Rick Warren Weighs in On Weight Loss, Them Gay People

rick-warren-shades150.jpg
Rick Warren sat down with ABC's Jake Tapper for "This Week With George Stephanopoulos". The pair discussed gay marriage, Tim Tebow and Rick's weight loss.

"I was a purpose-driven eater," Warren said.

Just when I thought we were headed for a non-humblebrag interview with Rick, he mentioned his motivation for losing weight. It was during an hours-long baptism ceremony where he dunked 864 believers. We need baseball cards for pastor statistics.


Funny money quote from Rick, when he describes the moment he realized he was dunking dunking thousands of pounds of sinners that day: "Man, we're all fat!"

ABC's "Political Punch" blog naturally leads with Rick's stance on gay marriage. Here's an excerpt:

Screen shot 2012-04-09 at 12.07.01 PM.png


Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!
My Voice Nation Help
19 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
LauraTXN
LauraTXN

Many things change, some things never do. One thing that has changed for the worse: this society and its respect for sexuality. One thing that will not change: Sex is how we make babies. Babies need both male and female parents to get created.

Secondly, Nature has built all of us with an instinctive need for a mother & a father. One way in which humans obey the commandment to "Honor thy mother and thy father," is to respect that instinctive need with laws upholding the unique bond of male/female sexual monogamy. 

Rick Warren is right: Divorce and family breakdown are a much bigger problem for society than the relatively tiny number of gay people who want to get legally "married." And, make no mistake, it will have a negative impact on everybody else if well-funded activists get their way and make it officially "hate speech" to speak out for male-female monogamy and traditional marriage. 

PolishBear
PolishBear

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple is Straight OR Gay.

And please, ENOUGH of this nonsense about making it "hate speech" to speak out for monogamy and traditional marriage. I believe VERY strongly in monogamy, whether the couple in question is Gay or Straight. And if any of my Straight friends finds a suitable person to marry, no one will be more supportive than me. Just because I support marriage equality for Gay couples does not mean I do not support "traditional marriage" for Straight couples. In fact, absolutely NOTHING is happening to "traditional marriage" as it relates to people who are heterosexual. Most people are Straight and always will be, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay people are allowed to do the same.

Mitchell
Mitchell

"Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" "

Among my friends, marriage most certainly is a declaration they are going to 'make babies'. Couples who had been items for years get married, then typically within the year after the marriage the woman is pregnant. So while they may 'say' they got married for love, among many if not most it is also about forming a stable 'breeding pair'."No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others."

First, there is no reason that homosexuals cannot 'make a solemn declaration' now. Many 'churches' will bless their unions (typically the ones rapidly going extinct, like episcopalians and unitarians), and of course they can have there own secular ceremonies. What 'gay' 'marriage' is about is forcing the rest of us --via state action-- to alter the basic meaning word that has always in Western Culture meant a union of man and woman.

 Second, there 'exclusion of all others' part is pretty doubtful when it comes to male homosexuals -- two 'intellectual' homosexuals who are 'married', Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan - both have 'open' marriages. Reasearcher Colleen Hoff has found that 48% of long term gay couples in the Bay Area have such arrangements agreed to by both partners, and another 8 percent one partner thinks such an arrangement exists. There is absolutely no reason to think that 'state certification' will change that -- so marriage will lose not only its sex specificness, but its 'exclusion' aspect.

"In fact, absolutely NOTHING is happening to "traditional marriage" as it relates to people who are heterosexual. "

Wrong, the meaning of the institution will be diluted. Sort of like calling bulk fermented and carbonated wine from Lodi 'champagne' dilutes that brand, And in fact, in countries like Spain, where 'gay' 'marriage' has been instituted, real marriage rates have plummeted. Many heterosexual men aren't willing to go through the hassle of participating in an institution that has basically lost its meaning.

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

Now, Mitch, you know my feminist sensibilities bristle when one suggests a certain group of people should be denied rights considered inalienable to others for the sake of "tradition". I live in a world in which there are still places where something as arbitrary as gender dictates whether a person has any rights at all...

mitch young
mitch young

Among male homosexuals, at least, *most* of those 'loving relationships' are non-exclusive, at least according to one partner. You know how rare that is among heterosexuals?  I suspect that also holds true for those who 'quickie' wedding at Vegas.

It's horribly unfair that there are those who don't develop the natural (for our species) attraction to the opposite sex. But that is no reason to force a change in our fundamental institutions. 

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

Agree...and, like I've said before, they have a drive-thru wedding chapel in Las Vegas, but it's gay people who are "cheapening" the institution? What a crock. It seems any hetero couple of legal age can get married after knowing each other only a couple of hours...but a loving gay couple who have been together for many years and have proven the "legitimacy" of their relationship are still denied the right to marry. Seems horribly unfair to me.

Mrgrimm
Mrgrimm

"Many heterosexual men aren't willing to go through the hassle of participating in an institution that has basically lost its meaning."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah. THAT is the reason people aren't getting married. Because gay people have ruined it.

Congrats. Stupidest thing I've read ... all year?

909Jeff
909Jeff

You have a very rational view but I believe that this makes you the exception as opposed to the rule. 

