- that's the way the "progressive" mind tends to work, with "diversity" and "respect" being a totally one-way street: everybody is supposed to "respect" (= never disagree with) the progressive's "diverse" view ( = whatever newfangled nonsense is "in" this year). But any criticism or dissent from said nonsense is not "diversity", and deserves no "respect", but is simply equivalent to being a Nazi or a NAMBLA supporter.

See what I mean about the "diverse" progressives simply using "homophobe!" as a "he disagrees with me! Crucify him!"?

 

[gdnp]

Same with the "Warren does not allow homosexuals to be members of his church" in the video you posted. It's true, but also totally irrenevant. He almost certainly does not allow Jews or Muslims or professed Atheists to be members of his church, either -- because they deny some of the basic tenents of his church's theology. What the heck did you expect? No organization is required to allow those whose life or beliefs explicitly oppose the organization's views to be its members. He is not a "homophobe" for not allowing homosexuals as church members any more than he's an "antisemite" for not allowing Jews.

Based on what he said in the interview I interpret it differently. Rick Warren does not allow sexually active homosexuals to become members of his church. I believe he would accept homosexuals who remain abstinent. He condemns the acts, not the proclivity. Thus his ability to claim that he loves gays.

I disagree with his beliefs but do not see them as hypocritical. Everyone has urges to "sin": to lie, to steal, to cheat on ones spouse, etc. If we condemned everyone for their urges then there would be no church members left. Therefore, the church must decide what behaviors are so unacceptable that church membership should be denied. The same is true for opinions. No one is going to agree with the pastor on 100% of issues, theological or otherwise, so the church has to decide what core beliefs are required. Warren's church seems to have decided that they can tolerate homosexual orientation but cannot tolerate homosexual acts.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If such a preacher were to be present in his swearing-in ceremony TOGETHER WITH and perform the rites TOGETHER WITH a pro-Black preacher (say, MLK, Jr.), like Obama's doing?

Absolutely.

That, if it could have been done, would have sent exactly the correct message, of unity despite differences. It would hardly have "forced" LBJ to not pass civil rights legistlation, and may have stopped some violence.

The problem in 1964 would have come from the other side: to find an anti-Black preacher willing to stand publicly together by MLK.

I'm in favour of this kind of diversity. However, I see no evidence that this is the case. Given that politicians have frequent habit of selling out to religous America, I'd say it is more plausible that Warren is picked for that purpose only. For what reasons do you suspect the Warren pick is intended to show 'unity despite differences'?

 

[boloboffin]

Would anyone like a glass of water to help that semantical gnat get down?

 

[hgc]

Same with the "Warren does not allow homosexuals to be members of his church" in the video you posted. It's true, but also totally irrenevant. He almost certainly does not allow Jews or Muslims or professed Atheists to be members of his church, either -- because they deny some of the basic tenents of his church's theology. What the heck did you expect? No organization is required to allow those whose life or beliefs explicitly oppose the organization's views to be its members. He is not a "homophobe" for not allowing homosexuals as church members any more than he's an "antisemite" for not allowing Jews.

I wonder if he allows cruising in his church.

 

[boloboffin]

He may be a hypocritical, lying homophobe but not in this case you showed. The way I understand what he said is he equates a brother and sister having a partnership and calling it marriage or an older person having a partnership with a younger person and calling that marriage with a gay partnership being called marriage. He wasn't equating homosexuality with incest. He was equating calling a civil union between them marriage.

He also used the case of a man having multiple wives and calling that marriage, in the same context. OF COURSE HE MEANT A SEXUAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THESE EXAMPLES OF PARTNERS. In the time-honored fashion of bigots all the way back to the Apostle Paul, he pulled out the ick factor to smear gay marriage. Your assertion to the contrary is, quite frankly, astonishing.

Here are other quotes from the same interview

I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

This is the same code languages these bigots have been using again and again. He considers gay marriage unequal rights. He's claiming the flag of equality while maintaining his commitment to separateness. Hypocrisy, deceit, and bigotry -- that's what you're defending here.

(ETABy the way, Warren has made "clarifications" to some of those remarks. You might want to take a look:

WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there. ]

You see? He saw how his remarks might be interpreted -- the way you did -- and hastened to correct that. He's all about separate but equal. How noble of the bigot. (end edit)

And how is two gay people having a loving relationship and wanting to get married any different than an adult brother and sister having a similar relationship and wanting to get married.

Because incest is worthy of being banned in a civil society.

He didn't. He compared RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGES to RECOGNIZING INCESTUAL MARRIAGES. That is not at all the same thing as saying gays are the same as those who commit incest.

And now we turn to Skeptic's rant. As I said before, glass of water? I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to defend Mr. Warren's Invisible Trump Card in the Sky, but to each his own, I suppose.

It's an analogy designed to point out that if gay marriage are recognized, society will lose all power to regulate what is recognized as "marriage", and that it will have to recognize incest (at least between adults), polygamy, etc., as "marriage" as well.