You may not be one to cause a kerfuffle but I have spent a significant amount of time in SF especially during gay pride week and there are thousands of people up there who are waiting for the opportunity to rock the boat and attack the establishment at the earliest moment possible.  

 

PolishBear
PolishBear

Whether the church wants to stand against marriage equality for Gay couples is irrelevant. The church does not "own" marriage. None of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church, they come from the government. But if it'll make Rick Warren feel any better, no one will ever force him to marry another man, attend a Gay wedding, or conduct a ceremony for a Gay couple.

That having been said, I have a BIG problem with Rick Warren suggesting that the government needs to act on behalf of the church. It is not the government's job to make things "sacred," nor is it the government's business to codify Rick Warren's personal religious beliefs into public policy. Among people of faith there is no one, monolithic belief about marriage equality for Gay couples.

909Jeff
909Jeff

"But if it'll make Rick Warren feel any better, no one will ever force him to marry another man, attend a Gay wedding, or conduct a ceremony for a Gay couple."

So says you... What happens when it becomes legal and a Gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses?  The simple answer is nothing... But reality is whole different animal...  Knowing the agenda of the ACLU they will probably sue to force integration and acceptance. Because if the law allows for it and if a church refuses to accept the Law, then they are making political statements, and therefore should lose their tax exempt status by not providing equal treatment under the law... In other words the Churches would then fall under the Unruh Civil rights act to be forced to do something they don't believe in. 

You have a big problem with Rick suggesting that the Government needs to act on behalf of the church.... And I have a Big problem with the Liberals suggesting that the Government over regulate EVERYTHING at the expense of my paycheck . I suppose everyone has an agenda that conflicts with anothers.

mitch young
mitch young

The homosexualists may not be able to force ministers or priests to perform their weddings, but they will try, indeed in places have already tried, to force anyone associated with the marriage industrial complex to comply. That is, if a wedding photographer or planner or cake maker declines to participate in their simulacrum of a wedding,, or a parish church refused to rent its hall for a 'gay' 'wedding' reception, they will most definitely sue. It's happened already in Canada, it will happen here.

PolishBear
PolishBear

DEAR 909JEFF:

Muslim couples are allowed to marry. Atheist couples are allowed to marry. And churches have never been forced to perform wedding ceremonies for either. Nothing is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to marry also. Case closed. Stop being paranoid.

mitch young
mitch young

But so far at least Muslims are not allowed to marry fully in accord with the dictates of their faith, which allows bigamy. Why not. If marriage can be redefined to include homosexual pairs, why can't it be redefined so that protection would be extended to non-monogamous groups. I can see what is special about a male-female pair -- that is, after all -- the way we reproduce. I can't see what is special about the number 2.

909Jeff
909Jeff

And?  Neither one of those groups is constantly suing anyone to gain inclusion?  

And that's not paranoia its fact... For the record I voted no for Prop 8... Marry whoever the hell you want I don't care... What I do care about is when one group is attempting to force another to accept their position when they themselves are being as bigoted and short sighted they are claiming the other is.  

And for the record Gay people are still stoned to death in some Muslim countries... So go fight for inclusion over there and see where it gets you?

4petesake
4petesake

Romans 1:24-32 is pretty clear about the whole thing but I'm still confused on why we have to call it gay marriage, since its a "new' thing they want, give it a new name like how about "rainbow warriors unite" "rump rangers union" whatever,...its NOT marriage, so call it something else, problem solved. this social issue is getting as old as 'what the kardashians are up too' everybody wants fling hate, no soultions to solve the problem to make both sides happy,...its pretty dumb.

PolishBear
PolishBear

I've often heard it said, "I don't care if Gay couples have their legal rights, just don't call it MARRIAGE."

Okay, then. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that. After all, there aren't going to be language police roaming around, telling Gay couples they can't use the term "marriage." When asked where the ceremony took place, Gay couples will say, "Oh we were married in Cancun," or wherever.

Jon
Jon

 Exactly, similar to separate but equal...different but not the same etc.

909Jeff
909Jeff

Perhaps its time for a little introspection on the part of pro gay marriage advocates.  I'll play Switzerland on this one and say that I hear a lot of Christian bashing from Gay Rights groups and perhaps its not the right approach?  Christians are guided by their beliefs and that belief says that marriage is between a Man and a Woman... Gay rights groups call Christians names like bigots and  demand that the Christians be tolerant of the Gays... Why cant the pro Gay marriage people be tolerant of their beliefs? After all it isn't like they just made that shit up last week? To be fair some Christians also say vile things about Gays and that too is repugnant... And their churches should not be advocating this behavior! Mutual respect should be the message!  

Jake tapper cites a poll that says 52% support Gay marriage... Well as of 2008 a year that saw more minority voters than ever before... a year that saw the election of the first Black President... The majority of Californians still voted to define marriage as between a Man and Woman. Every other state that had a similar measure passed as well.Coincidentally every state where gay marriage is legal was either through legislation or litigation. Not a vote of the people.

SO... In conclusion... If you believe those poll numbers are real then go out there get the signatures and put it back on the ballot... Lets see where the court of public opinion really lies. And if you're right the initiative will pass.

.   

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Fashion

General

Loading...