Oh, so this is the reason you're so vociferous on the topic. You're a homophobic bigot, too. Ah, well, now that explains everything.

How foolish and absurd your statement is. Of course society will still be able to regulate what is recognized as marriage. SOCIETY DOES IT NOW. Society, or more to the point, civil government, will be well within its rights to limit a civil marriage to two consenting adults not related to one another. Simple. No blessing of pedophilia required. And if you put aside your blinding glee at bashing "diverse progressives", you could recognize that.

ETA: And you be sure to check out Mr. Warren's "clarifications" up there, where you'll find this choice quote:

If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

I expect an apology from you.(end edit)

In this he is almost certainly correct, I believe, since if the sex of the participants is irrelevant to what "marriage" is legally defined as, then surely their familial relationship or number is irrelevant as well. But even if he is wrong, it is simply not true to claim he is compating homosexuality to incest.

Yes, it is.

Same with the "Warren does not allow homosexuals to be members of his church" in the video you posted.

That video dealt with his lies about comparing gay marriage to pedophiles and incest, but let's discuss that point as well.

It's true, but also totally irrenevant. He almost certainly does not allow Jews or Muslims or professed Atheists to be members of his church, either -- because they deny some of the basic tenents of his church's theology. What the heck did you expect? No organization is required to allow those whose life or beliefs explicitly oppose the organization's views to be its members. He is not a "homophobe" for not allowing homosexuals as church members any more than he's an "antisemite" for not allowing Jews.

Actually he is both a homophobe and anti-Semitic for both actions. However, I'm quite happy to allow Mr. Warren the expression of his bigotry from his own pulpit. The bully pulpit of the nation is a different thing entirely.

Church MEMBERSHIP, of course, is not the same thing as church ATTENDANCE: unless I am greatly mistaken, he allows homosexuals -- as well as Muslims or Jews, or, for that matter, anyone else -- to attend his church, or pray with others in his church, or join in communal activities in the church, if they so wish. I will be extremely surprised if anybody checks sexual preference or religious affiliation at the entrance to one of his sermons. So, again, what's the problem?

The problem is the invitation of this homophobic bigot to front and center at Barack Obama's inauguration. Maddow's piece here is about exposing just who it is that Barack Obama has invited. It's more about Obama than Warren.

Your "outrage" is a perfect example of what I am talking about: you totally ignoring both the context and what he is actually saying in favor of an obviously false smear.

The smear is not false. He is a homophobe, he is a liar, he is a hypocrite, and I am greatly disappointed in Barack Obama asking him to be a part of what is to be a hugely symbolic day in the history of America. It is YOU ignoring the context of what Warren is saying. You do it so you can indulge your desire to bash "diverse progressives." I don't know if you're just a conservative or a "moderate liberal" embarrassed by all us loud, bitchy queens, but either way it's your blindness here, not mine, that's the cause of your rant.

Your desire to "some day" have people like Warren seen in the same way as NAMBLA and the KKK is precisely what I'm talking about: your desire is, through lies and false accussations, to make any criticism of gay marriage, indeed any view except for the out-and-out acceptance of homosexuality as perfecly normal (a view which, frankly, I consider about as related to reality as Constantine the Great's belief that homosexuality causes earthquakes) as a "though crime" that marks the bearer as beyond the pale.

As I've shown, it is NOT through lies and false accusations. It is through the truth. Rick Warren is a liar and a homophobe. Your logic is the logic of the racist South, bristling with rage against the sit-in demonstrators and the marchers. Exposing the ugliness of Warren and of you, sir, is exactly what I hope to do, to give bigotry its rightful face and shame it out of existence.

In your view, there must be one, and ONLY one, view allowed about gay marriage (or homosexuality in general).

One view allowed to be encoded into our laws. Please make a note of this distinction. It's the roots of the tree of liberty.

Everybody else is a "racist" and a "homophobe" and the same as NAMBLA members.

And they should be free to indulge their racism and homophobia in the privacy of their own homes and religious establishment. The NAMBLA members are much worse, however, and should be kept away from the children. So much for your false equivalence error about me.

Obvious lies and distortions and smears about those who disagree with you, as in the video you posted, are just fine -- you're fighting on the side of the angels, so a few little lies about some of those evil, EVIL people who DISAGREE WITH YOU about gay marriage is A-OK.

You really are on about this. This descends to the level of a repeated lie from you. Quit lying about that video so that you can bash "diverse progressives." It's unseemly.

So much for "diversity" and "respect". But long experience showed me I shouldn't be surprised -- that's the way the "progressive" mind tends to work, with "diversity" and "respect" being a totally one-way street: everybody is supposed to "respect" (= never disagree with) the progressive's "diverse" view ( = whatever newfangled nonsense is "in" this year). But any criticism or dissent from said nonsense is not "diversity", and deserves no "respect", but is simply equivalent to being a Nazi or a NAMBLA supporter.

See what I mean about the "diverse" progressives simply using "homophobe!" as a "he disagrees with me! Crucify him!"?

There is only one person whom you cannot respect -- the person who will not respect you. I should be tolerant of Rick Warren's (and your) intolerance? that.

 

[Skeptic]

Because incest is worthy of being banned in a civil society.

Why? If I love my mom... Sure, it might seem icky, but, as you say yourself, the "ick factor" is no reason to ban people's rights, is it? That's nothing but your RELIGIOUS BASED prejudice against PEOPLE IN A LOVING RELATIONSHIP. Stop VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS!

No, boloboffin, no. Whenever someone says anything againt gay marriage, these are the exact arguments that are used to shout them down and attempt to silence them, by noting that their "prejudice against gay marriage" is surely nothing more than their "religious prejudice" or their "ick factor" feeling.

This isn't listening to what the other side is saying -- it's dismissing the other side as primitive, not worthy of attention, racist, etc. etc.

Par for the course for the "open minded progressives", of course, but, one result of this attitude is that it's precisely that polygamists and, yes, those who support incest (usually fathers who wish to marry their (adult) daughters) will, and in fact do, use to get their definition of "marriage" accepted as well.

If gay marriage is OK, so is incestual marriage, using the exact same argument.

 

[boloboffin]

Why? If I love my mom... Sure, it might seem icky, but, as you say yourself, the "ick factor" is no reason to ban people's rights, is it? That's nothing but your RELIGIOUS BASED prejudice against PEOPLE IN A LOVING RELATIONSHIP. Stop VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS!

No, boloboffin, no. Whenever someone says anything againt gay marriage, these are the exact arguments that are used to shout them down and attempt to silence them, by noting that their "prejudice against gay marriage" is surely nothing more than their "religious prejudice" or their "ick factor" feeling.

This isn't listening to what the other side is saying -- it's dismissing the other side as primitive, not worthy of attention, racist, etc. etc.

Par for the course for the "open minded progressives", of course, but, one result of this attitude is that it's precisely that polygamists and, yes, those who support incest (usually fathers who wish to marry their (adult) daughters) will, and in fact do, use to get their definition of "marriage" accepted as well.

If gay marriage is OK, so is incestual marriage, using the exact same argument.

Thank you for you doing here EXACTLY what Rick Warren did in that Beliefnet interview and then lied about doing. You have equated incest and gay relationships. Keep your bigotry to yourself. I've no need to listen to it and you're embarrassing yourself far more than you realize.

Also, if you enjoy your slippery slide, you have fun with it in your own backyard. I don't feel any obligation to indulge.

 

[Skeptic]

There is only one person whom you cannot respect -- the person who will not respect you

Ah, of course.

"The person who will not respect you" = people who oppose gay marriage. Clearly, ONE AND ONLY ONE view about gay marriage is to be allowed. Any dissenting view is "disrespectful" towards, well, supporters of gay marriage -- it makes them feel they might be wrong, or annoys them, or makes them feel bad, etc., etc. and we can't have that, can we?

So such a view is naturally to be "disrespected": shouted down, abused, and expelled beyond the pale of reasable discourse by the "diversity and free speech" crowd.

Typical.

 

[boloboffin]

Ah, of course.

"The person who will not respect you" = people who oppose gay marriage. Clearly, ONE AND ONLY ONE view about gay marriage is to be allowed. Any dissenting view is "disrespectful" towards, well, supporters of gay marriage -- it makes them feel they might be wrong, or annoys them, or makes them feel bad, etc., etc. and we can't have that, can we?

So such a view is naturally to be "disrespected": shouted down, abused, and expelled beyond the pale of reasable discourse by the "diversity and free speech" crowd.

Typical.

Enjoy the wrong side of history. Would you like a cookie? I'll be sure to slip you one through the bars of your re-education center. Just whisper "JREF" to me and a cookie it will be.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why? If I love my mom... Sure, it might seem icky, but, as you say yourself, the "ick factor" is no reason to ban people's rights, is it? That's nothing but your RELIGIOUS BASED prejudice against PEOPLE IN A LOVING RELATIONSHIP. Stop VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS!

No, boloboffin, no. Whenever someone says anything againt gay marriage, these are the exact arguments that are used to shout them down and attempt to silence them, by noting that their "prejudice against gay marriage" is surely nothing more than their "religious prejudice" or their "ick factor" feeling.

This isn't listening to what the other side is saying -- it's dismissing the other side as primitive, not worthy of attention, racist, etc. etc.

Par for the course for the "open minded progressives", of course, but, one result of this attitude is that it's precisely that polygamists and, yes, those who support incest (usually fathers who wish to marry their (adult) daughters) will, and in fact do, use to get their definition of "marriage" accepted as well.

If gay marriage is OK, so is incestual marriage, using the exact same argument.

Yes, there are absolutely no other arguments against mother-son incest than an emotional ick factor .

See, unlike homosexuality, social science and psychology still say a lot of bad things about incest.

And if the only objections you bring are fallacious, then don't be surprised when people think you are being prejudiced.

If I SHOUTED and used broad, insulting generalizations and lumped you together with the rest of you stupid conservatives, would that make my argument more effective?